alt Hacker NewsPerhaps there's another formulation you meant to write, but every time I've seen it, it's been equivalent to the thing you just asked, and the only potentially ambiguous part of the question is "to your advantage". If you stay then you have a 1/3 chance of getting a car, and if you switch you have a 2/3 chance.
Yes, it's also correct that you don't "know" the result, and you might prefer goats to cars (even then you should probably sell the car and buy several goats), but there's a reasonable enough interpretation of "advantage" that you shouldn't dismiss the problem outright.
I regret opening this can of worms called Monty Hall.
But anyway I'll link the relevant section from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_...
> The version of the Monty Hall problem published in Parade in 1990 did not specifically state that the host would always open another door, or always offer a choice to switch, or even never open the door revealing the car. However, Savant made it clear in her second follow-up column that the intended host's behavior could only be what led to the 2/3 probability she gave as her original answer. (emphasis mine)
My point was that when people ask this question, they often word it like the very 1990 version did, lefting out this critical statement (which Savant considered needed as well, therefore she clarified in the follow-up column), making the question ambiguous.
(Although Savant also said "Very few (out of people who said is 2/3 is wrong) raised questions about ambiguity"... so perhaps people are actually just bad at probablity...?)