MovieChat Forums > Deal or No Deal (2005) Discussion > Why were the contestants so dumb?

Why were the contestants so dumb?

posted 9 years ago by kathy84
7 replies | jump to latest

There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity and most times I tune in for a few minutes while eating something I see contestants going way past that line and paying dearly for it. They often have one or two high amounts left (or just one or two amounts higher than the deal) and then they keep going too far until they go through all their good options and good deal possibilities. I understand trying to get all you can, but this is greed going way past common sense and being realistic. Occasionally some will still do well despite doing this, but it's rare. These contestants on the whole must be the producer's dream come true, not having to pay them much money. They must look for people with excessive greed that clouds their judgment

[–] Piperson 9 years ago

And their reasons for rejecting the large pot when it is offered is that it isn't enough money. Then they end up having to be philosophical about ending up with a much smaller amount. They need to be able to leave their hopes and dreams out of the equation and just play the odds.

I watch Jeopardy in which very smart contestants might, if they are skilled and lucky, win 5 days in a row and come away with about 100 grand. If a very skilled contestant needs 5 days to win 100 grand, a Deal or No Deal contestant should consider how lucky they are to be offered that amount or any amount close to it. They should take the money and run.

[–] kramsey20 9 years ago

Because the show is dumb. It's just a guessing game that a small child could win at. Through DonD they managed to create a game show without any of that pesky thought or strategy that bogs down other game shows. It's a game show without a game. It's just "Take a briefcase, now call out random numbers and our producer is going to interrupt from time to time making cash offers you'll never accept."

[–] kathy84 9 years ago

Thanks for the responses. Contestants don't seriously consider the deal sometimes until it's too late and there's no high amounts left. So many stupid people with more guts than brains which producers love but makes it depressing and frustrating to watch, that's why I gave up on the show after a few months when it was new. No wonder it was cancelled. Boggles the mind that people still watch the reruns, I can't bear to watch even a few minutes anymore.

[–] joeddelozier 9 years ago

To a certain extent, yes the people are stupid and should cut bait and run. But at what point do you bail? You look at the guy who played the game all the way to the end. There was a 1 million dollar case and a 1 dollar case left in play. He turned down $500,000 and left with a buck. What a dumb-ass! Except that what if his case held the million dollars instead and he sold $1 million for $500,000? What a dumb-ass!

There show is predicated on greed and luck. Unlike other game shows there is no skill or intelligence needed. You are simply playing odds.

You look at a board and see that there is $1, $5, $100, $100,000 & $500,000 in play. The banker offers you $80,000 for your briefcase. That is way more than 3 of the briefcases and less than 1 and way less than another 1 of them. You only have a 2/5 chance of having a large amount in your case. However, you have one case to open and you have a 3-in-5 chance of opening a smaller number, and even opening $100,000 will still likely cause the offer to go up. So you have a 1-in-5 chance of screwing up. Not bad odds. It is all about risk-reward.

Of course, they aren't losing anything when the offer goes down, nor are they gaining anything, except theoretical money. They have the money in their case. It is their greed that makes them even consider selling it X dollars.

[–] ERThree 9 years ago

It's funny how this "all the contestants were stupid" stereotype is so prevalent, as many of the contestants on this show actually did very well; it's just that we as humans tend to remember negative outcomes more often than positive outcomes, so people disregard the large number of contestants that won six-figures in favor of the relatively small number that walked out with pocket change, like the contestant you described.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your post. This is a game that is dependent on risk/reward, and evaluating the expected value of the remaining amounts in comparison to the offer is also an important aspect of the game; I would personally cash out on most offers that are 80% of the expected value or more (especially if there is only one amount available that is higher than the offer), but I could certainly accept a lower percentage based on how volatile the board is. If there is only one higher amount on the board, I honestly wouldn't care if my case held that amount or not; my only regret would probably be not opening one more case in order to get a higher offer, and even then, I know an offer that's too good to refuse when I see one, so that regret could also be eliminated in certain instances.

I'm not entirely sure what I would do in your example scenario since 67% of the expected value ($80,000/$120,000) is not exactly the type of percentage I would readily accept; my decision would definitely depend on the amounts I was offered earlier (due to both the possibility/inability to match a higher offer by opening one more case in addition to studying the offer trends; if the earlier offers were also lacking in generosity, an offer close to the expected value seems highly unlikely one case later), but in all likelihood, I would accept the $80,000 because it's relatively close to the second-highest amount, and a board like $1/$5/$100/$100,000 or even $1/$5/$100/$500,000 could potentially open the door for the Banker to lowball the consequential offer since the contestant will have a much greater fear of walking away with almost nothing (although this was far more common on the daytime syndicated version rather than the primetime network version that is the subject of discussion here).

Going back to what I was saying about the offer trends, I would predict that the next offer would be 80% of the expected value assuming that there were similar increases in generosity between the earlier offers, so you'd essentially be looking at a 60% chance of gaining $40,000 vs. a 20% chance of gaining $20,000 vs. a 20% chance of losing $60,000. I wouldn't consider that an ideal gamble, which is why I would probably take the deal, but it is arguable either way if you are prepared for the 20% chance of the offer being divided by 4 in an attempt to take advantage of the 80% chance of an increase. It's all in the eye of the beholder, and while there is certainly an element of greed that is required in making the decision, it all comes down to whether you personally feel comfortable taking the risk or not.

[–] strntz (12773) 7 years ago

Of course, they aren't losing anything when the offer goes down, nor are they gaining anything, except theoretical money.

But it's not theoretical. The problem is that contestants don't realize that once an offer is made, they are now gambling with their own money. True, they've only had it for a few seconds until they turn down the offer but that doesn't change the value of the money.

In your example, you mentioned that some fool turned down half a mil to try to win the million. If he took the offer, he had 500,000 dollars. Essentially, he did have the 500K but gambled it away. I don't know too many people who would gamble 500,000 of their own money to win a million with only a 33 percent change of success. But that guy did.

[–] LuckyLucius (342) 4 years ago

When I would watch Deal Or No Deal I often noticed that too and I think that the contestants sometimes were scared that if they lost the million dollar amount they were afraid that they couldn't take another high offer if it was offered to them or they would end up with a low amount like contestant Brooks Leach did when he played all the way and ended up with $10 in his case. But as we saw with the contestants Anita English and Hayley Tucker it is hard to play a perfect game of Deal Of No Deal with a perfect board like they did. But if I was on the show I would play with the million still on the board and stop if the banker offered me $250,000 and I would deal