Tom Storer

Now there's a contestant who should stay, not switch.

Not at all, but I don't think that the fact that some people's hunches seem to come off more than some other people's hunches is a reason to think that existing logical explanations don't cover it. So that's what your question has been from the beginning.

In a case like this Monty Hall game, what, besides the odds, could give you an advantage in choosing when to stay and when to switch? There isn't a way to successfully know, feel or guess when to stay and when to switch, unless you find further information such as a goat fart. If your mother-in-law is perceptive enough to pick up on clues, such as goat farts, Monty's eye movements, tire tracks in the dust leading to a particular door, etc., then yes, she can have better odds. Otherwise, you're talking about the supernatural, in which case why care about the odds at all?

Poor Coltrane! I hope his ACL heals OK. What's an ACL, incidentally?

Yeah, well, Jim, if you already knew it, you wouldn't ask "do you only look at the action going on in this room to figure that out, or do you look at everybody who's played the game in the past?" or say "2/3 vs 1/3 ain't necessarily gonna mean squat when your number comes up." That you make those remarks belies your assertion that you do understand the probability! My take on goat farts is that a goat fart is additional information and changes the odds, just as Monty opening the door on one of the goats changes the odds. Same for hunches--they may be based on conscious or unconscious assimilation of further information, in which case they don't prove anything as concerns further levels of chaos and order as yet unsuspected by man. Hunches not based on assimilation of further information are called "guesses" no matter how strongly we believe in them.

Yes, at some point, not switching is going to result in a win. To be precise about it, it is going to result in a win in every case where someone first picked the door with the car. There is a 1/3 chance of someone first picking the door with the car. That is the likelihood of your having first picked the door with the car, and that is the likelihood of your winning if you decide not to switch--no matter what happened with the other 99 people. Because when you made your first choice, there were three doors. The car was behind one of them. If 99 people play the game before you do, the car is still behind one of three doors when you first choose a door. The likelihood of your choosing the door with the car is not affected by what happened with the other 99 people. You only look at the action going on in this room. It doesn't. It doesn't. (And note that it's not a question of "the chances that your choice will perform according to the odds." That's a confusing way to put it. The chances that your choice will be correct = the odds. The odds are that you are twice as likely to win if you switch. They are based on three possibilities at the outset: you chose the car; you chose goat 1; you chose goat 2. Everything else in this setup flows from those three possibilities and the fact that you don't know where the car was when you made your choice. Nothing about how many other people have won or lost changes that.) Of course it will. It will mean you are twice as likely to win if you switch. It does not mean that you will win. If by "predictor" you mean a way to know with certainty, then no. But the odds aren't about predicting with certainty. They're about predicting probability. Here's what seems to hang you up: you know you're more likely to win if you go with the odds, but you can't ever be certain you will win any single time. You interpret this as "the odds don't mean mean squat." But you're wrong. They allow you to be more likely to win. That's where you're wrong. You do have a "good chance" to win the one time you play, if you switch. That good chance is 67%. That gives you a sense of real, not false, confidence--but still far from certainty. Ah, but you do. Each time the game is played, there are only three doors, only one car. That is the isolation: the circumstances that define the odds are not affected. It's not because someone else has not switched, and won, or because a million people have not switched, and won, that you had more or less than three doors, more or less than one car, more or less than one initial choice. That's what the odds are based on. You're making the same error that unwise gamblers make when they think "I've been losing all night--I'm due for a win! One more game!" It's the flip side of "I'm on a lucky streak! I'll keep playing!" In other words, wishful thinking. The odds are the predictor. They predict that if you switch, you are twice as likely to win. That's as far as it can go. The real purpose of the "small science" of these odds is to give you a strategy that will increase your chances of winning. You still have a 1/3 chance of losing even if you switch, and that's a very big chance. Now in this case, if you don't win a car, big deal, you're no worse off than before. In a situation where losing would cause you real pain or hardship, you'd better be prepared for it because you're not in what I would call a safe position.

Jim, you're asked to make a choice between stay and switch. Each choice can be assigned a probability, as exhaustively demonstrated in this thread: Stay: 1/3 Switch: 2/3 You keep saying "what are the odds that my choice will be right?" and answering that by saying: "they must be 50/50 because there are only two possible outcomes." But it isn't because there are two possible outcomes that the likelihood of each outcome is equal. By saying that there is a 50/50 chance because there are only two outcomes, that is what you are saying: that each outcome is as likely as the other. But that's not true. One outcome is twice as likely as the other. There is no contradiction between saying "I'll either be right or wrong" and saying "I'm twice as likely to be right as to be wrong." In this case, both are true. You'll either get a car or a goat--there is no third possibility. And if you switch, you are twice as likely to get the car. Which doesn't mean you'll get the car, only that you are twice as likely to. You also seem to think there is such a thing as "the odds on the odds." But there isn't. OK, you've chosen to switch and are twice as likely to get the car. This you agree to. But then you've asked, as a further question, what are the odds that you will get the car? That this choice has been right? You're comparing the question "What is the likelihood of the car being behind the door if I switch?" and the question "What is the likelihood that choosing to switch will get the car this time?" Jim, it's the same question. And the same odds.

I think the point is that it's more precise than "could be"--in fact, it's "have a 2-in-3 chance to not like blue." If I understand correctly, it goes like this... Monkeys who prefer red over blue then go on, when given the choice, to prefer green over blue, by about a 2/3 margin. When you look at the odds, there are six possibilities for order of preference: Red, blue, green Red, green, blue Blue, red, green Blue, green, red Green, blue, red Green, red, blue If we take only those where red is preferred to blue, we have: Red, blue, green Red, green, blue Green, red, blue In 2/3 of these cases, green is preferred to blue. So the fact that 2/3 of monkeys who preferred red to blue also preferred green to blue can be explained by simple statistics rather than by choice rationalization. Hence the choice rationalization explanation is less convincing than it would otherwise be. But you knew that. I think the comparison to Monty Hall is just that in both cases you have to think about the odds.

I repeat, they obviously don't want to sell this imprint in bookstores, so they have no need to pay for display space.

Not if they're not selling to bookstores. Apparently the whole point is to sell over the Internet more or less exclusively. Really? In France the sales counted are those at the register.

But was it a book from this "new imprint" or just a HarperCollins book? It makes sense for this new imprint to discourage bookstore orders, if they plan to rely completely on Internet sales. It's the bit about "sharing profits" with writers but not paying advances that I wonder about. I'd be interested to hear the details of that.

If you lose the file--or a CD, for that matter--well, let it go. Be zen about it. Life is short.

I remember him from his time with Mingus--beautiful player! Whether or not his performing career is over, he made an impression.

A download would be fine by me.

I saw him a couple of times with the quintet he co-led with Charlie Rouse. John Hicks on piano, I think Clint Houson and Victor Lewis but wouldn't swear by it. They were a mighty band.

Tolerated the vocals?? Mose has never been exactly bel canto, but his wry delivery of hip lyrics, his down-home accent, and his straight-faced irony are why he's great! I like his piano playing, too, of course. This was my introduction to Mose: I think his last two greatest records were "Ever Since the World Ended' ("Ever since the world ended/I don't get out as much"): and "Gimcracks and Gewgaws":

There's an obit by Ethan Iverson at Do the Math.

Come on, Bill, don't be so thin-skinned. Are you drunk? (JUST A JOKE!) You implied that you liked Hamilton when you said: "Or is my appreciation of Scott supposed to be diminished because how some critic feels he stacks up against the 100 year history of jazz?" Besides, mjzee said "an artist," not "Scott Hamilton." Note that you didn't just say you liked Warren Vaché, you explicitly said that you were upset because Larry disagreed with you about him: "I'm still bristling at some of the things I've read you say about Warren Vache"

Specifics, give us some specifics!

Sounds like an accurate description of this thread.

Why can't criticism of a specific artist include comparing him to other artists? It seems unavoidable. I don't mean to be flippant, but you listen to one, you listen to the other, and you compare your reactions. When somebody expresses an opinion confidently, that doesn't mean they're denying you the right to your own opinion. I mean, Larry could indignantly say, "Are you saying I have to go see Scott Hamilton because you like his records? Or is my appreciation of Scott supposed to be augmented because some critic feels he sounds great these days?"

I think Larry made that clear when he said "our ability" and "our desire." We all make aesthetic estimates. I look to critics to stimulate my thinking, to help me interpret not just music but my own reactions to music. A good critic doesn't sit in judgment, he honestly assesses and explores for the benefit of the larger community of listeners. And that's who "judges the judges," too. Music criticism necessarily entails value judgments--that's the point, or one of the points in any case. I'd rather read a critic with strong opinions say what he or she finds lacking in a musician I like than a critic who never leaves the realm of feel-good compliments because anything else would be "tearing the music apart." Larry isn't making personal attacks on anyone's character, he's talking about art. I have no reason to think Kenny G isn't a hell of a nice guy, but that doesn't mean I won't say what I think about the kind of music he makes.

I liked the Sopranos all the way through, but I have to agree that the Wire is more consistently excellent. I thought the finale was great. Wrapped everything up very nicely. Some bad guys come to a bad end, others triumph; some good guys come out OK, others decidedly do not. And the institutions remain--gangsterism, politics, police departments, the media, chewing people up and spitting them out, with the almighty dollar the winning faction wherever one looks. Some great scenes: Carcetti speechless with consternation in the opening scene; McNulty putting Templeton in his place; Marlo's palpable excitement at being back on the street, grabbing a corner with sheer personal aggression; Levy and Herc delightedly reviewing their sunny situation soon after Pearlman thought she had hamstrung Levy; Cheese enjoying his first big, chest-puffing, macho speech as the newest alpha male in the game when he is summarily euthanized; Michael's appearance as the latest Omar; and I'm sure there were others.

7/4 nailed it--people search for "Van Basten" or "marsipulami" and among the hits is the Organissimo profile. I don't know who Van Basten is, other than you, but Marsupilami is a well-established children's cartoon character in France.

Ireland?? Ireland is GMT just like England! Isn't it? I know when I telephone Ireland they're an hour behind Paris, same as when I telephone London.