Lately I have been binge-watching Mythbusters, and one of the more curios myths they took on was the Monty Hall problem. The Monty Hall problem is named after a US TV show, were the candidate had the chance to win whatever price was behind one of three doors, where the other two doors had no price. The twist is that after the candidate choose, the moderator would show what was behind one of the other two doors, obviously one, where no price is, and the candidate now had the chance to switch the door.

Now, intuitively one would say that being shown what is behind a door will not change the chances, and the candidate has a 1 in 3 chance to win the price. Now the myth is, that switching the door will increase the chance to win substantially.

One might say, this is not really a myth, as it can be shown statistically to be true. But I am bad at combinatoric, so after seeing in Mythbusters how far ahead the switching strategy is, I wanted to redo their experiment as a Monte Carlo simulation.

First, we set up the experiment, and sample the winning doors, and the initial selection by the candidate.

```
# monty hall problem
n = 100000
prices = sample(3,n,1)
selected = sample(3,n,1)
df = data.frame(prices = prices,
selected = selected,
shown = NA,
wins_stay = NA,
wins_switch = NA)
head(df)
```

## prices selected shown wins_stay wins_switch ## 1 2 1 NA NA NA ## 2 3 2 NA NA NA ## 3 3 2 NA NA NA ## 4 3 2 NA NA NA ## 5 1 1 NA NA NA ## 6 2 3 NA NA NA

Next, we define how the moderator has to choose, which door to show in each case. And this is the first hint to why the likelihood to win is higher if the candidate switches: We need to differ between the cases were the candidate chose the winning door or not, because in the case of the candidate choosing a losing door, the door to be opened by the moderator is predetermined – it’s the one which is not winning.

```
shown = apply(df, 1, function(x){
x = unlist(x)
# x[1] - winning door, x[2] - choosen door
# candidate choose winning door
if(x[1]==x[2]){
return(sample((1:3)[-x[1]],1))
} else {
return((1:3)[-c(x[1], x[2])])
}
})
df$shown = shown
head(df)
```

## prices selected shown wins_stay wins_switch ## 1 2 1 3 NA NA ## 2 3 2 1 NA NA ## 3 3 2 1 NA NA ## 4 3 2 1 NA NA ## 5 1 1 2 NA NA ## 6 2 3 1 NA NA

Next, we calculate the winning likelihood, if the candidate always stays with the initial selection

```
selected_stay = selected
df$wins_stay = prices == selected_stay
head(df)
```

## prices selected shown wins_stay wins_switch ## 1 2 1 3 FALSE NA ## 2 3 2 1 FALSE NA ## 3 3 2 1 FALSE NA ## 4 3 2 1 FALSE NA ## 5 1 1 2 TRUE NA ## 6 2 3 1 FALSE NA

```
sum(df$wins_stay)/n
```

## [1] 0.33196

It’s not very surprising that the percentage is 1 in 3, which is the initial likelihood without any additional information.

Finally, we have to compute the door the candidate chooses if he switches.

```
selected_switch = apply(df,1,function(x){
x = unlist(x)
(1:3)[!(1:3)%in%c(x[2], x[3])]
})
df$wins_switch = prices == selected_switch
head(df)
```

## prices selected shown wins_stay wins_switch ## 1 2 1 3 FALSE TRUE ## 2 3 2 1 FALSE TRUE ## 3 3 2 1 FALSE TRUE ## 4 3 2 1 FALSE TRUE ## 5 1 1 2 TRUE FALSE ## 6 2 3 1 FALSE TRUE

```
sum(df$wins_switch)/n
```

## [1] 0.66804

Following the switching strategy, the candidates chances are 2 in 3, which counter-intuitively is quite logical: The candidate will loose in each case where his initial selection was correct (1 in 3), but will win in each case where his initial selection was wrong (2 in 3).

Oh, and here is a nice clip explaining it much better: