So, I’m watching this show for the first time ever tonight. My mom luuurves it so much. It doesn’t seem that exciting to me, really. The contestant plays a lottery. We watch. Sometimes the “banker” offers the contestant an amount of money that is comparable to about how much money she stands to win anyway if she keeps going.
Explain the appeal, please? (The husband of the blonde girl [the surgical nurse from Tulsa] is kind of cute, though. I guess I’ll keep watching.)
To me, it’s all about the appeal of watching people that would literally fight a toddler over a dollar bill laying in the street, suddenly turn greedy and snub offers of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Eventually their greed is their undoing.
Plus there are hot chicks holding briefcases. What more could you want?
Hot men holding briefcases? ::sigh:: Primetime game shows hate gay men. Although I am surprised that they are women, because I’d actually assume that the target audience is middle-aged women. Middle-aged women love men!
The appeal to me – to the extent there is one – is to see how far people will press their luck after it is manifestly NOT in their best interests to do so. I mean, the odds of bettering whatever the offer is are pretty easy to estimate, yet people will flip the button protector down and yell “NO DEAL!” even when they are putting a ridiculous amount of money at risk by doing so. I read an interview with Howie Mandel in some rag, People maybe, and he said the thing that most surprised him was people’s willingness to gamble, when they would get more money than they could ever have dreamed of getting all at once, if they would only take the deal.
As a creeping into middle age woman, I’m pretty underwhelmed by the “hotties” holding the cases – BFD – but I view them with more charity after seeing the gyrating dancers on Captain Kirk’s stupid show.
I tend to think of them as basically neutral towards sexual orientation, but YMMV. That comment did make me smile though.
True - but what middle-aged women love most of all is for their hubby to spend quality time with them (as opposed to working on his truck or staying late at the office). They tolerate the bimbos with briefcases because that gets her husband to say “Shit, Lorileen, let’s just take these here TV dinners into the livin’ room and watch that no deal show we both like.” They both settle into their lounge chairs - he in his and her in hers, light up a cigarette, pick up their forks, and talk about what they would do if they won all that money. Bliss ensues.
By the way, I have no idea what I’m talking about, but I sure did enjoy talking about it.
The only way to watch this show is to tape it/DVR it and fast forward through the constant commercial breaks and endless padding to stretch the show out in a lame attempt to build suspense.
With fast forward, you can see the whole show in about six minutes and 14 seconds.
I sometimes watch it, out of morbid fascination. I can not believe the stupid, stupid things people do on that show.* And the stupid things having to do with money are bad enough, but there’s also the stupid, stupid things they do when they’re being… extroverted…
-FrL-
*And sometimes worse than stupid. I saw this episode where this guy had several dozen thousand dollars lined up for the taking. He asked his wife in the audience what he should do. And his wife was begging him to take the money–I mean she was literally weeping, and not happy weeping, and pleading with him not to be stupid–and he said “no deal” anyway. I had to switch to another channel after that so I don’t know if he got lucky afterwards or not. Anyway, that wasn’t just stupid, it was downright cruel and wrong.
This is the only show that I watch actively pulling for the person to lose. For some reason, I take enormous pleasure from watching a person enter the arena spouting magical numbers derived from his nephew’s birthday only to leave with ten dollars. And more especially so if he’s a fist-pumping “That’s what I’m talking about!” moron.
I don’t know about the American version, but I watched the British version once and the banker always seems to offer not just less but vastly less than the (mathematically) expected payout. It therefore is mathematically the right decision to press on.
But in my eyes, say you’re down to two cases. The .01 and the million dollars. The banker will probably offer you something like 450k. Which I’m going to take. I could use a million, sure, but 450k will pay off my debts, including student loans, buy me a better car (I’d probably still buy used, though), and start me one hell of a CD.
I think it’s great fun. There are some contestants that I pull for and some that I root against. I find it interesting to see how people handle the situations when they get down to one six-figure number and the next case could be disaster. The models certainly don’t hurt the show- the three main reasons (or is it six?) I watch are Lindsey, Anya, and Layla.
Only if the value you place on the amount you would lose and the value you place on the amount you would win make the bet worth taking. Unless you are very rich, the former is likely to stay equal to the amount itself, while the latter is likely to be a smaller proportion of the amount as the amount rises.
At least in our version of the show the banker sometimes makes offers above the expected value in the final phase of the game.
You always have to be mindful that, for any large sum, you’re going to get only about half of what you win.
Do Americans pay tax on winnings then? I know we (UK) pay tax on bets made at a bookies, but lottery/TV/competition winnings aren’t taxed.
Anything that’s money coming in to you, you pay income tax on.
You a ten year-old who just got a two dollar tip on your paper route? You’re supposed to report it.
You a mid-forties douchebag who won a million dollars on the first “Survivor”? You’re supposed to report it.
The difference is, the kid is probably safe. The douchebag, however, won his money on a highly-rated TV show. Not report it is just asking for it, isn’t it, Richard?
-Joe
I’ve watched the UK version only, but I’ve seen the US website.
The differences are:
Although there is no skill required (apart from knowing how much you want to win), I think people watch for a few reasons:
The UK show has one advantage - all the contestants stay together in a hotel and get to know each other whilst waiting their turn to play. This makes for a very friendly show.
Perhaps the situation is different in the UK.
Although I’m not a tax expert in either country , I thought there was a difference between taxing income from luck, gambling and work.
Some things are different. Taxes on dividends are, generally, lower than taxes on other income. But taxes on game show prizes and lottery winnings and such will get you reamed by no fewer than three governments: federal, state, and local — sometimes two of the latter: county and municipal.
Speaking of lotteries, look what Florida does to its winners: http://gamblingmagazine.com/articles/04/04-39.htm.
Doesn’t the IRS reduce taxes by the amount of state taxes you paid in the previous year?
-FrL-