Knowing that the ball was gold gives you Bayesian knowledge about the boxes behind the door, since the prior probability of the host pulling a gold ball from a 6-gold door is different than from the 3/3 door. So you have to multiply Monty Hall probabilities and Bayesian probabilities together.
That assumes the host pulled a ball at random, of course, and not a deliberately gold ball.
Hmm, you’re quite right. My intuition is that the Bayesian portion would exactly offset the Monty hall portion. I think, at a glance, Bayes would give door 1 a 2/3 probability of having 6 gold, but Monty Hall would give door 2 the same probability, so we can effectively cancel these out and just consider a raw probability
You either have 5 gold or 2 gold 3 silver behind door 1, and 6 gold or 3 and 3 behind door 2, which gives door 2 a very slight edge. Does that check out?
Knowing that the ball was gold gives you Bayesian knowledge about the boxes behind the door, since the prior probability of the host pulling a gold ball from a 6-gold door is different than from the 3/3 door. So you have to multiply Monty Hall probabilities and Bayesian probabilities together.
That assumes the host pulled a ball at random, of course, and not a deliberately gold ball.
Hmm, you’re quite right. My intuition is that the Bayesian portion would exactly offset the Monty hall portion. I think, at a glance, Bayes would give door 1 a 2/3 probability of having 6 gold, but Monty Hall would give door 2 the same probability, so we can effectively cancel these out and just consider a raw probability
You either have 5 gold or 2 gold 3 silver behind door 1, and 6 gold or 3 and 3 behind door 2, which gives door 2 a very slight edge. Does that check out?
Yes! Cancels out, leaving only a very slight edge on door 2. All that work for only… 2.77% edge over picking at random. What a troll problem, huh?
Heh what a trolly problem indeed
Speaking of trolls I assume the madman has perfect knowledge of the layout, hence did not pick a ball out at random.