Patrick Veitch

Nott is the wrong interviewer for him to give much away either. Doesn't press the guest much as wants to be pally with them

The best explanation of the Monty Hall problem I've seen (even more extensive than the one I posted what seems like decades ago).

Sad to say to baffling for me cars goats front doors and gameshows.

hope you  enjoy it.

Regards

Ronnie.

I struggled through his book a few years ago. The first part covering going into hiding to evade the criminal he later testified against was a good read. The later part was basically a journal listing the exponential winnings building up, lost me and seemed like many other racing books I read in the 70/80's. In particular the suggestion that picking winners involved staying up night after night but the journal indicated a lot of the big bets were on unraced 2yo's.

The first part of the interview was good though. Hopefully it might be insightful as the parts progress. Thanks for the heads up.

Speaking of books from 70's and 80's it would have been good to have heard interviews with Stewart Simpson  but he just seemed to disappear of the face of the earth.

So far (only part one, obviously) it reminds me of the Terry Ramsden interview in this series, insofar as the interviewee has decided in advance what he wants to say and Simon Nott is just there to aim the camera.

Watched first 10 mins, did the guy pick the car or the goat?

That's correct as far as the Terry Ramsden video went, I wrote three pages of questions and wasn't allowed to ask any of them, Terry's way or the highway, but I think he's going to tell his story on a much bigger platform, we decided it would be great to hear his stories anyway, I enjoyed talking to him. Apart from actually saying how he picks his winners, which is understandable, Patrick is quite candid as the interview progresses. I suppose I do want to get 'pally' with my interviewees as Flemenstar says. The #BettingPeople series was never designed to be confrontational, it's a positive thing with people I/we respect - I don't have the ability or desire to be Paxman. I do appreciate you guys taking the time to watch and discuss the videos, I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.

Appreciate your response, Simon.

I really like the interview series and I do see Veitch trying to offer useful info.

You did not secure an interview with Barney Curley, did you? I suppose the Branson figure is Terry Ramsden.

To me, the gambler head and shoulders above the others is Andrew Black. After all, we're all posting on his platform. Please get his story.

I am more interested in why someone would chose the username 'wingerwanger' then only post 7 times in 15 years!

Simon, if you can get Nick Mordin on I will personally give you 100 quid.

Veitch's point on the Monty Hall (3 doors) problem that most people miss is that the answer depends crucially on what the host already knows before he opens the empty door (and his motivation). He widens that out into betting (tbh the analogy does not really fit but you can see what he is saying).

Different Gravy - I have no idea about ‘Winger Wanger’ ha ha what was I thinking. I’m baffled too. I suppose I have wasted too much time on twitter so neglected this forum.

Part 2 well worth a watch.
have a good day
regards

Ronnie.

When I first heard of the Monty Hall problem way back in 1986, it was presented that the host always knew what was behind each door and would thus always leave the prize behind one of the two remaining doors. But the contestant did not know that. (Be no good as a game show if the prize was removed beforehand! If the prize was removed, who would care what door of the remaining two was chosen?)

Hence, I cannot see how Veitch is now presenting this problem? He seems to be saying that the odds about choosing the right door for the prize are influenced by the host. So, comparing this to racing, is he saying that a punter is at a disadvantage because he/she would generally not know what the trainer or owner might know about the horse's fitness and well being? In other words, the trainer is the host and the punter the contestant?

I will listen to the interview again tonight after returning from Notts but my immediate feeling is that Veitch is trying to be a bit too clever in using the Monty Hall problem. It was originally presented to me as a logic issue and not a betting one - although odds were used to try to prove the solution.

There's an explanation at https://brilliant.org/wiki/monty-hall-problem/ . If you stick to the bit under "Possible outcomes" it is straightforward to see how the 2/3 1/3 rather than 50/50 comes in . Well done if you can follow the Bayes Theorem bit.
As it says further down that relies on the fact that Monty was always guaranteed to open a door with a goat behind it, regardless of what door you picked initially.
If Monty randomly opened a door we did not pick and it contained a goat. What is the probability that our first pick is correct, regardless of which specific door we picked? The answer turns out to be 50/50

No, it is not obvious. When this first did the rounds, Americans tended to say 2/3 vs 1/3 and Britons said 50/50 because the Americans were familiar with the programme and Brits were going off the information in the question. This is because they made different assumptions about the host's knowledge.

Where Veitch goes further is in suggesting that even if the host does know, maybe there are various reasons he might be playing silly beggars on any particular occasion.

And then he relates it back to racing. Listen to the interview. If you can't spare 10 minutes, listen at double speed.

when I say cash I mean no need for a mortgage

It's only relevant if subsequently the host sometimes chooses not to open a door, but in the game show they always opened a door

Absolutely brilliant. Top man. Uber intelligent. Young punters can learn loads from.him

On silly beggars, watch the interview. On the question of the host's knowledge, look at what @Manoleeds wrote earlier or work out the maths from the two different assumptions on the host's knowledge. If you just dogmatically say that one or other answer is right then you are making an assumption that is not included in the problem as classically stated.

Or just forget it because it is only a small part of what Veitch talks about.