Deal or No Deal?

[largehat]

Does anyone else ever watch this?

I Sky+ it, and watch from 35 minutes onwards. The first half an hour is a load of bollocks about the player's life (sometimes with a sob story) followed by three rounds where nobody ever deals.

Now I know some will say it's just pot luck, but I find the maths and the psychology interesting at times. You usually have to watch about 5 episodes before you get a decent one. I like how two players can have an identical 'board' - series of remaining values in the boxes - and The Banker will offer them significantly different amounts based on what he thinks they will deal at - there isn't a set formula.

There have also been some incredibly fit contestants and when you spot a massive rack in the wings you get an itch waiting for their game so you can see them in all their glory.

There is a US version, which is different in a number of ways. Firstly there are no other contestants opening the boxes for the player, and when someone wants to no deal they have to pull a lever. Also, lets say someone has these 5 boxes remaining:

10p
£500
£3000
£10000
£75000

In the UK version the banker will nearly always offer less than the average of the 5 boxes because the players are sensible enough not to want to go home with a shíte amount of money. So on the above board the UK banker might offer £15000, whereas in the US the players are far more stupid and less risk averse so they would be offered maybe £30000.

Except in the US version the boxes are briefcases and worth from $1 to $1M. Check out this fat barrel of monkey spunk - encouraged by his equally fat and stupid family members - who actually is stupid enough to turn down over $600,000 with these two boxes left, in one of my all time favourite YouTube clips. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOqDgDtc9w

Not that the UK version isn't without its comedy moments, it's brilliant when the contestants all hold hands together and chant 'blue, blue, blue' and then the box is opened and it's a large red.

The Banker from the UK version is on Twitter. It's part of the game's appeal that nobody knows who he is. He is some sort of financial whiz and he is a well known individual, he was at the Royal Wedding for example last year. He does actually reply to you if you tweet him as well, a very intelligent guy.

Anyway, I am just catching up with today's episode and thought I'd see if there were any other fans of this show on here.

[Big_Sharps]

I hate it.

[aarons2009]

The idea for the game is a good one but as usual they got it very very wrong in how they do it.

Plus the people they have on are idiots, ''oh I have a strategy for my game''.......you are opening a box not going to war! 

Oh and Noel edmonds is fanny!

[bangerhard]

Not a fan of the UK version.  When it first started (when it was 45 minutes long) it wasn't too bad and the it just went downhill as they extended the show to an hour and all the sob stories etc.

The original Dutch version was much better - although it is no longer a show by itself.  Same in appearance as the British version but it was only 30 minutes - nice fast pace.  

Origins of the Gameshow itself started in Holland in a gameshow called Hunt for Millions and it was only a section of the gameshow (one of 5 final games which swapped on a weekly basis).  In this version the briefcases where held by skimpy-clad women and the top prize was EUR5,000,000.  When it gained its own series it was very much in essence how the British version copied.  It is now, again, part of the series final of games on Hunt for Millions.

In fact I much prefer the Australian version - again only 30 minutes but its with briefcases and very much like the original Dutch version, with the skimpy-clad women.  Funnily enough the Australian version was the first international version.

[barryk32]

Its shite.  Although its proven mathematical fact that if ever offered a swap you should do so.

[Big_Sharps]

Its shite.  Although its proven mathematical fact that if ever offered a swap you should do so.

Check ya facebook La.

[Paul Comstive]

That's interesting Barry.  How is it a mathematical fact though?  I'm intrigued - I like stuff like this.

If two numbers are randomly put into two boxes at the start of the game, how is it a fact that the 'other' one is more likely to have more in it?

[largehat]

I believe Barry is referring to The Monty Hall Problem, Paul.

You can google it for a proper explanation but it is to do with the principle of variable change.

The problem gets its name from a US game show. Imagine you are a contestant on a game show and are presented with a series of 3 doors. Behind two of the doors there are goats, and behind the other door is a car. The host knows what is behind the three doors. He asks you to pick a door. Then when you pick a door, he opens one of the two remaining doors at random to reveal a goat. He then gives you the option to stick with your original choice of door or change to the last remaining door. Instinctively you think it is a 50/50 gamble at this point but mathematically it has been proven that you should change to the last remaining door.

It became a famous puzzle in the branch of mathematics called game theory when a certified genius called Marilyn Vos Savant published a magazine column about the scenario in a weekly column in the 1970s stating that you should always change your choice.  She was bombarded with letters from mathematics professors telling her she was wrong and that it is a 50/50 call. But she was right.

It's easier to explain with a flow chart but if you get to a situation in Deal it no Deal where you have 3reds and 2blues left, and then open 3 boxes and are left with a red and a blue, there is a 60% chance the remaining red is in the box that isn't on the table, not 50%.

[largehat]

Here you go Paul.

[barryk32]

Thats exactly what I'm referring to.

They also covered it on Mythbusters and the results were astonishing.

[Paul Comstive]

fcuking hell!!!

My head just spun around then fell off.

[barryk32]

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=66128

[Malcolm Everett]

Wouldn't it save a lot of time and bother if the contestant just opens the box he chooses at the start of the show? 

[largehat]

Not grasping the idea of a game today, Malcolm?

[Paul Comstive]

Wouldn't it save a lot of time and bother if the contestant just opens the box he chooses at the start of the show? 

Surely the words "Deal or no deal" would then become redundant?

I'm going to be kind to you and suggest you've not thought this through....

[Paul Comstive]

Thats exactly what I'm referring to.

They also covered it on Mythbusters and the results were astonishing.

Barry

Been having a think about this.  'Deal or No Deal' is not the same as the 'Goat or Car' game.

In goat or car, the box taken away is ALWAYS the goat whereas in Deal or No Deal, each box taken away is completely random.  In car or goat the box that is removed is NOT random, therefore the comparison is not relevant.

If offered Swap or no Swap then it is a 50/50.

I'm more than happy to be proved wrong on this though...

[largehat]

Paul, check out this URL

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/46311-monty-hall-paradox-on-deal-or-no-deal/

[Gloria Stitz]

I hate the way that they latch onto any excuse to make the show not just about 22 irritating people opening boxes.  It seems like there only ever needs to be some traditional festivity going on in Brazil and they're all dressed up for the occasion, Tosspot Edmonds included. It doesn't make the show more appealing, just more annoying.

I think Channel 4 should ditch it as it got old and repetitive years ago, and it should be replaced by Golden Balls, a far more interesting game that used to be on ITV. Admittedly, it would be a bad business move as Deal or no Deal would get far more viewers as its far easier to understand, but it's what I'd like to see.

Thanks for reading,

Gloria.

[Quiroga]

I occasionally watch it but mainly in the hope of watching some numb doley reject 20K and end up with a fiver 

oh and Noel Edmonds is an absolute to55pot

[Martinbwfc]

The mythbuster thing proves fcúk all, all they were doing was providing evidence that bullshit can be believed, at the end of the day 50/50 is just that, like in black jack you have a queen and a four what you going to do? stick or twist?.

[largehat]

The mythbuster thing proves fcúk all, all they were doing was providing evidence that bullshit can be believed, at the end of the day 50/50 is just that, like in black jack you have a queen and a four what you going to do? stick or twist?.

That's just it, it isn't 50/50, have a look at the flowchart I posted earlier in this thread. You have a 1 in 3 chance if you stick with the original door and a 2 in 3 chance if you switch.

It doesn't matter whether you accept the Mythbuster presentation, it is a proven scientific fact that in the Monty Hall situation you have a greater chance of winning the car if you change doors. It doesn't apply to deal or no deal because the boxes are random and one is not opened by a host who knows where the money is.

It's the same branch of mathematics as a Nash Equalibrium. Look at game theory on Wikipedia.

[Paul Comstive]

Largehat

The "Monty Hall theory" does not apply to Deal or No Deal because the banker in Deal or No Deal is not the one removing the boxes up until the swap option.  The banker also has no idea what is in any of the boxes which means the games or not comparable.

[largehat]

Yeah, I read the stuff at that URL I posted for you and agree.

It does apply to the monty hall situation though, martinbwfc basically said above that it's complete bollocks, which is wrong.