Quote:
Originally Posted by trackercowe
I've never fully understood this logic, same with how it was said in 21. You say there was a 50% chance of picking the better item by choosing one of the other two, but what if the best item WAS in the one he originally chose.
|
It is hard to rationalize in your head, the trick is you have to seperate out the choices...
When Probst introduced the other two covered plates (to go along with the original) the odds became a 1/3 chance of picking the "right" plate (33.3%) because at that point all plate options were open to him but the choice at that point wasn't "pick one of these three" it was "pick the original one or pick to make a choice between the other two". Had he picked "the choice between the other two" the original plate he bought leaves the equation, the original plate would no longer be an option so had he done that he would have moved his odds from 1/3 to 1/2 (50%). The other thing to consider is that the odds were 66.66% that the best prize amoung all three was in one of the other two plates.
Of course the flip side is that you increase your odds of getting the worst prize by 16.7% as well. If loss aversion is your primary focus then you pick the original basket so long as you anticipate prize variance. Game theory featuring Imperfect Information hurts my brain so I'll stop talking now.