Does a thorough understanding of the Monty Hall problem improve

No, but learning that clicking both buttons on a number clicks all adjacent boxes makes you 9x faster.

>>3982186
>minesweeper thread
We are truly scraping the barrel at this point, aren't we?

>>3982673
You'd be surprised, Minesweeper has it's own community. They even made a version just for competition so solvers couldn't be used.

>Don't know what the Monty Hall problem even is
>Look it up on wiki
>Its article is the size of a fucking novel
yeah I'm not understanding this shit, guess it won't help me at Minesweeper.

>>3982186
No? You either click it or not. There's no chance to change your answer.

Go play Zero Time Delema.

>>3982681
http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/the-jellybean-problem.html

It's still long, but it should be easy to understand.

>>3982684
>>3982681
My understanding of it is;
You get to pick from 3 doors on a Game Show, one has a prize, the other 2 have goats.
When you pick your door, the Game Show Host opens one door to reveal a goat. You then get to pick to open your door, or the one he didn't open.
If the door you pick happens to have a goat behind it, then he can only reveal one door, since there's only one goat left.
Because of that, it means it's more likely for the door you didn't pick and he didn't reveal to have the prize, while the door you did pick is more likely to have the goat.
Not sure how this applies to Minesweeper. I know there's times where you can't be certain which box has a mine, but what is the "Game Show Host reveals a goat" in the situation?

>>3982676

I am a minesweeper fanatic. Literally play several dozen times a day like a fucking autist.

Never thought to check if there was a community. Then again, do I really want to know anyone OC over minesweeper like me? *shudder*

No, because the Monty Hall problem isn't true. Each step of the game redefines the problem you're trying to solve.

So, for the Monty Hall problem, knowing that one door is a dud simply removes it from the equation. The Monty Hall problem is only relevant if you are going to plan out and execute all of your minesweeper moves beforehand without taking any new information into account.

>>3982698
I assume the OP is getting at a scenario like the following.
>Find a large number tile at an ambiguous spot
>Do more work elsewhere, removing a possible tile from consideration

I find it dubious that there are many cases where this will actually help. Looking at the actual construct if you make guesses at every point where you see an ambiguous grouping there might be a time where the Monty Hall setup works. But in the picture of the OP that wouldn't help you, that's just a bog standard ambiguous solution and I feel like that covers most cases which aren't unambiguously solvable.

The Monty Hall problem doesn't work if there's only 2 doors.

>>3982186
Only if you have to resort to guessing and had three options and have guessed one right. Should be a very rare occurrence unless you don't know what you're doing.

No, but it helped plenty in Chip's Challenge.

>>3982710
You're wrong.

>>3982756

Nope, I'm not.

>>3982710

You don't understand the Monty Hall problem

>>3982773

Yes I do, and I understand its logic, and why it's wrong. Revealing a door removes all probability from it, it's not a viable option in the scenario.

You're never going to be in a situation where there are actually two goats you might encounter. One door will always remove itself from the scenario.

>>3982710

Monty Hall isn't relevant to minesweeper, but the problem itself is 100% true. Maybe you'd understand it better if you replaced the goats with (You)s?

>>3982781
That's the point, anon. If you, beyond your current knowledge, picked a goat, then he only has one option to remove, meaning that it's possible that he COULDN'T reveal the door he didn't reveal

>>3982795

But that is a 50% chance, applied to both unopened doors.

>>3982781
The pitfall logic is to believe it's a 50/50 chance on the second choice, but the host choosing his door based on your first choice complicates the probability.

>>3982771
I was very stubborn about this as well, but then I read that mythbusters did it by ear recording results of people who changed their mind and the win ratio was 2/3.

The reason the odds dont change to 50/50 is because the initially selected door will never be removed. If the host were allowed to remove the selected door then the odds of the remaining 2 will be 50/50, but he cannot so the odds are no longer even.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lb-6rxZxx0

>>3982710
hahaha what

>>3982781
>Revealing a door removes all probability from it

no, it doesn't

>>3982704

Read this and learn about strats, dig orders, and micro to improve your scores.

http://www.minesweeper.info/wiki/Strategy

>>3983204
saved

File: wellfuck.png (77KB, 948x1088px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 948x1088px

>>3983376
Have another

>>3982673
why would minesweeper be the bottom of the barrel? games with simple, unique and addictive gameplay are usually the ones that are remembered as iconic (tetris, pacman, pong, snake etc.)

>>3983204
>>3983405
How did you do this?

>>3983498
The games that come included with Windows sit at the very bottom of the gaming hierarchy.

Only the most wretched casuals play that shit.

Imagine some elderly retired couple in their trailer park home taking turns playing this game on their old beige shitbox PC.

They have no concept of what real gaming even is and no curiosity to look beyond the start menu games folder.

What a fucking pitiful existence.

>>3984587
>Hating on minesweeper
I bet you just don't know how to play it

>>3984587
I can see you are a very mature gamer with a deep appreciation for the art, much like myself
carry on, fellow gaming connoisseur

>>3982194
>clicking both buttons on a number

???

>>3984587
all that rambling and you cant even state your standard of games. the poster you replied to has a good point

File: Screenshot_2017-05-11-11-48-38.png (250KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1080x1920px

>>3982887
0.20 Parallel Universes were deposited into your account

>>3984587
It upsets me that nobody else seems to remember this copypasta. Don't worry, anon. I remember.

File: output.webm (2MB, 701x679px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 701x679px

>>3984559
It's a clone in C# i made.

>>3985476
a click is a click, you cant say its one and a half

>>3982887

Literally nothing new here for me, though it's nice to have "official" names to strategies that I had discovered independently.

File: Monty_Hall_Diagram.png (41KB, 410x250px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 410x250px

>>3982710
>the Monty Hall problem isn't true.
Are you fucking high? It's not an arbitrary made-up-on-the-spot "standard" like order of operations, it's a measurable, objective fact that can be explained in a flowchart.

Monty Hall problem is not a problem.

>>3985498
Damn. Even Google can't remember it. You must be a super l33t mega oldfag. lel

>>3986395
>some elderly retired couple in their trailer park home

https://warosu.org/vr/thread/3246370

It's not even old, and it came right up on google by searching "some elderly retired couple in their trailer park home". Sounds more like you need to learn how to google.

>>3982186
how do you know bottom-left is a mine? seems like bottom-left is the one that ISN'T a mine

>>3986558
The top is a 1 which means the middle left and top left can only hold 1 mine between them. So the bottom left has to be a mine.

>>3986560
oh yeah you're right. i suck at this game

>>3982186

With my thorough understanding of the Monty Hall problem I know it's not relevant to minesweeper in the slightest.

Unless those flags actually do something other than being your own label.

>>3982681
It's simple math that idiots use as trivia to pretend they're smart.

>>3985583
>still using vista

my negro, we are a dying breed

While the minesweeper thing is cool, why would anyone purposefully inflict windows or C# upon themselves?

>>3986571
>still using vista
>Win7 Pro x64 (c:)
what did he mean by this?

>>3982186
Not if I do not know how to play minesweeper.

>>3986575
Apparently I have autism.

>>3986402
Not exactly copypasta if it wasn't copied from the original and was only aped once champ. But good luck trying to force your redit meme.

>>3984587
>simplicity + wide availability = bad
I bet you hate chess and tetris too
But seriously you sound like an elitist hipster fag

File: behold the evidence.jpg (22KB, 440x366px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 440x366px

>>3982710
>>3982781
>>3982797
The monty hall problem is real, budderino.


I just created a program to calculate the monty hall problem and the dude gets the car 2/3 times when he changes, and 1/3 times when he doesn't.

It's real, faggot.
Wanna see the code?

Here's an easier way to understand:
Imagine it's 100 doors, and when you pick one, the host opens 98 other doors and reveals 98 goats.
What do you think your odds are now?

>>3984587
You are correct in stating that the casual all play them
However, you are incorrect in assuming that makes them trash.

Man I'm falling for this hard

>>3985583
cool shit anon. what editor are you using btw

>>3985583
>recording is just slightly fuzzy
this is the worst

Imo, the funny thing about the problem is that whoever made it up chose 3 doors on purpose since it's the only number where it gets confusing.

Tell people they have to pick from 100 doors, then someone closes 98 of them and asks them to reconsider their choice and even the second biggest idiot in the world would see that the chance he quessed right is extremely slim, so he should change.

>>3982673
I for one would like for this board to have more minesweeper threads. It's literally a small change away from being one of those math-perfect games like Chess.

>>3987395
I'm fairly certain game shows are created by professionals. Just like old school non-electronic casino machines, the house must have bigger odds of winning.

File: 200.jpg (24KB, 409x381px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 409x381px

So I just did some reading on this problem. And although it makes sense, i'm wondering if it holds up in the real world.

I mean, I can definitely see that in multiple attempts you'd win more often by switching, but if you only get 1 single chance then your odds are still kind of random. Maybe you'd need to learn to read the actions of the host.

>>3986635
I've seen it at least 3 times before this one, and I wasn't even the one who posted it in this thread.

>>3987474
>So I just did some reading on this problem. And although it makes sense, i'm wondering if it holds up in the real world.
Yep. If you write a program to simulate it then it works.

>>3987490
Probability is a complicated science and it's always very counter intuitive.

>>3987502

This problem is VERY intuitive if you increase the door-count to a 1000 though. Just remember that the same principle holds for three doors.

>>3987571
I hate the 1000 door reasoning because they assume 998 doors will be opened and ultimately the result is the same as the 3 door situation.

Now take the 1000 doors and open just one goat door. Have fun switching the door dipshit

>>3987571
Even in that situation it is not a guaranteed.

And that's the thing, you could try a million times something that has a 99% chance or working and still not get it right because that's how the real world works.

>>3987454
>created by professionals
They are. You're clearly not one of those and don't understand how/why game shows work.

>>3985583
I made a text mode clone of it once just for lols.

File: fuckingkek'd.png (63KB, 836x921px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 836x921px

>>3987160
Thanks.
It's standard Microsoft Visual Studio 2015 with it's theme set to dark.

>>3987840
Yeah, this one came to be in the week my retarded ISP fucked up my connection and all the internet I had was my shitty phone's so it was mainly out of boredom.
Main goal was to reproduce the graphics as closely as possible. Except for the colors that turn green when you solve it you literally can't tell the difference.
Functionally it's pretty much the same as well tho.

>>3984667
If you already marked all bombs against that tile, then you can click both right and left buttons to open all available pannels around that box.

I.e: In OP's pic, if the middle right "1" and center "3" were still unchecked boxes, you could click the lower right "1" that way to open both as there is one bomb already marked. It acts like clicking all tiles though, so if you missed the bomb mark and put into a non-bomb box the bomb would go just like clicking on it would do.

>>3987856
It's a nice practical demonstration of recursion too.

>>3987454

Except that a casino makes it's money from it's gamblers, who are both the winners and the losers. So the losers must lose more than the winners win.

A game show makes its money from its VIEWERS, or more appropriately, from the sponsors trying to sell product to those viewers. The more viewers, the more sponsor money. The contestants can ALL be winners, for all the fucks given by the game show, so long as the SPONSOR money flowing in is greater.

TL;DR, your shit analogy is shit.

>>3987582

Here's the thing. If you have 1000 doors and they reveal 998 of them, the door you didn't choose is pretty much guaranteed safe. So let's say you have 999 doors and open 997, the remaining door is pretty much safe. If you have 998 doors and open 996, the 1 is safe. If you keep lowering the total, you'll eventually reach the original problem. See?

If the Monty Hall problem is giving people this much trouble, the Birthday Problem would cause brains to explode

>>3986103
no it's not

>>3990636
Many mathematicians including Paul Erdős had qualms with it. Not so with birthday problem.

>>3987474
>I mean, I can definitely see that in multiple attempts you'd win more often by switching, but if you only get 1 single chance then your odds are still kind of random.
No, they're not. That's like saying that your chance of getting a six when throwing a perfect die once isn't 1/6, but "kind of random".

Seriously though, how fucking dumb you gotta be to not get the Monty Hall problem?

>>3990656
Probability as a whole makes fuck-all sense in the real world. It's based purely on the assumption that there will be multiple tries. If you only get a singular shot at any one thing knowing how to calculate probability will only help you reduce your choices and be more comfortable with your ultimate choice. It doesn't guarantee you will win, and in real life you could realistically do something with 99% chance of success 100 times and not get it right a single time.

>>3991445
> It doesn't guarantee you will win, and in real life you could realistically do something with 99% chance of success 100 times and not get it right a single time.
And? How that goes against probability?
To me it appears that you don't understand what you're talking about, the fact that if you switch doors you are more likely to get the car still remains.