Well, it sounds good, but upon analysis, he still really had a 50% chance of losing. The idea, I guess, is that he had a 50% chance of a 50% chance of picking a black bead, for a total of 25% probability. The problem with this logic is that he also had a 50% chance of a 50% chance of picking a white bead, which means that he had equal probability either way. The only way he could increase his odds of living would be to pick twice. Of course, even a 50% probability of living, strictly by chance, in a murder trial, is already quite generous.
I’m not sure what you are saying it was that he did?
He puts one white ball in the one bowl
and 99 mixed up balls in the other
giving him a slightly less than 50/50 chance in the mixed bowl
and a 100% chance in the bowl with one white ball
74+ % chance of being white
don't trust murderers
I don’t know if you’re directing this to me, or not. Here is what I’m saying. The man had asked for the beads to be divided into two bowls. The riddle didn’t specify how the beads were divided, but there are two ways that would make sense.
1) Equal amounts of both black and white beads in each bowl.
2) One bowl with all black beads and the other with all white beads.
If the idea was to increase the chance of survival, dividing into an all-black-beads bowl and all-white-beads bowl would not have helped because his “choosing” action would still yield exactly 50% statistical chance of picking the right bowl, then 100% chance of getting whichever color was in that bowl.
So, that leaves the method of dividing black and white beads evenly into two bowls. Going by the earlier comparison to the other bead riddle, I assumed this is what was meant. And looking at the supposed statistical benefit of changing one’s choice after a known bad choice is removed from the equation, it would seem the same benefit could be gained here. The idea is that he is now choosing twice - once for the bowl, and again for the bead, but not so. The choice of which bowl to pick from will statistically yield 100% chance of getting an equal amount of each color of beads, so it is effectively a non-change. Then, you are still left with a 50% chance of getting the right (or wrong) color of bead from whichever bowl you pick from.
Thinking even further into it, the man may have actually decreased his luck by dividing the beads. Even though in pure statistical chance, his odds are the same, in reality, he had fewer beads to draw from. If you think of polls that are done, or any sampling that is performed, the desire is always to have a larger percentage of the whole to be sampled. And, the larger your sample, the more accurate your results are considered to be. Same thing with star ratings of products we buy online. If five people out of five say the product is good, do you trust that? What about 9995 out of 10,000? Even though 5 out of 5 is a “better” rating, it is less reliable because you know there are billions of people in the world and a lot of them may just be not buying it because they already “know” it’s not worth having. So, back to the beads in the bowls. The guy could have had twice as many opportunities to grab a white bead. Although statistically he would have still had an equal chance at getting a black bead, in reality he may have fared better had he kept them all!
Hmmm… didn’t think of that one.
Clever!
Throw away the outside and cook the inside, then eat the outside and throw away the inside. What is it?
sweet corn
Yep!
Eskimos are excellent hunters, but they never hunt penguins. Why not?
For the same reason that Polar Bears don’t…………… 
Here’s are a quick one -
I can jump higher than any skyscraper. How can this be?
Skyscrapers can’t jump.
Yep
Here’s one of my favorites because although we use it as the expression for an unsolvable question it is actually very easily solved. (Hint: Think laterally.)
What came first the chicken or the egg?
What is the answer?
Did you know that in California you can’t take a picture of a man with a wooden leg? Why not?
Because you need to use a camera!
Hehe, yup!
If you want a scientifically accurate answer… here is it:
The egg came first, laid by a bird that was not a chicken.
because it's in a museum and they have guards