DYNOMIGHT ABOUT RSS SUBSTACK

Making the Monty Hall problem weirder but obvious

Making the Monty Hall problem weirder but obvious

Updated Dec 2021

Here’s an Obvious Problem:

  1. There are 10 doors. A car is behind a random door, goats behind the others.
  2. Do you want what’s behind door 1, or what’s behind all the other doors?

That’s easy, right? Well, how about the Monty Hall problem?

  1. There are three doors. A car is behind one random door, goats behind the others.
  2. You pick one door.
  3. The host picks another door that contains a goat and opens it.
  4. Should you keep your original door, or switch to the other closed door?

Many people guess it doesn’t matter if you switch. But in reality, switching gets you the car 2/3 of the time.

This post claims that these problems are really just disguised versions of each other. We’ll start with the Obvious Problem, apply a series of small changes that clearly don’t change the solution, and end up at the Monty Hall problem.

Game 1

Here’s our first game.

  1. There are 10 doors. A car is randomly placed behind one, and goats behind the other 9.
  2. You pick one door.
  3. You get two options:
    • Option A: You get whatever is behind the door you picked.
    • Option B: You get whatever is behind all of the other 9 doors.

There’s nothing mysterious here. You should choose option B. There’s only a 10% chance you picked the right door, so there’s a 90% chance the car is behind one of the others.

Game 2

Now, we slightly update the game (new part in bold).

  1. There are 10 doors. A car is randomly placed behind one, and goats behind the other 9.
  2. You pick one door.
  3. Monty says “Hey! I promise you that there is a goat behind at least 8 of the other 9 doors!”
  4. You get two options:
    • Option A: You get whatever is behind the door you picked.
    • Option B: You get whatever is behind all of the other 9 doors.

Monty’s statement changes nothing. You don’t need to rely on his trustworthy looks. You already knew there were at least 8 goats! Option B still gets you the car 90% of the time.

Game 3

Let’s update the game again (new part in bold).

  1. There are 10 doors. A car is randomly placed behind one, and goats behind the other 9.
  2. You pick one door.
  3. Monty looks behind the other 9 doors. He chooses 8 with goats behind them, and opens them.
  4. You get two options:
    • Option A: You get whatever is behind the door you picked.
    • Option B: You get whatever is behind all of the other 9 doors.

The key insight is this: When Monty shows you that 8 of the 9 other doors contain goats, you haven’t learned anything relevant to your decision. You already knew there were at least 8 goats behind the other doors! So this is just like game 2. Option B still gets you the car 90% of the time.

Want more intuition? Suppose you picked door 3. Imagine Monty walking past the doors, opening doors 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, skipping 7, then opening 8, 9, and 10. Doesn’t door 7 seem special?

Game 4

Let’s make another change. Finally, we arrive at a game very similar to Monty Hall.

  1. There are 10 doors. A car is randomly placed behind one, and goats behind the other 9.
  2. You pick one door.
  3. Monty looks behind the other 9 doors. He chooses 8 of them with goats behind them, and opens them.
  4. You get two options:
    • Option A: You get whatever is behind the door you picked.
    • Option B: You get whatever is behind the other closed door.

The only difference with Game 3 is that option B doesn’t get you the 8 visible goats. Since you don’t care about goats, this makes no difference. This is still just like game 3. You get the car 90% of the time by switching.

Game 5 (Classic Monty Hall)

Here is the last game. We just change the number of doors from 10 to 3.

  1. There are 3 doors. A car is randomly placed behind one, and goats behind the other 2.
  2. You pick one door.
  3. Monty looks behind the other 2 doors. He chooses one 1 of them with a goat behind it, and opens it.
  4. You get two options:
    • Option A: You get whatever is behind the door you picked.
    • Option B: You get whatever is behind the other closed door.

Of course, you still want to choose option B. The chance of success is now 2/3 instead of 9/10. This game is exactly Monty Hall, so we’re done.

Side Notes

  • The “best” way to think about the Monty Hall problem is simple: There’s a 2/3 chance at the beginning that you picked a door with a goat behind it, and nothing that happens after changes that. The only purpose of the extra steps above is to give more intuition for why the extra information you get from opening a door doesn’t change the probabilities.

  • It’s important that Monty looked behind the doors before choosing which to open. This is where people’s intuition usually fails. If he had chosen a door at random — in a way that he risked possibly exposing a car, then the situation would be different. (In that case, there’s no advantage or harm in switching.) But he doesn’t choose the door at random. He deliberately chooses to show you goats. Since this is always possible, it tells you nothing. I think this is the crux of what makes this problem unintuitive: If the host had picked a random door, the intuition that it doesn’t matter if you switch would be correct!

    • It might be helpful to draw a diagram of the relationship of the different games, starting with classic Monty Hall and ending with the Obvious version.

Game 5 (Classic Monty Hall)
 ↓
 Use 10 doors instead of 3.
 ↓
Game 4
 ↓
If you switch, you get the contents of all other doors, not just the other closed door.
 ↓
Game 3
 ↓
Monty promises 8 goats behind the other doors instead of showing you.
 ↓
Game 2
 ↓
 Monty doesn’t bother promising.
 ↓
Game 1 (Obvious Monty Hall)

  • There are some other attempts at variants of the Monty Hall problem, also intended to be more intuitive. These involve switching the doors for “boxers”.

  • Monty Hall was named “Monte” at birth! Given that Monte Carlo simulations are often used for exploring the Monty Hall problem, that’s either a miracle for confused students or a tragedy for puns.

new dynomight every thursday
except when not

(or try substack or rss) ×
Please show lots of digits

as many as you're allowed to give me

Hi there. It’s me, the person who stares very hard at the numbers in the papers you write. I’ve brought you here today to ask a favor. Say you wrote something like this: There were 446 students tested. The left-handed...

Arithmetic is an underrated world-modeling technology

if you keep units

Of all the cognitive tools our ancestors left us, what’s best? Society seems to think pretty highly of arithmetic. It’s one of the first things we learn as children. So I think it’s weird that only a tiny percentage of...

Datasets that change the odds you exist

Stats for dangerous situations

It's October 1962. The Cuban missile crisis just happened, thankfully without apocalyptic nuclear war. But still: Apocalyptic nuclear war easily could have happened. Crises as serious as the Cuban missile crisis clearly aren't *that* rare, since one just happened. You...

Using axis lines for good or evil

add them only if they mean something

Say you want to plot some data. You could just plot it by itself. Or you could put lines on the left and bottom. Or you could put lines everywhere. Or you could be weird. Which is right? Many people...

Prediction market does not imply causation

Unless you're careful, conditional prediction markets have all the same problems as observational studies.

We all want to make good decisions. But it’s hard because we aren’t sure what’s going to happen. Like, say you want to know if CO₂ emissions will go up in 10 years. One of our best ideas is to...

The conspiratorial Monty Hall problem

What if you and Monty decide to cheat?

The Monty Hall problem has now been a pox on humanity for two generations, diverting perfectly good brains away from productive uses. Hoping to exacerbate this problem, some time ago I announced a new and more pernicious variant: What if...

Why ‟controlling for a variable” doesn't (usually) work

It's just adding a variable to a regression.

I’ve always seen cathedrals as presenting a kind of implicit argument to atheists. Something like: God must exist, because otherwise it would have been insane for people to build this:

Social dynamics of bluetooth speakers

A mathematical model of who turns on their bluetooth speaker at the beach.

Say you're at a park or a beach. How many people will have bluetooth speakers on? It seems to me there are three types of people: The main characters always turn on their speakers regardless of what anyone else is...

It’s perfectly valid for a trait to be more than 100% heritable

What heritability really is: A fluid statistic that changes whenever society changes.

All psychological traits are heritable. This is the best replicated finding in all of behavioral genetics. Some recent numbers include: Religiosity: 44% Schizophrenia: 79% Big five personality traits: ~40% But what, exactly, does "heritability" mean? I used to have a...

Simpson's paradox all the way down

Visualizes Simpson's paradox, and shows how it's a deeper problem than many people realize.

It's hard to get into Oxford. Is it easier if your parents are rich? In 2013, The Guardian showed noticed something disturbing: Students from (expensive) independent schools were accepted more often that students from state schools (28% vs 20%). Of...

The simplest possible way to convert Celsius and Fahrenheit

If you can switch the order of two numbers, you can convert temperatures.

This is a new way to convert temperatures between Celsius and Fahrenheit. It’s not the most accurate method, but it’s surely the easiest.