Here's an easier way to think about it:
Say there are 100 doors, and a car is behind 1 of them. So you have a 1% chance of choosing the door with the car. The host then opens 98 doors so there are only 2 left. In this situation it's pretty obvious that it is in your best interest to switch, the door you chose only had a 1% chance of a car, but so the other door must have a 99% chance of a car.
for idiots masquerading as mathematical geniuses they'll tell you it's better to switch because your first choice was 1/3 and your second is 1/2.
what they forget is that the fact you saw a goat means your first choice was effectively 1/2 in the first place, because if you didn't see one, you won already. so you don't need to do anything.
Here's a modified problem to the Monty Hall that will make it easier for you to understand:
There are 100 doors, and a prize is hidden behind only one of them
You pick one door, and then the host opens up 98 other doors that have nothing behind them
Only two doors remain, the one you picked, and the one that may or may not have a prize behind it
Would you switch?
You go from a 1/3 chance to a 2/3 chance.
its still 50/50 retard 99% that the door you picked wasn't and 99% that the other is not the car either.
but that's not the problem at all, you've entirely changed the game you moron. the fact is in this scenario the third door always contains a goat, meaning you are 1/2 on whatever you choose, because whats behind the door is effectively being shuffled until you have a 1/2 chance at picking the prize. every. time.
Nope wrong. You sound stupid. Are you stupid?
But isn't it also the case that the door you didn't pick also only had a 1% chance of a car? Why then would the door you picked not have a 99% chance of a car?
no, you're just not understanding the problem, like every other chainlink holder in this thread.
the rules are laid out that completely remove any of the 1/2 vs 1/3rd nonsense in the first place. the game is effectively rigged to get the result shown above.
because this problem doesn't work when you scale it up. only one thing is revealed, and that's the entire point of the puzzle. one gets taken out and you're left with 50/50, but you always had 50/50 because in this problem you ALWAYS see a goat. that's the entire fallacy people don't seem to understan
Dude that's a great example thank you.
You're a fucking retard.