4 ms·

I guess Monte Carlo simulations weren't well-known or easily accessible back then? It would have been the perfect way to shut up her critics.

gameswithgo 5y ago
i was about 15 when this went down and immediately wrote one that confirmed she was right. formative experience in my life.
naikrovek 5y ago
they were. the critics didn't use them. she told them to "try it" in one or two columns before she had to explain it very slowly and methodically in a third, as I recall. I'm old. I read each of these as they arrived in the paper.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > I'm old. I read each of these as they arrived in the paper. So back in the day, Parade magazine was a thing that people actually read, and not just ignored or recycled immediately? The past really is a foreign country.
pmiller2 5y ago
You could do it in Excel in probably 20 minutes.
- jsjohnst 5y ago
  You could do it with a pen and paper in less than 5.
  - pmiller2 5y ago
    The point of doing it in Excel would be to convince someone who won't be convinced by the pen and paper demonstration.
sidpatil 5y ago
You can't fight fire with fire, but you can fight Monty with Monte. :-)
- dllthomas 5y ago
  You often can and should fight fire with fire. For a literal instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn
GlenTheMachine 5y ago
This particular one isn’t that hard to just do by hand. Which I did at the time, was surprised at the result, and stared at the column long enough to convince myself why she was right.
- saeranv 5y ago
  Using Bayes theorem? But if you know to use Bayes theorem, then you're already formulating the problem correctly, which is the problem all the critics are running into. Edit: Someone mentioned you could manually "simulate" it with a pen and paper, which I think is what you meant. If so, very good point.
  - mjmahone17 5y ago
    You can brute force this without knowing Bayes’ theorem (see the grids in the article as an example of iterating through every possible solution then counting to arrive at the right probability).
    - saeranv 5y ago
      Ah! I see, I thought the commentator was saying to solve it mathematically. Manually "simulating" it makes sense.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    I was unable to convince my father of this, so he and I just put together a little model with paper plates and coins and carried out the simulation manually until we had twenty or thirty trials and he became convinced by seeing it in action.
peteretep 5y ago
A simple probability table works just as well
listenallyall 5y ago
Not really because you can create a valid Monte Carlo model that does "prove" the odds are 50-50 if you don't incorporate the essential rule that throws most people off - that the host's choice of which door to reveal is not random.
RogerL 5y ago
You don't need Monte Carlo, you just need a table with three rows. GGC, GCG, CGG. Pick the first door, cross out the other goat, and switch. you will lose once and win twice. if for some reason you think the door you pick at first matter somehow, make nine rows, and you will lose three times in win 6. Easy peasy.

gameswithgo 5y ago

i was about 15 when this went down and immediately wrote one that confirmed she was right. formative experience in my life.

naikrovek 5y ago

they were. the critics didn't use them. she told them to "try it" in one or two columns before she had to explain it very slowly and methodically in a third, as I recall. I'm old. I read each of these as they arrived in the paper.

mcphage 5y ago
> I'm old. I read each of these as they arrived in the paper. So back in the day, Parade magazine was a thing that people actually read, and not just ignored or recycled immediately? The past really is a foreign country.

pmiller2 5y ago

You could do it in Excel in probably 20 minutes.

jsjohnst 5y ago
You could do it with a pen and paper in less than 5.
- pmiller2 5y ago
  The point of doing it in Excel would be to convince someone who won't be convinced by the pen and paper demonstration.

sidpatil 5y ago

You can't fight fire with fire, but you can fight Monty with Monte. :-)

dllthomas 5y ago
You often can and should fight fire with fire. For a literal instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn

GlenTheMachine 5y ago

This particular one isn’t that hard to just do by hand. Which I did at the time, was surprised at the result, and stared at the column long enough to convince myself why she was right.

saeranv 5y ago
Using Bayes theorem? But if you know to use Bayes theorem, then you're already formulating the problem correctly, which is the problem all the critics are running into. Edit: Someone mentioned you could manually "simulate" it with a pen and paper, which I think is what you meant. If so, very good point.
- mjmahone17 5y ago
  You can brute force this without knowing Bayes’ theorem (see the grids in the article as an example of iterating through every possible solution then counting to arrive at the right probability).
  - saeranv 5y ago
    Ah! I see, I thought the commentator was saying to solve it mathematically. Manually "simulating" it makes sense.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I was unable to convince my father of this, so he and I just put together a little model with paper plates and coins and carried out the simulation manually until we had twenty or thirty trials and he became convinced by seeing it in action.

peteretep 5y ago

A simple probability table works just as well

listenallyall 5y ago

Not really because you can create a valid Monte Carlo model that does "prove" the odds are 50-50 if you don't incorporate the essential rule that throws most people off - that the host's choice of which door to reveal is not random.

RogerL 5y ago

You don't need Monte Carlo, you just need a table with three rows. GGC, GCG, CGG. Pick the first door, cross out the other goat, and switch. you will lose once and win twice. if for some reason you think the door you pick at first matter somehow, make nine rows, and you will lose three times in win 6. Easy peasy.