This time from the *Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society*. The reviewer is Paulo Ventura Araujo, a mathematician at the University of Porto in Portugal. Interestingly, he notes at the start of the review that he had never heard of the Monty Hall problem prior to reading my book. Here are the final two paragraphs of the lengthy review:

The non-mathematical portions of the book, and even the least demanding mathematical portions, are very good reading and are suitable for a large non-specialist audience. In the cognitive chapter, for instance, we are made aware of two basic types of faulty probabilistic reasoning: that which is innate in the human mind and that which arises from misapplication of imperfectly learned mathematical tools. The conclusion, perhaps, is that a smattering of badly digested learning is often worse than no learning at all. The philosophical chapter delves deeply into a disturbing question: could it be that the best strategy in the long run, as shown by computing the relevant probabilities, is not the most advisable to adopt if you are only in for a single round of the game? Thankfully the answer is no, but before reaching this conclusion the author does a masterful job of dissecting a philosopher’s arguments to the contrary.

And, since the author is a mathematician (but also a very skilled writer), it is somehow a vindication of our profession, after the embarrassing events that surrounded the Monty Hall problem, the he came to write this fine book.

Score! I especially appreciated the first sentence of the review, since that was precisely what I was going for.