Deal or No Deal today - What would you do ?

[Falkor]

He died whilst she was part of the process but she decided to carry on.

Il find more out about this next week, brother is on holiday now so can't get him.

 

[Paris]

I'm sure Noel and the production team sqeezed the life out of the fact her old man died recently. I'm sure it went something like "There's something very special about this game today. Your dad will be up there willing you on to that 250k".

*Noel passes the tissues with a glint in his eye

 

[Aadam]

To be fair she went in with nothing.... Nothing gained, nothing lost. Personally I'd have taken the £60,000 if I were in that position.

No deal. 1p for me, it would have been.
I don't think that's idiotic. No 60k, but could have won 250.

All these billy big bollox here giving it they'd have taken the 60 are talking shit, because they'd have all dealt earlier for 10.

But that's not the question, is it? Read the original post, he's asking what we would do in that situation... It's hypothetical.

 

[cjd]

I'm sure Noel and the production team sqeezed the life out of the fact her old man died recently. I'm sure it went something like "There's something very special about this game today. Your dad will be up there willing you on to that 250k".

*Noel passes the tissues with a glint in his eye

Maybe there is 'life' after death. I would be very pissed off if my daughter chose to chase some money instead of spending time with person responsible for her upbringing, roof over her head and food on the table.

 

[Seagull58]

Take the 60K in a heartbeat. She was very silly.

 

[MattBackHome]

She only had to knock out one more bok at this point - so there was really a 2/3 chance of a higher offer. And if she did get the 250k here then she'd still have a nice offer of c20k.

NO DEAL

 

[ifuhatepalacestandup]

who cares get a life and leave afternoon tv to those it was invented for (the old and dead)

 

[Triggaaar]

But that's not the question, is it? Read the original post, he's asking what we would do in that situation... It's hypothetical.

I read the question, understood it, and don't blame people for saying that in that position, they'd have taken the 60k. What I'm criticising is people not only saying they'd take it, but also calling her an idiot for turning it down, as these people are more risk averse and would never have got to that position. There's nothing wrong with what she did.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

I'm sure Noel and the production team sqeezed the life out of the fact her old man died recently. I'm sure it went something like "There's something very special about this game today. Your dad will be up there willing you on to that 250k".

*Noel passes the tissues with a glint in his eye

haha sooo this. it's the same every day. Every game is 'special' or 'an extraodinary' or 'interesting' game. It's a load of f***ing bullshit i can't stand it.

I read the question, understood it, and don't blame people for saying that in that position, they'd have taken the 60k. What I'm criticising is people not only saying they'd take it, but also calling her an idiot for turning it down, as these people are more risk averse and would never have got to that position. There's nothing wrong with what she did.

Too true... people are thinking "2/3 of a chance of getting a lower amount in the box". In a real life situation we'd work out the expected return of the situation (in this instance £0.01 x 0.33 + £50,000 x 0.33 + £250,000 x 0.33) and if the deal was lower than the expected return we'd have to no-deal. Also if she knocks out the 1p she has 50k or 250k which is ideal, if she knocks out the 1p she'll at least get the same offer as last time and if she knocks out the £250,000 she'll get probably ~£15k offer so would only have lost £45k in effect. From a maths point of view a no deal is the clear answer.

Also about "she came in with nothing so she lost nothing" that is bullshit too. She could have had 60k so was gambling 60k.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

haha sooo this. it's the same every day. Every game is 'special' or 'an extraodinary' or 'interesting' game. It's a load of f***ing bullshit i can't stand it.



Too true... people are thinking "2/3 of a chance of getting a lower amount in the box". In a real life situation we'd work out the expected return of the situation (in this instance £0.01 x 0.33 + £50,000 x 0.33 + £250,000 x 0.33) and if the deal was lower than the expected return we'd have to no-deal. Also if she knocks out the 1p she has 50k or 250k which is ideal, if she knocks out the 1p she'll at least get the same offer as last time and if she knocks out the £250,000 she'll get probably ~£15k offer so would only have lost £45k in effect. From a maths point of view a no deal is the clear answer.

Also about "she came in with nothing so she lost nothing" that is bullshit too. She could have had 60k so was gambling 60k.

" Only " lost £ 45k

 

[Grendel]

Ironically that's the wrong way to think about it. Don't go calling people morons when you're working it out wrong yourself.

It's not though, is it? You can guarantee yourself £60,000 with no further risk involved, it's there, you can take it and walk away with the money. Or you can gamble on a 2/3 chance of getting a better offer in the next round. Choosing not to realise a guaranteed £60,000 gain on the chance that you *might* subsequently get a better offer is moronic.

 

[Braders]

She did a no deal at £ 60000 and pulled out the £ 250000 in the next box. She was then offered £ 19000 with 1p and £ 50000 left and the chance of a swop and no dealt on both. She ended up with 1p. Also her Father died last week as well. She was 21.

That's got to have hurt , saying that I probably would have made the same calls.

 

[Aadam]

I read the question, understood it, and don't blame people for saying that in that position, they'd have taken the 60k. What I'm criticising is people not only saying they'd take it, but also calling her an idiot for turning it down, as these people are more risk averse and would never have got to that position. There's nothing wrong with what she did.

Of course a real life situation would be different. I haven't watched the game, so don't know how it works, but heard you pick boxes until you're left with one and in-between you get an offer or something. However, hypothetically I'd have taken the deal. And I do think she is stupid for turning it down, having got an offer. But people will have different aims for the show, I'm sure.

haha sooo this. it's the same every day. Every game is 'special' or 'an extraodinary' or 'interesting' game. It's a load of f***ing bullshit i can't stand it.



Too true... people are thinking "2/3 of a chance of getting a lower amount in the box". In a real life situation we'd work out the expected return of the situation (in this instance £0.01 x 0.33 + £50,000 x 0.33 + £250,000 x 0.33) and if the deal was lower than the expected return we'd have to no-deal. Also if she knocks out the 1p she has 50k or 250k which is ideal, if she knocks out the 1p she'll at least get the same offer as last time and if she knocks out the £250,000 she'll get probably ~£15k offer so would only have lost £45k in effect. From a maths point of view a no deal is the clear answer.

Also about "she came in with nothing so she lost nothing" that is bullshit too. She could have had 60k so was gambling 60k.

Really? If I put £60,000 in your hands, in clean notes and said that is yours. Walk away with it now. Or, you can pick one of these cups and under each is a value, 1p, £50k or £250k. Apply the same 'banker offer rules' as the game. You'd do the maths, give it back to me and start picking cups? I don't believe that.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

It's not though, is it? You can guarantee yourself £60,000 with no further risk involved, it's there, you can take it and walk away with the money. Or you can gamble on a 2/3 chance of getting a better offer in the next round. Choosing not to realise a guaranteed £60,000 gain on the chance that you *might* subsequently get a better offer is moronic.

How is it moronic? Its like me saying to you, i'll give you £50. On the flip of a coin if you guess correct i'll give you either £100 or put my offer down to £20 if you loose. On a 50/50 chance you could lose money, but if you win the amount won will be a lot higher than the amount lost, so logic dictates we should do the coin flip to try and increase our winnings. It's all about expected value.

Really? If I put £60,000 in your hands, in clean notes and said that is yours. Walk away with it now. Or, you can pick one of these cups and under each is a value, 1p, £50k or £250k. Apply the same 'banker offer rules' as the game. You'd do the maths, give it back to me and start picking cups? I don't believe that.

But that's not mathematically thinking is it. That's thinking with emotions involved (i.e. that 60k is a lot of money). I was arguing from a mathematical point of view she probably made the right decision. FWIW I would probably have dealt too because i'm pretty risk adverse, but I was trying to put another point of view across rather than everyone saying "it's a clear deal".

 

[Triggaaar]

Take it. You've got a 1 in 3 chance of getting more than the offer, odds are that you'll end up with less. The morons that tend to appear on that programme probably wouldn't be able to figure that out though.

It's not though, is it? You can guarantee yourself £60,000 with no further risk involved, it's there, you can take it and walk away with the money. Or you can gamble on a 2/3 chance of getting a better offer in the next round. Choosing not to realise a guaranteed £60,000 gain on the chance that you *might* subsequently get a better offer is moronic.

The only thing that's moronic here is your logic.

Your points are incorrect:
'You've got a 1 in 3 chance of getting more than the offer, odds are that you'll end up with less'
You've actually correct this mistake in your second post. There will be an offer after the next box is open. In 2 times out of 3, that offer will be over 60k, so you have a 2/3 chance of getting more than the offer.

'Choosing not to realise a guaranteed £60,000 gain on the chance that you *might* subsequently get a better offer is moronic.'
Following your twisted logic, if the 3 boxes were 50k, 55k and 1 billion, you'd take an offer of 60k, as 60k now is better than the chance you *might* get a better offer. If you chose to open the box with my example, 2 times out of 3 you'd be worse off than taking 60k. Your poor logic takes no account of risk and reward.

It's fine that you are risk averse and would deal at lower amounts than others would require, but don't call others moronic when you clearly don't have a good understanding of the odds, risk and reward.

 

[Triggaaar]

Really? If I put £60,000 in your hands, in clean notes and said that is yours. Walk away with it now. Or, you can pick one of these cups and under each is a value, 1p, £50k or £250k. Apply the same 'banker offer rules' as the game. You'd do the maths, give it back to me and start picking cups? I don't believe that.

It depends on the financial position of the person.

If you offered that deal to a professional poker player (like our Tony), I guarantee you they'd take their chances with the cups. They win some, they'll lose some, but with decisions like that they come out ahead in the long run.
If you offer the same deal to a retired person for whom 60k would be fantastic (nice holiday and lifestyle in their golden years) and 250k would not be a lot better, the 60k would be the better choice.

 

[Titanic]

What do you think the offer will be if you have 1p and £250,000 left ?

and what would it have to be for you to take it ??

 

[Aadam]

But that's not mathematically thinking is it. That's thinking with emotions involved (i.e. that 60k is a lot of money). I was arguing from a mathematical point of view she probably made the right decision. FWIW I would probably have dealt too because i'm pretty risk adverse, but I was trying to put another point of view across rather than everyone saying "it's a clear deal".

Ah okay. I read into it that you would do the same because the maths said so. Point taken

 

[Aadam]

It depends on the financial position of the person.

If you offered that deal to a professional poker player (like our Tony), I guarantee you they'd take their chances with the cups. They win some, they'll lose some, but with decisions like that they come out ahead in the long run.
If you offer the same deal to a retired person for whom 60k would be fantastic (nice holiday and lifestyle in their golden years) and 250k would not be a lot better, the 60k would be the better choice.

Oh completely agree. The financial position would massively impact the decision. So for a 21 year old to turn this down was ridiculous and I'm sure she was overtaken with greed. She could have used the money to put herself through University, put a nice deposit down on a place of her own. Instead, it appears the greed got the better of her as she chased a higher amount.

Having said that, if her Father had just left her half a million in his will, then the gamble was the right choice.

 

[Triggaaar]

What do you think the offer will be if you have 1p and £250,000 left ?

and what would it have to be for you to take it ??

They've obviously had similar situations before, can't remember what the offer is, around 90/100k.