If any order is equally likely to come from any of twenty traders, a buy order puts the posterior at 21/40 and forces an honest ask five cents above a mid of zero, so the spread is 2/N whatever the crowd's size. Each of the nineteen uninformed traders then loses exactly five cents a trade, which sums to the insider's 95 cents because (N-1)/N and 1 - 1/N are the same number. Volume falling is a comparative static on top of that spread rather than a theorem of the model, and naming the insider would have repaired the market instead of breaking it, since a known informed trader can simply be refused.
Coins have no memory, which is true, and nobody said this coin is fair, which is the whole problem. A fair coin explains the run with probability two to the minus one hundred while a two-headed coin explains it every time. The article locates the threshold exactly and reconciles the answer with the companion piece on ten heads, which asks a different question about a different setup.
Two doors left is not two equal doors: your first pick was frozen at 1/3 and the other 2/3 piled onto the single door still closed. The number is not a fact about doors, it is a fact about the host. Let him open a door at random instead, show the same goat, and switching is worth exactly 1/2.
Six slots in a ring, two of them marked side by side. You land on a blank one and get one move: step forward, or draw a fresh slot at random. Both look like two in six. Stepping is one in four, drawing again is one in three, and the whole gap comes from the fact that the two marks are touching. Pull them apart and the advice reverses.
A disease one person in two hundred carries, and a test with no false negatives at all. The reflex answer to a positive result is above ninety percent, and it is wrong by more than a factor of ten. A crowd of a thousand people shows why before the algebra does, and Bayes puts the exact figure at 100/1493.