c4countdown

I know DOND is a really bad show but I do sort of like it. It fits in well with my student schedule. I'm trying to work out if there's any sort of maths to it at all, or it's pretty much 100% luck. Basically as far as I can see it just depends on how you play it. A bit like a poker hand, whatever works, works. I think it just depends if you're happy with your offer or not. It's real gambling, like roulette or something similar. I'd imagine over 100 games of DOND you could use tactics, but because you're only there once, it depends entirely on the boxes and the bankers offer. I remember on Wednesday that the two final boxes were £20 000 and £5 (or similar) and the banker offered him £3 000 which seems a bit unfair. But it's rather simple, either you take it, or you don't!

Martin

It's just odds, isn't it? If the offer is 3 for a possibility of 20 (win) or negligable (lose), then effectively your stake is 3 and the potential winnings are 20, which means you're getting roughly 6/1 for what in reality is a 50:50 (evens) chance. That's a bet you've got to take.

I think that what makes betting as a DOND contestant different from other betting is that the contestant isn't able to have a second go.

Personal circumstances of a contestant could well mean that getting £3000 could make a massive difference to that person's life. OK - getting £20,000 would probably make a much bigger difference, and there is an even chance that he would get the £20,000. However, there is an even chance that he would end up with nothing, and as a result lose the chance of the big difference to his life.

If this was a bet that could be made many times, then of course anyone would gamble on getting the £20,000 unless they were incredibly unlucky they would very soon be well in profit. But with DOND they don't get a second go. The banker knows that they know they're not getting a second go, and that is why he makes such low offers.

I agree with you Martin. It's a very bad show. But when it happens to be on, I do tend not to look away.

I like Desperate Housewives which is also a really corny, bad show. I used to watch Coronation St. as well which is the same sort of thing, without the beautiful women. Btw speaking of DOND, I thought Kirsty on Monday was the fittest game show contestant ever.

Martin

Howard Somerset wrote:I think that what makes betting as a DOND contestant different from other betting is that the contestant isn't able to have a second go.

There has been over 700 contestants though, so I thought it would be a bit hard to keep track of whose been on before. I wouldn't be surprised if people have tried to get back on, who wouldn't .

God I hate Noel. The way he tries to make every game special. Its so fucking monotonous!

I hope one day Noel opens a giant box from the banker filled to the brim with shit and he, the contestants and the entire audience get pebbledashed. That would really make my day

I hate a lot about the show, but I get enormous pleasure from watching greedy (idiotic) contestants crashing and burning. I'm quite risk-averse, so as soon as there is a possibility of utterly wrecking your offers, I would bail. Occasionally this would mean you miss out on really big money, but not often. A lot of the time you see someone turn down say a £15000 offer, have a "reasonable" round, and the offer only goes up by a few grand. It just doesn't seem worth the risk. Particularly, as somebody has already pointed, you don't necessarily get a "fair" offer (this week alone has seen a final offer of £3k with 10p and £20k remaining, and one of £7.5k with £500 and £20k remaining).

The whole way the show is presented pisses me off though, the stupid stunts they pull to try and make each show unique, the awfully staged "mishaps" that sometimes happen (like the 'empty' box last week), the superstition, the apologies of people when they reveal a high amount. Plus the way they play the game out after the deal as if it somehow proves whether they were right or not to deal at that point. It's luck, it doesn't matter if you dealt at £15k and ended up having the £250k box, you had no way of knowing that, it's fucking random!

In economics it's usually considered that the utility of money is about logarithmic, so £250K isn't worth much more than £100K unless you're heavily in debt already. It would be interesting to see how the behaviour of contestants measures up to that, but I can't be arsed to look through enough past games to do it myself.

Martin Gardner wrote:I'd imagine over 100 games of DOND you could use tactics

Yeah, you'd just look at the average of the boxes remaining versus the bankers offer. Easy. But as others have said, you just get one go, so it's down to how much you're prepared to risk.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I'd imagine over 100 games of DOND you could use tactics

Yeah, you'd just look at the average of the boxes remaining versus the bankers offer. Easy. But as others have said, you just get one go, so it's down to how much you're prepared to risk.

Maybe the median would be more useful than the mean? Oh you did say average but that usually means mean.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:

Gevin-Gavin wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I'd imagine over 100 games of DOND you could use tactics

Yeah, you'd just look at the average of the boxes remaining versus the bankers offer. Easy. But as others have said, you just get one go, so it's down to how much you're prepared to risk.

Maybe the median would be more useful than the mean? Oh you did say average but that usually means mean.

Martin

Mean is correct -- what matters is the expected value of the box you have. In almost all cases that's not a value you can actually win but mathematically that doesn't matter, much like how the expected roll of a dice is 3.5 but you never actually roll that number.

I was just thinking of the situation where there are five boxes left:

£1
£250
£750
£3000
£100 000

In this situation he's going to offer more than £3000 so if he offer something like £20 000, there's a 4/5 chance that you will end up with less than that if you go to the end, and a 3/5 chance that the £100k will not be one of the two remaining boxes if you do another round. Therefore my tendance is to take the money and be sure of it, rather than taking a 40% chance that the next offer will be bigger.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:Therefore my tendance is to take the money and be sure of it, rather than taking a 40% chance that the next offer will be bigger.

Humans tend to be risk-averse Gev's point was merely that the optimal strategy is simply to accept any offer above the mean and reject anything else. Whether that's optimal in terms of your personal circumstances, value of money to you etc is a more interesting and I guess that's the only reason the show has any popularity.

Channel 4 did the right thing by hiring Noel Edmonds to host the show.

Deal!

I was watching a game today on Channel 4 I think it was, and I caught the last few minutes of Rachel's game. There were 2 choices left £10 and £20,000 and the banker had only offered £3,200. After a loooooong time, Rachel decides to go all the way and No Deal.

She then went on for a while saying that she was convinced that the £20,000 was in the other box and not hers. Noel said, that the banker, had also came to the same conclusion, so offered a swap. Almost instantaneously, Rachel said no and opened up her box to reveal £20,000 making for a nice win.

But my question is why did she keep going on, saying that she was sure that she didn't have the £20,000, but instantaneously decided not to swap?. If you thought you only had the £10, you would swap, surely?

Joseph Bolas wrote: But my question is why did she keep going on, saying that she was sure that she didn't have the £20,000, but instantaneously decided not to swap?. If you thought you only had the £10, you would swap, surely?

It's like the Monty Hall problem but rubbish.

Honestly, Noel Edmonds is a lot more composed when offering deals than Monty Hall was. But, because he's gotten older his voice is very raspy.

I loathe Deal or No Deal, and I haven't watched it for a very long time.
Mainly because:
I don`t like Noel Edmonds,
and his desperate efforts to make a dull programme exciting,
and it is a 20 minute programme over-extended to 45 minutes,
and the contestants behave rather stupidly (e.g. kissing somebody just because they have opened a box),
and I regard it is nothing more than a guessing game.
I am aware the programme has many fans, but I am not one of them.

Noel is just as good as our host here, and he is not crazy!

Martin Gardner wrote:I was just thinking of the situation where there are five boxes left:

£1
£250
£750
£3000
£100 000

In this situation he's going to offer more than £3000 so if he offer something like £20 000, there's a 4/5 chance that you will end up with less than that if you go to the end, and a 3/5 chance that the £100k will not be one of the two remaining boxes if you do another round. Therefore my tendance is to take the money and be sure of it, rather than taking a 40% chance that the next offer will be bigger.

Martin

In a one-off game, I might think about it, but looking at your case where you have 100 games, I would pretty much look at the mean, because it would ultimately get you more money - not just in a mean sense but you would probably win more money.

Basically, you might probably get less than the banker's offer on a single go at the game, but when you play many times, you would expect (in the English sense of the word) to get near the expected amount and it's better to ignore the short-term median dilemma.

It's funny, because towards the beginning of the game you should play on with a lot of high numbers, but as the game goes on you should take any amount offered to you with a lot of high numbers because there is a better chance that you will open a high amount. Hence, this makes it true that you will not go home with that much money because of the not-so-good prior odds.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:
In a one-off game, I might think about it, but looking at your case where you have 100 games, I would pretty much look at the mean, because it would ultimately get you more money - not just in a mean sense but you would probably win more money.

Basically, you might probably get less than the banker's offer on a single go at the game, but when you play many times, you would expect (in the English sense of the word) to get near the expected amount and it's better to ignore the short-term median dilemma.

Yes basically I was looking at a one-off situation rather than a longterm situation, because you can't legally reappear on the show.

Martin

Unless there was a technical difficulty, no you wouldn't.

Martin Gardner wrote:Yes basically I was looking at a one-off situation rather than a longterm situation, because you can't legally reappear on the show.

Martin

OK, but you'll notice that I posted what I did after quoting your hundred games example.

Sometimes they've had contestants who've already had relations on the show. Of course Noel always tries to spin it out as something spesh.

Dinos, are you trying to imply how much pigs would fly by the time we see a contestant leave on that show?

Joseph Bolas wrote:But my question is why did she keep going on, saying that she was sure that she didn't have the £20,000, but instantaneously decided not to swap?. If you thought you only had the £10, you would swap, surely?

Maybe she had an epiphany and realised that actually both she & the banker were talking utter bollocks, and that each box had an exactly equal chance of containing the £20,000, and that she really should just get the whole thing over and done with as quickly as possible as they had already dragged it out to ridiculous lengths (at one point she said "I'm ready for the question Noel" and then pondered for a further minute or so after "the question" was asked suggesting that actually she wasn't ready for the question at all )

Maybe.

dinos_the_chemist wrote:Sometimes they've had contestants who've already had relations on the show. Of course Noel always tries to spin it out as something spesh.

Contestants having relations on the show?

I'd no idea it was so exciting!

I don't understand!

What do you mean?

dinos_the_chemist wrote:Sometimes they've had contestants who've already had relations on the show. Of course Noel always tries to spin it out as something spesh.

What is the rule wth relations. Are 2 or more family members allowed to be in the same group of 22 people, or must they be separate from each other?

To "have relations" is a quaint sort of circumlocution for having nookie. I'm not sure about the range of expressions for this which would be current in the USA - or whether this sort of thing would be regarded there as so tame that nobody would bat an eyelid.

They can do it as they please.

And by the way, on the US version of Deal or No Deal, it's all about the fans. Every game is different, just like it is in the UK. But, it is a lot more silly.

Also, Michael, good luck in this season. I'm a fan of yours.

Jason Larsen wrote:Also, Michael, good luck in this season. I'm a fan of yours.

Be afraid Michael. Be very afraid.

Thanks, Jason!

Thanks for the concerned warning, Corhy. I'm already very afraid, but it's more to do with the Omagh octochamp!

Corby wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:Also, Michael, good luck in this season. I'm a fan of yours.

Be afraid Michael. Be very afraid.

.

Michael Macdonald-Cooper wrote:Thanks for the concerned warning, Corhy. I'm already very afraid, but it's more to do with the Omagh octochamp!

Yeah, that's what I meant. What did you infer?

You're kidding, Jon.

I do like Michael.

Joseph Bolas wrote:What is the rule wth relations. Are 2 or more family members allowed to be in the same group of 22 people, or must they be separate from each other?

Does this sort of stuff really matter? Someone could get stuck without being "chosen" for months so barring family members from competing with them could mean a very long time. Also how close is a family member? Anyway here is from the Deal or No deal offical website:

A member of the immediate family of one of the 22 contestants is eligible to become a contestant themsleves immediately after the contestant family member plays their game, or in the case of prolonged failure to appear, after the family member has appeared on screen for 50 shows.

Hope this clears it up!

Gevin-Gavin wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:What is the rule wth relations. Are 2 or more family members allowed to be in the same group of 22 people, or must they be separate from each other?

Does this sort of stuff really matter? Someone could get stuck without being "chosen" for months so barring family members from competing with them could mean a very long time. Also how close is a family member? Anyway here is from the Deal or No deal offical website:

A member of the immediate family of one of the 22 contestants is eligible to become a contestant themsleves immediately after the contestant family member plays their game, or in the case of prolonged failure to appear, after the family member has appeared on screen for 50 shows.

Hope this clears it up!

Thank you for clearing this up.

As you say, it doesn't really matter, but I was just curious to know if the DOND team had any rules about family members appearing together.

Joseph Bolas wrote:Thank you for clearing this up.

As you say, it doesn't really matter, but I was just curious to know if the DOND team had any rules about family members appearing together.

Oh, forget to say - I made it up.

Thats not funny, but then I don't have much of a sense of humour.

I agree. It doesn't matter.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:In a one-off game, I might think about it, but looking at your case where you have 100 games, I would pretty much look at the mean, because it would ultimately get you more money - not just in a mean sense but you would probably win more money.

Basically, you might probably get less than the banker's offer on a single go at the game, but when you play many times, you would expect (in the English sense of the word) to get near the expected amount and it's better to ignore the short-term median dilemma.

A quicker way of doing it would simply be to always say "no deal" because the banker very rarely, if ever, offers higher than the mean of the remaining boxes. I think I saw it once actually but I haven' seen the programme for ages.

Another way of spicing it up would be to have not just money boxes but other things as well, including negatives. You might have as the last two boxes the £250,000 and having your legs sawn off. If the banker offered you a punch in the face, you'd probably take it.

And with this game it would be harder to work out the "mean" of what it left so more exciting!

Gevin-Gavin wrote:Another way of spicing it up would be to have not just money boxes but other things as well, including negatives. You might have as the last two boxes the £250,000 and having your legs sawn off. If the banker offered you a punch in the face, you'd probably take it.

And with this game it would be harder to work out the "mean" of what it left so more exciting!

That's probably your best post ever. I would totally watch it if there was a chance of dismemberment, especially if Noel performed it himself, possibly with Mr Blobby as his anaesthetist.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:If the banker offered you a punch in the face, you'd probably take it.

Excellent

How could you possibly predict all that?

Gevin-Gavin wrote:You might have as the last two boxes the £250,000 and having your legs sawn off. If the banker offered you a punch in the face, you'd probably take it.

I'm pretty sure in this situation the sadistic banker would make no offer, just a swap!

That's what makes the game interesting, though.

Jason Larsen wrote:That's what makes the game interesting, though.

What is?

The fact that the banker has to make offers.

If that was the case, Noel would say, "You've opened 5 blues, so..."

Getting back to today's show (09/04/08) I know he got offered £15k and turned it down... that's because they always turn down the early offers. I think the only sense in which you can play tactically is in relation to your opening round. If you get a lot of reds then it's likely that you'll get blues later on, and visa-versa. So if you have a string of blues it's probably best to take the money (maybe £15k + when there's still 1p on the board) but if you have most reds and the beginning, you will probably get blues later and the offer will go up. It does piss me off that they never accept the early offers because sometimes the offers go down throughout the entire game.

Martin

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

Martin Gardner wrote:It does piss me off that they never accept the early offers because sometimes the offers go down throughout the entire game.

I know. I'd walk at £10k+ probably. Very few people ever get offered stuff in the £20k's and above, so why fucking risk it?

Another thing that pisses me off is the contestants give it all the "I love you so much, you and your partner are such wonderful people" yet the next second they're urging them to spunk off a £15k offer for a tiny chance of getting something bigger, based on their "feeling" and "how much they believe it's in that box", just because they don't want the game to end.

Twats

On our version of Deal or No Deal, one contestant took his deal after the fourth round, and our host was shocked.

Good point - a friend of mine suggested that the best way to foul up the game was to take the first offer!

Noel hasn't killed any contestants yet, but that might do the trick.

Kevin Thurlow wrote:Noel hasn't killed any contestants yet, but that might do the trick.

Snidey, love it