>I may have an even simpler explanation than your "Who needs
>Monty". It involves no simulation, just a different
>perspective.

I am agreeable to sharing the glory.

>I believe a professional gambler would have had an easier
>time with this...

Looks very plausible. To me, I mean.

>However, it seems
>unfair for some to berate latecomers to this problem for not
>immediately seeing the correct answer, as well as the
>"proper way" of getting to that answer.

I agree, except that in this time and day, I would appreciate the latecomer who did his homework. Such an effort would give an indication of an honest interest to resolve the problem. So much information is now available that it is hard to justify missing or overlooking much of it.

>I enjoy your web site.

Thank you for the kind words.