odds complier on deal or no deal

The 'banker' on that programme is a very skilled bettor or game theorist.

Unless something funny is going on, the expected value of the box you have is the total amount of money in play divided by the no. of the remaning boxes.

The banker always offers less and sometimes gets accepted. The game is designed so that it can be rational for players to take sub-optimal offers just in terms of expected returns.

If Noel Edmonds himself played, though, the banker would probably have to offer exactly the expected value of the box.

If anyone's seen the US version, the offer's pretty much bang on the middle sum. I know it's not very good business but the Yanks want to play to the end whatever the offer. I've even seen an offer above the average! Mental.

what DoND needs is a load of us in the audience, all shouting advice and opinions.

obviously it would need to move to after the watershed.

I don't watch this programme very often but from the
bits I have seen, the offer is usually poor and on the
grounds of value, should always be refused. Trouble is,
many times the offer, although poor, is life changing
so understandable why accepted.

Contrarian
Date Joined: 19 May 03
Add contact | Send message
When: 08 Apr 11 17:47
Joined:
Date Joined: 19 May 03
| Topic/replies: 586 | Blogger: Contrarian's blog
If Noel Edmonds himself played, though, the banker would probably have to offer exactly the expected value of the box.

I don't think so. Most people like a sure thing over a gamble. If you asked people whether they'd prefer a free £100 or a 55% chance of £200, I suspect even many wealthy individuals would choose the former.

Askari, I think there is a second factor to consider, and that is that it is better for the show if offers are turned down, so the offers are even worse than they would be otherwise.

If you play deal or no deal online, the banker's offer is fair (although rounded down). The amounts involved are small. When playing for high stakes, it would make sense to do the same as the tv show, but to a less extreme extent.

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_paradox

The perceived difference between 0% and 1% is far greater than 89% and 90%.

You'd also find that people would be willing to pay a lot more to reduce the risk of some calamitous event from 1% to 0% than from 90% to 89%.

Perception :
It's like the stats this week about alcohol being linked to cancer. Say it increases your chance of getting cancer by 3% that's not an increase in the chances of dying of cancer by 3% as some might think, as only some of us die of cancer.

Also, my bank looks bigger if I press my nose up against the screen. All about perception :P

Of course, because for most of the players the sums involved are relatively large, so the law of diminishing marginal utility applies. If they have two boxes left: 1p and £250k, it is probably rational for someone earning the average UK wage to accept an offer as low as £75k.

I think there are plenty of people out there who would accept a much lower offer in those circumstances, like £30k. Me included, probably.

The videos of the relevant DoND show (contestant turns down offer of $603k) that I viewed seem to have been edited in a misleading manner. These videos, on first viewing, seem to imply that the contestant declined the $603k offer whilst there was only one $1million box and a $1 box in-play. My understanding is that this was not the case.

Based on my very brief research into this matter, it appears that at the time the offer of $603k was made to the contestant there were two $1million boxes and a $1 box remaining in-play.

On that basis, it was entirely logical for the contestant to decline to deal at $603k. By playing on his expected return would be $666667 ((2*1000000+1)/3). Effectively, at that stage, he was betting approximately $603k for a potential return of $1million on a selection that had a 2/3 probability of winning.

My understanding is that at the stage when only one $1million box and a $1 dollar box remained in-play he was offered approximately $416k. Assuming that is correct, it was again entirely logical, on a purely mathematical basis, for the contestant to have declined that offer too.

Perhaps the fat dumb American portrayed in the videos may have been a little less dumb than some forumites may have originally concluded?

The Investor, I see what you mean about the advantage to the show of having poor offers turned down.

Kenilworth, the bm' 'deal or no deal' game is a good one to play when you get a 25 quid or set free bet for turning over a certain amount of games. It can be remarkably quick (just accept the first offer) and the offers are far better than they are in the game (the price-point position of the boxes mean that on average you get a lot of your stake back and usually make money). With the Investor's explanations I see more why.