>Maybe I am missing the point. I admit I haven't read all the messages. With no facetiousness, was the point that it's Bob Barker rather than Monty Hall (or vice versa)? I don't own a TV, so while I appreciate the joke, I couldn't "get" it, so to speak.
>
>I just logged in here and am picking up messages from Saturday and Sunday. I have been responding to Saturday's. I haven't even gone through most of Sunday's yet. If Jim and/or Ed have reversed their positions, then I'm guilty of beating a dead horse, and for that I deeply apologize.
>
>In my defence, problems with statistical analysis like this are one of my hot buttons. Too many widows and unsophisticated investors fall prey to statistical scams. The entire economy of Albania collapsed because of a Ponzi scheme.
>
>I don't feel I've been unduly harsh to "blue envelopes"; it wouldn't matter if they were SUTM or whatever, my reaction would be the same.

No matter where the source is whether, it is from a 5 year old or a well respeced member of a community, we shoule be able to look at that person's views as simply idea that should be judged for its merit. I applaud your challenging those that are well respected. I find that many blindly follow without thinking things through themselves.

Sometimes I come across as overly serious. Actually, I was trying to determine if your were willing to try something and see if we can resolve this. I say that if you switch after a reasonable amount of times that you will win 66.6% of the time. I believe you are saying that if you switch that you will win only 50% of the time. Try Christof's program or try the example with cards and tell me what your results are.