c4countdown

For some reason I've taken to watching this lately, mainly to laugh at the stupid people. Anyway, today's one was great. The guy got offered £15k early in the game and, after no deliberation, just said "Deal". Everyone in the audience was shocked and he just stood there looking blank. After the break, it came back to him and he was like "err yeah, I meant to say No Deal". Retard. Worse, they let him take back the Deal and play on!

Charlie Reams wrote:For some reason I've taken to watching this lately, mainly to laugh at the stupid people. Anyway, today's one was great. The guy got offered £15k early in the game and, after no deliberation, just said "Deal". Everyone in the audience was shocked and he just stood there looking blank. After the break, it came back to him and he was like "err yeah, I meant to say No Deal". Retard. Worse, they let him take back the Deal and play on!

Hahahaha. Awesome.

It is quite retarded though. Dmitry Goretsky probably has kittens over their abuse of probability.

It gets worse. He dealt a bit later for £7500. Then they played the game out (pointlessly) and he had the £15,000 in his box all along, so they let him have £15,000. Utter fucking retards.

Charlie Reams wrote:It gets worse. He dealt a bit later for £7500. Then they played the game out (pointlessly) and he had the £15,000 in his box all along, so they let him have £15,000. Utter fucking retards.

WTF? That takes the absolute piss.

I watched it when it was first out and enjoyed it. Then for some reason it just really irritated me and I have not watched it since. Sometimes after I've watched Countdown I leave the TV on that channel and as soon as I realise that it is DOND I switch it off immediately just so I don't count towards their viewing audience. (I don't even know how they count viewer's etc in TV but it makes me feel better anyway)

Ryan Taylor wrote:(I don't even know how they count viewer's etc in TV but it makes me feel better anyway)

They extrapolate from a sample of a few thousand households who record their viewing.

Charlie Reams wrote:It gets worse. He dealt a bit later for £7500. Then they played the game out (pointlessly) and he had the £15,000 in his box all along, so they let him have £15,000. Utter fucking retards.

I wonder if he did mean deal but it would make the programme quite boring if you deal early doors so they asked him to change it to no deal and they'd give him £15000 anyway?

Edit: I just watched the show and he didn't say "I meant to say no deal" he said "I was going to say no deal..." implying he was originally going to play on but thought it best to quit. How Noel interpreted that as he made a mistake is a joke.

Kirk Bevins wrote:... it would make the programme quite boring ...

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Had today's show on in the background and it was so obviously fixed!

This old lady says she wants a Bentley worth £200,000 and only wants the quarter of a million and nothing else to pay for it. Then the last two boxes are 1p and the quarter of the million and she says this was her "dream situation."

And the other box left is 19, which coincidentally is her birthday, cue gasps from the audience.

Spoilers: She doesn't swap and gets the 1p.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:Had today's show on in the background and it was so obviously fixed!

This old lady says she wants a Bentley worth £200,000 and only wants the quarter of a million. Then the last two boxes are 1p and the quarter of the million and she says this was her "dream situation."

Except (in my experience) plenty of contestants talk about having a 'dream' about what would happen, or how they want some specific amount of money, and guess what? Most of the time it doesn't happen. Plus aren't they showing 'hall of fame' ones atm?

Michael Wallace wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:Had today's show on in the background and it was so obviously fixed!

This old lady says she wants a Bentley worth £200,000 and only wants the quarter of a million. Then the last two boxes are 1p and the quarter of the million and she says this was her "dream situation."

Except (in my experience) plenty of contestants talk about having a 'dream' about what would happen, or how they want some specific amount of money, and guess what? Most of the time it doesn't happen. Plus aren't they showing 'hall of fame' ones atm?

Yeah, they are.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:Had today's show on in the background and it was so obviously fixed!

This old lady says she wants a Bentley worth £200,000 and only wants the quarter of a million. Then the last two boxes are 1p and the quarter of the million and she says this was her "dream situation."

Except (in my experience) plenty of contestants talk about having a 'dream' about what would happen, or how they want some specific amount of money, and guess what? Most of the time it doesn't happen. Plus aren't they showing 'hall of fame' ones atm?

Plus saying it's your dream situation after it happens isn't really so remarkable.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:Had today's show on in the background and it was so obviously fixed!

This old lady says she wants a Bentley worth £200,000 and only wants the quarter of a million. Then the last two boxes are 1p and the quarter of the million and she says this was her "dream situation."

Except (in my experience) plenty of contestants talk about having a 'dream' about what would happen, or how they want some specific amount of money, and guess what? Most of the time it doesn't happen. Plus aren't they showing 'hall of fame' ones atm?

Plus saying it's your dream situation after it happens isn't really so remarkable.

Like shitty Derren Brown's lottery "prediction".

I remember seeing that one first time around. What a stupid 'dream situation' to want, and what a stupid greedy cow to throw the offer away.

Jon Corby wrote:I remember seeing that one first time around. What a stupid 'dream situation' to want, and what a stupid greedy cow to throw the offer away.

What happened?

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I remember seeing that one first time around. What a stupid 'dream situation' to want, and what a stupid greedy cow to throw the offer away.

What happened?

Dream situation being left with 1p and £250,000 (which is what she got). Turned down £80,000-odd. Got 1p.

Jon Corby wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I remember seeing that one first time around. What a stupid 'dream situation' to want, and what a stupid greedy cow to throw the offer away.

What happened?

Dream situation being left with 1p and £250,000 (which is what she got). Turned down £80,000-odd. Got 1p.

Bitchin'. (I don't really have anything to add, but didn't want you to think I was unappreciative of your response.)

Michael Wallace wrote: Bitchin'. (I don't really have anything to add, but didn't want you to think I was unappreciative of your response.)

If only there was some kind of board feature for exactly that situation!!!!!!!!! Fucking vegetarian.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: Bitchin'. (I don't really have anything to add, but didn't want you to think I was unappreciative of your response.)

If only there was some kind of board feature for exactly that situation!!!!!!!!! Fucking vegetarian.

Yeah, but I didn't think it was really worthy of a 'like', and unlike you I think Jon can cope without constant validation!!!!!!!!! Fucking gay.

Yeah you beat me to it. The day that you can earn a like by telling someone what happened on Deal or No Deal.... (will be the day that I start watching Deal or No Deal, presumably).

I've Liked it myself, just to spite you both.

Charlie Reams wrote:I've Liked it myself, just to spite you both.

Is this some weird attempt at mind games to get us to Like your posts? 'cos it ain't gonna work

Likes have ruined this board.

If you're gonna have likes, you should also have a feature for flagging posts which are shit.

Jon Corby wrote:Likes have ruined this board.

If you're gonna have likes, you should also have a feature for flagging posts which are shit.

I use the Like feature for both, which probably has some confusing effects in the long term. Generally if a post makes me laugh at loud then I'll Like it, and one thing that always makes me laugh is absolutely stupid/tragically pathetic/missing-the-point posts.

PS You can now do a funny joke by liking this post and then saying how tragically pathetic it was.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Likes have ruined this board.

If you're gonna have likes, you should also have a feature for flagging posts which are shit.

I use the Like feature for both, which probably has some confusing effects in the long term. Generally if a post makes me laugh at loud then I'll Like it, and one thing that always makes me laugh is absolutely stupid/tragically pathetic/missing-the-point posts.

PS You can now do a funny joke by liking this post and then saying how tragically pathetic it was.

There was me getting a buzz out of the fact that you liked my posts. Cunt.

Can you like your own posts?

Edit - apparently not. Anyone else want to own up to trying this?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Can you like your own posts?

Edit - apparently not. Anyone else want to own up to trying this?

Of course not. Get your significant other to like them for you instead

Lesley Hines wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Can you like your own posts?

Edit - apparently not. Anyone else want to own up to trying this?

Of course not. Get your significant other to like them for you instead

Is this you and Charlie telling us something? No, you and Corby? Oh, wait a minute...

If nothing else,Likes have made MWM post more often, and I think we can all agree that that's a good thing.

The first time I watched it was the 3rd episode (coincidentally, 2 Nov 2005) but I didn't have internet access or 4 +1, so I couldn't watch Countdown :-C

According to the folks at Bother's Bar who've been to recordings, DoND is expected to extend to an even more drawn out 60-minute slot daily in 2011, which could mean that Countdown is rescheduled either earlier or later depending on how it's arranged.

If it happens, it will be interesting to see whether the longer programme affects its ratings. Looking at the viewing figures on BARB it's lost considerable numbers over the past couple of years, so the shift could be a dangerous move.

Does anyone else get Deal or No Deal confused with David O'Donnell when the abbreviation DOND is used?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Does anyone else get Deal or No Deal confused with David O'Donnell when the abbreviation DOND is used?

No

Jacob Sutton wrote:According to the folks at Bother's Bar who've been to recordings, DoND is expected to extend to an even more drawn out 60-minute slot daily in 2011, which could mean that Countdown is rescheduled either earlier or later depending on how it's arranged.

If it happens, it will be interesting to see whether the longer programme affects its ratings. Looking at the viewing figures on BARB it's lost considerable numbers over the past couple of years, so the shift could be a dangerous move.

Seems like it will be in the 3:55pm to 5:00pm slot from 3rd January 2011:

http://uk-tv-guide.com/programme-detail ... Game+Show/

Seriously, what is the need to stretch it to an hour? Even 50 minutes is pushing it. Compare with the daytime Dutch version, 2 less boxes I admit, but they fit it all into 30 minutes, ad breaks and all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmZFHjQfx-o

How long Deal or No Deal should really last.

Just seen something interesting on here. Before I go rubbishing the program, let me post it here for some clever people to read:

Woman knocks out five blues as her first five boxes. So now there are 11 reds and 6 blues left "on the board" as well as her own box. Banker offers her a swap, and claims if she swaps she has a good chance of getting a red, as there are almost twice as many reds as blues.

They made out like she had made a mathematical mistake. Now, am I being retarded and missing some version of Monty Hall, or is Deal or No Deal being retarded, yet again?

Jon O'Neill wrote:Just seen something interesting on here. Before I go rubbishing the program, let me post it here for some clever people to read:

Woman knocks out five blues as her first five boxes. So now there are 11 reds and 6 blues left "on the board" as well as her own box. Banker offers her a swap, and claims if she swaps she has a good chance of getting a red, as there are almost twice as many reds as blues.

They made out like she had made a mathematical mistake. Now, am I being retarded and missing some version of Monty Hall, or is Deal or No Deal being retarded, yet again?

Option C: More information required.

Jon O'Neill wrote:They made out like she had made a mathematical mistake. Now, am I being retarded and missing some version of Monty Hall, or is Deal or No Deal being retarded, yet again?

From what you've written, her box is as likely to contain a red (or any specific amount) as any she swaps to. So there's essentially "no point" in swapping, as is always the case with any straight swap. But a "mistake"? That confuses me.

It makes sense to me, but only in terms of the colours of the box contents. Regardless of what she has in her box, there are more reds "out there" to pick from if she chooses to swap.
It just doesn't take into account that she still has every chance of having the biggest red in her box anyway, and that the whole thing is mathematically pointless when Noel/The Banker refers to the number of "reds and blues" because no two reds are alike or even usually comparable, same with blues. It's a graduating scale and the colours are entirely meaningless, so in that respect the mathematical notion, as it was posed, was just a nothing.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:They made out like she had made a mathematical mistake. Now, am I being retarded and missing some version of Monty Hall, or is Deal or No Deal being retarded, yet again?

From what you've written, her box is as likely to contain a red (or any specific amount) as any she swaps to. So there's essentially "no point" in swapping, as is always the case with any straight swap. But a "mistake"? That confuses me.

I dunno, at the start of the game her box is 50/50 red/blue. At the "11 reds, 6 blues left" stage, it's 69/31% in favour of being red.
If it is red, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 10 red, 6 blue. If it is blue, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 11 red, 5 blue.
Either way if she does a swap then yes she is mathematically more likely to swap to a red as there are more to choose from.

Is that right? Makes sense to me, it's just that, as above, it's all pointless because redness or blueness doesn't mean shit all to the maths, only the numbers do and that's where it gets more complicated than me and Noel can handle.

Thanks for all your input guys, but I wanted Raccoon really.

Matt Morrison wrote:Is that right?

Leaving work so can't respond in full, but no, it won't be. Taking away boxes tells us nothing about her box or any of the remaining boxes individually. Whatever is left is as likely to be in her box as it is in any box she chooses to swap to. Any straight swap like this in the game (provided there is no 'interference') means nothing probability-wise.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:They made out like she had made a mathematical mistake. Now, am I being retarded and missing some version of Monty Hall, or is Deal or No Deal being retarded, yet again?

From what you've written, her box is as likely to contain a red (or any specific amount) as any she swaps to. So there's essentially "no point" in swapping, as is always the case with any straight swap. But a "mistake"? That confuses me.

I dunno, at the start of the game her box is 50/50 red/blue. At the "11 reds, 6 blues left" stage, it's 69/31% in favour of being red.
If it is red, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 10 red, 6 blue. If it is blue, that leaves the other 16 boxes as 11 red, 5 blue.
Either way if she does a swap then yes she is mathematically more likely to swap to a red as there are more to choose from.

Is that right? Makes sense to me, it's just that, as above, it's all pointless because redness or blueness doesn't mean shit all to the maths, only the numbers do and that's where it gets more complicated than me and Noel can handle.

It's not a case of more reds than blues, it's a case of all the reds and some blues gone, which is the case I described. So clearly, the average of the boxes now is greater than the average of the boxes when it was chosen. Which is sort of what the banker made out to be the reason for her having made a mathematical mistake.

No, I'm fairly sure it doesn't change anything.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Thanks for all your input guys, but I wanted Raccoon really.

He'll agree with me, unless he's a retard.

Your chance of getting [x] with a swap is totally offset by your chance of having [x] in your box to start with. Swapping doesn't ever increase or decrease your chance of anything.

I put DOND on to see what was occuring. Just seen her take out £100,000 box. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 18 pence offer too. This is hilarious.

Yeah I agree with you. So once again, fucking ridiculous show.

And yeah, hilarious episode.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Thanks for all your input guys, but I wanted Raccoon really.

I bet you did <3

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Is that right?

Leaving work so can't respond in full, but no, it won't be. Taking away boxes tells us nothing about her box or any of the remaining boxes individually. Whatever is left is as likely to be in her box as it is in any box she chooses to swap to. Any straight swap like this in the game (provided there is no 'interference') means nothing probability-wise.

I think I probably misunderstood the question then. In my eyes I was right as what I was answering bore no consequence as to what she might or might not have in her box. The "swap" nature means nothing to the question I was answering, she had 15 'things' to pick from, and either 10 or 11 of these things are red and either 6 or 5 of them blue, so if she chooses to pick one she will have more chance of picking a red.

Yours and Jono's responses clearly show me I've answered the wrong question, and reminds me I should never ever get involved in these fucking discussions I'm not clever enough for.

If I were rich as fuck I'd get tickets to go and see it, wait until there are like 5 boxes left when every motherfucker seems to make a probabilistically "bad" deal which takes utility into account, offer them a hundred quid more than the banker did and make them open all the boxes for me. This would make for good television and also make me money. Am I right?

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Thanks for all your input guys, but I wanted Raccoon really.

I bet you did <3

Oi, you should have switched over to ITV1 by now.

Definitely makes fuck all difference probability wise.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Thanks for all your input guys, but I wanted Raccoon really.

I bet you did <3

Oi, you should have switched over to ITV1 by now.

No TV Licence + CF isn't back from uni yet so we're going to watch it on ITV Player later.

The Monty Hall problem only works because the presenter knows what's behind the doors, which (presumably) the banker doesn't. So yeah, swap or not makes no difference.

Charlie Reams wrote:For some reason I've taken to watching this lately, mainly to laugh at the stupid people. Anyway, today's one was great. The guy got offered £15k early in the game and, after no deliberation, just said "Deal". Everyone in the audience was shocked and he just stood there looking blank. After the break, it came back to him and he was like "err yeah, I meant to say No Deal". Retard. Worse, they let him take back the Deal and play on!

Today's (Monday's) game was a bit shocking actually - did you watch it? - she started off brilliantly, got loads of blues out then took a load of reds out! The bad thing about taking a lot of blues out, especially all in one go, is that then there are normally more reds so they are probably going to hit more reds and take some biggies out.
I didn't watch the Deal or No Deal at the weekend but I watch it about 3 or 4 days a week on weekdays.
Did he really mean to say No Deal? Ha ha, that's a bit stupid! Ok, VERY stupid!! Ha ha ha! Well, 15k is a lot anyway. Some games are hilarious!

Matt Morrison wrote:Yours and Jono's responses clearly show me I've answered the wrong question, and reminds me I should never ever get involved in these fucking discussions I'm not clever enough for.

Well you're kind of right, if you're purely looking at that question (of how likely a swap is to give a red). But in the context of the game it makes bugger-all difference - she's as likely to have a red now as she is after a swap, or after 8 million swaps. We never know anything about any of the remaining boxes individually.

Charlie Reams wrote:The Monty Hall problem only works because the presenter knows what's behind the doors, which (presumably) the banker doesn't. So yeah, swap or not makes no difference.

This.

Soph K wrote:The bad thing about taking a lot of blues out, especially all in one go, is that then there are normally more reds so they are probably going to hit more reds and take some biggies out.

That doesn't really make any sense. You might as well say it's bad to be rich because you could lose more.

What would happen if a contestant took the first offer after about 15 minutes? Would they bring in another contestant or attempt to drag it out for as long as possible?

Joseph Krol wrote:What would happen if a contestant took the first offer after about 15 minutes? Would they bring in another contestant or attempt to drag it out for as long as possible?

More than they drag it out at the minute?