Jump to content

Talk:Deal or No Deal/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Do odds change?

I was puzzled over this question: at the beginning the contestant obviously has a 1 in 26 chance of getting the briefcase with the $3M. Suppose the contestant then opens ten cases which are small prizes and worthless, so there are now 16 cases remaining. Are the odds that the contestant has the $3m briefcase now 1 in 26 or 1 in 16? -Abscissa 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1 in 16. Because you only had a 16 in 26 chance of reaching this stage in the first place. It would only be 1 in 26 if the chance of the $3M already being knocked out was zero (as in the Monty Hall paradox). --Bonalaw 10:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The authors of the article claim that the contestant should make a deal if the deal exceeds the mean of the remaining cases. This is simply not true. The contestant should maximize expected utility, which in most cases means rejecting even actually fair bets because of risk aversion.

There is also the article which states that people are "less risk averse" while on the show. This is not necessarily true, and the result is most likely evidence that the researchers failed to correctly decide the utility functions of the contestants. There is certainly utility to be gained by showing the public how brave you are by taking such risks. The same rationale can be used to explain why so many people gamble. Just my two cents. --Dafrk3in

Yes, it IS true! The contestant should ALWAYS make a deal in that situation. The article never says to reject all offers lower than the mean, only to be sure to take all HIGHER than the mean. False dichotomy error!Steve kap 20:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All good comments, to the original question: Yes, odds do change! That sounds surprising, but the way we calculate the odds of something happening IS A FUNCTION OF OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION! Odds ARE relative! A simple example, Say someone puts 5 marbles each in 5 bags, one of the 25 marbles is gold. Say also this person tells me which bag has the gold marble, but doesn't tell you. The odds of ME getting the gold are 1/5. For you, 1/25. Its relative to the knowledge we have. Its not an absolute! Steve kap 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that odds change based on our knowledge of the situation is what drives the Monty Hall "paradox", and explains exactly why it is not relevant to this game. However, the statement about "odds changing" should be qualified. The statistical odds of where something might be, or which cards are where on the poker table for example, do not change. What actually changes is our chance of knowing where they are, based on the situation. Some people equate the two, which explains the confusion over this issue. They are actually two very different things.
In the example above, the odds of the gold marble being drawn at random (being in a specific place) are always 1/25. However, knowing which bag to reach into increases your chance of choosing the gold ball by a factor of 5. The odds of the ball being in a given place have not changed. What has changed is your odds of knowing where that place is. These are two completely different numbers (1/25 vs 1/5) which describe different things. People get confused over this issue (and their math gets fuzzy) when they insist on treating them as though they were the same thing. They are not. -- Jane Q. Public 02:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You seems to be saying that there is an "actual" odds and an "odds of knowing" something. "two very different things" you say. I can assure you that this is not the case. The odds of something happening or something being true is ALWAYS relative, relative to the state of knowlege of the person doing the guessing. So odds DO change. I think the confusion come in not knowing this. In your example, yes, the odds of gold ball being choose DO change if the choose knows which bag its in, and intends to maximise the change of picking it. If, however, the picking is still at random, throwing out the knowelge of what bag its in, yes, the odds are still 1/25 for picking it. Knowledge is usless if its not used. Steve kap 04:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Deal or No deal is dodgy!

Anyone aware of this? : http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=349545&page=7&pp=25

Endemol have a problem with their random generator apparently, you can predict whats in the boxes

1 10,000 2 35,000 3 100 4 1p 5 50 6 1 7 750 8 50p 9 20,000 10 250,000 11 500 12 1,000 13 75,000 14 50,000 15 10 16 3,000 17 100,000 18 250 19 5 20 15,000 21 5,000 22 10p

she has 15 000 in her box (Sat 4th march)

Already covered in the Deal or No Deal (UK) article. --Bonalaw 11:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to win a million?

I happened to watch the Australian contestant who won the top prize. He mentioned during the game that he 'knew' he had the winning case, and rejected every offer based on that guess. The article suggests that the only conditions in which someone would win the top prize would be to have the second-top prize on the board as well. (Surprisingly, often when this happens people will hedge their bets and take the deal, which is usually the exact mean by that point.) The winning contestant didn't have this sort of board, and each case opened only strengthened his conviction that he had selected the winning case from the beginning.

In any case, self-delusion isn't covered in the article, when that was the secret of what appears to be the only top prize winner so far.

UPDATE: There were 2 winners in the United States on Deal or No Deal this season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J4lambert (talk • contribs) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'will someone win the top prize' section

This bit's ridiculously US-centric, but trying to globalise it is tricky. There's many references to dollars, cases, etc - you could just move the entire section to the US page, but it seems a shame for something that despite being so US-centic is very well written. Anyone up for the tough job of globalising? BillyH 11:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Prime Time

I don't want to change it in case I'm wrong, but didn't the Saturday version of the show in the UK go from 5:45pm to 7:10pm rather than the other way round as is currently stated? In any case, having a show move from 7 to 5 because of popularity (as is stated) would be a backwards step. 7 is nearer prime time, so I think I'm right. Ben davison 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Philippines Version

The Philippines Version is similar to Deal or No Deal, but it does not seem to be associated with the actual Deal or No Deal Franchise. I have removed it for that purpose. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Pacdude 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Philippines will soon have a local version, one network here is showing teasers for it. Maybe we can restore it when the show has begun airing? Wheeler.059 16:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many links?...

Yeah, I looked at the bottom of the page, and there is a TON of links... Seems to me, a few official links and maybe one or two fansites are OK, but 50-so links seems a bit excessive.

Just trying to get opinions before I change anything...

-- N3X15 ( Scream · Contribs) 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it, I hate a long list of links. --Robdurbar 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Algorithm or formula for banker's offer?

OK, so we're all agreed that most of the banker's offers are below the arithmetic mean of the dollar values remaining in play. In fact, they start far below the mean, and get closer to it as the contestant continues to refuse deals. But has anyone found any more specific pattern, perhaps a formula or algorithm that determines the banker's offers? In the USA version, at least, I don't believe the banker (or a producer conference) decides each offer individually, because

  1. in post-deal situations, when Howie does his "what would you have picked next?" routine, the hypotheical offers come up quickly; and
  2. the official website clearly doesn't have a bunch of producers sitting around watching me play. :)

I made up an Excel spreadsheet hoping to see a pattern to the offers -- like some predictably increasing percentage of the mean, or a predictable number of standard devs from the mean -- but neither matched. Any thoughts? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the algorithm determining the offer adds or subtracts a random value somewhere, and that's why it doesn't match up. 63.227.185.86 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I too have wondered about the algorithm for the banker. While the Wikipedia article is quite good at discussing the offer being slightly below the mean, one has to wonder if the wonder if the number is truly random or not. I suppose statistical analysis of all the offers made to date could reveal this. I doubt that NBC would reveal anything, as the banker is always operating in a cloud of secrecy behind that heavily tinted glass. Nodekeeper 02:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
But there was mention of an actual situation in which a woman opened a case with one of the few remaining large values in it, and the banker's offer after that was considerably above the mean. So either your algorithm must account for such artifacts (which could result from an overshoot in a smoothing algorithm, for example), or you have to admit that it is a human banker. Perhaps it is algorithmic with the option of a human overruling the math. Perhaps the "banker" decisions shown after the deal are purely algorithmic while the real bank offers are not; we have no way to know. -- Jane Q. Public 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Its been a long while since calculus, but i would suggest a non-linear equation with variables like

y = banker's offer a = current arithmetic mean a1 = worst case arithmetic mean (after the next round) C = coeeficcient for risk aversion (some constant) D = coeficient for the number of cases remaining (some other constant)

I would expect that the bank is not minimizing cost, but maxmizing revenue (from advertizing). Controlling costs for the show is easy - change the amounts on the board. Since advertising costs are a function of ratings, and ratings are a function of "drama" then what you want to do is maximize the risks being taken by every contestant. From the show's perspective, it is quite possible that the producers are playing the contestants individually, trying to encourage higher highs and lower lows.

In a show like this, they want people to win - but not too often. If every episode, the player walked away with large prizes, ratings would suffer, as the show would get dull. If every episode, the player walked away with little money, the ratings would suffer. Offers by the banker of below the expected value encourage the player to continue. Sometimes, toward the end, the banker will make an offer higher than the expected value to encourage the player to take the deal. I expect that the screening process for the show selects for players who are highly inclined to take risks.--RLent (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If I were to be the banker, I'd base bids on a mathematical model of participant behaviour, based on educated guesses in the first program, but progressively more based on statistics of actual behaviour in later programs. Based on such a model, I'd give the bid that minimizes my expected expenses. While the participants have a nonlinear utility function (decreasing marginal utilities), the banker can afford to see things in the perspective of a whole series of programs. The model should include a guess at the participant's utility function, but also the psychology involved in streaks of luck or misfortune. Perhaps something like a neural network, trained by constructed or real past games, could do the trick. The banker might also take into account the psychology of the viewers - how do we best create suspense here? After all, the economy of the TV company is not only decided by the prizes paid to the participants, but also by advertising income and hence number of viewers. Throwing in a bit of plain randomness to keep us speculating on this issue might add to the interest.
My point here really is, I don't think anyone is likely to find "the formula" by analyzing the programs. Rather one would need a leak from the TV companies...--Niels Ø (noe) 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

TRY COMPUTING THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE STILL ON THE BOARD USING THE GEOMETRIC MEAN THEN RAISING THE GEOMETRIC MEAN TO 2 0r 2.5 if you feel CHARITABLE. I THINK THIS WILL WORK IN THE UK VERSION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.245.200 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

my dond strategy at high levels

i have a live-action "competitive" deal that i play at home, very similar to the us version, except that it has a "jackpot" that increases every time it is not won by $125,000, and resets to $1,000,000 when it is. it can go up to $9,900,000. everybody who is connected to the internet is eligible to win the jackpot or increase it. all the other high cases increase accordingly. my current record is $2,500,000 in my (switched) case (jackpot $5,000,000). yes, it is bigjon's dond!!

what i do (that is, when the stakes are very high) is calculate the difference between the banker's offer and the potential offer if i open any small case and if i open each specific large case. (if the case is big, but smaller than the offer, i take it separately as one of the small cases.) i multiply by the chance of opening the low cases/high cases to get two totals: the "expected gain" and "expected loss". if the gain is higher than the loss, i continue. if vice versa, i deal. take an example from one of my games. there are $300, $400, $400,000, and $1,875,000 (jackpot) remaining. the offer is $540,000. if i open the $300 or $400, the offer increases to $758,000, for a gain of $218,000. this happens 1/2 of the time, so the current potential gain is $109,000. if i open the $400,000, the offer increases to $625,000, for a gain of $85,000. this happens 1/4 of the time, so the full potential gain is $130,250. if i open the $1,875,000, the offer decreases to $133,000, for a loss of $407,000. this happens 1/4 of the time, so the potential loss is $101,750. the gain is higher than the loss, so i continued. i opened the $400,000 and got the offer of $625,000. now i computed: if i open the $300 or $400, the offer increases to $937,000, for a gain of $312,000. this happens 2/3 of the time, so the potential gain is $208,000. if i open the $1,875,000, the offer decreases to $350, for a loss of $624,650. this happens 1/3 of the time, so the potential loss is $208,220. the odds were VERY SLIGHTLY against me, so i dealed. the next selection would have been $1,875,000, and there was $400 in my case. Andrewb1 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Potential Value v. Expected Value

The opening paragraph uses the phrase "... the offer being based on the potential value of the contestant's case." While that's correct, in that the case has a definite value, the offer itself is based on the [b]expected value[/b] of the contestant's case with a little risk aversion thrown in there. Would "expected value," being a little more technical a term, be better than "potential value"? Ryanluck 00:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem

There's rather too much about the Monty Hall Problem in this article, considering the similarity is very superficial, and stems purely from an incomplete understanding of the Monty Hall Problem itself. The probabilities are very very simple: you pick two boxes/cases at random, one at the start, one at the end (by eliminating the rest). Is one more likely than the other to contain the larger prize? No. There is no reason to even bring the completely irrelevant Monty Hall Problem into it. --Bonalaw 07:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out so directly. I completely agree. Those who have been introducing the "Monty Hall" complication into the issue have done so only because they do not really understand it. I would be tempted to edit out all such comments, if it were not sure to draw heavy fire from those same misinformed individuals. -- Jane Q. Public 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Template placement

I know the template on top serves as prominence, but most Wikipedia articles have templates at the bottom or on the right side of the article. Because of this, I moved {{Deal or No Deal}} to the bottom. —Whomp t/c 18:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Brazil

Now in Brazil since Aug 6th, 2006, by Sílvio Santos' SBT under "Topa ou não topa" (Accept or not)...

Trivia

I've deleted the trivia section for now, as the only piece was UK-related, and is mentioned in the UK Deal or No Deal article. Trivia on this page ought to be kept general to at least some of the different international additions. rv if I'm wrong. The post in front was made by Popexvi 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

...around the world

It doesn't make sense to me that the links to the various national versions of this show are shunted off to a secondary page, while the main article - where one would expect to see these - is almost entirely mathematical theory. Lambertman 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

DoND - self-defeating?

It certainly seems so:

If a player knocks out a bunch of higher value boxes, they get disappointed, and depending on how many higher boxes are still in the game, they'll either stay (with one or two high value boxes) or keep going (when it's futile and they just want to play out the rest of the game.)

If a player knocks out a bunch of lower value boxes, they get excited, want to continue, fail to accept reasonable bank offers, and have a higher chance of knocking out the higher value boxes (which then disappoint as above). This was shown tonight when the african-american guy (forgot his name) knocked out a TON of low-value cases at the start, then kept going and lost it all.

Based on tonight's episode, it seems as if when you get to a certain point in the game and decide to keep going, you should not stop at all. Rejecting the bank 4 or 5 times, and then getting discouraged after getting rid of a bunch of higher-value cases seems stupid. It is inevitable, if you reject the offer and truly believe there is a lot of money in your case, that you'll hit those higher value cases at some point and simply not care (because you think you have the million or whatever). To start caring seems to show kind of a dumb strategy. It's not like you're going to never hit a higher-value case. Wooty 04:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The game itself isn't self-defeating, but players often play in an irrational manner. It's easy to get caught up in the excitement and risk a lot of money on the hopes of getting a little bit more.--RLent 21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Truly random assignment?

Does anyone know if the values are put into the cases by a truly random process, or if they are placed in the cases by a third party "randomly", i.e., that person's subjective sense that the values are thoroughly mixed? --Jeff 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, it is done by drawing balls out of a bag. TomPhil (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Ever since the game show hoaxes in the 1950s and 1960s, by law this information is publicly available for all U.S. game shows that give cash or material prizes. You should contact the studio and find out how they do it. -- Jane Q. Public 06:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

This article is trying to be a research paper rather than an encyclopedia article. The "Actual simulation results and conclusions" contains more detail and analysis about the simulation than the original website source. It also spends way too much time discussing game strategy instead of the show itself. A lot of the stuff is really good, really interesting information, but it needs a new home. -Anþony 06:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the research referenced by Anþony is not appropriate for this article. It is written in the first person for a start. But take a closer look at the model used: the banker's offers matched the expected value of the player's box! Hence it is not surprising that, in the artificial model, the player fares no better or worse than his expected winnings at the start of the game, after a thousand simulations. In the real game, the banker offers LESS than the expected value of the player's box.

Split Sections

I'm advocating that sections 3-6 be split into new article Deal or No Deal Game Strategy or something similar. The focus of this article should be the discussion of the television show and its various incarnations, not the overwrought analysis of optimum strategy that is here now. Is there a strong consensus either way or should we put it to a vote? -Anþony 03:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

After tagging the article and posting notice here in the talk page over two weeks ago and hearing no dissent, I have split the sections as I suggested. Topics dealing with mathematical analysis and optimum game strategy should now go to Deal or No Deal Game Strategy. -Anþony 07:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Transliterations/Transcriptions?

In the list of national versions, I have just changed the titles for Hong Kong's version, '一擲千金', and Tunisia's version, 'دليلك ملك', back to 'Deal or No Deal'. The reason for this is that for Bulgaria's version, for example, the name in the list is 'Sdelka ili ne', and not 'Сделка или не'; i.e. it has been transliterated/transcripted. If anyone can transliterate the names above, and add them back into the list, I'd be grateful! Thanks, - Lewis R « т · c » 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add links to flash games or fan sites. These sites are not symmetrically related to the show per WP:EL. That is, they have a connection to the show, but the show has no connection to them. Repeated re-additions without explanation or justification will be considered WP:SPAM and dealt with appropriately. –  Anþony  talk  11:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

lots of people have been doing this actually, the same 2 sites now added (and reverted) from 3 different IPs. Strange. Thedreamdied 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I count several different IPs which all trace back to the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company:
I think it's safe to assume it's one person. Quite strangely, it seems this anon was edit warring with another anon 71.135.184.14 (talk · contribs) over including a different flash game. The annoying problem is his IP changes so much, he might not even be seeing the spam warnings to his talk page. I'm gonna sprinkle some {{spam3}}'s around, then report to WP:ANI if he doesn't stop. –  Anþony  talk  13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out that one of the sites he's trying to add, DealOrNoDeal.com, is a legitimate link sponsored by Endemol for the UK version. Since that was the only real link in the previous "other websites" section, I moved it up to the official websites section. –  Anþony  talk  13:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of a "criticism" section?

First, let me say that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'm certainly not trying to get my own personal *unsupported* opinion into this article. HOWEVER, after being subjected to this godawful show dozens of times over the past few months (my coworker loves it), I really do feel that we need to have a little more than thinly veiled praise for its "deceptively simple format." A cursory glance reveals that game shows can have "criticism" sections (Fear Factor), and there are certainly other (citable) people that agree with me (http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/dealornodeal), so... are there any objections?

For the record, the problem I (and many others) have with this show is that it's just so freaking BRAINLESS. There's no silliness or craziness or diversion like Let's Make a Deal, and because (ostensibly) NO ONE knows what's inside the case, there's absolutely no skill involved, no statistical tricks like the Monty Hall problem. It's rather sad that people have spent pages debating this absurdly simple fact--the Monty Hall problem hinges ENTIRELY on the fact that someone DOES, in fact, know what the hidden values/objects are. In Deal or No Deal, no one does, and lacking the zaniness of Let's Make a Deal, the gameplay is thus reduced to a simple mathematic exercise.

The article implies that the bank offer is not always a set percentage lower than the expected value (I don't care enough to check this fact on my own.) I suppose this increases the complexity of the game a bit by introducing some randomness, but it's still blisteringly uninteresting. There's no real skill *at all*, nor does anything unexpected ever occur (contestant behavior aside.) There are only four basic (rational) ways a contestant could play it:

1. Accept *any* offer that comes fairly close to the expected value (you'd base your definition of "fairly close" on previous observation of the show.) Though playing through until the very end is (statistically) a more profitable wager, this is the most profitable *safe* alternative. This strategy is based on the simple, statistical reality of the situation.

2. Play it through to the end, no matter what. Mathematically, this is actually the best strategy (though given the real-world differences between the quantities of cash involved, this might not be optimal. See #3 for details.)

3. Pick a value you will not accept less than (e.g. $75,000, and never accept a lower offer until it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to win that value (all cases equal to or greater than the value have been eliminated), at which point you either accept immediately, pick a new "magic number", or resolve to play it through until the end. This strategy is based on the fact that not everyone really cares about risk/reward ratio--and for good reason. $10,000 might not change someone's life very much at all, but $200,000 very well could. Thus, it can make sense to hold out for the larger prize instead of cashing out. Similarly, it makes sense to cash out for an offer equal to or greater than your own personal "magic number", because even though the risk of continued play is mathematically in your favor, it doesn't make sense to needlessly jeopardize what is (to *you*) a life-changing amount of cash.

You may or may not elect to take into account the difference between the bank's offer and your expected value while executing this strategy (e.g., you might decide that you won't accept any value less than X AND the value can't be more than N% less than your expected value.)

4. Cheat.

So... yeah. Basically, there's NEVER a question as to whether the bank offer will go up or down (it's often presented as some sort of mystery.) If you had a calculator, you could probably predict with "amazing" accuracy what the bank offer will be, every time (the actual accuracy depends on when and how far they randomize the expected value/actual offer ratio.) And every time an offer is made, a contestant has two simple things to consider: the expected value/actual offer ratio (no one ever does this, because they apparently don't allow the mathematically-inclined to go on the show) and whether the current offer is in the range they consider to be "worthwhile" or "life-changing."

If I was exposed to it only occasionally, I might find it MILDLY interesting as long as the contestants and host behaved with a modicum of sense... but they don't. The simple, black and white statistical reality of the situation is completely obscured by laughable melodrama: OMG, I PICKED A HIGH VALUE?!?!? WHAT WERE THE *CHANCES* OF THAT HAPPENING?????! (Well, GENIUS, let's see: There were 7 boxes left--counting the first one-- and there were two very high values left, so the odds were EXACTLY two in seven, approximately 28.6% or, very roughly speaking, a bit less than one in three. I learned how to do that in the fifth grade, I think.) OMG THE OFFER WENT DOWN?!?!?!!! OMFG THE OFFER WENT UP?!?!?!!! OMFG THE OFFER WENT BACK UP AGAIN!!!!!! It's just this neverending siege of ignorance, superstition and melodrama...

There's a bit of human interest generated by the contestants themselves, but after watching more than an episode or two it's completely overshadowed and obliterated by the over-the-top pretense of the whole thing. It's_simple_math. Assuming Howie and the banker turn down your offers of sexual favors, you never have more than three options: Do you want to shoot for a given "target range" of prize money, settle for the (statistically) best offer you're given (this might require a pocket calculator or at least decent mental math), or, since the bank is going to screw you anyway, just go all the way? Just these three options, and despite what Howie claims there is NO way to develop any more strategy, no way to "outthink the banker" or any such BS... it's like watching someone play rock, paper scissors competitively, but *without* the "complex", "compelling" strategy. At least there's a bit of psychological edge involved in rock, paper scissors. The banker has no such exploitable qualities; his actions are perfectly predictable (with the exception of the aforementioned, apparently-randomized factor in his "offer" equation.) I think that the enormous popularity of the program just goes to show how utterly pathetic the USA's (and indeed, the world's) math skills are.

So yeah, in nutshell I REALLY think the show deserves a "criticism" section (and I'm not alone in my beliefs), but if I wrote it myself it'd probably wind up turning into a rant... -Lode Runner 03:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I cant stand this show, allot of people cannot stand this show, criticism is a worthy section for this article because the article makes out as if this show is widely liked, when in fact many many people dislike it. Criticism could cover the total lack of skill or knowledge required, or the fact in Britain it needs to goddamn assault my brain every single day of the week.

Also it could be asked whether this actually constitutes a gameshow since to play is achieved, it is pure gamble, and that overall it seems to have lowered light entertainment television to its level.

But remember, on Wikipedia, your opinion doesn't matter. In order to fill the criticism section you'll have to find criticism in outside publications. Val42 18:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Finding criticm is not hard. The questions is if it's appropiate. This show is a blindingly stupid waste of time, but is that fact really relevant for the article? Carewolf 08:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RELEASE DATE

Why isnt anything listed for it as well as seasons, episodes, and other similiarities.74.195.3.199 02:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC) kappa

Map

I'm sorry, but I find the map tediously unnecessary. How is it really helpful to anyone reading this article to see a map? --Brandon Dilbeck 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this page until consensus can be found with respect to the Monty Hall section. The persistent edit-warring is harmful, and comments are increasingly incivil. Andrwsc 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Gosh, I just noticed I was compared to Hitler. Anyway, I don't think there's any controversy around the Monty Hall stuff, is there? Surely nobody apart from whoever keeps adding it in agrees it should be there? In any case, I'm going to keep deleting it if it keeps getting added in.--PaulTaylor 12:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
He keeps adding information that this game is like the Monty Hall Problem, but it isn't. I removed his comments once or twice. — Val42 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

cite needed

A citation is requested for "However it is not uncommon for the bank's offer to exceed the player's expected value very late in the game". A few days ago, they got down to the final two boxes, and the amounts were $750,000 and $1,000,000. The expected value is $875,000 and the banker offered $880,000. (This was the highest offer to date. The player wound up with $750,000 - the largest payout to date.) Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of the game?

The article doesn't seem to have any explanation of how the game is actually played. It starts talking about "the cases" and "the banker" without any context; the second and third paragraphs are unintelligible without prior knowledge of the show. Kapow (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the opening description of the game got chopped in a revert somewhere. I've brought it back and tidied it up to be more unspecific to any particular version of the show. Psuwhammy (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything in USD

Why is this? Seems a little offensive to other nations IMO, why is USA so great? I highly doubt that the winners of the grand prize travelled to the US after winning, so why do we want to know the prize amount in USD? Furthermore, there needs to be some sort of explanation in the various country's winners section. it has 3 values, the last one being "back then". what on earth is that supposed to mean? and why? And what are the two values before it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Deal or no deal christmas star is a article about Christmas specials (UK) which needs some rewriting and merging here, as it is insufficiently notable to stand on its own. Over to you. --Rodhullandemu 21:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: number 1, that stub, if it's to be merged anywhere, should be merged into the article about the UK version instead of the generic page. Number 2, it's written so poorly that I'm not sure it's worth saving. Psuwhammy (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Since nobody's defended it, and per your point 2 (incomprehensible), I've deleted it as WP:CSD#G1. Should anyone think it worth saving, I will gladly restore it to userspace. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Usage of pronoun 'they'

I'm sorry, but a grammarian would vomit if he saw this page. 'They' has never been, is never, and shall never be singular. There are plenty more practical and grammatically tidy ways of expressing oneself without resorting to such grammatical tomfoolery. Whoever changed the article to support the 'they' usage did so without regard for the English at hand. 149.254.58.80 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC) User:Oliverbeatson

And a feminist would vomit if they saw your use of the word 'he' to describe people of both genders. You're probably not as right as you think you are. - Mark 02:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that feminists are finding such productive ways of promoting their cause. The point is that 'they' creates vortices of grammatical mayhem. I am not suggesting that continuing to use 'he' as a gender-inclusive pronoun (as historically has been the case) is ideal. I'm saying that 'they' is grammatically incorrect. I am requesting that different ways writing be pursued, for example writing about the 'players' where 'they' is appropriate, or else to rephrase the sentence in a way that does not require the gender to be defined. 149.254.51.253 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
'They' can never be singular?? Really?? If you don't know whether someone is male or female then how else would you refer to THEM!! In the UK, the banker is allegedly singular but never actually appears on screen nor is ever heard, so for all we know they might not even exist. I am a grammarian. I'm not vomitting at this sentence, but I burp at the thought of using he for pronouns of unknown gender. I'm male incidentally so this has nothing to do with sexual politics, just clarity and accuracy.
I'm from Quebec and I've also been surprised when I saw it for the first time (while I was translating Facebook in Quebec French). Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoietalk

Dates in the section "Top prize winners on international versions" = Episode air dates?

I was wondering if the dates displayed on the table in that section of the article are the dates of the airing of the episodes featuring the contestants who won the top prize. Kevzspeare (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ruined numerous lives??

Someone added this text " The Deal or No Deal Series has ruined numerous lives; the term hitting case refers to the uncontrollable desire to stay up all night playing the online version of the game while wagering small amounts of money. Although some people have built up small fortunes online, the case of Jason Middleton gained international prominence after he lost his life savings when playing 146 consecutive hours of an online version of the game on the PKR website."

it's kind of interesting, if true, but I've moved it here since at the moment it's just hearsay. if anyone fancies researching it, referencing it and putting it in the right section, they can. raining girl (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A very good source

[1] For explaining the format. Hope it helps. --candle•wicke 23:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Section repeat

There are two 'international versions' sections in the article. They need to be merged into one. Sk8er Boi (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SANTHI

Dear sir,
     I Am SANTHI From ERODE. I Am DEAL OR NO DEAL GAMES, Please call me My 
Phone No:95787-48606  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.133.67 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Image

Does the image really relate to the series? Which contestants? American? English? The image might be of interest to people who watch the show (which ever country) but the picture doesn't really relate to how the show is played, or who hosts the show, or much really. 92.7.182.133 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Biggest wins

Some of the prizes are converted to two USD amounts. If the other is to be current (as I understand), then there should be some formula that could get current exchange rates. I looked the code and didn't see anything like that there. If only someone will update it often enough... 85.217.20.154 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Banker? What Banker?

This discussion page makes a number of references to a "banker" but the article does not mention one. An encyclopaedia article should not assume any previous knowledge of the format of the programme. It should be described in detail.109.154.74.121 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Mean vs. Median

I believe that the contestant is better off taking the deal if the amount is greater than the median, which is what is to be expected if they were to hold on until they were finished.

The median vs mean issue is really not significant here since simulations showed no net win win several different threshhold values both above and below the mean.

In the long run, in pure probabitity terms, it is better to only take a deal greater than the mean of the remaining boxes (which I don't think ever happens). However, in terms of decision theory, and in reailty, it is the mean utility of the money that is important (basically, how much the money means to someone). Due to the law of diminishing returns (winning twice as much money is better, but not twice as good), this means that the offer of mean utility is always less than the offer of mean money, though how much less varies from person to person, which is why the banker's offer is invariably less than the mean (he could potentially get them to accept a lower offer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Broken sentence

In Gameplay section there's a sentence that should really be two sentences:

The value of each of The contestant claims (or is assigned) a case to begin the game. --Melarish (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo

The photo of the Deal or No Deal models adds nothing useful to this article. I have now removed it twice from the article only to be reverted on both occasions by the uploader. It is a freely licensed image, but seems to have no actual link to the gameshow format other than that it is features a group of models described as "Deal or No Deal models". There is no other real reference. Photographs of studio sets, or a screenshot of an episodes from any of the variations would actually mean something. The photo does not, so I will be removing it again. I would welcome comment from the wider community on whether it should really stay or not. Cloudbound (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

KOREA

There is now a version in korea called YES OR NO will you have the nerve

I noticed that the section "Deal or No Deal around the world" is constantly vandalized, replacing the actual prizes with ridiculous and/or fake amounts of money (for example: 200.000.000 Canadian dollars instead of 500.000 for the French Canadian version, or 500.000 yuan instead of just 100.000 for the Chinese version). I suggest that this article should be semiprotected, in order to avoid vandalism caused by unregistered users. Thank you for listening. TeleJuancho (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge

It has been proposed that Trilyon Avı be merged into Deal or No Deal. I do not think that there is enough content in the Trilyon Avı article to support it having its own article.--5 albert square (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem

There is a hyperlink equating the Month Hall Problem to the hypothetical situation in which the bank knows what is in the contestant’s case. I believe this comparison is incorrect, as in the Monty Hall Problem, the host opens doors, whereas in this game, the contestant always chooses cases to open, regardless of the bank’s knowledge of their case’s contents. Will be removing this clause after confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.40.46 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Setswana

I want to be on deal or no deal So I can win 250,000 41.122.67.155 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Williams

I need to buy me a house and start me a family I always watch deal or no deal ever since I was a little kid and I always wanted to be on there please please please pick me 2601:3C8:4100:6F0:C096:F96F:80E4:B553 (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deal_or_No_Deal/Archive_2&oldid=1265002575"