I'm having trouble understanding something about the monty hall problem. If monty opened one door before you arrives, then you would have a 50/50 chance, whichever door you picked, because there are only 2 doors to pick from - right?
So, what about if you arrive, and monty said "I assumed you would pick door 1, so I opened door 3"? In that case, picking door 2 would be the same as if you had picked door 1, and then switched, so you should have 2/3 odds on it. But if monty hadn't said anything and you just picked one of the two doors, then your chances would be 50/50... or would they? Does monty assuming that you would want to pick door 1, change the probabilities even if you don't know about his decision?
What about if someone else picks a door and tells monty, who opens another one, and you then have the option to choose - without knowing which door the original person picked? What are the probabilities then? Does one of the doors secretly have a 2/3 probability? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Can someone explain this? Because I'm really not getting it.
I'm assuming that you understand the argument in the original problem (if not, read the other answers!).
This question is actually deeper than it may seem. The big issue here is that we commonly mean two different things by probability: the likelihood, in some abstract sense, of the world being in different ways, or our state of uncertainty about the world.
The changing probability in the Monty Hall problem reflects not changes in the way the world is, but changes in the state of our knowledge about the world. This is the source of most confusion about the problem.
You ask if, in the case that a separate person had played the game with Monty earlier (but left two doors closed) whether somehow one of the doors would secretly have a $\frac{2}{3}$ probability of having the prize, and express that this seems like it would be really weird. It is really weird, and the weirdness comes about by a conflation of these two ideas of probability.
Let's make this more extreme to make it clearer. At the end of the last game, Monty revealed which door had the prize, but for some reason, the other guy left without taking it. He then closes all the doors again, and now you (who haven't seen anything) come on stage. Shouldn't one of the doors "secretly" have a probability $1$ of having the prize? The door behind which the prize is located is determined, there is nothing random about the state of the world. But of course you can't find it. In fact this is true in the original problem as well! The probabilities reflect the state of your ignorance; you know no information to make you favor one door over another. That's why being told information "changes" the probabilities: because the probabilities were expressions of the state of your knowledge in the first place, not facts about the world.