Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:02:08 AM
@tiredofnicks: that site makes the problem very clear (good!) but it's still wrong.
Is this a troll site? Your "logic" is just plain wrong.
"The prize did not move, so each door, and the contestant, keep the one-third chance of being correct."
Incorrect: odds = good prize/# of doors. With one door gone the odds have changed from 1/3 to 1/2.
"It treats the situation as if the contestant had not made the first choice at all." Correct: The "first choice" has nothing to do with the odds of the SECOND round. That is the `Gamblers Fallacy`, ok? In the second round there are 2 doors and one prize, period. The first round is irrelevant.
Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:17:32 AM
5Cats: It is completely counter-intuitive and was a major controversy when it was first suggested but it actually checks out and has been proven in multiple ways. You can even try it out for yourself with a deck of cards.