Divided (new ITV quiz show)

Jojo Apollo · Post by **Jojo Apollo** » Tue May 19, 2009 6:30 pm

Not bad.

Here's the first two episodes on ITV player if you missed them:

Episode 1: http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Video/defa ... lter=41822

Episode 2: http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Video/defa ... lter=41904

(sadly as with all shows on the ITV player you have to see a few annoying adverts before the shows start)

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed May 20, 2009 10:36 pm

The Golden Balls comes and goes faster than I can keep track!

Why is it that daytime TV in Britain airs in cycles of series as well as primetime TV does?

Here in America, primetime TV is just like it is there, but daytime TV runs for an entire season (September to June.)

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sun May 24, 2009 4:45 pm

Oh my god. I have just watched show 1. What a bunch of idiots. I hated Louise early on for taking too much time over a question they knew they had the right answer on and then I reaaaallly hated her at the end when she said she wasn't shifting from A.

The only one I liked was Sian and I'm actually furious that the two older contestants would be so greedy. The reason they went home with nothing was because of the satisfaction feeling of 'I said I wasn't backing down, so I'm not going to'. If Louise had ignored this feeling and said "OK, I'll go C" then they all go home with some money (quite a lot in some instances) even if you have the thought in your head of "I deserved more. I can't believe Charlie got more than me" etc etc. At the end of the day you have won some cash. Stop being so bloody greedy. GRRRRRRRRR.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun May 24, 2009 5:11 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Oh my god. I have just watched show 1. What a bunch of idiots. I hated Louise early on for taking too much time over a question they knew they had the right answer on and then I reaaaallly hated her at the end when she said she wasn't shifting from A.

The only one I liked was Sian and I'm actually furious that the two older contestants would be so greedy. The reason they went home with nothing was because of the satisfaction feeling of 'I said I wasn't backing down, so I'm not going to'. If Louise had ignored this feeling and said "OK, I'll go C" then they all go home with some money (quite a lot in some instances) even if you have the thought in your head of "I deserved more. I can't believe Charlie got more than me" etc etc. At the end of the day you have won some cash. Stop being so bloody greedy. GRRRRRRRRR.

Good psychological experiment:

Two players, A and B. A gets given £100 and choose how much of it to offer to B. If B accepts the offer, B takes the offered money and A keeps the leftovers. If B rejects the offer, they both get nothing and the game ends.

From a rational perspective, obviously B should accept any non-zero offer, and A should therefore offer the lowest possible amount (say, 1 penny.) But in practice, humans tend to reject offers less than about £40. Presumably this is because they have some inate notion of "fairness", even though rejecting the offer is a bad outcome for them (and for their opponent.)

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sun May 24, 2009 5:24 pm

Because I can't be bothered to watch an entire episode again, I'm watching the other episodes on iplayer and fast forwarding to the last 7 minutes or so. Wednesday's show is a joke. I didn't watch the show but it sounds like Sarah knew nothing all show and was so irritating with her selfish laugh and wanted the biggest amount of cash. I liked James with his rational head under pressure saying "I want *something*". He managed to persuade the other guy by using the word "family" and "how much would it mean to them". That was the key - if his family watched this show and he still refused to budge and ended up going home with nothing, his family would have hated him I'm sure. After James guilt tripped him using the word "family" and saying "you'll never see Sarah again, she's wrong to pick A but you need something for you and your family - ignore her and change your decision!" then all was good but just watching Sarah for about 7 minutes means I hate her already.

This last 10 minutes of the show is compulsive viewing!!

JasonCullen · Post by **JasonCullen** » Sun May 24, 2009 7:50 pm

Absolutely love it

. Such a basic, no-frills quiz but with a must-see finish

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Sun May 24, 2009 10:16 pm

They should all agree to just choose an amount, and then at the end of the show put it all together and split it equally.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Sun May 24, 2009 10:30 pm

Darren Carter wrote:They should all agree to just choose an amount, and then at the end of the show put it all together and split it equally.

I would presume the people who make the show will have thought of this - presumably they either keep them in isolation or make them sign something saying they won't do something like that (no idea if anything like that could be legally binding, though).

Of course the main problem with that strategy is that you have to trust the other people to not run off with their winnings anyway (if you'd ended up agreeing to taking the smallest amount).

I am reminded of an episode of goldenballs where one of the contestants at the end said to the other "I'm going to steal, and if you go with split I'll share the money with you, but I'm going for steal regardless, so you have to trust me" (or something like this). Having eventually persuaded the guy he then split (obviously), but it was quite funny watching Jasper Carrott trying to splutter out things like "remember he's not obliged to share that money with you after the show" in an attempt to make it seem less retarded.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed May 27, 2009 3:38 am

The opinion of the Americans who have seen the show is just in, and it is... just that -- divided.

Initially, the power that be thought we would not enjoy the show. This was because although it is a straight quiz show, the end of every episode makes it look like Golden Balls. The more naive people thought it was a good show because they were not taking the "bickering" at the end into account. It may be because they have never heard of Golden Balls, or it may be because what the contestants use to do well in the game is "good teamwork."

Andrew Castle reminds me of some American game show host, but I forgot who it was. However, if Divided gets canceled, we shouldn't worry because GMTV will be on the air for awhile unlike This Morning, which will be canceled.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:33 am

Jason Larsen wrote: However, if Divided gets canceled, we shouldn't worry because GMTV will be on the air for awhile unlike This Morning, which will be canceled.

I love Divided so if it gets cancelled I am going to worry. Careful with your words Jason - you might upset people.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Wed May 27, 2009 11:05 am

Can someone explain to me in a nutshell how this show works please? I saw a brief snippet of the end on a trailer and it looked like the contestants had to agree on who should receive 3 different proportions of the prize money, which were diminishing while they argued. Looked like a pretty interesting idea.

The ultimate failing of Goldenballs was that the stupid ending (where it only ever made sense to steal). The only reason you wouldn't steal in that situation is if you genuinely had some kind of relationship with your opponent, which the format of the game didn't really allow for (in fact, it worked against it as unless you were exceptionally lucky with your balls, you ONLY reached the final by being dishonest)

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:18 pm

Jon Corby wrote:Can someone explain to me in a nutshell how this show works please? I saw a brief snippet of the end on a trailer and it looked like the contestants had to agree on who should receive 3 different proportions of the prize money, which were diminishing while they argued. Looked like a pretty interesting idea.

Yea the theme throughout is the cash on that question diminishes to zero in 100 seconds. They all have to agree on an answer. The only time it's a little different is they have rounds of so many questions, after each round they can all agree (within 15 seconds) to stop and split the money there - otherwise they continue even if the majority want to stop and one refuses.

They can get up to 2 questions wrong (a 3rd one wrong and they're "off the show") when they're building up the cash, getting a question wrong halves their accumulated money. The first round has 5 questions which are worth up to £3,000 each, the next round has 4 questions worth up to £7,500 each, next round has 3 questions worth up to £15k each, round 4 two questions worth up to £30k each, round 5 has one question worth up to £75k. The questions get harder each round, but there's the obvious incentive to keep going as the questions are potentially worth much more.

Each show there's usually someone who's fairly useless who says they want the biggest share at the end and won't budge, which is the somewhat annoying bit.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:19 pm

Kirk, I was thinking of Andrew Castle who you will see on TV one way or another.

Keith Bevins · Post by **Keith Bevins** » Wed May 27, 2009 6:47 pm

I really like the show. A word of warning Kirk the arguing over the cash isn't always at the end. Yesterday it was half way through as the contestants lost their 2 allowable liflines early on.
Felt really sorry for lady today. It was mostly down to her that they had decent money but they had lost 2 lifelines and the other 2 decided to play on, they lost their 3rd lifeline and won nothing. She was gutted and burst into tears.
I certainly watch this in preference to the weakest link now.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed May 27, 2009 7:38 pm

See, that's how it's similar to Golden Balls!

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:41 am

I saw the second half of Friday's show, and have to say it was very interesting. The 3 contestants were basically young woman doing okay with the questions and insisting they play on, middle-aged woman seemingly contributing very little to anything, and a guy who seemed the most knowledgeable but also was very risk-averse and was always against carrying on. They ended up with a massive pot of about £116k or something, which was split roughly £70k-35k-11k. They all claimed they deserved pot A, the largest share. Young woman argued she had done well with the questions (although apparently had got one wrong earlier which I hadn't seen), and the fella said he had got most questions right. Couldn't fathom what the middle-aged woman's claim to the money was, yet she ended up with it because the young woman eventually caved saying she didn't want to go home with nothing. The final split ended up at something like £16k-£7k-£2k. The middle-aged woman was clearly absolutely over-the-moon, despite the final amount being only slightly higher than the lowest pot was at the start. Her aim seemed to just be to get more than the other guys, even though she was (possibly) less deserving (didn't see the whole show). Bizarre that you'd waste about £80+k of your team-mate's winnings to get yourself another £5k that you probably didn't deserve. Interesting stuff.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:14 am

Jon Corby wrote:I saw the second half of Friday's show, and have to say it was very interesting. The 3 contestants were basically young woman doing okay with the questions and insisting they play on, middle-aged woman seemingly contributing very little to anything, and a guy who seemed the most knowledgeable but also was very risk-averse and was always against carrying on. They ended up with a massive pot of about £116k or something, which was split roughly £70k-35k-11k. They all claimed they deserved pot A, the largest share. Young woman argued she had done well with the questions (although apparently had got one wrong earlier which I hadn't seen), and the fella said he had got most questions right. Couldn't fathom what the middle-aged woman's claim to the money was, yet she ended up with it because the young woman eventually caved saying she didn't want to go home with nothing. The final split ended up at something like £16k-£7k-£2k. The middle-aged woman was clearly absolutely over-the-moon, despite the final amount being only slightly higher than the lowest pot was at the start. Her aim seemed to just be to get more than the other guys, even though she was (possibly) less deserving (didn't see the whole show). Bizarre that you'd waste about £80+k of your team-mate's winnings to get yourself another £5k that you probably didn't deserve. Interesting stuff.

If you think it's bizarre that she'd waste other people's money to get more herself then you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do... She gained nearly 50% over what she should've received, so I can see why she'd be over the moon with that. The fact that it's bad "overall" doesn't make any difference. It's one of them Nash equilibrium things innit.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:23 am

Charlie Reams wrote:If you think it's bizarre that she'd waste other people's money to get more herself then you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do... She gained nearly 50% over what she should've received, so I can see why she'd be over the moon with that. The fact that it's bad "overall" doesn't make any difference. It's one of them Nash equilibrium things innit.

That's kinda true, but it was in no way nailed-on that if she rejected the £11k she'd get £16k. I can see why she would make that decision if that were the case, but it was a massive, massive risk, and she could have easily gone home with nothing.

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:27 pm

So want to shoot the plonkers on today's show.

They get the right answer and then spend 30-40 seconds pointlessly explaining and mulling it over while the money vanishes.

Andrew Hulme · Post by **Andrew Hulme** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:38 pm

Question: Which of these films was the first to get an Oscar for best picture?

A. Titanic
B. Gladiator
C. Shakespeare in Love

Contestant: I knew it was Titanic before the answers came up.

Nuff Said.

Jojo Apollo · Post by **Jojo Apollo** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:02 pm

I see Countdown great Graham Nash was on today's show. Will be good to see how he gets on, in tomorrow's conclusion.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:01 pm

Andrew Hulme wrote:Question: Which of these films was the first to get an Oscar for best picture?

A. Titanic
B. Gladiator
C. Shakespeare in Love

Contestant: I knew it was Titanic before the answers came up.

Nuff Said.

Yeah, I lolled at that too! She didn't seem to realise that it made no sense, even when Andrew Castle kept repeating it back to her.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:13 pm

Charlie Reams wrote: It's one of them Nash equilibrium things innit.

I've just done an exam on Game Theory, I don't want to see it on here as well!!!

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:07 pm

I've just watched Monday's show and the girl who pretended to be stubborn and chose A annoyed me. She was so weak. She even said her strength was in maths and then confidently declared there are 1000 decades in a millennium. Muppet.

Graham looks good at the game and a good leader. I think he's getting on the woman's wick a little though, although him and the man seem to be getting along well.

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:43 pm

Graham being way too nice, he basically gave them the answer and then let them change it.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:47 pm

Oh hang on - do people appear on more than one show?

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:04 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:Oh hang on - do people appear on more than one show?

Sometimes, if a team goes all the way they probably take up about 1 and 1/2 shows. They could do shit also and just happen to be on the last 10 minutes of one show and the first 10 of another. So basically what I'm saying is they don't just have one new team at the start and drag it out to fill the whole show.

Kevin Thurlow · Post by **Kevin Thurlow** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:45 pm

Oh dear - they thought the Battle of Culloden was when?!

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:11 pm

My god the team on first today are epic.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:13 pm

Craig Beevers wrote:My god the team on first today are epic.

Didn't see yeserday's but was it the same team that were on the beginning of Monday's show? I only saw the first half but they got upto rd 2 q4 with all correct answers and not wasting any time at all. They said their one weakness was history and then they had to place the iron, bronze and ice age in order, but then I had to go out. How did they do?

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:15 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Didn't see yeserday's but was it the same team that were on the beginning of Monday's show? I only saw the first half but they got upto rd 2 q4 with all correct answers and not wasting any time at all. They said their one weakness was history and then they had to place the iron, bronze and ice age in order, but then I had to go out. How did they do?

Not very well. They gave up after 3 rounds with £11,000ish - the guy wanted to play on but didn't force it. We then had the familiar situation where the weakest player drops to B fairly quickly but only succeeds in driving a wedge between the stronger two. But the time they agreed A was lower than C had been at the start - not good.

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:46 pm

The team on first on Tuesday didn't even make it through round 1...

The first question they got was which of these is a red admiral. The bloke was positive it was the picture of a small tortoiseshell and they smugly hit the centre button. They then managed to go downhill from there.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:28 am

This show really fascinates me. The build up to the end game is quite slow but once there it's amazing. Yesterday there were three women sharing £22k or so, who all wanted the largest slice. At least 2 of the 3 declared that they were "happy to leave with nothing". While they may have been truthful in saying they were "happy to leave with nothing", one would have thought they would have been slightly happier to leave with something. Pot C seems to be the sticking point, nobody wants to take it at the outset. Of course it doesn't take long during the argument for pot B to reach the level C started at (and eventually A to do the same), and suddenly then that amount becomes desirable? If you opt for C at the outset you've got a pretty good chance of getting it without much lost, yet everyone would rather have maybe a less than 5% chance of getting the big cash than a near 100% chance of getting the lower amount, just because they don't want someone else to have it.

Really, really interesting stuff.

Edit: Oh, and yeah, they all went home with nothing, as they were happy to. Happy times all round.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:17 pm

I've never watched this programme but it sounds increasingly intriguing, in a van-full-of-retards kind of way.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:40 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:I've never watched this programme but it sounds increasingly intriguing, in a van-full-of-retards kind of way.

You should watch it. Or at least record it and skim through the questions (as it is slow, and often painful watching them wrestle with the most basic of maths/spelling questions) to the endgame. If I was on there, my aim would be to maximise the amount I took home. I couldn't really give a shit what the others got. That seems fairly sensible to me. I'm constantly amazed by the logic that "I don't mind if I take home less than I could have done, provided nobody else gets more". Surely it's all about maximising your own gain. Obstinately digging your heels in while the money reduces to zero isn't the way to do that.

Imagine some other gameshow where at the end they say "well, you've got £xk and your opponent's got £yk. You now have a choice. You can say "MORE!" and we'll double your winnings and multiply your opponents by 5, or if you say "LESS" we'll halve your winnings and divide your opponents by 5. What's it to be?". It's "MORE" every time, isn't it?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:42 pm

Jon Corby wrote:Imagine some other gameshow where at the end they say "well, you've got £xk and your opponent's got £yk. You now have a choice. You can say "MORE!" and we'll double your winnings and multiply your opponents by 5, or if you say "NO" we'll halve your winnings and divide your opponents by 5. What's it to be?". It's "YES" every time, isn't it?

You mean "MORE!"

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:43 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:Imagine some other gameshow where at the end they say "well, you've got £xk and your opponent's got £yk. You now have a choice. You can say "MORE!" and we'll double your winnings and multiply your opponents by 5, or if you say "NO" we'll halve your winnings and divide your opponents by 5. What's it to be?". It's "YES" every time, isn't it?
You mean "MORE!"

lol, oh yeah. I started off with "YES" and "NO" and then realised it made more sense as "MORE" or "LESS". Then I got sidetracked by something else, and it ended up as "MORE" and "NO" and me saying "YES".

I lost all the money for saying the wrong thing, didn't I?

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:03 pm

Jon Corby wrote:This show really fascinates me. The build up to the end game is quite slow but once there it's amazing. Yesterday there were three women sharing £22k or so, who all wanted the largest slice. At least 2 of the 3 declared that they were "happy to leave with nothing". While they may have been truthful in saying they were "happy to leave with nothing", one would have thought they would have been slightly happier to leave with something. Pot C seems to be the sticking point, nobody wants to take it at the outset. Of course it doesn't take long during the argument for pot B to reach the level C started at (and eventually A to do the same), and suddenly then that amount becomes desirable? If you opt for C at the outset you've got a pretty good chance of getting it without much lost, yet everyone would rather have maybe a less than 5% chance of getting the big cash than a near 100% chance of getting the lower amount, just because they don't want someone else to have it.

Really, really interesting stuff.

Edit: Oh, and yeah, they all went home with nothing, as they were happy to. Happy times all round.

Yea I was watching it thinking since they're all women I wonder if they'll cave in, but on Divided most of them seem to have a bitchy spiteful streak which usually results in most of the cash vanishing.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:22 pm

I really don't want to watch this programme - it sounds like the stupid people will be the ones most likely to get their way (and the bigger share), and consequently will feel clever for doing so even if they've ended up with less than they could've done (if there's one thing I can't stand is stupid people thinking they're clever).

I suppose it's probably good if *everyone* is stupid, though.

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:07 pm

Well you get a mix I think. Although I do wish they would introduce a sniper element to pick off people who fanny about pointlessly when they've clearly got the right answer and thinking about it longer isn't going to help.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:19 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:I've never watched this programme but it sounds increasingly intriguing, in a van-full-of-retards kind of way.
You should watch it.

Will have to hurry, as it finishes tomorrow, to be replaced by two new gameshows - one with Bradley Walsh for 2 weeks, and then one with a bloke named after a car for the next 2 weeks!

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:02 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:it finishes tomorrow, to be replaced by two new gameshows - one with Bradley Walsh for 2 weeks, and then one with a bloke named after a car for the next 2 weeks!

Austin Healey?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:02 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:it finishes tomorrow, to be replaced by two new gameshows - one with Bradley Walsh for 2 weeks, and then one with a bloke named after a car for the next 2 weeks!
Austin Healey?

Harrison Ford?