Sure it may be "Free to Play" but...

[DeletedUser6368]

When you get to Faries at some point you need Diamonds to produce Ambrosia from the Day Farm and Night Essence from the night farm so you can finish a part of the chapter.

at that point it is not free anymore why bother playing if it is not totally free doing those chapter parts, FUDDLE DUDDLE!! INNO!!

 

[SoggyShorts]

Nope, still free.
It's letting you use diamonds to skip making the other ingredients to make ambrosia, but if you make those, you don't need diamonds.

 

[DeletedUser6368]

Nope, still free.
It's letting you use diamonds to skip making the other ingredients to make ambrosia, but if you make those, you don't need diamonds.

Look at my screenshot http://prntscr.com/h75rpc

 

[SoggyShorts]

Look at your own screenshot again:

You always get the diamond OPTION if you are lacking materials

 

[DeletedUser7370]

I guess this is a good a place as any. @SoggyShorts @Ashrem the Monty Hall problem is not fully satisfied for me. I have reviewed all the math and I think I understand where the disconnect is.

I will present for you the alternate offer. You have 1433 doors. You pick X. Monty displays goats in 1431 doors.

To proceed further you must pick. Do you pick door X or door Y?

As you should see the situation is a 50/50. The best way I can support this is to say, "the house always wins." Having a situation where a player can routinely have an advantage counters that aim: "the house always wins." If it was true that switching had a benefit then people would have caught on in the 30 or so years that the show, "Let's Make a Deal," was active and the consistent loss trend would have destroyed sponsorship. That didn't happen. There was no consistent loss trend.

The math results in a 50/50 split; leaving Monty to play a psychology game in those cases when the player picked the winning door first. The idea that the math supports having a 66% player win rate by 'switching' would be anathema to any financial supporter. Financial support of that show continued for many years, and the play of that show continued for many years.

Logically such an advantage could not exist for the players and the game continue.

 

[DeletedUser5800]

I guess this is a good a place as any. @SoggyShorts @Ashrem the Monty Hall problem is not fully satisfied for me.

Funniest thing I've seen today.

 

[DeletedUser7370]

Funniest thing I've seen today.

I got bored and wanted to argue math again. This topic is also already answered so it can tick some one else off by being completely derailed.

 

[DeletedUser5800]

I got bored and wanted to argue math again.

So 33.333% on each door (value), you pick one so you now own a door worth 33.333%, one gets trashed that was also worth 33.333% and that value can't be added to your door so the remaining door becomes worth 66.666%. You now have to pick from your 33.333% door and the 66.666% door. You should switch!

This debate that has been going on for years is why enough people never caught on to break the show... because in that moment most people abandon logic (if they had it to begin with) and go with their gut. Psychologically you always feel like the thing you have is the safer bet because you already have a sense of it being yours that you have, so more people actually kept the door against logic and the show went on.

 

[DeletedUser7370]

This debate that has been going on for years is why enough people never caught on to break the show...

And that is the proof right there. The idea that it is a 33/66 system was published very early and the show kept going on for decades thereafter. The house always wins. Please tell me how that can exist in a system stacked against the house?

 

[DeletedUser5800]

Please tell me how that can exist in a system stacked against the house?

Psychologically you always feel like the thing you have is the safer bet because you already have a sense of it being yours that you have, so more people actually kept the door against logic and the show went on.

Because it wasn't about probability, it was about psychology. If you subtract the people that would NEVER BELIEVE probability and the people that had never heard of it and the people that abandoned it in that moment, you are left with very few people whom made the logical choice. If it were only androids, they would have broken the show, but people cling to their own sense of being right the first time even in moments of doubt as well as the sense of ownership of the door they already posses. All psychological nonsense that has nothing to do with probability other than the probability that people would stick with the wrong door working in the shows favor.

 

[SoggyShorts]

And that is the proof right there. The idea that it is a 33/66 system was published very early and the show kept going on for decades thereafter. The house always wins. Please tell me how that can exist in a system stacked against the house?

Actually on a game show the house always losses since the contestants don't pay to play. Let's make a deal didn't need to "beat" the player, in fact when players win the car the audience likes it, and that is good for ratings (which I suppose is how the house wins in this case)

 

[DeletedUser7370]

Actually on a game show the house always losses since the contestants don't pay to play. Let's make a deal didn't need to "beat" the player, in fact when players win the car the audience likes it, and that is good for ratings (which I suppose is how the house wins in this case)

Check the win rates for ever game show. The house always wins.

 

[DeletedUser5800]

@TedGrau I present you with this data point! Psychology vs. Logic

 

[Pheryll]

Ted, as Soggy mentioned, the win percentage for the contestant does not necessarily have to be a certain number (like 50-50). The "sponsors" are giving away an item. If the item is not given away then they suffer no loss and get free advertising. If the item is given away, then the item is paying for the advertising. How much the sponsor wishes to pay for advertising is based around the odds of the item being given away. If the odds are 50-50 then the sponsor could donate 33% more than if the odds were 66% to 33% and have the same cost basis for advertising.

 

[Xelenia]

Thread closed, OP question already answered.

~Xelenia