Monday, September 29, 2008

Friday's "Deal or No Deal" reaction

A few days after an ultra-exciting syndicated "Deal or No Deal" episode where Chelsea Drake won $275,000 (while coming THIS CLOSE to being the first-ever $500,000 grand prize winner), I'm absolutely stunned over the mostly negative reaction I've seen about her final decision in taking the deal.

Yeah, I would've liked her to have said NO DEAL too, but I realized that since that episode aired out outside of sweeps, if she had indeed said NO DEAL, there was a strong chance she would've dropped to $100,000. For crying out loud, she's the biggest winner so far on syndicated "Deal" so far and she made her episode one of the best U.S. "Deal" episodes ever, so give her at least SOME credit, will ya?

7 comments:

TLEberle said...

That made absolutely no sense. If she says "NO DEAL," her fate would be pre-determined by what was in her case. Sweeps has nothing to do with anything.

Take a probability class, would you, please?

Octavarium64 said...

Want me to tell you why there's a negative reaction to her decision? I'll very kindly explain why.

With 176,000 at stake, Chelsea states that she is in a no-lose situation, and thus says No Deal. Then, at 275,000, she says it's too much money to risk. FAIL.

There's only three possible amounts you can win: 100K, 275K, or 500K. You just said you were "set" with 75K. Now why are you quitting to avoid winning 100K?

If $100,000 was indeed not enough for you, why did you refuse the 176K when running into the 500K leads to an average of $87,500 won? If $100,000 is not enough, $87,500 is not enough.

And finally, after the show, she said she didn't care that she had thrown out $225,000. But you were so deathly afraid of losing $175,000, when you just stated you'd be fine with even $75,000 and thus be amazed at $100,000.

The excuse is that she was about to give birth. I certainly understand that on its own, but you got to the 176,000 despite being about to give birth, and were courageous enough to refuse that. Explain the difference. It doesn't matter how high the money is, as long as it's under the mean (you take 310,000 with that final two) and you can live with either amount. Also, Jessica made it all the way to the 561K and turned that down.

Congratulations. You just proved everyone wrong that the syndicated version is infinitely less brainless than the primetime. And you tried to lie your way out of it.

TLEberle said...

Congratulations, Octavarium/jvbt, on failing at reading comprehension. Or in a language you can understand, "quack quack quack quack."

Octavarium64 said...

So then explain the case for Chelsea. I'd like to hear it.

Octavarium64 said...

You'd be happy with anything you won if you got into the same situation on the primetime show: 400K, 500K, 1M?

Assume this contestant were to say this, then remove the 400K, then to take an offer of $725,000 because $500,000 would not be enough money. Excuse me...you just said $400,000 would be perfectly fine to win. Why are you so afraid of winning "only" $500,000? Considering if you really didn't want to drop to $500,000, you'd take the $625,000 something that was offered to you last round!

The moral is that if the lowest amount (75K) is a "win" as the player defines it, an amount higher than that (100K) cannot logically be defined as a "loss".

...what reading comprehension? ...did I ever post in duck language?

TLEberle said...

What's to explain? She saw a big enough number on the screen. She said "yes, I'd like to stop the game and take home that cash value."

You're not going to drag me down into your sinkhole of "the game is one of numbers where you can't make any claims at all, and you have to play the game exactly the way I say to."

My original comment was that Bobby said that if Chelsea had No Dealt (and thus won $500k) that the episode would have been aired at a different time. I said baloney. You were unable to respond to that point and instead went on and on with your absurd "Deal or No Deal is a cold-hearted game of numbers where players are not allowed to show any emotion or say anything that might possibly be construed as a lie after the fact."

But that won't stop you from doing more of the same, will it?

Octavarium64 said...

Players shouldn't be showing absolute emotions such as that they can't lose, or that they absolutely have it. They can say they might have it or that they wouldn't be too happy.

It's perfectly fine to take a deal under the usual provisions for dealing. What's not fine is to take a deal because you're not willing to risk the loss of a ton of money and there is no safety net, when you should have thought of that last round when there was also no safety net before you claimed that the top amount was in your case.

If you don't understand what might lead to contradictions and what will not, you're not going to play this game very smart.

I am well aware of the mathematics of Deal or No Deal and how they change depending on the contestant's situation, board, and other things. None of those are excuses for contradiction.