Re: DEAL or NO DEAL (TV Game Show) How Decide?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but the dynamic that makes the game more interesting is not pure EV, but how the value of money changes relative to how much you have.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called risk aversion, and comes up in bankrolling discussions.

Re: DEAL or NO DEAL (TV Game Show) How Decide?
 

slightly unrelated, but from the Deal or No Deal wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deal_or...tific_research

"A team of economists have analyzed the decisions of people appearing in European and US episodes of Deal or No Deal and found, among other things, that contestants are less risk averse or even risk seeking when they have seen their expected winnings tumble."

lol i love how it took a "team of economists" to figure out what every poker player already knows as tilt .

Re: DEAL or NO DEAL (TV Game Show) How Decide?
 

Oddly enough, I've also seen reverse tilt on the show. Someone recently had an offer of $107k... the average case was worth about $135k, so it was a reasonable 80% of EV offer. The contestant chose to keep playing though.

In play was the 750k, 200k, and five small numbers.

She then eliminated the 200k case. The next offer was only $50,000... only 40% of the value of the average case. The loss had affected her, and she decided to take the deal.

As they played through the "what ifs", her next case was a small number, and the offer was $120k... back up to the 80% level. If she had continued, she would have had a 5/6 chance to more than double her money.

Re: DEAL or NO DEAL (TV Game Show) How Decide?
 

I don't think EV really comes into play here. EV is used to make decisions based on long term expectations where you are willing to accept some variance.

Imagine the scenario where you are given 5 million dollars, and you are offered a coin flip to either win 20 million or lose the 5 million. If you were Bill Gates, 50% chance to lose 5 million isn't such a huge deal to you. But if you are a Single mother with 10 kids on welfare...50% chance to lose 5 million is a huge risk. And keeping the 5 ensures you a happy life and the ability to care for your children, while increasing it to 20 million would only be marginally better...certainly not worth a 50% probability of losing everything.

It's "Risk of Ruin" that is the overriding factor here. Here's a nice explanation using poker as the example:
http://miserlybastard.blogspot.com/2...etirement.html

Re: DEAL or NO DEAL (TV Game Show) How Decide?
 

This show eveolves around 'relative risk'...

blah blah blah.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bankers offer is always -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

seen several UK episodes where this is not true

[/ QUOTE ]\

Also Australian, its like the Bank doesn't want to risk losing 200k i.e 'insurance' or something.

JT

Re: DEAL or NO DEAL (TV Game Show) How Decide?
 

There are more episodes filmed than are aired. Contestants agree prior to the show that if their episode is not aired they don't get paid. Getting a good offer early on and accepting isn't going to get you any TV time.

Re: DEAL or NO DEAL (TV Game Show) How Decide?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are more episodes filmed than are aired. Contestants agree prior to the show that if their episode is not aired they don't get paid. Getting a good offer early on and accepting isn't going to get you any TV time.

[/ QUOTE ]

false

Re: DEAL or NO DEAL (TV Game Show) How Decide?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine the scenario where you are given 5 million dollars, and you are offered a coin flip to either win 20 million or lose the 5 million. If you were Bill Gates, 50% chance to lose 5 million isn't such a huge deal to you. But if you are a Single mother with 10 kids on welfare...50% chance to lose 5 million is a huge risk. And keeping the 5 ensures you a happy life and the ability to care for your children, while increasing it to 20 million would only be marginally better...certainly not worth a 50% probability of losing everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an aside, I think the billionaire of choice for such analogies should always be Kerry Packer, notwithstanding his death two years ago.