|
|
#11
03-06-2006, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Deal or No Deal
"Live changing money", what are you talking about?
To me that is the approach of a wimp. I would go for the gazillions without a second thought. Doyle Brunson wrote he would always bet all his money in the world if the odds were favouring him because he would be confident enough to get the money back even if he would lose. 
|
|
#12
03-06-2006, 11:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
[ QUOTE ]
"Live changing money", what are you talking about? To me that is the approach of a wimp. I would go for the gazillions without a second thought. Doyle Brunson wrote he would always bet all his money in the world if the odds were favouring him because he would be confident enough to get the money back even if he would lose. [/ QUOTE ] This is so fucken stupid. First of all your not doyle brunson. You cant just go make millions tomorrow. I always thought this was incredibly stupid of him anyway. There was an NFL owner 20 or 30 years ago (he owned the eagles) who managed to piss his fortune away gambling. Look at MC Hammer. Look at all these braindead lottery winners. Id rather be a wimp with money than brave without it. I look at it this way. If I had 20 million and you paid me 2-1 on a coinflip for all my money why the [censored] would i take it. (Hypothetically, I cant borrow money sell shares etc.) If I win i have 60 million- so what my life wouldnt change one bit. If I lose I am broke.
|
|
#13
03-07-2006, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
The only thing you got right is that I am not Doyle Brunson. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
I still don't get what you are trying to say. To me live is more than just silly money chasing. I think it is incredibly stupid to believe that money makes you happy or that it can change your live. Maybe that is because you don't have much. If you are a wimp without money then you will still be a wimp if you have some.
|
|
#14
03-07-2006, 01:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Everybody must of course decline all the "offers" with a lower EV. What is the idea of that retarded show, to prove that people don't know what an EV is? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I know what EV is. Sometimes, for lifechanging money and the inability to run the situation multiple times, I would be willing to sacrafice value for reduced variance. Extreme examples always help: case 1: 100 bajillion trillion gagillion dollars case 2: 100 million case 3: a free item from the McDonalds value menu Bank Offer: 90 million I take the 90 million even though the EV is somewhere in the 80 bajillion trillion range. [/ QUOTE ] SossMan, Although I agree with what your are saying I disagree with your example. In the case of: "case 1: 100 bajillion trillion gagillion dollars case 2: 100 million case 3: a free item from the McDonalds value menu" You would still be better of opening 1 more case since even worst case scenario you open the 100 bajillion trillion gagillion dollars the banker's offer would still be in the high millions and still life changing for most. My 100 bajillion trillion gagillion cents.
|
|
#15
03-07-2006, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
You expectation is 33 + 3000 + 30,0000 = 33033. I think if you watch the show the bank offer is usually always less than the expectation. The banker is always relying on the fact that the contestant will back down.
|
|
#16
03-07-2006, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
Interestingly, last night the banker offered more than expectation near the end. With two cases - $25,000 and $50,000 - remaining, he offered the player $38,000 to quit. Essentially, he was giving him $500 to reduce variance.
The player was silly and turned down the offer, and won $25,000 instead. Oh well.
|
|
#17
03-07-2006, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing you got right is that I am not Doyle Brunson. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I still don't get what you are trying to say. To me live is more than just silly money chasing. I think it is incredibly stupid to believe that money makes you happy or that it can change your live. Maybe that is because you don't have much. If you are a wimp without money then you will still be a wimp if you have some. [/ QUOTE ] You arent making any sense. Youre saying money doesnt matter because it wont make you happy, yet you should chase money risking what you have to "not be a wimp." My point was people overrate money especially once they have enough to live the rest of their life.However to say it doesnt matter is rediculous. Think how much time the average person spends working in their life. I would love to have enough money to never have to work and use that time how I want. However I dont desire to have 5 cars and 3 houses etc. You need money to live but there is a point where enough is enough. If I had 20 mil in the bank I wouldnt play poker. I woldnt waste my time trying to make money just to throw it on a pile. Look at sports. You have athletes who have million in thge bak already,who would rather go play somewhere they hate at 5 years 80 million instead of somewhere they like for 5 years 60 million. Its pretty stupid. Its similar to tournamnet poker. m After a certain point money you lose is more valuable than money you win.
|
|
#18
03-10-2006, 06:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, last night the banker offered more than expectation near the end. With two cases - $25,000 and $50,000 - remaining, he offered the player $38,000 to quit. Essentially, he was giving him $500 to reduce variance. The player was silly and turned down the offer, and won $25,000 instead. Oh well. [/ QUOTE ] I saw one that was like that too. I think the EV was lowish ~33K and the guy was offered about 1K more. I think the game is a pretty good one and interesting to watch in a TiVo like way but they spend way too much time between choices creating false tension a la millionaire.
|
|
#19
03-10-2006, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
[ QUOTE ] The player was silly and turned down the offer, and won $25,000 instead. Oh well. [/ QUOTE ] way to be results oriented. Also, I agree with Guernica in the bajillion example. worse case you are left with 100mil or coupon, and the banker offers you ~50million, which you take. Although, 2/3rds of the time the banker will offer you ~50 bajillion trillion gagillion dollars. Definitely open another case. Anyways.. I also used to think this show was absolutely retarded until I realized how excited some economists are to watch it, apparently it actually is an interesting experiment in risk assesment, etc., and it's interesting to see what context causes people to make certain decisions. (i.e. people tend to go further if they've taken big losses in the beginning. .crowd has an effect, etc.)
|
|
#20
03-10-2006, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Deal or No Deal
results oriented?
he was offered 38,000 and the ev was 37,500. He bet 13,000 to win 12,000 on a coinflip.Pretty fucken stupid if you ask me. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The player was silly and turned down the offer, and won $25,000 instead. Oh well. [/ QUOTE ] way to be results oriented. Also, I agree with Guernica in the bajillion example. worse case you are left with 100mil or coupon, and the banker offers you ~50million, which you take. Although, 2/3rds of the time the banker will offer you ~50 bajillion trillion gagillion dollars. Definitely open another case. Anyways.. I also used to think this show was absolutely retarded until I realized how excited some economists are to watch it, apparently it actually is an interesting experiment in risk assesment, etc., and it's interesting to see what context causes people to make certain decisions. (i.e. people tend to go further if they've taken big losses in the beginning. .crowd has an effect, etc.) [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
