This would be news if player contracts are the only source of income. They’re not. Kevin Durant is not just an NBA player. He’s also a brand. And his brand equity is vastly higher if he’s A) a world champion, and B) playing on a world championship team. I guarantee you that the increase in his sponsorship and other…

Yes, it does

I feel like this energy could be best spent elsewhere. I dunno. Calling a Congressman. Campaigning against a Congressman. Running for Congress. All of the above.

We get it. You’re against diversity and want to keep the World Cup as white as possible. No need to drone on about it...

Thanks for the info. Wow! Oakland’s got some bad negotiators...

Why would it be financially beneficial for Oakland NOT to host the Raiders the next two years? No one else is going to be there. The stadium would just sit empty. It seems like the lease money would be worth something.

Raiders still make it out better than the Rams and the Chargers. It’s a blessing in disguise.

My best friend and I haven’t lived in the same city in 12 year, yet we both consider each other our best friend to this day. We’re in a non-stop Scrabble battle online. Sadly, he’s winning.

I heard it was the Weapon X program...

If I have to do this, I’m going back to taxis

Jim Broadbent, is that you?

Since when is the Huffington Post breaking sports stories?!?

The crazy thing is the Raiders will make out like Bandits when they go to Las Vegas even though Marc Davis was low man on the totem pole

You listed every owner. By the headline, it seems like you would not list any at all. Yet you did.

Yes, we’re on the same page there.

I don’t understand why you would use the decision tree to a point, but then stop using it even there is still a decision to be made. I would understand it if the discussion was about how Monty was going to reveal a goat. But the end goal is to win a car. You still have to make a stay or switch decision. Presumably if…

And in that simulation you win the car 984 times and win goats 1,018 times. Roughly 50/50. You are wiser to change your choice to win the car as you’re more likely to win that way. But if you run the simulation an equal amount of times for each of the decisions at 50/50, you end up at a 50/50 mean, like you showcased…

I ran the simulation 2,000 times. I won the car 1,059 times. I won goats 943 times. So 52.95% to 47.15%,

So I built out a decision tree past Host Reveals Door since the exercise doesn’t end there. I got to where I think I need to be, because I think there may be some crazy semantics at play here. The chances of winning the car are 50/50 from start to finish of the exercise. However, switching your answer instead of…

First off, I want to say thank you for all the responses. And I’m not trying to say I’m right, but I’m trying to figure out how I’m wrong. I accept that it’s 1/3 to 2/3, but I’m trying to understand where the flaw is in the scenario breakdown.