The kids were about twelve, I suppose. It's not like a trivia show in which you can test your trivial knowledge at home, or a show in which people perform some sort of feat that's entertaining. A: Snickers :p :p :p I think I just broke something. But rapid fire would blank my mind; I probably wouldn't even have the wherewithal to answer. I'm a really excellent driver. I hope it wan't fudged. The moral of the story for you is…what, trust your gut? In your case, the real value of the player's position was 147,500.
Driver's side door Passenger's side door Back end. You can play at home, I guess, and ask yourself what your decision would be - but that's not compelling television in my view. The funny thing is that she talked herself through the right answer. It's just that the decision-making and knowledge required are very different than most other game shows. Oh, in the only other episode I watched of 1 vs 100: Something like: If a car is parallel parked, which of these things is perpendicular to the curb? Identifying those has relevance to the current game - it's not something that takes 1000 games before you see the effect. The player was left with 3 unknown people - one was obvious, and the other two were pretty much a coin flip as to who they might be.
It is unrealistic to follow those laws unless you can play Deal or No Deal as often as you can play other games in which knowledge of those laws will enable you to come out on top over a period of time. So these two people who had the exact same decision, the first guy clearly you made a stupid, greedy decision, and lost because of it. It was the first question. Well, how dumb did they think she was? Also you need to consider the woman's personal circumstances. I also noticed that many of their answers were sexual in nature and of course inappropriate. For those who aren't familiar with it, the game has a mountain climber whose name is Hans, from what I understand, though Bob never calls him this who goes up a 30°-40° slope, marked by 25 numbers before it reaches the top where it meets a cliff. That's some pretty simple math right there.
The utility of the guaranteed sum may well exceed that of being in a coin-toss for the other two amounts. However, assuming the player picks one of the low numbers, she's now faced with a situation like this: 500 500,000 750,000. I watched about 20 minutes of one episode and the novelty wore off realllllly fast. Well, then, you are still calling her an idiot. Um, how about a person who has kept a record of every contestant, and found this gross distortion of the truth online…? I don't drink beer, so I'm gonna ask for some help. The contestant in question was presented the three small items to price, the first of which was a toy guitar.
I've lost all faith in even a minor percentage of Americans having any level of intellegence what so ever. I would have taken the £45,000 That's a horrible offer from the banker. I suspevct this is why they stopped asking fact-based questions and went to preferences and the like. Unfortunately, almost all gameshows developed in the last few years have been utterly brain dead and relied more on artificial suspense than any substance - culiminating with the worst in the bunch, Deal or No Deal, which has nothing interesting whatsoever. I've never seen this show before, but I can't believe that anybody would have such a crap strategy. The best part of that is that the other thing the family was screaming out other than Europe was. In every combination of board values, you have decisions to make based on the variance of your choices, your own utility curve, and the expected value of your choices.
I would have turned it down too. It is unrealistic to follow those laws unless you can play Deal or No Deal as often as you can play other games in which knowledge of those laws will enable you to come out on top over a period of time. From a German game show: Q: Which ancient Roman god of war had the same name as a chocolate bar? I would suggest for a laugh that you chimpmaniacs out there check this out. Here's the requirements to apply: 1. I'm going to have to give you that. I'm watching tonight's episode - and they start out with brain-dead easy questions much like Millionaire.
And if anyone laughed at her, they edited it out, cause the place was silent. Apparently, though, they show later found out the guy was severely colour-blind. The utility of the guaranteed sum may well exceed that of being in a coin-toss for the other two amounts. The contestant in question was presented the three small items to price, the first of which was a toy guitar. Yeah, true, it was unfair. The second player then said: Alligator. First question: Which has the least amount of cells? It's not just about expectation, though.
What kills me is that the contestant didn't know the answer to either one and still went on to win lots of money. If the player picks the 750,000, the offer is about 250,000, which is just about the point at which the player quit. This is not even a close decision. How does that benefit anyone? It's just a preference, though. I always assumed that they surveyed the studio audience. Hmm, how about you make a deal pregame with some rich guy that he gives you a slight amount below the expected value, and you go to the end and give him the winnings.