c4countdown

They play out the game pointlessly.

What if someone rushes through it quickly?

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?

Rumours are that contestants are very heavily leaned on to not take either of the first two offers (although this is based just on what I've noticed some past contestants claiming online, so completely unreliable). I presume they'd just drag it out and try and claim it was a "super special" occasion.

Michael Wallace wrote:

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?

Rumours are that contestants are very heavily leaned on to not take either of the first two offers (although this is based just on what I've noticed some past contestants claiming online, so completely unreliable). I presume they'd just drag it out and try and claim it was a "super special" occasion.

It would be funny if someone on Deal or No Deal, in the first round, took out the biggest ones and then they got a really low offer and the actually took it!
Has anyone who plays on Apterous or who goes on this - c4 countdown - been on Deal or No Deal? Probably not...

Jon Corby wrote:

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.

Still don't really get it. One for the train, with a bit of pen and paper action.

Matt Morrison wrote: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.

You are right that if she swaps, she is more likely to end up with a red box than a blue one. But she's more likely to have a red one than a blue one anyway.

No-one knows what's in any of the boxes (other than the opened ones). So of the values left, they're all equally likely to be in any of the boxes. Shuffling then around makes no difference to this.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote: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.

You are right that if she swaps, she is more likely to end up with a red box than a blue one. But she's more likely to have a red one than a blue one anyway.

No-one knows what's in any of the boxes (other than the opened ones). So of the values left, they're all equally likely to be in any of the boxes. Shuffling then around makes no difference to this.

Yep. I suspect Matt is at some point overlooking the fact that the 10/6 count includes the one she already has.

I think what I was thinking was this. 17 boxes. 11 reds, 6 blues.

If her box is (unknowingly, of course), RED, then that leaves a field of 10 reds and 6 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 10/16 chance of making no difference (as we're just talking a colour split, not actual values), and a 6/16 chance of being worse off, failing the split by getting a blue.

If her box is BLUE, that leaves a field of 11 reds and 5 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 11/16 chance of improving to a red, and a 5/16 chance of making no difference by swapping from blue to blue.

Therefore there's (in my stupid little faux maths world where you can combine these probabilities), a 6/32 chance of fucking up by swapping, a 15/32 chance of making no difference to the colour, and an 11/32 chance of improving, so regardless of what she has in her box (urrrgh), there's more chance she'll improve than she will fuck up, even if most likely of all is that it won't make any difference.

Matt Morrison wrote:I think what I was thinking was this. 17 boxes. 11 reds, 6 blues.

If her box is (unknowingly, of course), RED, then that leaves a field of 10 reds and 6 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 10/16 chance of making no difference (as we're just talking a colour split, not actual values), and a 6/16 chance of being worse off, failing the split by getting a blue.

If her box is BLUE, that leaves a field of 11 reds and 5 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 11/16 chance of improving to a red, and a 5/16 chance of making no difference by swapping from blue to blue.

Therefore there's (in my stupid little faux maths world where you can combine these probabilities), a 6/32 chance of fucking up by swapping, a 15/32 chance of making no difference to the colour, and an 11/32 chance of improving, so regardless of what she has in her box (urrrgh), there's more chance she'll improve than she will fuck up, even if most likely of all is that it won't make any difference.

Ah, your mistake is that you've assumed that there is a 50/50 chance of her box being red or blue. Well, you probably haven't, but you've certainly forgotten to include it in your subsequent calculations.

If her box is blue: (6/17) * anything else afterwards...
If her box is red: (11/17) * anything else afterwards...

You should find that there's no difference in your chance of having red/blue once you've done this.

(Edit: Let's prove it. Chance of swapping to a blue is:

(Chance of swapping to a blue from a blue) + (Chance of swapping to a blue from a red) =
= (6/17 * 5/16) + (11/17 * 6/16)
= (30/272) + (66/272)
= 96/272
= 6/17.

Exactly the same chance of swapping to a blue, as there is of having a blue in the first place.)

Matt Morrison wrote:I think what I was thinking was this. 17 boxes. 11 reds, 6 blues.

If her box is (unknowingly, of course), RED, then that leaves a field of 10 reds and 6 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 10/16 chance of making no difference (as we're just talking a colour split, not actual values), and a 6/16 chance of being worse off, failing the split by getting a blue.

If her box is BLUE, that leaves a field of 11 reds and 5 blues.
If she swaps, she has a 11/16 chance of improving to a red, and a 5/16 chance of making no difference by swapping from blue to blue.

Therefore there's (in my stupid little faux maths world where you can combine these probabilities), a 6/32 chance of fucking up by swapping, a 15/32 chance of making no difference to the colour, and an 11/32 chance of improving, so regardless of what she has in her box (urrrgh), there's more chance she'll improve than she will fuck up, even if most likely of all is that it won't make any difference.

You can't combine probabilities that way. If you really want to do look at it like that, you should say:

probability she has a red already = 11/17
if she has a red, probability that swapping leaves her with a red = 10/16 [16 boxes to swap with, 10 of them contain a red]
probability she has a blue already = 6/17
if she has a blue, probability that swapping leaves her with a red = 11/16 [16 boxes to swap with, 11 of them contain a red]

So overall, probability that swapping leaves her with a red = (11/17) x (10/16) + (6/17) x (11/16) = 11/17. Same as the probability she had a red to start with.

But this is, I think, obscuring something quite intuitive with a lot of maths.

Ah, cheers, that'd be it yeah. Ssssh, Matt.

Haha, I did the edit and showed the blue odds while Charlie was busy doing the red ones. Neat.

Corby and Charlie have massively oversimplified this. Their probability models fail to take into account the energy in the room, whether there was any chanting going on, and what colour clothing the contestant was wearing.

Amateurs.

Michael Wallace wrote:Corby and Charlie have massively oversimplified this. Their probability models fail to take into account the energy in the room, whether there was any chanting going on, and what colour clothing the contestant was wearing.

Amateurs.

They're also forgetting the Edmonds Cunt Factor (ECF), which can be significant for high* values of t, where t is time in episode elapsed.

*High defined as any amount of time greater than fifteen seconds.

Matt Morrison wrote: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.

Just laying out the calculation for the scenario at hand to show swapping makes no difference:

The probability of swapping from a blue to a blue = (probability that she has a blue) x (probability of swapping from a blue to a blue given that she already has a blue) = 6/17 x 5/16 = 15/136
The probability of swapping from a blue to a red = (probability that she has a blue) x (probability of swapping from a blue to a red given that she already has a blue) = 6/17 x 11/16 = 33/136
The probability of swapping from a red to a blue = (probability that she has a red) x (probability of swapping from a red to a blue given that she already has a red) = 11/17 x 6/16 = 33/136
The probability of swapping from a red to a red = (probability that she has a red) x (probability of swapping from a red to a red given that she already has a red) = 6/17 x 5/16 = 55/136

Hence the probabilites of swapping from blue to red is the same as that of swapping from red to blue and the probability of swapping to the same colour doesn't matter, so once again it's just DOND talking bollocks

Michael Wallace wrote:Corby and Charlie have massively oversimplified this. Their probability models fail to take into account the energy in the room, whether there was any chanting going on, and what colour clothing the contestant was wearing.

Amateurs.

Oh how we need likes back

Did I see Howard in the audience?

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Did I see Howard in the audience?

Well, I didn't.

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.

It's the player who'd need to know what's behind the doors for this DOND Monty Hall to work, isn't it? The player is the one who's revealing the goats.

Hugh Binnie wrote:

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.

It's the player who'd need to know what's behind the doors for this DOND Monty Hall to work, isn't it? The player is the one who's revealing the goats.

If the player knows where the "goats" (reds) are then the game is a bit broken. To make it align you'd need to get offered the swap after you've selected a box, which doesn't happen in DoND anyway. So yeah, either way Monty Hall doesn't apply here.

DOND is pathetic. There's a woman on here who happened to be picked to play 7 years ago to the day that her dad died. And now she's crying about it. Boo hoo.

Ryan Taylor wrote:DOND is pathetic. There's a woman on here who happened to be picked to play 7 years ago to the day that her dad died. And now she's crying about it. Boo hoo.

Players are randomly picked, Ryan. This is a huge coincidence.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:DOND is pathetic. There's a woman on here who happened to be picked to play 7 years ago to the day that her dad died. And now she's crying about it. Boo hoo.

Players are randomly picked, Ryan. This is a huge coincidence.

I also experienced a coincidence today!

Ian Volante wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:DOND is pathetic. There's a woman on here who happened to be picked to play 7 years ago to the day that her dad died. And now she's crying about it. Boo hoo.

Players are randomly picked, Ryan. This is a huge coincidence.

I also experienced a coincidence today!

OMG what are the chances?!

Fucking dickheads. I'm sick of that bullshit where someone (today) deals on £11k, has a good round, and then would have got a £22k deal with £5 and £75k left.
Then they open the box and celebrate like mad when it's £5 as if somehow that justifies dealing on £11k. It's fucking ridiculous, you might as well burn the final box and never open it as everyone will deal on £22k.
The twat hasn't 'won' £10995, he's 'lost' a further £11000. Drives me fucking crazy. At least they used to ask "would you have taken the £22k?" back in the day, and then at least (if they say "no, I wouldn't") that gives some kind of relevance to what is in the final box, but they don't do that any more, just announce the offer and then open the box. Stupid show.

Matt Morrison wrote:Fucking dickheads. I'm sick of that bullshit where someone (today) deals on £11k, has a good round, and then would have got a £22k deal with £5 and £75k left.
Then they open the box and celebrate like mad when it's £5 as if somehow that justifies dealing on £11k. It's fucking ridiculous, you might as well burn the final box and never open it as everyone will deal on £22k.
The twat hasn't 'won' £10995, he's 'lost' a further £11000. Drives me fucking crazy. At least they used to ask "would you have taken the £22k?" back in the day, and then at least (if they say "no, I wouldn't") that gives some kind of relevance to what is in the final box, but they don't do that any more, just announce the offer and then open the box. Stupid show.

Yep, totally retarded mate.

Matt Morrison wrote:Fucking dickheads. I'm sick of that bullshit where someone (today) deals on £11k, has a good round, and then would have got a £22k deal with £5 and £75k left.
Then they open the box and celebrate like mad when it's £5 as if somehow that justifies dealing on £11k. It's fucking ridiculous, you might as well burn the final box and never open it as everyone will deal on £22k.
The twat hasn't 'won' £10995, he's 'lost' a further £11000. Drives me fucking crazy. At least they used to ask "would you have taken the £22k?" back in the day, and then at least (if they say "no, I wouldn't") that gives some kind of relevance to what is in the final box, but they don't do that any more, just announce the offer and then open the box. Stupid show.

Biggest fucking idiot today I have ever seen. I only ever leave it on after Countdown if someone does really well to begin with and it makes for some interesting deal decisions.
In those situations, I always want the person to do well cos I'm a nice guy. Today I wanted her so badly to fucking fail. What an idiot. WHAT AN IDIOT.

What she did:
Turned down £100,000 with £10,000 £50,000 and £250,000 left.
Picked £50,000, and turned down the chance to deal at £140,000.

Matt Morrison wrote:What she did:
Turned down £100,000 with £10,000 £50,000 and £250,000 left.
Picked £50,000, and turned down the chance to deal at £140,000.

Then what?! TELL US!! TELL US!!

Matt Morrison wrote: Turned down £100,000 with £10,000 £50,000 and £250,000 left.
Picked £50,000, and turned down the chance to deal at £140,000.

HAHA WHAT. Why would you ever do that?

Those are ridiculously good offers. Since when did they ever offer above the mean?

Michael Wallace wrote:Those are ridiculously good offers. Since when did they ever offer above the mean?

Yeah, they made a point of asking one of the contestants (presumably he's the "maths expert") what the average was, so as to point out the offer was £10k above the mean.
Certainly first time I've ever seen it happen.

And yeah, she opened her box (without swapping) and got £10,000 to take home. Congratufuckinglations.

I've always assumed you have to have a sob story or a great reason for needing the money to get on that show. To be fair to her I didn't see today's show til it was already half way through (after watching Countdown on Sky+) but you'd think anyone who can act like she did on the final deal must already be fucking loaded, and not morally restricted by impending charity donation or anything like that either.

Matt Morrison wrote: I've always assumed you have to have a sob story or a great reason for needing the money to get on that show. To be fair to her I didn't see today's show til it was already half way through (after watching Countdown on Sky+) but you'd think anyone who can act like she did on the final deal must already be fucking loaded, and not morally restricted by impending charity donation or anything like that either.

Maybe her box was her "lucky number" or a dead relative was there in spirit urging her to go on. I used to like the show but all that silly nonsense got too much to bear.

That is just lol. Rich people are idiots.

Matt Morrison wrote:Biggest fucking idiot today I have ever seen. I only ever leave it on after Countdown if someone does really well to begin with and it makes for some interesting deal decisions.
In those situations, I always want the person to do well cos I'm a nice guy. Today I wanted her so badly to fucking fail. What an idiot. WHAT AN IDIOT.

What she did:
Turned down £100,000 with £10,000 £50,000 and £250,000 left.
Picked £50,000, and turned down the chance to deal at £140,000.

Ha, this is the one British game show that's still here in America, and yes, the contests are pre-screened to be the types to do idiotic shit like this on a regular basis. If you even know what "expected value" is, you have no chance of getting on the show.

I'd actually have been angry had she got the 250k, to be honestly. Very little makes me more angry in the world than stupidity being rewarded.

If there ever were a reasonable case for eugenics, it'd strongly center around the worst Deal or No Deal contestants.

Steve Balog wrote:If there ever were a reasonable case for eugenics, it'd strongly center around the worst Deal or No Deal contestants.

s/contestants/presenters/p

Also, on either a much lighter or much more sad nte (depending on how twisted you are, guess where I fall here, go on), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEOL0CtQR4I

I think the think that angers me the most is that the fourth person didn't say her case had $50,000.

And one more video for good measure from the American version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sycs7PBQvgM

I'd say this person is.... roughly the median for intelligence of contestants on the American run of the show.

Steve Balog wrote: I'd say this person is.... roughly the median for intelligence of contestants on the American run of the show.

The whole rest of the family didn't even seem to notice. Geography has never made me feel bad for anyone before but commiserations Steve for having to share a nationality with those morons.

Eh, again with Deal or No Deal here they go out of their way to pick the dumbest or most spastic contestants that apply. I don't watch the show much, but I know people who do and they tell me people who have like bills or a mortgage to pay off will go for it on a very common basis with like a $5 and a $100,000 case left andd an offer of $50,000 (here the last offer is almost always the average rounded down to the nearest thousand, I've heard in other countries' versions the banker will actually take his perpection of the contestants risk aversion in mind and give gamblers higher offers and risk adverse people very low ones, relatively. Correct me if I'm wrong, though).

A disturbing trend I've seen in American game shows is that shows that aren't almost entirely luck based are being scrapped unless their top prize is something obscenely high, or having their rules changed to add a lot more luck. Like, Jeopardy! has to be the lone exception (Id did double the values of all questions not long ago, but the gameplay at least didn't change). Who Wants to be a Millionaire still runs, but they fucked with it so much you can't even call it the same show anymore -- I think it's something like the first 12 values and questions are all randomized and you don't know what each question is worth until you get it, and the lifelines are now just the 50/50 and two that let you skip a question. It's dumb. The Weakest Link was really popular here in America for a little while, but again the top prize was $1,000,000. Of course, the average score was like $80,000 because yea but still. After Robinson left, the prize was dropped to $125,000 with 6 contestants (30 minute show), but that tanked. Probably because the replacement host wasn't very good at the whole hosting the Weakest Link thing. I mean, I would be much better at being cold and acid-tongued than him.

Most of our other game shows are highly luck based, or involve physical challenges. The days of the fair, inyellectual game show in America is pretty much over. Not too surprising, as the level of disdain for intellectuals (or, snotty elitists as the buzzword du election cycle calls them) has ramped up a lot the last couple years.

Cliffnotes: America is dumb. Also, I mad