Probability - How does it work?!

. . . or imagine two players rather than one, they both choose a card (one the far left card and the other the card on the far right) the host removes the rest of the cards, do they both improve their chances of finding the card marked X by swapping ?

If the two players are aware of what each other is doing then no. Either: one of them has the winning card (2/1000) but they don't know which, or: the host has already revealed the prize and they've both lost (998/1000). The presence of the other player has changed the constraints on what the host does, so this two contestant game is different from the one contestant version.

If each is unaware of the other then yes, but there is only a small chance that the host can turn over the same 998 cards to both players (if one has picked the winner with their first choice). If that happens then it will be rational for both players to switch and one will win and one will loose. If neither picked the winner on their first move then the host must show each player the other player's card as one of 998 and leave the same card unturned for both, and both players will rationally switch to that card and win.

Different states of knowledge lead to different rational conclusions. If you can cope with that then you are a Bayesian. If not then philosophers will lead you round in circles as you try to define chance and randomness.

When the player first picks a card and thinks there's a 1/1000 chance of it being the winner, the host knows differently: he either knows that it is, or knows that it isn't.

The prisoners dilemma is another example of where different states of knowledge lead to different conclusions. But in the absence of that knowledge one should and most always does act so as to maximise their chances of a favorable outcome. I have a decent book on game theory at home.
Few people realise how closely linked probability and game theory are to the theory of evolution.

If the two players are aware . . . .

Cheers for the response.

Few people realise how closely linked probability and game theory are to the theory of evolution.

Agreed, all lies.

Give me a goat over a car any day

Give me a goat over a car any day

hehe. i was thinking that too. goats are awesome.

Rubiks cube. May have nothing at all to do with probability, but I admire the thinking behind whoever can solve them. I was on a bus earlier, transitional bike period, and this school-kid solved it twice in about 10 minutes. I watched throughout. Once solved he'd muddle it up again, then 5 minutes later it was all perfect again.

Shit like that's totally beyond me, and I'm impressed by it. It's clearly not random, so governed by some theoretical fact. So what gives? 9 coloured squares must match on a 6 sided object - there's about 5 or 6 different colours. I can't predict or think ahead. What's the secret?

algorithms.

Yeah, suppose so. Stuff like that does my head in. I just can't catch on. It's great to watch though, cut through the madness with a method.

Makes things clearer

YouTube - The Monty Hall Problem

4:20 in and it clicked. I feel like such an idiot!

Theory Swine, there's only so many set states of being for a rubik's cube - each state of being requires a combination of moves to shift to the next.

Once you can recognise the states of being, it's relatively easy to remember how to move between the set states of being to solve the cube.

All very logical, but I'm illogical thought-wise. Certainly not practical. I enjoyed watching this lad assess and recognise what to do next. Patterns and certainty. He had it down, and I liked it. He would pause here and there, then twist furiously until it fell into line. He had the better of it.

My state of being is one of bewildered frustration.

My theory is that it has infitine number of states that have no connection whatsoever. I just move the blocks randomly. It's like lotto, you never really win.

that's very bleak for 8:30. have some coffee.

Agreed, all lies.

Are you a creationist?

Spotted this morning on a T.

If I flip a coin
What are the chances
I'll get head.

It's everywhere.
Oh, and great Stat programme on BBC1 last night. That Swede is a legend.

It's like lotto, you never really win.

I think it was Orwell who pointed out that buying lottery tickets is about buying the hope that you will win. The hope makes you feel better and can be worth paying for even if you never do win.

ah but as john cleese once said, it's not the despair that kills me it's the hope.

I play the lotto without paying because..
Statically there isnt much difference in your chances of winning with or without a ticket
(eg: you could find a ticket in the street, or fake a ticket, or there could be a bank error in your favour)

So I still get to dream about how I would spend such riches & as an extra Brucey bonus I'm all smug because it hasn't cost me a penny.

that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard/ seen/ read

hey look at me! I'm driving a balloon!

thanks zoidberg.. my critical smugness level might exceed recommended limits today, but keep it coming.

Old folks say you have to be init to winit...

old folks also piss themselves and forget where they live

so would you say the probability of a lfgss forum member not being able to run a bath let alone their life is 1 in 2?