>>I never said the odds change. The point I joined in on was the odds of winning twice. Not the odds of winning again given that you've won once already.
>
>Then why did you tell me that Tamar was not wrong? Her point was that since they won once, the odds of them winning again could be summarily discounted. I said that was incorrect and you said it was not.

But that was never my point. My point was that the odds are winning twice are infinitesimal. (Of course, so are the odds of winning once. <g>)

Tamar