Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Let me get this straight -- you consider "typing monkeys" in distant galaxies to be a "valid" simile for abiogenesis, but you *don't* accept a calculation of how many long-chain chemical reactions are possible in the Earth's oceans?
Seek help, fella.
You haven't even touched it (at least not honestly).
Now I *know* you're just game-playing. You're just another troll who invites long rebuttals to his nonsense, then get his jollies dancing around and saying, "ha ha, missed me!"
Face it, son, your monkey mania has been demolished, point by point. If you want to sidestep that fact and try to pretend it didn't happen, the only person you're fooling here is yourself.
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Fear not, for Help is on the way!
Once again, you've managed to not comprehend enough of the argument to stay out of trouble. This is understandable, however, so I will once again set you straight (with ease - and even with a smile on my face, btw).
The monkey simile gives the monkeys typewriters. These typewriters can ONLY output valid characters. Further, the monkeys are constrained from otherwise making output, and they are compelled to make lots and lots of keypresses (again, all of which are valid characters).
In contrast, you created a hypothetical water world in which water molecules vibrated and chemically reacted in a binary fashion. No up, down, left, right, backwards, forwards, or positions/movements in-between for you. No, those water molecules could only vibrate/react in a binary (i.e. limited to two) fashion.
And you placed those 2 dimensional binary vibrations/reactions into a 3 dimensional environment (i.e. oceans) and then went on to say that if you examined all possible groupings of all of those molecules for ten years, that for the tiniest fraction of a second the correct first sentence of Shakespeare's Hamlet would momentarily exist, in binary, somewhere in those oceans.
So no, I don't find your water world simile useful for explaining how the scope and scale of probability for low-percentage sequences can happen on Earth. Your simile simply gives a false mathematical sense of possibility.
The monkey simile, on the other hand, at least manages to illustrate the vastness of the problem in question, and certainly fails to give any false sense of security.