[benchaney]

The best probability estimate you can make is constrained by the information you have available. The new person showing up has less information than the existing constant, so it makes sense that their best estimate would be less precise. Similarly, if someone with x-ray vision walked up in the middle of the game, they could pick the car 100% of the time, because they have access to more information than either of the existing contestants.

Your last paragraph isn't correct though, By switching you go from a 1/3 probability to a 2/3 probability. Based on the information the original contestant has, switching gets the car 2/3 of the time.

[bigstrat2003]

I don't see how a new contestant has less information, though? They know that one of the two doors contains the prize, which is all the previous contestant knows either.

[cortesoft]

The crucial bit of information that the new contestant doesn't have is that there was a door that was ineligible to be eliminated (the door chosen by the original contestant).

If the game had different rules, it would work like you are imagining. Specifically, if Monty randomly eliminated one of the two doors, meaning there was a chance for Monty to reveal the prize instead of a goat. If Monty has the chance to eliminate the prize before giving the contestant a chance to switch, then switching does not give you an advantage.

[benchaney]

When one door was opened it revealed information about the other two doors.

[bigstrat2003]

But it didn't. Before, we knew that one of those two doors could contain either a prize or a goat. After, we know the same exact thing. No information was gained there.

[benchaney]

As a result of how the doors were selected one of them is more likely to contain the prize. That is information.