|
Ok, to get things straight first. I am not claiming to be the first one to ever think of this and actually a quick search on this very forum for "Monty Hall" reveals that it has been discussed here several times (allthough some of the results might be due to the map Monty Hall), but the last time was over a year ago. I do believe that there are many people here who really haven't thought about this before, so I figured it was time to pay good old Monty Hall another visit. If you're all tired of this thing coming up again, please feel free to delete the thread.
So here goes what I had actually planed to say. Consider this scenario, you are playing zerg and scouting with your overlord on a four-player map. After your tenth drone or so, you send out a drone just to make sure that you scout your opponent quickly. When the drone is halfway on his way to the enemy base, your overlord reaches his destination spawn location and reveals no enemy base. You now have the choice of continuing with your drone to the destination where it was headed, or you could switch and instead scout the other unknown location. Now most people (and in general common sense) tells us that it really doesn't matter since you have a 50/50 chance either way. This however is wrong. Statistically, it will always be beneficial to switch the drone scouting target! Basically this is due to the fact that initially, before knowing anything, you had a 1/3 chance of hitting your enemy with your scouting drone. This does not change after you have mis-scouted with your overlord. If you however switch scouting destination with your drone, you will have a 2/3 chance of hitting him.
Now I know that most people will simply reject this statement, claiming it to be false, but rest assured that it is a proved scientific fact. This is known as the Monty Hall problem, and more elaborate explinations on why it is true is given in the wikipedia-article.
And lets face it, as a zerg player this is a very common situation be in, but usage of this strategy is very rarely seen, even in high level play. You might see the exact propsed scenario in this game between IdrA v LzGamer where at 1:56 he really should have switched scouting target for his drone. Yes, I do know that in this particular case he happened to actually scout correctly, and you will in 1/3 of the times that you don't change target, but this is statistically not the optimal strategy.
|
There are other considerations to take into account. For example, you'd want to scout the closest locations to you first in case of a possible cheese. This would be a much lesser concern if you spawned crossmap from your opponent due to the travel time.
|
Yeah bro, your math is flawed. You do not get a higher chance of switching targets. When your overlord is in another main and its empty, you have a 50/50 chance of finding the guy with your scouting drone. I don't care what Mr Monty hall said, and will remain unconvinced until you actually explain it in a logical way.
|
8751 Posts
I don't think your Overlord/Drone example is a true reconstruction of the Monty Hall problem. At least, the decisions of the Overlord and the game show host, as well as the decisions of the Drone and the contestant, are not analogous. It seems to me the disanalogy is significant but I'll just wait for a math/comp sci/stat person to weigh in...
|
I think you have misunderstood the problem and the logic that resides within it.
There is no guarantee that the overlord will find them or not. If it was always so that the overlord would not scout him, then Monty Hall would apply. The basis of the Monty Hall thing is that the show host (Overlord) always will chose not to open a door (Scout a base) since he knows what is behind the curtain (fog of war). That makes it more likely for the other door of the two left to be the right one. This is due to the fact that you have two chained possibility things, not one and your odds therefore increase.
Whereas in SC2, the Overlord is no Godly being able to know where bases reside, so your statement is false.
|
Isnt it the other way round? That when you send your Overlord you should switch it to another position when you scout with your Drone? Because its about the first choice (Overlord) being changed when you have better odds (Drone scouting empty position). But since Overlords are so slow anyway this is not useful at all.
|
I'm familiar with the Monty Hall problem and I believe this is a misapplication of it, since you will never consider sending your drone to the same base as your overlord. In addition, part of the time your overlord will see the base.
edit: beaten, think of it this way:
It would be the Monty Hall problem if, say, your overlord was always sent to a wrong base, but you didn't know which base it was sent to until after your drone scout is on the way.
|
This is a misinterpretation of the Monty Hall problem. Under your interpretation, if I understand it correctly, the Overlord would have to always reveal an incorrect base. Even then, I'm not sure if your example is strictly analogous.
|
United States2822 Posts
On April 20 2010 03:35 FortuneSyn wrote:
Yeah bro, your math is flawed. You do not get a higher chance of switching targets. When your overlord is in another main and its empty, you have a 50/50 chance of finding the guy with your scouting drone. I don't care what Mr Monty hall said, and will remain unconvinced until you actually explain it in a logical way.
Then you are wrong and misinformed. Monty Hall is a famous problem and it takes nothing more than a Google search for you to find any number of proofs on it.
|
flawed math FTL (misinterpretation of the Monty Hall problem)
always scout the closest bases to you first, and then look for cheese (if their base shows signs of it).
|
I don't think Monty Hall applies here.
I'll try to explain why not, apologies if I don't succeed 
In the original MH problem, the game show hosts is guaranteed to open a non-winning door, thereby making the door left unopened "suspicious".
However, the overlord isn't guaranteed to find an empty base.
The zerg scouting problem would be equivalent to the game show host always opening the same door.
|
On April 20 2010 03:26 Genesis128 wrote:Ok, to get things straight first. I am not claiming to be the first one to ever think of this and actually a quick search on this very forum for "Monty Hall" reveals that it has been discussed here several times (allthough some of the results might be due to the map Monty Hall), but the last time was over a year ago. I do believe that there are many people here who really haven't thought about this before, so I figured it was time to pay good old Monty Hall another visit. If you're all tired of this thing coming up again, please feel free to delete the thread. So here goes what I had actually planed to say. Consider this scenario, you are playing zerg and scouting with your overlord on a four-player map. After your tenth drone or so, you send out a drone just to make sure that you scout your opponent quickly. When the drone is halfway on his way to the enemy base, your overlord reaches his destination spawn location and reveals no enemy base. You now have the choice of continuing with your drone to the destination where it was headed, or you could switch and instead scout the other unknown location. Now most people (and in general common sense) tells us that it really doesn't matter since you have a 50/50 chance either way. This however is wrong. Statistically, it will always be beneficial to switch the drone scouting target! Basically this is due to the fact that initially, before knowing anything, you had a 1/3 chance of hitting your enemy with your scouting drone. This does not change after you have mis-scouted with your overlord. If you however switch scouting destination with your drone, you will have a 2/3 chance of hitting him. Now I know that most people will simply reject this statement, claiming it to be false, but rest assured that it is a proved scientific fact. This is known as the Monty Hall problem, and more elaborate explinations on why it is true is given in the wikipedia-article. And lets face it, as a zerg player this is a very common situation be in, but usage of this strategy is very rarely seen, even in high level play. You might see the exact propsed scenario in this game between IdrA v LzGamer where at 1:56 he really should have switched scouting target for his drone. Yes, I do know that in this particular case he happened to actually scout correctly, and you will in 1/3 of the times that you don't change target, but this is statistically not the optimal strategy.
Cute effort, but as the result of whether the overlord finds a base or not is indeed random (that is, sometimes the overlord would find a base), the monty hall problem does not apply in this case.
You can find verification of this in allknowing wikipedia, here:
This difference can be demonstrated by contrasting the original problem with a variation that appeared in vos Savant's column in November 2006. In this version, Monty Hall forgets which door hides the car. He opens one of the doors at random and is relieved when a goat is revealed. Asked whether the contestant should switch, vos Savant correctly replied, "If the host is clueless, it makes no difference whether you stay or switch. If he knows, switch" (vos Savant, 2006).
|
This is not analogous to the Monty Hall problem because the host of the game show knows what's behind the doors and always picks a wrong one. Your Overlord, on the other hand, has no prior knowledge.
edit: Beaten to the punch ^^
|
Well, this seems the same as Monty Hall problem.
The Drone has the same role as the player (right click on location 1 = select door 1).
The Overlord has the same role as the game show host (reveals empty location=opens empty door).
(empty door=door with goat behind it)
But there is one difference - the game host must open an empty door, but it isn't nessecery, that the overlord finds empty location.
Let's see another example.
We have 100 doors, not 3. And only 1 wins.
We choose a door and the host opens another 98 doors. So 2 doors are closed.
It's obvious, that the better choice is to switch the door. The probability is 50:50. But before it was 1/100. So the chance, the chosen door to be winning is 1/100.
In starcraft: Let's have 100 expansions (100 posible enemy locations) and 98 overlords
You send each overlord to every location, and later a drone to the 99th location.
The difference is, that the chance, that every overlord finds an empty place is very small (1/50)
But in this case, the chance, that the enemy is on each of 2 remainig locations is 50:50
I think, that IN THIS case switching will be better.
The difference with Monty Hall is, that THIS case will happen in 1/50 times.
|
8751 Posts
On April 20 2010 03:38 scintilliaSD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 03:35 FortuneSyn wrote:
Yeah bro, your math is flawed. You do not get a higher chance of switching targets. When your overlord is in another main and its empty, you have a 50/50 chance of finding the guy with your scouting drone. I don't care what Mr Monty hall said, and will remain unconvinced until you actually explain it in a logical way. Then you are wrong and misinformed. Monty Hall is a famous problem and it takes nothing more than a Google search for you to find any number of proofs on it.
He didn't say the Monty Hall problem has no merit to it. He just said the OP was mistaken.
|
Untrue. The key difference here is that the overlord scout is random. What makes the MH problem so counter intuitive is that the host always picks a goat, as others have said.
|
<edit> Wow a million people beat me to this.
|
On April 20 2010 03:35 FortuneSyn wrote:
Yeah bro, your math is flawed. You do not get a higher chance of switching targets. When your overlord is in another main and its empty, you have a 50/50 chance of finding the guy with your scouting drone. I don't care what Mr Monty hall said, and will remain unconvinced until you actually explain it in a logical way.
lol unless youre a stats major and have created an entire thesis disproving the monty hall problem, i'd say you need to do some more research.
But im going to bet that you arent a stat major, to which i say, the reason why the monty hall problem is famous is because it is so hard for people to understand, and is counter intuitive. Math > logic.
Look at gabriel's horn (an object with finite volume and infinite surface area), or consider the worm on the rubber band (an application of the harmonic series divergence).
Nonetheless, this isnt an application of the monty hall problem, there is no 'game show host'
Either way, sometimes its more beneficial to make sure theyre not close positions with you. Consider this; 12 hatch in ZvT, and the opponent is bunker rushing. It is more beneficial to find this out if they are close positions, because even if you scout both close positions and do not find anything, you still have a better chance of defending the bunker rush overall.
|
Yea so the reason why the monty hall problem works is that the game show host HAS to show you a wrong choice.
so if you picked the right door, there are two wrong doors left and he can pick either one of them.
But if you picked the wrong door, he HAS to pick the other wrong door, leaving the right door left.
so the reason why the problem is somewhat misleading is that not everything is random, namely the game show host's door he shows you is not random.
so in the first scenario of picking the right door first(which happens 1/3 of the time) switching will make you lose and not switching will make you win.
in the second scenario of picking the wrong door first(which happens 2/3 of the time) switching will make you win and not switching will make you lose.
now as for how much that helps with the drone scouting scenario im not sure whether the same scenarios work. my intuition is that the probability does not work out the same way because the overlord is sent to a "door" or base before you make your drone decision. that means when you make your drone decision you are only really picking between two "doors", namely those that were not scouted by the ovie.
then again i might be completely wrong(not about the monty hall problem, about the drone ovie scenario)
|
While this indeed seems to be a flawed analogy I still appreciate it. Applying fairly abstract maths to something practical always is nice and even realizing that drone scouting is at least similar to the Monty Hall problem is not something everyone would do.
|
i will make it easy: monty hall doesnt apply because you never had to choose to scout the overlord destination with the drone
|
On April 20 2010 03:48 Koltz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 03:35 FortuneSyn wrote:
Yeah bro, your math is flawed. You do not get a higher chance of switching targets. When your overlord is in another main and its empty, you have a 50/50 chance of finding the guy with your scouting drone. I don't care what Mr Monty hall said, and will remain unconvinced until you actually explain it in a logical way. lol unless youre a stats major and have created an entire thesis disproving the monty hall problem, i'd say you need to do some more research. But im going to bet that you arent a stat major, to which i say, the reason why the monty hall problem is famous is because it is so hard for people to understand, and is counter intuitive. Math > logic. Look at gabriel's horn (an object with finite volume and infinite surface area), or consider the worm on the rubber band (an application of the harmonic series divergence). Nonetheless, this isnt an application of the monty hall problem, there is no 'game show host' Either way, sometimes its more beneficial to make sure theyre not close positions with you. Consider this; 12 hatch in ZvT, and the opponent is bunker rushing. It is more beneficial to find this out if they are close positions, because even if you scout both close positions and do not find anything, you still have a better chance of defending the bunker rush overall.
LOL NINJA EDIT. This post used to say that MH did have application on maps like gaia, and now it says the opposite. Classy, i must say.
|
This is a misapplication of the Monty Hall problem.
|
OK, after some thinking, then yes (most of you) are right. The Monthy Hall analogy does not completely hold since the initial overlord-scouting it random and will not always miss the enemy base as is required by the MH-problem.
So this needs some tweakin then. However I actually do believe that this does not really falsify my claim. If you initially scout right with your overlord, then you just retreat your scout since you've already succesfully scouted. If you mis-scout then you are in the MH-case since the overlord obviously didn't scout right. Basically this means that you are only forced to make the decision of continuing/switching in the case where the overlord indeed does not hit right, giving the overlord the power of the game host in the MH-problem
Now I realize that this is the MH-problem with a twist, so I can no longer link the proof to an article, but do believe that it actually still will hold.
|
LOL very nice application of the monty hall theorem. Unfortunately things like distance and positioning I feel voids any sort of utility of this principle.
|
On April 20 2010 03:51 m3rciless wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 03:48 Koltz wrote:On April 20 2010 03:35 FortuneSyn wrote:
Yeah bro, your math is flawed. You do not get a higher chance of switching targets. When your overlord is in another main and its empty, you have a 50/50 chance of finding the guy with your scouting drone. I don't care what Mr Monty hall said, and will remain unconvinced until you actually explain it in a logical way. lol unless youre a stats major and have created an entire thesis disproving the monty hall problem, i'd say you need to do some more research. But im going to bet that you arent a stat major, to which i say, the reason why the monty hall problem is famous is because it is so hard for people to understand, and is counter intuitive. Math > logic. Look at gabriel's horn (an object with finite volume and infinite surface area), or consider the worm on the rubber band (an application of the harmonic series divergence). Nonetheless, this isnt an application of the monty hall problem, there is no 'game show host' Either way, sometimes its more beneficial to make sure theyre not close positions with you. Consider this; 12 hatch in ZvT, and the opponent is bunker rushing. It is more beneficial to find this out if they are close positions, because even if you scout both close positions and do not find anything, you still have a better chance of defending the bunker rush overall. LOL NINJA EDIT. This post used to say that MH did have application on maps like gaia, and now it says the opposite. Classy, i must say.
it has applications, i just didn't wanna get into an argument about it :p
i realized it would be a mistake to bring mathematical analysis here
|
Well, I'm really bad at both math and probability theory, but I have one question about this. I know that, even if it's confusing, the Monty Hall problem is proven to be correct (switching is the correct action), but one of the prerequisites for this to be true is that the elimination of one of the options, "doors" in the original problem, is not made at random.
In the original problem the game host removes a "miss" door, because he knows which door is correct, but in the perspective of scouting, the overlord is also sent at random, so I'm not sure if this act in the same way as in the Monty Hall problem by having none random elimination of one of the options?
Probably it's the same thing and the Monty Hall problem ablies, but i just wanted a clarification 
And of course, for this to be interesting at all the scouting locations have to be equal in distance and tactical value, right?
And sorry, I'm not that good at English and it really shows when I'm supposed to to discuss something a little more complicated
----------
Edit: Wow, I'm a slow typer Never mind. *reading thread instead*
|
Youre still wrong Genesis. The whole point is that the overlord always has to miss for this to work. If it is random, then normal logic applies. Monty Hall isnt a completely world changing, mindploding thing, it is more of a mindfuck, since it is hard for people to spot where the "magic" happens. In this case there is no magic = no point in switching.
|
On April 20 2010 03:52 Genesis128 wrote:
OK, after some thinking, then yes (most of you) are right. The Monthy Hall analogy does not completely hold since the initial overlord-scouting it random and will not always miss the enemy base as is required by the MH-problem.
So this needs some tweakin then. However I actually do believe that this does not really falsify my claim. If you initially scout right with your overlord, then you just retreat your scout since you've already succesfully scouted. If you mis-scout then you are in the MH-case since the overlord obviously didn't scout right. Basically this means that you are only forced to make the decision of continuing/switching in the case where the overlord indeed does not hit right, giving the overlord the power of the game host in the MH-problem
Now I realize that this is the MH-problem with a twist, so I can no longer link the proof to an article, but do believe that it actually still will hold.
actually ilnp made a post that disproves this
Cute effort, but as the result of whether the overlord finds a base or not is indeed random (that is, sometimes the overlord would find a base), the monty hall problem does not apply in this case.
You can find verification of this in allknowing wikipedia, here:
This difference can be demonstrated by contrasting the original problem with a variation that appeared in vos Savant's column in November 2006. In this version, Monty Hall forgets which door hides the car. He opens one of the doors at random and is relieved when a goat is revealed. Asked whether the contestant should switch, vos Savant correctly replied, "If the host is clueless, it makes no difference whether you stay or switch. If he knows, switch" (vos Savant, 2006).
|
Let's assume this is a 4-player map with spawns at top, right, left, and bottom. You spawn at the top (without loss of generality).
You choose randomly where to send your overlord, then choose randomly where to send your drone (these are not actually the case, but they work out).
1/6 of the time you send your overlord left and your drone right
1/6 of the time you send your overlord left and your drone bottom etc.
I'll call the six cases LR, LB, etc. with the overlord position first. All six are equally likely. Let's assume you pick L for your overlord.
1/3 your opponent is at L; LR and LB both send your drone to the wrong place.
1/3 your opponent is at R; LB is wrong but LR is correct.
1/3 your opponent is at B; LR is wrong but LB is correct.
These are all equally likely.
For Monty Hall:
You choose a door. Let's say you choose L. There is a correct door, chosen at random from LRC.
1/3 the correct choice is L. 1/6 the host opens C, 1/6 the host opens R.
1/3 the correct choice is C. 1/3 the host opens R.
1/3 the correct choice is R. 1/3 the host opens C.
As you can see, there are only four possibilities instead of the six we have in the scouting problem, so the analogy fails.
|
On April 20 2010 03:52 Genesis128 wrote:
So this needs some tweakin then. However I actually do believe that this does not really falsify my claim. If you initially scout right with your overlord, then you just retreat your scout since you've already succesfully scouted. If you mis-scout then you are in the MH-case since the overlord obviously didn't scout right. Basically this means that you are only forced to make the decision of continuing/switching in the case where the overlord indeed does not hit right, giving the overlord the power of the game host in the MH-problem
Now I realize that this is the MH-problem with a twist, so I can no longer link the proof to an article, but do believe that it actually still will hold.
Still doesn't work, and isn't the MH-case.
|
On April 20 2010 03:52 Genesis128 wrote:
OK, after some thinking, then yes (most of you) are right. The Monthy Hall analogy does not completely hold since the initial overlord-scouting it random and will not always miss the enemy base as is required by the MH-problem.
So this needs some tweakin then. However I actually do believe that this does not really falsify my claim. If you initially scout right with your overlord, then you just retreat your scout since you've already succesfully scouted. If you mis-scout then you are in the MH-case since the overlord obviously didn't scout right. Basically this means that you are only forced to make the decision of continuing/switching in the case where the overlord indeed does not hit right, giving the overlord the power of the game host in the MH-problem
Now I realize that this is the MH-problem with a twist, so I can no longer link the proof to an article, but do believe that it actually still will hold.
No. It does fully falsify your claim. In order for Monty Hall to work, you need to not be informed if you've made the right choice or not until after you've made the decision to switch paths or not. Because you instantly know the if the base you've scouted with your overlord is right or not, there's no tension with the information. Furthermore, if you're sending out the drone before your overlord arrives, you have a 2/3 shot of being right with one of them anyway.
To address your title and not the OP, the most efficient drone/overlord scouting is to send the overlord to the "close" position (Verticals on Kulas Ravine, northwest/southest on LT) and a drone to either of the "far" positions, and if both are wrong sending whichever is closer (depending on the map) to the last remaining spot.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
While faulty, I still appreciate the thought that went into this thread, cheers.
|
This difference can be demonstrated by contrasting the original problem with a variation that appeared in vos Savant's column in November 2006. In this version, Monty Hall forgets which door hides the car. He opens one of the doors at random and is relieved when a goat is revealed. Asked whether the contestant should switch, vos Savant correctly replied, "If the host is clueless, it makes no difference whether you stay or switch. If he knows, switch" (vos Savant, 2006).
This needs to be requoted for emphasis.
|
This situation is actually slightly different from Monty Hall in that the Monty Hall host will always reveal one wrong answer. The overlord however reveals one position which might or might not be your opponents position. Switching the drone does nothing to increase your chances.
Just imagine what the consequence would be if switching actually increased your chances of finding your opponent: if that were the case, then it would be advantageous to just switch to the other position right away as this would increase your chances if you find nothing with your overlord and wouldn't matter at all if you did actually find your opponent. However, using that same logic you could justify switching back to your original scouting plan, and so on, ad infinitum.
Edit: wow, I really should learn to post faster^^
|
in the monty hall problem, if the TV host doesn't know which door the goat is behind, then the probability is 50/50. same case here.
|
monty hall problem: you have 3! locations to send the drone
zerg scouting problem: you know 1 is revealed anyway (overlord) so you have only 2 locations
your initial chance to scout correct with the drone in a true monty hall scenario would be 1/3, and increase to 1/2 because 1 of your options just disappeared..
in the scouting problem the option that disappeared didnt exist to begin with
|
On April 20 2010 03:58 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
While faulty, I still appreciate the thought that went into this thread, cheers.
this.
i totally dig the monty hall problem. especially because it took me awhile to understand it(probably because the people who explained it to me didnt understand it themselves or were just bad at explaining)
i love these counterintuitive things. like .9 repeating is the same as 1
|
EX: Overlord sees an empty base. Drone is more than halfway to the first base. Why change paths now?
At the point your overlord reaches its first base, you can still use the monte python analogy, but you also need to factor in expected distance to travel to enemy base.
Assume base A is the base your drone was originally going for.
"don't change paths"
E(distance to travel before scouting enemy) = [P(enemy = base A) x distance left to A] + [P(enemy = base B) x (distance left to A + distance from A to B)]
"change paths"
E(distance to travel before scouting enemy) = [P(enemy = base B) x distance to change paths from current drone scout position to base B] + [P(enemy = base A) x (distance to change paths from current drone scout position to base B + distance from B to A)]
This would all come down to when you actually sent your drone scout out. You can, however, still plug in monte python values in for the probabilities.
|
So for example, in sc1, if python was the map, and you spawned at 12, you sent your overlord to 3, and your drone to 9. The drone is halfway to 9 when the overlord reveals no base at 3, so you say don't bother scouting 9, just go scout 6....this is illogical and mathematically incorrect, you have a 50% chance of finding the opponent at either 9 or 6, and 6 is further away.
|
I think a better problem to analyze would be one where your scout (of any race) sees their scout in a particular position, or their scout enters your base when your scout has only seen 1 base. That kind of scenario probably still does not truly fit a monty hall model, but I'm sure there is math that can prove something of value.
I'm now going to spend the rest of the day analyzing this with my friend who's a math major because we're total geeks. -_-
|
There's also the issue of defining what a "win" in this case is. Is it to find out where your opponent is, or is it to actual scout his opening and tech? If it is simply to find out where your opponent is, switching does not in fact help in any way. If it is to physically scout his opening, then this problem is slightly more relevant, but even then, it's still wrong as has been said many times before.
|
no you should not switch. For example if you switched to main where your overlord already scouts you scouted double = waste scout.
|
On April 20 2010 03:57 ComradeDover wrote:
To address your title and not the OP, the most efficient drone/overlord scouting is to send the overlord to the "close" position (Verticals on Kulas Ravine, northwest/southest on LT) and a drone to either of the "far" positions, and if both are wrong sending whichever is closer (depending on the map) to the last remaining spot.
I'm not so sure this is so simple. The answer most likely depends on several factors, including drone travel time to each base; overlord travel time to each base; the timing at which you want to know something; the timing at which you're willing to send a drone; how much risk you're willing to take; and the timing at which you want to scout the opponent's natural, if any.
I can see situations where, with the closest position by ground also being the closest position by air, you want to send your drone to the closest position and your overlord to the second-closest. This lets you scout both positions slightly earlier than doing it the other way, though it may mean that you scout the single closest position later or that you scout the last position later.
|
As people pointed out, while not correct in this case, this was still a cool little thing. To be honest this topic ended up teaching more more than my 3 classes did today.
|
You know what, I think I'll make a post about how the OP does not describe the Monthy hall problem because the outcome of the..ohh wait. Nevermind.
*You'd think people would notice the 20+ identical posts above them before posting a mathematical thesis*
|
If someone can verify this that'd be great, but I believe that I have proved something many people probably would not expect:
In any XvZ matchup, zerg sends out a scouting overlord. Given that you know he's one of 3 bases on a 4 player map, there are 6 possible scouting vectors. Only 2 of them end up with a lord at your base. Therefore, if you do not see a lord, there are 4 possibilities. 2 of those are that your opponent is across from you and scouted to the side. Therefore, 2/4 times or 50%, your opponent is cross spots.
You may now applaud.
|
Calgary25990 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
