:Well Richard, I have now read both papers that you link to on your professional page. My take-aways are: 
 ::*The Van Damme reference on page 10 is curious, as I'm pretty certain I have read that Monty Hall himself has said he never revealed a goat, then offered the switch on Let's Make A Deal. I therefore have no idea how a discussion of what choices real-life players made can take place. 
 ::*On page 15, you use the term 'lucky number' as the door choice derived by rolling a fair die. In everyday english in the US, these are mutually exclusive concepts. I therefore am unsure of your meaning of 'lucky number' as used throughout the paper. 
 ::*Your conclusion to the February, 2010 paper: 
 :::"This little article contains nothing new, and only almost trivial mathematics. It is a plea for future generations to preserve the life of The True Monty Hall paradox, and not let themselves be misled by probability purists who say “you must compute a conditional probability”." 
 ::::Would indicate agreement that the veiled criticisms in the Conditional solution section should be removed.  
 ::*I have disagreed (and provided support) with your claim that certain symmetry assumptions are not required *as long as the contestant makes his initial door choice uniformly at random*. If I recall, you are unable to say whether failure to do so makes it more likely or less likely that the contestant will select the car. As we are only creating a model of the real world, I fail to see why this uninformed door selection method changes the odds from 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Accordingly I do not accept the conclusion in your 2011 paper that the contestant's door choice is of any importance. 
 ::*I have disagreed (and provided support) with your claim that Q-2 in the 2010 paper: 
 :::"And sometimes people become very confused when they realize that the answer to Question 2 can only be given its pretty answer “2/3” under further conditions." 
 ::::I assume by 'further conditions' you mean a couple of symmetry premises. Therefore, I: 
 :::::*Disagree that Q-0, which can be calculated without plugging in 50/50 anywhere does not make use of those premises to solve the door 1 & door 3 problem with the 2/3 & 1/3 results. I suppose I could expand your "If Prob(P = C) = 1/3 then Prob(S = C) = 2/3, since the two events are complementary." into 6 nearly identical statements, specifying the door selected and the door opened. And since I don't know any more or any less about any one of the 6, my model says they are all equally likely, that is 2/3 & 1/3, including the door 1 & door 3 statement. But is that really necessary? Isn't this what Boris, Morgan, G & S, and simple mathematics have been saying about symmetry? 
 :::::*Disagree with any implications that any Selvin-derived MHP problem statement about a game show omits those symmetry premises 
 ::