You only misunderstand because the author is presenting it stupidly (as you state, incorporating order where order is irrelevant), leading to his own stupid con

You only misunderstand because the author is presenting it stupidly (as you state, incorporating order where order is irrelevant), leading to his own stupid conclusion. Read my post elsewhere in the thread for the full explanation, and if you find this kind of thing interesting, look up the Monty Hall problem (the point of which is that changing the information changes the odds).