Game theory that shouldn't work.

a reply to: PrinceRupertsDog

Yeah for sure, I know what you mean. Luckily, you can still maintain an element of randomness by picking something that you don't know which outcome is favored, pick an arbitrary side or face, and that can be relatively fair.

Ends up working out fair in most cases. Even with something like a quarter, some are more or less heavy on the tails side, and everything holds the quarter differently and throws it differently, as well as in different places with different environmental factors. This helps make it even out pretty darn well.

You have a .33 chance to pick the brass coin and a .66 chance to pick a zinc coin. The dealer removes one coin and offers you the chance to switch.

There was a .66 chance the coin you picked was the wrong coin. When the dealer removes a zinc coin that you didn't pick, that means there is a higher probability the other coin is brass than it is zinc. You have a .66 chance of picking brass if you switch.

For example:
You always pick coin 1
Coin 1 Coin 2 Coin 3 Keep pick Switch
Brass Zinc Zinc Brass Zinc
Zinc Brass Zinc Zinc Brass
Zinc Zinc Brass Zinc Brass

So you can see that if you switch you'll have better odds of getting the brass than if you don't switch. There are graphics about this if you google it.



a reply to: anonentity

a reply to: PhysicsAdept

I studied calculus and pre-calculus and whenever infinity was used in an equation, the answer was either infinity or negative infinity. Still a concept in the end, uncalculated and not an actual figure. The only way to represent the solved equatiom was by graphing, as you mentioned, the limits.

a reply to: Lynk3

Here is the effect that I saw on the James May program. and his explanation. Regarding the Monty hall effect. www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Cyn50

That's it. Many want to say 50/50 because there are 2 left but forget about the fact there were 3 to start so there was a bigger chance of being wrong at the start.