I have been aware of this problem since Ms. Vos Savant first published it in the Sunday Parade magazine, and have had no problem agreeing with her. Since then, I have also enjoyed following the discussions in various forums espousing views of both the 50/50 and 2/3 camps.

What interest me most is the fact that there are so many approaches - many of which are expressed in mathematical lingo that I do not understand. So I just ignore those, and merely mentally register the fact that many "more learned than I" persons disagree with my "novice" viewpoint.

This applies to the most recent posting (02 Aug 02), wherein a referenced math author declared the Vos Savant view as wrong.

It seems to me that a simpler review is important -easy for anyone to understand.

Let's look at the problem from the start. The contestant is standing in front of three doors, behind one of which is a prize - a car. The other two doors each shield a "booby" prize - a goat. The contestant chooses a door, and the host then opens one of the other doors displaying a goat. Ths host then allows tha contestant a second choice: stay with the initial choice or switch to the other door. Which is the best winning strategy? My review follows.

The probability of the contestant initially picking the "car" door is 1/3 - and the probability or his/her picking a "goat" door is 2/3. I think no one will disagree with that.

If he/she picks the "car" door, regardless of which door the host opens, the contestant loses if he/she decides to switch. This means that in 1/3 of the initial choices, a later switch decision results in a loss - and a win if a "stay" decision is made.

If he/she initially picks one of the "goat" doors (2/3 probability) the host must choose a a "goat" door, and if the contestant switches, he/she wins - and loses if a decision is made to switch.

In other words, not knowing what is behind the door of the initial contestant choice, once that decision is made, and the host performs his chore, the odds of switching - to win the car - are 2/3.

No probability "trees" or equations are necessary - just simple, easy to understand, every day logical reasoning.