You stand to gain more than you lose.
No, you have a 50/50 chance of getting the lesser amount. There is no benefit to giving up the first envelope for the second.
Id open the 2nd box
It's a trick, you'd only find a dead cat...
:sneaky:
So there are two boxes. You open one, and it has $100 in it.
1- Between the two boxes, one has double the money as the other.
2- You don't if your box is the double box or not.
Given this information, you can choose to keep the $100 box, or switch to the other box.
What is the best strategy?
Given the analysis many have done above, everyone would switch. So, no matter which box you opened first, you would choose the second one. (Or rather, you would use that reasoning to determine that switching would lead to better payoffs in the long run.)
So, before you even look inside the box, you switch boxes. Think for a moment and realize that it doesn't matter.
edit: damn you chiropteran! In my defense, I was in the middle of eating the most awesome steak sandwich, with a cheddar cheese spread pasted on to the roll instead of mayo, onions and peppers, and incredibly tender strips of steak. I had to wait til I was done eating to start typing. That's why you beat me to a solution, though I didn't know this problem had a name.
No one was wrong. Switching doesn't harm, so you should switch. Not necessarily for this problem, but for all the other variants where switching is the good idea. And since then you will know the truth. Not switching means it'll eat at you for the rest of your life in wonder.
Now, if you could prove that switching was bad in the long run for this case, that would be another story.
Let's say that I'm the host of my own game show. There are 3 doors, and behind one of those doors, there's a big prize. Behind the other two doors, there's a non-prize. You pick a door. I then reveal what's behind one of the other two doors - a non-prize. And then, I offer you the opportunity to change your pick. Would you change your pick?
Let's see who's truly good with logic, and who isn't.It would be a bad idea to change your pick.
The amount lost is less than the amount gained. Let's say the first envelope contains $100 and the second envelope either contains $99 or $200. Do you switch or keep the same envelope? Take it a step further: Let's say the second envelope always contains $200. Do you switch?
Either way, it's a bullshit scenario involving magical money-generating envelopes that could never happen in real life. It isn't problem solving, it's just a riddle.
No, you have a 50/50 chance of getting the lesser amount. There is no benefit to giving up the first envelope for the second.
The only thing you said that makes sense is that it's a bullshit scenario that will never happen in real life. But that's not the point is it?
There is a 50% chance you've already picked the higher amount with the first envelope. With your fuzzy logic, that means you'll give it up for the lesser (by switching for the second envelope) amount 50% of the time. Go ahead and switch if it makes you feel better. Doesn't help your chances though.
Some people have too much time on their hands. You aren't given enough information to make a good decision and therefore it is simply gambling.
Let's say that I'm the host of my own game show. There are 3 doors, and behind one of those doors, there's a big prize. Behind the other two doors, there's a non-prize. You pick a door. I then reveal what's behind one of the other two doors - a non-prize. And then, I offer you the opportunity to change your pick. Would you change your pick?
Let's see who's truly good with logic, and who isn't.It would be a bad idea to change your pick.
Every decision a person can make is gambling.
And I argue that you have all the information you need: The game is rigged. So you know you have no choice but to switch.
You're the first person to be wrong. Any other flies want to get caught in my trap? Most people only have a superficial understanding of the Monty Hall problem.
You're the first person to be wrong. Any other flies want to get caught in my trap? Most people only have a superficial understanding of the Monty Hall problem.
I'm sorry, you're also wrong. Who wants to be the third person who is wrong? Read my post again, and assume that I'm pretty good at math. The Monty Hall problem is one of my biggest pet peeves (in mathematics), because so many people get it wrong. I'll consider this successful if even a few more people gain a better understanding of the Monty Hall problem. The computer simulations you're speaking of get the problem I proposed wrong - I'll explain why tomorrow at lunch time.No, it's a well-established situation with easily verifiable results through a computer simulation running a large number of randomized scenarios.
I'm sorry, you're also wrong. Who wants to be the third person who is wrong? Read my post again, and assume that I'm pretty good at math. The Monty Hall problem is one of my biggest pet peeves (in mathematics), because so many people get it wrong. I'll consider this successful if even a few more people gain a better understanding of the Monty Hall problem. The computer simulations you're speaking of get the problem I proposed wrong - I'll explain why tomorrow at lunch time.
Or, maybe I'm wrong? Nah, I don't think so.