Especially since internally WB said that both BvS and SS had to make $1 billion each to be considered successful...

But it’s Middle-earth and not Middle Earth. What is Trump doing to this world?!?!?!

You listed every owner. By the headline, it seems like you would not list any at all. Yet you did.

Why couldn’t the Gunslinger secretly be a robot? As mentioned before, he was in the original movie. Maybe he still is. Maybe he was sent into the world as “proof” how successful and lifelike the hosts can be, so much so that a robot can go out in the real world and tear it up. So maybe he’s coming back now to liberate…

Me love some meta!

Black moons matter

There’s no currency on the moon, so it wouldn’t cost a thing

Yes, we’re on the same page there.

I don’t understand why you would use the decision tree to a point, but then stop using it even there is still a decision to be made. I would understand it if the discussion was about how Monty was going to reveal a goat. But the end goal is to win a car. You still have to make a stay or switch decision. Presumably if…

And in that simulation you win the car 984 times and win goats 1,018 times. Roughly 50/50. You are wiser to change your choice to win the car as you’re more likely to win that way. But if you run the simulation an equal amount of times for each of the decisions at 50/50, you end up at a 50/50 mean, like you showcased…

I ran the simulation 2,000 times. I won the car 1,059 times. I won goats 943 times. So 52.95% to 47.15%,

So I built out a decision tree past Host Reveals Door since the exercise doesn’t end there. I got to where I think I need to be, because I think there may be some crazy semantics at play here. The chances of winning the car are 50/50 from start to finish of the exercise. However, switching your answer instead of…

First off, I want to say thank you for all the responses. And I’m not trying to say I’m right, but I’m trying to figure out how I’m wrong. I accept that it’s 1/3 to 2/3, but I’m trying to understand where the flaw is in the scenario breakdown.

How could both doors contain goats? That would only be the case if Monty reveals where the car is and then says you can stay with your current door, which is obviously a goat, or switch to the other door, which is obviously a goat. But Monty would never reveal the location of the car after the first selection.

The problem with this chart is that it doesn’t account for the fact that the first line item is 2x more likely to happen than the second and third. So you can’t make a probability out of it without taking that into account. Instead, that chart would yield a 1/2 outcome. The second and third items do not count twice…

I got 50/50 on the nose

But that’s a totally different question with different odds and iterations. I want to understand it on this scenario with three doors. On Let’s Make a Deal after the first selection, there are four possible outcomes:

Even if you change it to that language to stay or switch, there are two scenarios where if you stay, the car will be behind the door. There are two scenarios where if you switch, the car will be behind the door. With three doors, there are 12 progressions. With two doors, there are 4 progressions. There’s no reasoning…

The Priceonomics article is flawed in its reasoning that you have a 2/3 chance if you switch because it lists only 9 scenarios when there are in fact 12 scenarios. The 2 LOSE scenarios are lumped together as 1 for reasons that are not at all explained. But if you extrapolate those out, as you should because there are…

Doesn’t MGM control what happens in the Bond films? Doesn’t Sony just distribute it? Isn’t that distribution agreement up anyway? Doesn’t that make this all a red herring?