Re: Deal Or No Deal
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:15 pm
They play out the game pointlessly.
What if someone rushes through it quickly?
What if someone rushes through it quickly?
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Rumours are that contestants are very heavily leaned on to not take either of the first two offers (although this is based just on what I've noticed some past contestants claiming online, so completely unreliable). I presume they'd just drag it out and try and claim it was a "super special" occasion.Joseph Krol wrote:What would happen if a contestant took the first offer after about 15 minutes? Would they bring in another contestant or attempt to drag it out for as long as possible?
It would be funny if someone on Deal or No Deal, in the first round, took out the biggest ones and then they got a really low offer and the actually took it!Michael Wallace wrote:Rumours are that contestants are very heavily leaned on to not take either of the first two offers (although this is based just on what I've noticed some past contestants claiming online, so completely unreliable). I presume they'd just drag it out and try and claim it was a "super special" occasion.Joseph Krol wrote:What would happen if a contestant took the first offer after about 15 minutes? Would they bring in another contestant or attempt to drag it out for as long as possible?
Still don't really get it. One for the train, with a bit of pen and paper action.Jon Corby wrote:Well you're kind of right, if you're purely looking at that question (of how likely a swap is to give a red). But in the context of the game it makes bugger-all difference - she's as likely to have a red now as she is after a swap, or after 8 million swaps. We never know anything about any of the remaining boxes individually.Matt Morrison wrote:Yours and Jono's responses clearly show me I've answered the wrong question, and reminds me I should never ever get involved in these fucking discussions I'm not clever enough for.
You are right that if she swaps, she is more likely to end up with a red box than a blue one. But she's more likely to have a red one than a blue one anyway.Matt Morrison wrote:I dunno, at the start of the game her box is 50/50 red/blue. At the "11 reds, 6 blues left" stage, it's 69/31% in favour of being red.
If it is red, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 10 red, 6 blue. If it is blue, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 11 red, 5 blue.
Either way if she does a swap then yes she is mathematically more likely to swap to a red as there are more to choose from.
Is that right? Makes sense to me, it's just that, as above, it's all pointless because redness or blueness doesn't mean shit all to the maths, only the numbers do and that's where it gets more complicated than me and Noel can handle.
Yep. I suspect Matt is at some point overlooking the fact that the 10/6 count includes the one she already has.Gavin Chipper wrote:You are right that if she swaps, she is more likely to end up with a red box than a blue one. But she's more likely to have a red one than a blue one anyway.Matt Morrison wrote:I dunno, at the start of the game her box is 50/50 red/blue. At the "11 reds, 6 blues left" stage, it's 69/31% in favour of being red.
If it is red, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 10 red, 6 blue. If it is blue, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 11 red, 5 blue.
Either way if she does a swap then yes she is mathematically more likely to swap to a red as there are more to choose from.
Is that right? Makes sense to me, it's just that, as above, it's all pointless because redness or blueness doesn't mean shit all to the maths, only the numbers do and that's where it gets more complicated than me and Noel can handle.
No-one knows what's in any of the boxes (other than the opened ones). So of the values left, they're all equally likely to be in any of the boxes. Shuffling then around makes no difference to this.
Ah, your mistake is that you've assumed that there is a 50/50 chance of her box being red or blue. Well, you probably haven't, but you've certainly forgotten to include it in your subsequent calculations.Matt Morrison wrote:I think what I was thinking was this. 17 boxes. 11 reds, 6 blues.
If her box is (unknowingly, of course), RED, then that leaves a field of 10 reds and 6 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 10/16 chance of making no difference (as we're just talking a colour split, not actual values), and a 6/16 chance of being worse off, failing the split by getting a blue.
If her box is BLUE, that leaves a field of 11 reds and 5 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 11/16 chance of improving to a red, and a 5/16 chance of making no difference by swapping from blue to blue.
Therefore there's (in my stupid little faux maths world where you can combine these probabilities), a 6/32 chance of fucking up by swapping, a 15/32 chance of making no difference to the colour, and an 11/32 chance of improving, so regardless of what she has in her box (urrrgh), there's more chance she'll improve than she will fuck up, even if most likely of all is that it won't make any difference.
You can't combine probabilities that way. If you really want to do look at it like that, you should say:Matt Morrison wrote:I think what I was thinking was this. 17 boxes. 11 reds, 6 blues.
If her box is (unknowingly, of course), RED, then that leaves a field of 10 reds and 6 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 10/16 chance of making no difference (as we're just talking a colour split, not actual values), and a 6/16 chance of being worse off, failing the split by getting a blue.
If her box is BLUE, that leaves a field of 11 reds and 5 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 11/16 chance of improving to a red, and a 5/16 chance of making no difference by swapping from blue to blue.
Therefore there's (in my stupid little faux maths world where you can combine these probabilities), a 6/32 chance of fucking up by swapping, a 15/32 chance of making no difference to the colour, and an 11/32 chance of improving, so regardless of what she has in her box (urrrgh), there's more chance she'll improve than she will fuck up, even if most likely of all is that it won't make any difference.
They're also forgetting the Edmonds Cunt Factor (ECF), which can be significant for high* values of t, where t is time in episode elapsed.Michael Wallace wrote:Corby and Charlie have massively oversimplified this. Their probability models fail to take into account the energy in the room, whether there was any chanting going on, and what colour clothing the contestant was wearing.
Amateurs.
Just laying out the calculation for the scenario at hand to show swapping makes no difference:Matt Morrison wrote:I dunno, at the start of the game her box is 50/50 red/blue. At the "11 reds, 6 blues left" stage, it's 69/31% in favour of being red.
If it is red, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 10 red, 6 blue. If it is blue, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 11 red, 5 blue.
Either way if she does a swap then yes she is mathematically more likely to swap to a red as there are more to choose from.
Is that right? Makes sense to me, it's just that, as above, it's all pointless because redness or blueness doesn't mean shit all to the maths, only the numbers do and that's where it gets more complicated than me and Noel can handle.
Oh how we need likes backMichael Wallace wrote:Corby and Charlie have massively oversimplified this. Their probability models fail to take into account the energy in the room, whether there was any chanting going on, and what colour clothing the contestant was wearing.
Amateurs.
Well, I didn't.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Did I see Howard in the audience?
It's the player who'd need to know what's behind the doors for this DOND Monty Hall to work, isn't it? The player is the one who's revealing the goats.Charlie Reams wrote:The Monty Hall problem only works because the presenter knows what's behind the doors, which (presumably) the banker doesn't. So yeah, swap or not makes no difference.
If the player knows where the "goats" (reds) are then the game is a bit broken. To make it align you'd need to get offered the swap after you've selected a box, which doesn't happen in DoND anyway. So yeah, either way Monty Hall doesn't apply here.Hugh Binnie wrote:It's the player who'd need to know what's behind the doors for this DOND Monty Hall to work, isn't it? The player is the one who's revealing the goats.Charlie Reams wrote:The Monty Hall problem only works because the presenter knows what's behind the doors, which (presumably) the banker doesn't. So yeah, swap or not makes no difference.
Players are randomly picked, Ryan. This is a huge coincidence.Ryan Taylor wrote:DOND is pathetic. There's a woman on here who happened to be picked to play 7 years ago to the day that her dad died. And now she's crying about it. Boo hoo.
I also experienced a coincidence today!Matt Morrison wrote:Players are randomly picked, Ryan. This is a huge coincidence.Ryan Taylor wrote:DOND is pathetic. There's a woman on here who happened to be picked to play 7 years ago to the day that her dad died. And now she's crying about it. Boo hoo.
OMG what are the chances?!Ian Volante wrote:I also experienced a coincidence today!Matt Morrison wrote:Players are randomly picked, Ryan. This is a huge coincidence.Ryan Taylor wrote:DOND is pathetic. There's a woman on here who happened to be picked to play 7 years ago to the day that her dad died. And now she's crying about it. Boo hoo.
Yep, totally retarded mate.Matt Morrison wrote:Fucking dickheads. I'm sick of that bullshit where someone (today) deals on £11k, has a good round, and then would have got a £22k deal with £5 and £75k left.
Then they open the box and celebrate like mad when it's £5 as if somehow that justifies dealing on £11k. It's fucking ridiculous, you might as well burn the final box and never open it as everyone will deal on £22k.
The twat hasn't 'won' £10995, he's 'lost' a further £11000. Drives me fucking crazy. At least they used to ask "would you have taken the £22k?" back in the day, and then at least (if they say "no, I wouldn't") that gives some kind of relevance to what is in the final box, but they don't do that any more, just announce the offer and then open the box. Stupid show.
Matt Morrison wrote:Fucking dickheads. I'm sick of that bullshit where someone (today) deals on £11k, has a good round, and then would have got a £22k deal with £5 and £75k left.
Then they open the box and celebrate like mad when it's £5 as if somehow that justifies dealing on £11k. It's fucking ridiculous, you might as well burn the final box and never open it as everyone will deal on £22k.
The twat hasn't 'won' £10995, he's 'lost' a further £11000. Drives me fucking crazy. At least they used to ask "would you have taken the £22k?" back in the day, and then at least (if they say "no, I wouldn't") that gives some kind of relevance to what is in the final box, but they don't do that any more, just announce the offer and then open the box. Stupid show.
Then what?! TELL US!! TELL US!!Matt Morrison wrote:What she did:
Turned down £100,000 with £10,000 £50,000 and £250,000 left.
Picked £50,000, and turned down the chance to deal at £140,000.
HAHA WHAT. Why would you ever do that?Matt Morrison wrote: Turned down £100,000 with £10,000 £50,000 and £250,000 left.
Picked £50,000, and turned down the chance to deal at £140,000.
Yeah, they made a point of asking one of the contestants (presumably he's the "maths expert") what the average was, so as to point out the offer was £10k above the mean.Michael Wallace wrote:Those are ridiculously good offers. Since when did they ever offer above the mean?
Maybe her box was her "lucky number" or a dead relative was there in spirit urging her to go on. I used to like the show but all that silly nonsense got too much to bear.Matt Morrison wrote: I've always assumed you have to have a sob story or a great reason for needing the money to get on that show. To be fair to her I didn't see today's show til it was already half way through (after watching Countdown on Sky+) but you'd think anyone who can act like she did on the final deal must already be fucking loaded, and not morally restricted by impending charity donation or anything like that either.
Ha, this is the one British game show that's still here in America, and yes, the contests are pre-screened to be the types to do idiotic shit like this on a regular basis. If you even know what "expected value" is, you have no chance of getting on the show.Matt Morrison wrote:Biggest fucking idiot today I have ever seen. I only ever leave it on after Countdown if someone does really well to begin with and it makes for some interesting deal decisions.
In those situations, I always want the person to do well cos I'm a nice guy. Today I wanted her so badly to fucking fail. What an idiot. WHAT AN IDIOT.
What she did:
Turned down £100,000 with £10,000 £50,000 and £250,000 left.
Picked £50,000, and turned down the chance to deal at £140,000.
s/contestants/presenters/pSteve Balog wrote:If there ever were a reasonable case for eugenics, it'd strongly center around the worst Deal or No Deal contestants.
The whole rest of the family didn't even seem to notice. Geography has never made me feel bad for anyone before but commiserations Steve for having to share a nationality with those morons.Steve Balog wrote: I'd say this person is.... roughly the median for intelligence of contestants on the American run of the show.