'Deal or No Deal' might be gambling? UK might be idiocracy?

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.tvscoop.tv/2012/03/deal-or-n ... -does.html

Deal Or No Deal ‘Involves no skill’ – Did anyone believe it does?

The Gambling Commission is investigating Channel 4’s daytime quiz show Deal Or No Deal after a complaint that it breaks betting law. Game shows that contain no skill on the part of the competitor are considered gambling and must be licensed accordingly. If this is found to be the case then the show would also have to be shown in a later time slot.

(continnued, took a while for the penny to drop?)

[Audley Strange]

Edmonds has still to turn up at The Hague for the crime against humanity that was Mr Blobby.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.tvscoop.tv/2012/03/deal-or-n ... -does.html

Deal Or No Deal ‘Involves no skill’ – Did anyone believe it does?

The Gambling Commission is investigating Channel 4’s daytime quiz show Deal Or No Deal after a complaint that it breaks betting law. Game shows that contain no skill on the part of the competitor are considered gambling and must be licensed accordingly. If this is found to be the case then the show would also have to be shown in a later time slot.

(continnued, took a while for the penny to drop?)

It does require skill. A person can make better choices when one is able to calculate the remaining odds and expected outcome. It's a probability and statistics problem.

Like -- one can take $50,000 now, or one can take a chance at guessing out of 4 remaining options. If the potential winnings are $1,000,000, one would be justified in taking the 25% chance. If the potential winnings are $80,000, then statistically one should take the $50,000, based on probability.

It tests people's maffs.

[Atheist-Lite]

It tests peoples financial comfort zones too, but ultimately they don't know what is in the box. It could be a half dead cat for all they know?

[Coito ergo sum]

It tests peoples financial comfort zones too, but ultimately they don't know what is in the box. It could be a half dead cat for all they know?

Since the money is both in each box and not in each box at the same time, can it be quantum-argued that no matter what their odds of winning is always 50%?

[HomerJay]

I've never seen it.

I intensely dislike Edmonds.

[PsychoSerenity]

It does require skill. A person can make better choices when one is able to calculate the remaining odds and expected outcome. It's a probability and statistics problem.

Like -- one can take $50,000 now, or one can take a chance at guessing out of 4 remaining options. If the potential winnings are $1,000,000, one would be justified in taking the 25% chance. If the potential winnings are $80,000, then statistically one should take the $50,000, based on probability.

It tests people's maffs.

Yes, this. And it's more complicated than that even. There is a point about halfway through the game where the offers from one round to the next are likely to fluctuate more due to there being less boxes that the offer is averaged over, but before too many have been removed and possibly losing the chance of a high offer.

But the thing is, nobody who goes on that show ever plays it in terms of maths, statistics, and probabilities. They play it with lucky numbers and perceived patterns, worrying about which box to open next, and the belief that if they turn down all the deals they'll be the one that gets the top prize.

[Coito ergo sum]

That is why I could not watch that show more than a couple of times. I would get infuriated by the dopey contestants who are offered an obviously high offer, and they trade that for a remote chance at more money, but if you did some quick multiplication you could see that it didn't even make sense to do it from a statistical standpoint.

[Atheist-Lite]

That is why I could not watch that show more than a couple of times. I would get infuriated by the dopey contestants who are offered an obviously high offer, and they trade that for a remote chance at more money, but if you did some quick multiplication you could see that it didn't even make sense to do it from a statistical standpoint.

Already wealthy contestants, or wealth inheritors in general, wouldn't be so easily bought and be more likely to gamble in a way which infuriates those less likely to be living close to the money printing press over the generations.

It isn't simply a matter of every man has his price and all men are born equal.

[Feck]

I've never seen it.

I intensely dislike Edmonds.

I've met him, you are completely right in your low opinion of him .

[JimC]

We have it in Oz...

Watching it is almost enough to turn you into a raving Marxist...

[Atheist-Lite]

We have it in Oz...

Watching it is almost enough to turn you into a raving Marxist...

It explains internal contradiction driven boom and bust cycles in the capitalist system better than any marxist academic ever could. And if all else fails there is always Noels 'cosmic ordering service' to turn too? If religion is the opium of the people then Noel is pushing crystal meths and doing quite well out of the deal.

[Thinking Aloud]

... but if you did some quick multiplication you could see that it didn't even make sense to do it from a statistical standpoint.

But then it wouldn't be "entertainment"...

[Svartalf]

It's entertaining?
I never got how people could even watch endemol shit.

[Thinking Aloud]

It's entertaining?

I presume so, or they wouldn't show it.

Can't say I've ever watched it.