I'm a teacher, so I optimize for the result "understanding in my students." I teach it like this: You don't bring up Monty Hall first. It bends minds too much.

I'm a teacher, so I optimize for the result "understanding in my students." I teach it like this: You don't bring up Monty Hall first. It bends minds too much. I give a parallel game, where basics are similar, but you can choose to reveal 3 doors, 2 doors, or just one door each time. Everyone (after making sure they aren't being tricked) chooses to reveal three doors. Winner every time. Then I change the rules: Can't open all three doors. Have to choose between 1 or two. Everyone picks two. Only then do I give the Monty Hall problem, and show (as @bhc3 put it succinctly) that it's essentially the same game they just learned: your choice is between revealing two doors, or revealing one door. The most interesting part of this, and why I do it this way, is that I specifically optimize for my students to be able to explain what they know. I can teach someone to win an argument with someone who is convinced it's a 50/50 chance this way. Other ways, people sorta, kinda get it, but can't explain it to others who are confused. EDIT: The general principle here IMHO is teach something simple first, and show how it can be applied to something more complicated. When people think something is complicated, "breaking it down" into simpler concepts or making easy analogies doesn't have that great a track record. Their brain seems to have already classified it as "complex" and that has to be overcome —they have to be convinced to drop the tag #complex— in addition to however you teach the right understanding.