Either you use broad filter criteria and you look at a few houses before you say "this is a better option than what we've seen, let's make an offer". In which case you can ignore the filter for purposes of fitting the house search to the secretary problem.
Or like the parent post, you think you can express what you're looking for exactly through facts that appear in the ads, in which case you look at a few houses, then you buy the first house to appear that exceeds best of what you've seen.
What you do not have in most markets is the option to go back and buy a house you looked at two weeks ago. Houses that sit on the market aren't houses that are appealing to buyers who intend to live in them.
Following the above heuristic, isn't there a chance you never look at another apartment that would be "better than the others you've looked at" once you enter the decision window, and therefore keep looking until you reach N and have to take the last option?
(the implications for dating should be obvious here, with it being fairly common for young lovers to break up so they can "see what's out there", and not uncommon for people to reach an age where they feel the need to settle for "what they can get" at that point)
Yes, obviously. As Wikipedia says:
> The probability of selecting the best applicant in the classical secretary problem converges toward 1/e ~ 0.368.
The classic solution to the classic secretary problem works in less than 37% of cases.
But in reality, you tend to know a bit about the distribution beforehand, and you are also interested in getting eg the second best secretary (if the best is no longer available), instead of just going for best-or-bust.