Theyreallrubbish

I fully understand the OPs position. I was in it myself. The attractions of promiscuity in Thailand are as high as they are because its so easy to be promiscuous. It may be possible to be promiscuous in the West, but it takes a great deal more effort than it does here.

So in the West being in a regular relationship is easier than going out and doing the song and dance routine to pick up new women every night.

In Thailand, you can turn up at any disco, be grumpy and still go home with a cute girl, even without paying.

So the balance of effort is changed. To maintain a relationship you need to make an effort, you need to start compromising, changing what you do to please the other person, put up with their mood swings, start thinking of them rather than yourself all the time, etc. In the West that's not so bad as its still less effort than picking up women regularly entails, but in Thailand picking up women is effortless and so work/benefit equation has a shifted balance to make promiscuity more of an attractive option for longer.

The worry for the OP and for myself at the time this was happening was whether we'd ever be willing or even able to start to make the compromises and effort necessary to maintain a relationship or if we'd become too "spoiled" and "lazy" and were now incapable of maintaining a relationship.

The only thing I can say to the OP is that at some point you meet someone for whom it doesn't feel like an effort to do things for their benefit rather than your own and the relationship is one where it feels like the benefit to work equation pays off to make it better to stay with her than to be promiscuous.

Getting older also increases the effort required to remain promiscuous even in Thailand so at some point a relationship starts seeming like a better deal even if 5-10 years earlier you wouldn't have made that trade.

Its quite ironic that you sneer at the education of others when you're unaware that I've been describing a very famous mathematical problem known as "The Monty Hall Problem"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

That only works if the host knows whats behind ALL the doors and HAS to choose a door to reveal that doesn't contain the prize AND that the contestant knows he has to do that as part of the game, neither of which were pointed out in your initial post and are what underpins that entire 'mathematical problem'.

You are changing the probability because the host HAS to take away one of the losing doors.

Actually the hosts knowledge is not part of the actual problem. I said assuming its not the prize. If it is the prize you scrap the game and start again.

The host's knowledge is an entire different issue which is why the Monty Hall Problem is used as an illustration in gaming theory and taught as part of corporate strategy as an example of how to use assymetry of information to gain information.

But the mathematical problem as originally posed doesn't require host knowledge to still illustrate the mathematical principle, and your own replies illustrate very clearly what wikipedia describes as "a veridical paradox in the sense that the solution is counterintuitive."

I didn't know about veridical paradox so I've learned something new today as well

Just asked a university educated Thai and got the exact same answer. 4*12*10= 480 weeks

Amazing

Since it's 1/3 that you have picked the right door from the start, but 2/3 you have picked the wrong one...

Maths is obviously not the strong point of a lot of people here, by making another choice you have also only a 1/3 chance of picking the right one and 2/3 of picking the wrong one.

Any door has a 1/3 chance of being the 'correct door' at all times before any of the doors are opened, you are just swapping a 1/3 for a 1/3.

The reason this wasn't caught is because its not obvious with only 3 doors. But assume there are 100 doors. You pick a door. The host then opens 98 other doors. Do you stick with your original door or do you switch to the other door?

It wouldn't matter, you would then have a 1 in 2 chance with either door, the original door is no longer a 1 in 100 chance, as you have taken 98 doors out of the equation. Its now a 1 in 2 chance, identical to the other unopened door, regardless of what its probability was before.

This is really simple probability, I'm surprised that anyone would think that the other unopened door would have any more chance.

In your 100 door example when the first of the 98 doors is opened and is not the grand prize then the probability that your or any other door is the grand prize drops from 1 in 100 to 1 in 99, then as another door is opened 1 in 98, etc... until only two doors are left with a 1 in 2 chance.

Ok. I'll spell it out.

Think of the doors as two sets. The first set is the door you choose. When you choose your first door it has a 1 in 100 chance of having the prize behind it. Which means the other set has a 99/100 chance of having the prize behind one of its doors. Open 98 of the 99 doors in the second set and that one remaining door still has a 99/100 chance of having a prize behind it while your door still has a 1 in 100 chance of having a prize behind it.

Do you see now why you should always switch?

Its the same with 3 doors except you change your odds from 1/3 to 2/3.

Its funny that this thread started about the poor level of education in Thailand and has actually gone onto highlight it elsewhere.

As soon as any door is opened, the odds of any of the remaining doors having the prize behind it changes (the odds have changed). Its really very simple....

100 doors, prize behind one door, contestand chooses a door, his door therefore has a 1 in 100 chance of holding the prize...

10 doors are opened and no prize, EVERY door now has a 1 in 90 chance of holding the prize...

50 doors are opened and no prize, EVERY door now has a 1 in 50 chance of holding the prize...

90 doors are opened and no prize, EVERY door now has a 1 in 10 chance of holding the prize...

98 doors are opened and no prize, leaving just your initially chosen door and one other door, both doors have a 1 in 2 chance of holding the prize.

Its scary that anyone can argue otherwise, would your mind explode if there were two contestants choosing two different doors out of the 100, and 98 opened with no prize? Should they both swap to maximise their chances

Its quite ironic that you sneer at the education of others when you're unaware that I've been describing a very famous mathematical problem known as "The Monty Hall Problem"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Since it's 1/3 that you have picked the right door from the start, but 2/3 you have picked the wrong one...

Maths is obviously not the strong point of a lot of people here, by making another choice you have also only a 1/3 chance of picking the right one and 2/3 of picking the wrong one.

Any door has a 1/3 chance of being the 'correct door' at all times before any of the doors are opened, you are just swapping a 1/3 for a 1/3.

The reason this wasn't caught is because its not obvious with only 3 doors. But assume there are 100 doors. You pick a door. The host then opens 98 other doors. Do you stick with your original door or do you switch to the other door?

It wouldn't matter, you would then have a 1 in 2 chance with either door, the original door is no longer a 1 in 100 chance, as you have taken 98 doors out of the equation. Its now a 1 in 2 chance, identical to the other unopened door, regardless of what its probability was before.

This is really simple probability, I'm surprised that anyone would think that the other unopened door would have any more chance.

In your 100 door example when the first of the 98 doors is opened and is not the grand prize then the probability that your or any other door is the grand prize drops from 1 in 100 to 1 in 99, then as another door is opened 1 in 98, etc... until only two doors are left with a 1 in 2 chance.

Ok. I'll spell it out.

Think of the doors as two sets. The first set is the door you choose. When you choose your first door it has a 1 in 100 chance of having the prize behind it. Which means the other set has a 99/100 chance of having the prize behind one of its doors. Open 98 of the 99 doors in the second set and that one remaining door still has a 99/100 chance of having a prize behind it while your door still has a 1 in 100 chance of having a prize behind it.

Do you see now why you should always switch?

Its the same with 3 doors except you change your odds from 1/3 to 2/3.

Since it's 1/3 that you have picked the right door from the start, but 2/3 you have picked the wrong one...

Maths is obviously not the strong point of a lot of people here, by making another choice you have also only a 1/3 chance of picking the right one and 2/3 of picking the wrong one.

Any door has a 1/3 chance of being the 'correct door' at all times before any of the doors are opened, you are just swapping a 1/3 for a 1/3.

The reason this wasn't caught is because its not obvious with only 3 doors. But assume there are 100 doors. You pick a door. The host then opens 98 other doors. Do you stick with your original door or do you switch to the other door?

Its not quite as extreme an example but there was a game show that ran in the US for several decades where the final was the contestant had to pick one of three doors. Behind two of the doors was a booby prize, behind was the grand prize.

After they chose their door one of the other two doors was opened, assuming it was the booby prize, the had the choice to switch their original choice or stay with the same door.

The answer mathematically and very clearly is always to switch. However, this game show ran for decades before people realised the strategy is ALWAYS to switch.

What I was planning to do was get Travellers checks in sterling from the HSBC office in Bangkok then change them at booths exactly as if I was a tourist.

I'm an HSBC Premier customer so get travellers checks for free. The reason is that on the £100 checks the fees for changing at the booth are less than the amount I lose due to the lower exchange rate I'm given withdrawing from an ATM. (Although no fees at the ATM, just an exchange rate about 4 Baht lower)

No problem with getting enough checks to last a month as if they're lost, they're travellers checks and I get the money back.

I have to say that I relished the lack of rules when I first came here in the early 90s. I drove like I was in a race, drove drunk, and generally drove like a lunatic everywhere all the time.

Thailand was a sheer joy in having no enforced rules and an expectation of crazy driving by other road occupants. The freedom to drive like I was in a video game was intoxicating.

Having grown a little older I've settled down somewhat.

I know I was stupid, selfish and irresponsible. All I can say in my defence is that I've never had an accident.

I am new to the city. I am currently looking for a place to live in. I have found a nice condo called "Tridhos city marina" its located on the west side of the Chao Praya river near the Marriot resort in an area called Samrae Thonburi. Want to get some opinions about this area in general, expat life in this area, international schools nearby and if anybody here is familiar with this condo? Tridhos city marina has a nice private marina and its just on the river and the air seemed to be cleaner then other areas of the city. I really don't know how is it to live in this region and experience the city life because its relatively far from the expat city center. any opinions?

About 11 years ago I had a GF who lived in one of the units. Nice building. Nice rooms. Large. Good service. Lots of Thai aristocracy owned units because of who the developer was.

But the traffic to get there, and especially going over the Bridge was a nightmare. We mostly lived in my place near Sukhumvit simply because it was easier for both of us traffic wise, even though it wasn't as nice.

Its an old building so how its been maintained is obviously an issue as to how nice it is today.

The new bridge may have made the traffic better. I don't know I haven't crossed since then due to the repeated trauma of doing it repeatedly at that time.