[qiemem]

I don't follow. This would only work if the distribution of numbers was predetermined and influenced the distribution of mines. I was under the impression that the mines were uniformly distributed though. So in a "T" scenario, it really is 50-50. The fact that 4s are more rare doesn't matter at that point. Sort of like in a series of coin flips, of you've flipped 5 heads in a row, tails isn't more likely to come since 6 heads are rare: it's still just 50-60.

[tydok]

The mines are uniformly distributed, yes, but the numbers are not. In a relatively sparse minefield, how likely is to find a 4? Of course depending on the "shape" of a cluster, chances can be 50%. The mines influence the distribution of numbers, not the other way around.

Try to apply the tactic I mentioned to solve the minefield in the article.

[Retr0spectrum]

Your logic is faulty, but it's hard to explain why. I think this might be variation of the Monty Hall Problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Or more likely, just the Gambler's fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy