Like each of Professor Savage's difficulties in the theory of personal probability, his problem about the remote digit of π is entirely general. It concerns logical consequence as much as logical truth: his theory implies that if e entails h you should be as confident of h as of e. His own example is one of three distinct cases which militate against this part of his theory. In his example there is a known algorithm for working out of the relevant logical implications, but it is too costly for sensible use. A second case arises when there is no known algorithm for finding out whether the hypothesis h follows from the evidence e. Perhaps there are two subcases: in the first, the algorithm is not known to anyone; in the second, it is not accessible to the person who is making decisions.