First, the problem statement:
Of course, Steiner's logic quickly develops some inaccuracies, which can be easily proven with Math (TM) or by the fact that Samoa Joe ultimately won the match. But the part this entirely serious post shall concern itself with is the following assertion:
You add Kurt Angle to the mix? Your chances of winning drastically go down. See, in a three-way at Sacrifice, you got a 33 1/3% chance of winning. But I -- I got a 66 2/3% chance of winning, because Kurt Angle knows he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try.
Immediately, we see some superficial similarities to the famous Monty Hall Problem:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
The solution to this is that in this scenario, as stated, switching doors gives you a 66 2/3% chance of winning, not a 50% chance as one might initially expect.
Now, our not at all shitposty mathematical question: Is Scott Steiner adding Kurt Angle to the mix analogous to the Monty Hall problem, if Kurt Angle is not even gonna try? If so, how must he do this?
