[ucodegen]

The whole problem is that you added info to the system which altered the game. It also causes the probability calcs to be completely reshuffled. You can’t carry over probability calcs when info gets added to the system. Example:

I have 10 doors. The prize is behind one: The odds of winning are 10%

I then open the door with the prize and then close it.
Are the odds of winning 10% per door, or 100% on the door I opened and then closed with 0% everywhere else. The information resets the calcs.

[ucodegen]

The whole problem is that you added info to the system which altered the game. It also causes the probability calcs to be completely reshuffled. You can’t carry over probability calcs when info gets added to the system. Example:

I have 10 doors. The prize is behind one: The odds of winning are 10%

I then open the door with the prize and then close it.
Are the odds of winning 10% per door, or 100% on the door I opened and then closed with 0% everywhere else. The information resets the calcs.

[ucodegen]

The whole problem is that you added info to the system which altered the game. It also causes the probability calcs to be completely reshuffled. You can’t carry over probability calcs when info gets added to the system. Example:

I have 10 doors. The prize is behind one: The odds of winning are 10%

I then open the door with the prize and then close it.
Are the odds of winning 10% per door, or 100% on the door I opened and then closed with 0% everywhere else. The information resets the calcs.

[ucodegen]

Oy vey..

It is assumed that the contestant is making a correct statement by saying “The contestant does decide to change from door number 1 to door #2. He states by changing from original chosen door #1 to door #2 his odds of winning the car increased to 66.7%.” He is not. He is showing a complete lack of understanding in probability. The gameshows do this to up the ‘excitement’ because otherwise the game is played out. It allows them to clock another 5+ minutes on the same stupid choice with everyone else yelling and screaming. What it does tell you is that the host knows where the car is and a good poker player may be able to bluff it out of the game show host by watching the hosts responses to potential choices.

Basically, on the initial selection: 1 correct out of 3, making the odds 33% that any particular choice is right.

After the choice, one of the potentials is removed by uncovering the goat. This makes 1 out of 2 possible or 50% any particular choice is right.

Whether the choice is;
1) He has already chosen one and gets to modify his choice
2) There is a new choice between two brand new doors…

It is the same thing. The underlying thing is that revealing what is under one of the doors does not alter what is behind any of the other doors. Also remember that the sum of probabilities on any single choice have to sum to 1 and you do not get to carry over probabilities from a previous run on to a new choice, in particular when a new piece of information is added (revealing of the goat).

I dare the doubters of this to write a program that allows you to pick one of three.. reveals one that it knows is not it and asks you to choose to keep your choice or switch. Track the frequency that the original choice is right versus switching was the right choice. The revealed choice in the first selection is not counted because it was not made by the person doing the selection.

And for a final nail:
Why would a gameshow give you a choice that could suddenly improve your odds dramatically and so easily, particularly since they have to foot the bill?

[ucodegen]

Oy vey..

It is assumed that the contestant is making a correct statement by saying “The contestant does decide to change from door number 1 to door #2. He states by changing from original chosen door #1 to door #2 his odds of winning the car increased to 66.7%.” He is not. He is showing a complete lack of understanding in probability. The gameshows do this to up the ‘excitement’ because otherwise the game is played out. It allows them to clock another 5+ minutes on the same stupid choice with everyone else yelling and screaming. What it does tell you is that the host knows where the car is and a good poker player may be able to bluff it out of the game show host by watching the hosts responses to potential choices.

Basically, on the initial selection: 1 correct out of 3, making the odds 33% that any particular choice is right.

After the choice, one of the potentials is removed by uncovering the goat. This makes 1 out of 2 possible or 50% any particular choice is right.

Whether the choice is;
1) He has already chosen one and gets to modify his choice
2) There is a new choice between two brand new doors…

It is the same thing. The underlying thing is that revealing what is under one of the doors does not alter what is behind any of the other doors. Also remember that the sum of probabilities on any single choice have to sum to 1 and you do not get to carry over probabilities from a previous run on to a new choice, in particular when a new piece of information is added (revealing of the goat).

I dare the doubters of this to write a program that allows you to pick one of three.. reveals one that it knows is not it and asks you to choose to keep your choice or switch. Track the frequency that the original choice is right versus switching was the right choice. The revealed choice in the first selection is not counted because it was not made by the person doing the selection.

And for a final nail:
Why would a gameshow give you a choice that could suddenly improve your odds dramatically and so easily, particularly since they have to foot the bill?

[ucodegen]

Oy vey..

It is assumed that the contestant is making a correct statement by saying “The contestant does decide to change from door number 1 to door #2. He states by changing from original chosen door #1 to door #2 his odds of winning the car increased to 66.7%.” He is not. He is showing a complete lack of understanding in probability. The gameshows do this to up the ‘excitement’ because otherwise the game is played out. It allows them to clock another 5+ minutes on the same stupid choice with everyone else yelling and screaming. What it does tell you is that the host knows where the car is and a good poker player may be able to bluff it out of the game show host by watching the hosts responses to potential choices.

Basically, on the initial selection: 1 correct out of 3, making the odds 33% that any particular choice is right.

After the choice, one of the potentials is removed by uncovering the goat. This makes 1 out of 2 possible or 50% any particular choice is right.

Whether the choice is;
1) He has already chosen one and gets to modify his choice
2) There is a new choice between two brand new doors…

It is the same thing. The underlying thing is that revealing what is under one of the doors does not alter what is behind any of the other doors. Also remember that the sum of probabilities on any single choice have to sum to 1 and you do not get to carry over probabilities from a previous run on to a new choice, in particular when a new piece of information is added (revealing of the goat).

I dare the doubters of this to write a program that allows you to pick one of three.. reveals one that it knows is not it and asks you to choose to keep your choice or switch. Track the frequency that the original choice is right versus switching was the right choice. The revealed choice in the first selection is not counted because it was not made by the person doing the selection.

And for a final nail:
Why would a gameshow give you a choice that could suddenly improve your odds dramatically and so easily, particularly since they have to foot the bill?

[ucodegen]

Oy vey..

It is assumed that the contestant is making a correct statement by saying “The contestant does decide to change from door number 1 to door #2. He states by changing from original chosen door #1 to door #2 his odds of winning the car increased to 66.7%.” He is not. He is showing a complete lack of understanding in probability. The gameshows do this to up the ‘excitement’ because otherwise the game is played out. It allows them to clock another 5+ minutes on the same stupid choice with everyone else yelling and screaming. What it does tell you is that the host knows where the car is and a good poker player may be able to bluff it out of the game show host by watching the hosts responses to potential choices.

Basically, on the initial selection: 1 correct out of 3, making the odds 33% that any particular choice is right.

After the choice, one of the potentials is removed by uncovering the goat. This makes 1 out of 2 possible or 50% any particular choice is right.

Whether the choice is;
1) He has already chosen one and gets to modify his choice
2) There is a new choice between two brand new doors…

It is the same thing. The underlying thing is that revealing what is under one of the doors does not alter what is behind any of the other doors. Also remember that the sum of probabilities on any single choice have to sum to 1 and you do not get to carry over probabilities from a previous run on to a new choice, in particular when a new piece of information is added (revealing of the goat).

I dare the doubters of this to write a program that allows you to pick one of three.. reveals one that it knows is not it and asks you to choose to keep your choice or switch. Track the frequency that the original choice is right versus switching was the right choice. The revealed choice in the first selection is not counted because it was not made by the person doing the selection.

And for a final nail:
Why would a gameshow give you a choice that could suddenly improve your odds dramatically and so easily, particularly since they have to foot the bill?

[ucodegen]

Oy vey..

It is assumed that the contestant is making a correct statement by saying “The contestant does decide to change from door number 1 to door #2. He states by changing from original chosen door #1 to door #2 his odds of winning the car increased to 66.7%.” He is not. He is showing a complete lack of understanding in probability. The gameshows do this to up the ‘excitement’ because otherwise the game is played out. It allows them to clock another 5+ minutes on the same stupid choice with everyone else yelling and screaming. What it does tell you is that the host knows where the car is and a good poker player may be able to bluff it out of the game show host by watching the hosts responses to potential choices.

Basically, on the initial selection: 1 correct out of 3, making the odds 33% that any particular choice is right.

After the choice, one of the potentials is removed by uncovering the goat. This makes 1 out of 2 possible or 50% any particular choice is right.

Whether the choice is;
1) He has already chosen one and gets to modify his choice
2) There is a new choice between two brand new doors…

It is the same thing. The underlying thing is that revealing what is under one of the doors does not alter what is behind any of the other doors. Also remember that the sum of probabilities on any single choice have to sum to 1 and you do not get to carry over probabilities from a previous run on to a new choice, in particular when a new piece of information is added (revealing of the goat).

I dare the doubters of this to write a program that allows you to pick one of three.. reveals one that it knows is not it and asks you to choose to keep your choice or switch. Track the frequency that the original choice is right versus switching was the right choice. The revealed choice in the first selection is not counted because it was not made by the person doing the selection.

And for a final nail:
Why would a gameshow give you a choice that could suddenly improve your odds dramatically and so easily, particularly since they have to foot the bill?

[ucodegen]

This one may open up the city to lawsuit because they are interfering in a business transaction after it was put in place. Investors etc can then find a big pocket for their losses… the city of San Diego. Nice..

[ucodegen]

This one may open up the city to lawsuit because they are interfering in a business transaction after it was put in place. Investors etc can then find a big pocket for their losses… the city of San Diego. Nice..

[ucodegen]

This one may open up the city to lawsuit because they are interfering in a business transaction after it was put in place. Investors etc can then find a big pocket for their losses… the city of San Diego. Nice..

[ucodegen]

This one may open up the city to lawsuit because they are interfering in a business transaction after it was put in place. Investors etc can then find a big pocket for their losses… the city of San Diego. Nice..

[ucodegen]

This one may open up the city to lawsuit because they are interfering in a business transaction after it was put in place. Investors etc can then find a big pocket for their losses… the city of San Diego. Nice..

[ucodegen]

Another situation that people need to watch out for is the way in which a lender releases the lien. In some cases the lender will accept the short sale AND release the owner from the deficiency and in other cases the lender will accept the short sale BUT they will ask the owner to sign a new note that is basically unsecured but does obligate the owner to repay the deficiency.

I am a little surprised that this is happening. If the mortgage is not a first, then it is recourse.. which means that banks can go after the previous owner on a deficiency judgement. The banks only have to either threaten to push for or push for foreclosure to break the logjam.

They might also be able to take the approach of a version of reduced deficiency for keys..

[ucodegen]

Another situation that people need to watch out for is the way in which a lender releases the lien. In some cases the lender will accept the short sale AND release the owner from the deficiency and in other cases the lender will accept the short sale BUT they will ask the owner to sign a new note that is basically unsecured but does obligate the owner to repay the deficiency.

I am a little surprised that this is happening. If the mortgage is not a first, then it is recourse.. which means that banks can go after the previous owner on a deficiency judgement. The banks only have to either threaten to push for or push for foreclosure to break the logjam.

They might also be able to take the approach of a version of reduced deficiency for keys..

[Author]

Posts