>Bob claims that since the probability of getting both his and Alice’s sequence is the same (2−20 ), it proves that there was no foul-play involved. ..and Bob

>Bob claims that since the probability of getting both his and Alice’s sequence is the same (2−20 ), it proves that there was no foul-play involved. ..and Bob is 100% right. >Bob credits his excellent luck. Alice is smart and cannot be easily convinced. She get’s back at Bob by claiming that probability cannot be used in this context as it reveals no information regarding the randomness of the obtained sequences. One can take a quick glance at the obtained sequences and easily point out that Alice’s sequence is more random than Bob’s sequence. No, it is not. Given a perfectly random coin toss Bob's sequence is indeed just as likely as Alice's sequence and in no way "less random" because both sequences result from the same randomness with equal probability. A nice example of human intuition being at odds with probability math, though. Bob's result seems less likely but it really is not. Which reminds me that I actually had to write my own computer simulation of the Monty Hall Problem before I was willing to believe the correct answer. I think (most?) human brains have a bug in the "understanding probability" subroutine.