Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

    This afternoon's edition of "Deal or No Deal", the Noel Edmonds vehicle that resurrected his career, was car-crash television.

    Fot those not familiar with the game, contestants choose to open boxes numbered 1 to 22 in random order, each of which contains a prize, randomly placed, that range from 1p to £250,000. Each box contains a different prize level, and it's monitored which ones remain unopened.

    At various periods in the game, "the banker" (presumably Noel's production assistant) rings Noel to offer the contestant an amount just to end the game there and then - i.e., make an offer to buy the contents of the "final box" to be opened. If the contestant accepts the offer, they carry on opening boxes to see what they would have got - ie would they have got more had they carried on? - but if they refuse all such offers during the game, he or she wins whatever's in the last box opened.

    Obviously, this can create some real tension. If the last four boxes are known to contain 1p, £5, £5,000 and £250,000, the likely offer will be about £15,000, and the contestant has to decide whether to carry on, or take the offer at that point.

    In this afternoon's, the guy was left with 5 boxes - £500, £750, £50,000, £75,000, and £250,000 - not yet opened.

    The banker offered him £35,000. He refused and played on, and opened the £75,000 box.

    The offer dropped to £26,000. He refused again and opened the £250,000 box.

    The offer dropped to £15,000. The contestant, by now openly crying, desperately decided to carry on again, on the 1 in 3 chance that he might still keep the £50k box to the end. Guess what the next one opened was.

    The guy fell to the floor, broke down completely, and I got the impression that they had to curtail the show, he was banging his fists on the floor crying "what have I done? My family ... my family ... what a stupid man!".

    It can't be long before someone tops themselves after "losing £35,000" on this format (and imagine the taunting from friends and family you'd have to put up with afterwards). I hope they give contestants counselling after the show.

    #2
    Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

    Yeah, see, that's the kind of thing nefertiti should be writing stern letters about. It's horrible stuff, all that.

    Comment


      #3
      Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

      Is it though?

      Comment


        #4
        Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

        I certainly find Noel Edmonds more offensive than either Ross or Brand

        Comment


          #5
          Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

          Jimmy Bignutz wrote:
          Is it though?
          Seen.

          Comment


            #6
            Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

            Wyatt Earp wrote:
            Yeah, see, that's the kind of thing nefertiti should be writing stern letters about. It's horrible stuff, all that.
            I see that nefertiti is going to be punished for his "incorrect thinking", then.

            Comment


              #7
              Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

              Youtube?

              Comment


                #8
                Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

                The particular reason "Deal or No Deal" is a cunt's game is that the "banker's offer" never stands up to fair scrutiny, and is designed to force rational people to keep opening boxes (and therefore losing). In today's, the guy had 5 boxes left that, if my maths work correctly (I'm no hofzinszer) should have made him an offer of around £71,000. He'd probably have taken that. He was offered only £35,000, so (perfectly logically) decided to carry on. And, inevitably, lost the lot.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

                  Come with nothing, leave with nothing. What's the big, er, deal?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

                    The particular reason "Deal or No Deal" is a cunt's game is that the "banker's offer" never stands up to fair scrutiny, and is designed to force rational people to keep opening boxes (and therefore losing).
                    Yes and no. It's "rational" to carry on, in that the deal is worse than the expected value of carrying on. But, critically, this is not a repeated bet where the player can make up losses in the long run. There is no long run for individual players, only the banker. Depending on your financial circumstances and preferences, it's perfectly sensible to stop when you're offered a year's salary or more rather than go for the small chance of a bigger payout.

                    Obviously, however, psychology doesn't work like that for most people, which is why they carry on. Indeed, that's why the deals are insultingly low, rather than just slightly below the "fair" value.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

                      Is there even anyone on the other end of that phone?

                      I liked that programme at first, but it quickly became annoying because the contestants all pretend they're the very best of friends, and Noel Edmunds tries to draw elaborate strategies out of the players as if it isn't completely random.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Talking of broadcasters being cruel ...

                        Yeah, that's right, what GY says. In a long run of plays, it's clear what's "rational": go for the maximum expected gain. That means you'd accept any deal that exceeds the mean. This means rejecting almost all offers, in practice, I believe.

                        But in a one-off, you may prefer to, say, decide on a "threshold gain" and then maximise your chances of getting this or more: that means taking the first offer that exceeds the threshold.

                        Or you may want to minimise the probability that your choice is the wrong one: that means taking the first offer to exceed the median rather than the mean. Offers above the median occur more often, I believe (though I must admit I never watch the fucking thing).

                        Or you may, like this guy, have good reasons to be especially risk-averse, which may make you accept offers that exceed some lower quantile than the median.

                        There's no agreed definition of "rational" in a one-off, really.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X