> So let’s look at it again, remembering that the original answer defines certain conditions, the most significant of which is that the host always opens a losing door on purpose. (There’s no way he can always open a losing door by chance!) Anything else is a different question.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http://marilynvos...
What you are discussing is a different problem.
The answer can add assumptions, which is fine. I'm not passing judgement on Marilyn vos Savant. I do object to claims that the problem statement is sufficient to have a single answer, and based on that, I'd object to claims that somebody in that situation would be wrong not to switch doors. I would object on exactly the same grounds to anyone who tells you "you're wrong, there's a 50% chance of getting a car" (I might object further, on the grounds that the most obvious interpretation which gives that answer is inconsistent with this form of the problem statement).
It's a probabilities logic puzzle, it's not about psychological tricks. Anything of that sort is an extraneous ad hoc hypothesis that you're introducing.
The point is whether, upon the reveal of a goat, you should switch or stick to your original choice. Nothing else matters. What Monty had for breakfast doesn't matter. Whether he likes you or not doesn't matter.