Dumbest game show answers

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
81

That’s a horrible offer from the banker. I would have turned it down too.

Wrong choice: -42,000.
Correct choice: + 205,000.

This is not even a close decision. She played it correctly.

I’m surprised the offers are so low on the UK show. On the U.S. show, the offers are slightly under whatever the current mathematically expected value of your choice is (slightly under, to encourage contestants to keep going).

For example, with a set of values like this:

500
1000
50000
750,000
1,000,000

The expected value is 360,300. That would be a ‘fair’ offer - if you played out the game 1 million times from this point, choosing randomly, the average value of the player’s earnings would be that amount. But the bank will offer slightly under that, so there’s slightly more value in continuing the game. In the early rounds, the offer is WAY under. But in the later rounds, it’s almost exactly the expectation.

In your case, the real value of the player’s position was 147,500. In the U.S, the banker would probably have offered something like 145,000. I can’t believe they’d make an offer as low as 45,000 on the U.K. version. Did you leave a one off at the beginning of that number?

BTW, all the claims that Deal or No Deal is a simple show are dead wrong. It’s just that the decision-making and knowledge required are very different than most other game shows. The key elements in that show are expected value, variance, and utility. It’s a show economists love.

82

Bonus round on Family Feud - Richard Karn era.

Name an animal that starts with T -

Pterodactyl

83

So, you are nominating your potential answer, as a candidate answer for this thread?

84

Well, if you think a bit about the strategy before you go on, it’s just 10 seconds of maths, isn’t it? (I haven’t actually seen the show.)

85

Actually, still haven’t seen the show, I guess it’s even simpler than that. If the offer is always a good amount below the expected value, it’s just a question about refusing the deal, unless there is only one “large” box left, in which case you might take it due to the variance.

86

That’s a bit unfair. What if the guaranteed 45 grand is enough to really help the contestant out with a house purchase, and the 3 is only enough for a holiday? Obviously the quarter million would be nice, but the show works on human responses as well as probabilistic ones. The utility of the guaranteed sum may well exceed that of being in a coin-toss for the other two amounts.

87

here is a higher quality vid of that incident. I absolutely will laugh until I cry every time I watch it.

“You’ve used the 1 TWICE JOY!”

88

Yeah, true, it was unfair. The expected value is just way too high for me, personally.

Hmm, how about you make a deal pregame with some rich guy that he gives you a slight amount below the expected value, and you go to the end and give him the winnings. Would that be illegal?

89

How does that benefit anyone? Have you actually watched the show?

90

Not a vetriloquist that I know of, but he does a dead-on impression of Cezanne at parties when he’s had a couple of drinks! :smiley:

91

I understand the strategy involved quite thoroughly, but I still think it’s a stupid gimmick show. It’s just a preference, though.

Calculating the expected value is a simple excercise - it’s just a straight average in this case, you don’t have to do a bayesian analysis or anything (if I’m using that term correctly - I mean that all options are equally likely, and you don’t have to further calculate for the probability vs expectation of each value) - and variance and utility are interrelated so that it’s really just a suspense show based on one person’s decision regarding how much expectation they’ll give up to reduce variance. You can play at home, I guess, and ask yourself what your decision would be - but that’s not compelling television in my view.

It’s not like a trivia show in which you can test your trivial knowledge at home, or a show in which people perform some sort of feat that’s entertaining. It’s just people picking random numbers and then making simple but important (to them) decisions about it. I watched about 20 minutes of one episode and the novelty wore off realllllly fast.

92

I meant, of course, of each option - options being the suitcases.

93

What’s really scary is that I saw that when it was first broadcast. It was absolutely dumbfounding without any prior warning.

94

Gilbert Godfrey was on Hollywood Squares and was asked by the host, “What can you do about a hairy back?”.

He replied, "Pretend she’s wearing a sweater’.

95

As somebody who’s actually been on TV gameshows, let me speak up in defense of these contestants. While some may have been genuinely ignorant, others may have just had their minds go blank in the pressure of the competition. And, yes, I unfortunately speak from experience.

That said, I remember one gameshow where the contest was to guess the common name two famous people had. The question was “Singer Aretha and founding father Benjamin”. The woman answered Washington.

96

Actually, at its heart the show is all about decision making with risk and unknown values - which is a very interesting subject to economists. In fact, I read one article that said that economists were using the show to examine human behaviour under these conditions, because it has applicabiliy to all sorts of economic issues.

It’s not just about expectation, though. It’s also about utility and variance. Take these two situations:

500
500,000
750,000

and

500
250,000
1,000,000

The expectation is the same for both setups. But the variance is completely different.

In both cases, the banker’s offer will be around 400,000. But the conequences of the choices are radically different.

In both cases, if the player picks the 500, the offer should go up by a similar amount - to about 600,000. In the first case, if you pick wrong you’ll get 500,000, and if you pick right you’ll get 750,000. Not much risk, but not much added gain. In the second case, if you pick wrong you drop all the way back to 250,000, but if you guess right you jump to a million. Huge variance. And it can get bigger than that.

In every combination of board values, you have decisions to make based on the variance of your choices, your own utility curve, and the expected value of your choices. If the banker always offered you the expected value, then you can take that out of the equation, and it all becomes an exercise in managing risk and your own utility.

I can understand how that would be boring to lots of people, but I enjoy it. And I’m always amazed that people who are given a shot at a million dollars don’t even bother to learn the basic math behind it. Compare that to Jeopardy, where contestants have been known to study extensively before going on the show.

97

The actor who played Mel Cooley on the Dick Van Dyke Show, Richard Deacon (1921 - 1984) (not the British sculptor) was on a celebrity edition of Family Feud.
In the “lightning round” (or whatever it’s called), he was asked to name a tool that everyone uses and he said a fork. :smiley:
Still, when the answer was revealed it was worth 2 points !!! Richard Dawson told Mr Deacon something like “Never mind the points. It’s still a stupid answer and you know it.”

98

Sam Stone No, I didn’t miss out a 1

99

You are still applying the laws of probability and chance to a once in a lifetime opportunity.

It is unrealistic to follow those laws unless you can play Deal or No Deal as often as you can play other games in which knowledge of those laws will enable you to come out on top over a period of time.

See also Struan’s post #86.

100

I believe chowder prefaces his comment by telling you it is a hijack. Furthermore, his post is in fact tangentially pertinent to the increasing number of opinions in this thread regarding Deal or No Deal.