The one guy has a straight. That seems like a really good hand. Who plays vs. a str8 with only the one pair?

On the bright side, you could've had AA

Johnny baseball has me hooked on Trivia Crack. I have beaten him 6 love 6 love. His response? One more round? I didn't hear no bell!

Sending challenge right now.

Just so you know, I sometimes cheat. I ask for answers at the tables.

****ing mother ****er. i turned on my phone this am and was like "CRACK AVAILABLE AIYAHHHHH!!!!" and opened it immediately and then the app crashed cause my phone is a piece of **** and I didn't get the dead sea question right so i am playing this match under protest.

When my game crashes during a question, if you restart the game it gives you the same question. If you don't know the answer and look it up is it cheating? Or an act of god?

Fwiw I don't look up the answer

So if I'm playing trivia crack and I want to increase the chances of getting a question correct, but I don't know the answer, then I get to eliminate half of the possible answers. If I pick one answer before this elimination without clicking on it, then after the other two answers are eliminated, I increase my chances by switching answers. Correct? Isn't this just like the Monty Hall problem?

In other words, I have ~25% chance of guessing correct before eliminating two answers, then by switching my guess after the elimination of two answers, I'm now 75% likely to be correct. Correct?

This of course assumes that my original guess is a total shot in the dark. It would take a lot of confidence in the original guess to make up that other 50% chance of being correct.

I was trying to explain this to a friend who plays a lot, but I don't think he got it or I wasn't explaining it correctly, or both.

Couldn't you purposely select one that you knew was wrong? Wouldn't this always give you the correct answer by default?

Oh, I see what you are saying. You pick an answer randomly 'in your head' and if it is one of two that is left, then you switch answers. Not sure if that is similar to the Monte Hall problem because the answer you pick *could* be removed, so it would still be 50/50 IMO.

Edit: If it isn't clear, I haven't played this game and don't know the structure of this 50/50 option.

Power ups are for pussies

It's exactly how you think it would be. It eliminates two of the three wrong answers. Intuitively the fact that your randomly guessed answer could've been eliminated and in the Monte hall problem your door could not be opened, makes it still 50/50

I consider myself to be at least of average intelligence and for the life of me have never been able to understand the monte hall paradox. People have explained it to me, I've read about it - still nothing. It just doesn't make intuitive sense to me. I guess that is why it is a paradox but I just can't wrap my head around it. The example that I recall that came the closest to making sense involved 100 doors instead of three, but I still just couldn't get there.

I think the way the Monte Hall program is usually expressed does not give you enough info; you have to make assumptions about how the guy is picking the doors, that are not typically presented, in order to understand it correctly.

Basically you have to assume the host always deliberately picks a goat to show you...that is not typically stated in the problem. Possibly that was the way it was done on the old TV show and someone familiar with the show would have gotten it, but as someone who never watched the show, it was very confusing until I realized that.

Poster like UTG + 2 raises his option, I 3-bet AQo, it comes back to me capped at least 5 ways, J83, Q, J, two side pots, I get errthang. Sometimes poker just makes sense

The host will never reveal the prize. Only with his prior knowledge will he reveal goats.

In the 100 door example, you choose one of the 100, a 1% chance of having the prize. He then reveals 98 of the other 99 doors which all have goats behind them because he knows which door has the prize.

Now you have the option to switch or keep your door. Do you think it is still 50/50 that you have the prize?

This is exactly how I presented the problem when I tutored statistics and probability. The 3 option example just isn't big enough to make the truth obvious.

The example I used was a game where they picked a card from the deck and "won" if they drew the A. They'd pick and I'd immediately remove 50 cards, and ask if they wanted to change or not.

The host in the Monty Hall problem is implicitly helping the contestant, by revealing to the contestant the door most likely to hold the prize.

Was nice to see so many games at Bellagio last night and they were good. Anyone else around this weekend?

Was this the 30 game?

15, but the SB plays 30 too.

There is a lady sitting at my table with a black and white striped jacket. Or maybe it is blue and gold - I can't tell.

That dress is gray imo.

This is incorrect, and shows you don't understand the problem (which is normal, so no shame in it). He can't show you the winner, because you'd just pick that door now that he's revealed it. After you pick a door, he has two to show you (and must show one) and thus can always show a goat. Given that the host must show you the contents of a door, his only play is to use his knowledge to show a goat.

The problem isn't about confusion of the rules, the problem is that most people have horrible intuitive feel for conditional probability.

BTW, this picture should clearly explain the reason switching gives 2/3 of a chance of winning.

chillrob is right. You need the condition that the host will ALWAYS reveal bad door(s). This is not always explicit. Many people tell the problem poorly and don't explain this fact. Details are important.


Q: You flip a coin 100 times, and it is heads 100 times. what are the chances the 101st toss will be heads?
A: Likely close to 100%. The question did not specify the coin was fair.


Think about Deal or No Deal. If the extra doors are *randomly revealed*, AND the prize remains, then your odds are 50/50.

So why doesn't it work for trivia crack?

DougL, your explanation includes the assumption I said was needed to solve the problem - he cannot show you the winning door, because you would just pick it. However, if he wanted you to win, why couldn't he show you the winning door?

I first assumed he picked a random door to show, and the fact that he showed you a goat just meant he happened to pick that one, not that he always showed a goat. Turns out my original assumption was incorrect, but it is not clearly stated in most cases which assumption to use (eg in Marilyn Vos Savant's column and in the current wikipedia entry).