I've never bought Savant's analysis and I still don't. The assumption that there is an unchangeable set valuation is counterfactual. In reality, the odds for both sets change in light of the new information. Putting it in picture form doesn't change that reality.

I've gone through the Bayesian analysis for the Savant decision and it seems to assume that mathematical formalism imposes things on reality. I've several times seen this justified with the following argument...

If the Savant/Bayesian analysis of the Monty Hall problem is is super counter-intuitive, I think it’s important to remember 2 pieces of information:

Monty NEEDS to open a door

He can’t open the door with the car behind it

But there's one HUGE thing missing from the superficial analysis. He also can't open the door you chose. He could only open one of the doors you didn't choose that didn't have the car. This reality is what changes the odds for both sets.

Or so it seems to me.