I think Deal or No Deal is rigged

Status
Not open for further replies.
RuDeDoGg

RuDeDoGg

Austin
Jul 2, 2007
1,069
23
0
I think he knows if they have the case, the banker probably tells him (or though a hidden ear piece). Anyway I'll post up a video of him totally talking this black woman into making the deal. I knew she had the million by how he was talking to her (she had like 5 cases left). It's on right now, I'll find a video of it later. Does anyone else think the show is "rigged"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pr0xyhub


Pure genius. Audience-wise...all of us dudes are too busy checking out the babes and all the chicks are too busy finding flaws with all the babes that we're all missing out on the GAME. Gotta be some secret clicks and fold-down compartments in the cases...I don't know...I'm checking out the babes...and getting my arm punched.
 
It's not rigged. If it was, they'd give away the million every so often to improve ratings and whatnot.
 
You see that special they had running a couple weeks ago where there were 12 low number cases on the left, then on the right there were 12 "1 million dollar cases."

I think 6 people had a shot at it and NONE OF THEM WON. The last girl came pretty close to winning though. She had the million dollar case and there was only one case to open, but she took the bankers deal for like 200 grand. Stupid bitch
 
I don't think so. The banker's deals are usually right on par with the risk remaining in play.
 
audax said:
I don't think so. The banker's deals are usually right on par with the risk remaining in play.
Click to expand...
Ehhh. I haven't watched it since it came out, but I did some quick math during the show. It appears that if the odds remain even throughout the show, by the end the price will be higher than in the beginning. Even if the risk stays the same.
 
SkyFire said:
It's not rigged. If it was, they'd give away the million every so often to improve ratings and whatnot.
Click to expand...
...implying the fact they don't give away the million dollars tells you it isn't rigged? Hmm..

...I'd go into details about the Australian version (it's $250k here too, btw), and how you can (largely) tell it's not rigged, but I'd look like a freak, so I'll refrain.
 
There was the same discussion in Italy (where the show had a HUGE success... I was probably the only person who watched it very rarely). I do not know, to be honest I think the vast majority of TV quizzes are rigged (at least in my country, don't know about USA)
 
Why bother? Do casino's have to rig their games -- nope, they've just done the maths beforehand and know, on average, they'll come out on top. Imagine the outrage if it came out these games were rigged, and suddenly the whole worldwide franchise would be questionable. I don't think it's rigged, per se: They win by design (advertising, in this case), rather than worry about how much moeny they give away.

It's just like AM. You don't win every time, but if you get the formula & design right, on average, over multiple repetitions, you come out making profit. Just a matter of getting that design right.
 
audax said:
I don't think so. The banker's deals are usually right on par with the risk remaining in play.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would say that's not true from what I have seen. Most of the time they under value the cases, but every once in a while they give you quite a deal. Most people are way to stupid to realize they are getting a deal and pass, but by far most of the time it is a bad deal. It's like a casino they are not going to give you a fair deal if they can help it.
 
Rage9 said:
It's like a casino they are not going to give you a fair deal if they can help it.
Click to expand...
...not if they can help it -- they DESIGN the game that way: it's ALWAYS in their favour.

The difference is, this is a TV game and the thing in 'their favour', is advertising. That's how they can 'afford' to give away money every game.

Thus, the US has a $1m prize because the bigger audience means more advertising revenue. In other countries (mentioned above), max win is 1/5 of that... because they're smaller markets.



Rage9 said:
Most people are way to stupid to realize they are getting a deal and pass, but by far most of the time it is a bad deal. It's like a casino they are not going to give you a fair deal if they can help it.
Click to expand...
The 'rational' approach should be:
Let Expected value = sum of (probability * value of case i)
Decision rule for this game should be where expected value < offer, accept.
But I don't think many people run this calculation. They try to approximate it, which leads to what Rage talks about in the above quote.

...But 'stupid', (or, more formally, 'irrational') decisions are interesting things: you can't judge someone else's decision, because they've got their own risk orientations. To THEM, while standing there thinking about the tradeoff, taking the risk is 'worth it'.

Wow it's like my psych classes all over again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom