The crazy thing is the Raiders will make out like Bandits when they go to Las Vegas even though Marc Davis was low man on the totem pole

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

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…

One you become adopted by a white family, you become white. That’s the rules. It’s like when Marge got Simpson DNA that made her a suspect in “Who Shot Mister Burns?”

I must say I’m a bit confused by the line “The burden of proof is put upon the victim and there’s often a bias toward innocence.” That’s how our justice system is set up in this country. You are innocent until proven guilty. That’s our system. So is she proposing we go to another type of system for these crimes? I’m…

Is Breckin Meyer too good for your Clueless rankings? Dude gave us 4 solid seasons of “Franklin & Bash.”

Night Owls is a good name for Vegas...

Quality ain’t cheap. All lap dances may cost the same, but not all strip joints are born equal.

Your rankings are an immediate lie because you have no mention of Hawaiian rolls, which should be at the top. As such, I can only assume you are working with ISIS to break up our great nation by not even acknowledging Hawaii’s existence.