In the Monty Hall problem, if I chose to change doors and was wrong, you would say my model was good? I mean, I had a 33% of winning. 33% chances happen all the time. edited: I had "not change doors" originally. Thank you lee patterson for the correction.
If you are not choosing to change doors then it is not a good model. “Not switching” bets on picking correctly initially (33%). “Switching” bets on being incorrect initially (66%).
@@Scrambleverse Thanks, I had it backward. Monday mornings. The point is still appropriate, that saying Trump had a 30% chance of winning when there were only two possible outcomes wasn't a very high chance.
Regarding the 51m mark, on being process-driven instead of results-driven.. how can this be applied to the current covid situation? It seems every state/country handled it differently, yet even those with a similar approach, often had very different outcomes. So in the end, does this suggest *LUCK* had much more influence than any one strategy? Are there simply too many variables, that it's impossible to draw conclusions about what the *RIGHT* process is?
The AI bot wasnt even close to playing the best players in the world. I could have beaten those guys. And they were playing under a strict set of rules where the bot found it a lot easier to make calculations. E.g they had to reset to 100bb's every hand - The current top 3 holdem players are Linus Loeliger, Timofey Kuznetsov and Jonas Mols
@@DenkyManner They dont. Tournaments are super volatile with high variance. The people that have won the most money have done so through tournaments due to variance but arent the best technical players - its easy to find the best cash game players. Just go to pokerstars and find the players that no one wants to sit with
