> IF: the THIRD player was eliminated, player 1 should switch
> and player 2
> should stay
>
> LIKEWISE: if the SECOND player was eliminated, p1 should switch and p3
> should stay
>
> HOWEVER: if P1 was eliminated, there is no advantage in
> switching.  [err, I
> think...]
> ....
> suppose Mr. H eliminates P3 (who had no choice in the
> matter), where do we
> stand now?
> ....
> had of being "the correct door".  P1 switches provided he can
> convince P2 to
> switch [who, if being the "astute" 3000-L reader he is, has read THIS
> message & refuses to do so... ;)]
>
> Should Mr. H eliminate P2, then P3 should hold firm for the
> above reason.
> [this time p3 was "forced" to take the "good" half of the (collective)
> 2-in-3 chance]
>
> Finally, we get to the case of P1 being eliminated. this NEW
> INFORMATION
> tells us something quite interesting:
> It is this final case where it makes no difference to switch.

Boy, this sure sounds like a claim that a given non-eliminated player has a
different chance of winning than another non-eliminated player, based on
their relative positions in the selection sequence and on which player was
eliminated. I certainly hope not; a position like that is even more wildly
OTL than those who insist that there is no advantage to switching in the
original setup.


Steve Dirickson   WestWin Consulting
[log in to unmask]   (360) 598-6111