MONTY HALL PARADOJA is the Restricted Choice Principle. There are 2 doors with 1 car and 2 goats. If the contestant chose the car door the driver has two equally good options, but if the contestant chose a goat the driver has no choice but to choose and is forced to the second goat. Then the probability of winning if you chose the car is 1/3. If you chose the goat it is 1/2 . It must be changed. Perhaps it is clearer by explaining this with the frequent situation that occurs in the bridge game. The cartetor has 9 cards of a stick, between the cards of the hand and the dead. It has the A , the K and the 10 For example, AK10xx vs xxxx on the dead ( table ). Play the A and the player on your left throws the Q. Then the odds are dry J and x, or Jx and fail Play the second trick since the dead and the one on the right plays the x. Should Jx play head-to-head or finesse (horqueta) in front of the K? If the player who threw the Q always played from the bottom up, i.e. the J with QJ, the answer is obvious, since he already informs with the Q that he does not have the J, and the carder must horquette. But if the defender uses the best strategy, which is to play 50% of the time J and 50% the Q, the best option is to do the finesse because sometimes the cardman will have chosen the Q, but others will have played forced. Some synonyms, words, or similar expressions may be restricted choice, a principle of restricted choice
Mathematical problem of probability based on a usable television contest of the 70s and 80s led by a certain Monty Hall : A contestant must choose to open a door between three to appropriate what is inside. Behind one is a car. Behind the other two a goat. Once the contestant has chosen one, the presenter opens another by appearing a goat. Should the contestant change his choice to have more evidence of getting the car right? . I don't think I'm a mathematician. But mathematicians say yes.
