Pardon me if I am incorrect, but it seems to me that there is a basic assumption going on that everyone, given those clear choices, will think rationally and crunch the numbers themselves in order to find the optimal choice, given a scenario I'd either equal representation or strictly against the "best" choices. I can understand the reasoning behind this, especially given the high percentage Iof people on this particular thread who are willing to do the math, but is it not also a safe assumption that neither of these scenarios will be the case, given that there will be a large percentage of copy cats and almost an equally large percentage Iof people choosing irrationally based on initial inclinations? I can appreciate the work everyone has done in calculating statistics, but honestly, so much of the true results of actual games played by a random population will inevitably prove to be... shall we say, random? While accurate to a large extent, computer calculations can never truly factor in the whimsical nature of freedom of choice. People will pick red/red, like it, and might even do well with it. Sure, we can quibble about optimization for hours, and it has been quite delightful to see so many put this much thought into a basic choice, but the fact of the matter is that while statistically one combination might seen most imposing, it still has a weakness to another "worse" combo for a reason, and chances are that a lot more people will be out there with just the "fluke combo" needed to take you out than will crunch the numbers and agree with your reasoning. ...sorry to interrupt, just thought I'd mention the human factor of inevitable irony for a different perspective.