# Deal or No Deal



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

Anyone know if is going to be presented in HD or not. Trying to decide which box to record it on.


----------



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

According to NBC's web site schedule, there's no HDTV indicator, so I'm guessing it's not.

deb


----------



## Z-Todd (Jun 11, 2005)

I'm going to laugh if the opening episode gets topped by the 7th Heaven rerun.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

What is this show about? I went to the site and it's some briefcase exchange game. But they have 50 models for some reason. Why all the hot babes?


----------



## jmenjes (Feb 2, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> What is this show about? I went to the site and it's some briefcase exchange game. But they have 50 models for some reason. Why all the hot babes?


In the versions of the game around the world, there's an elimination game using the entire studio audience to whittle the crowd down to the one player to play the main game, and the other 25 cases are held by the members of the audience. Those other 25 people can win extra cash if they can successfully predict what dollar amount is in their case.

The NBC version doesn't have the audience elimination game, hence the models to bring out the cases and reveal what's inside.

Here's the Wiki that better explains the international versions of DoND.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

It sounds like a game of pure chance. In other words, since no one knows what is in the cases, you are just hoping that you bet the right way. 

It sounds boring. I will either watch some old shows I have on my Tivo or do something even weirder, read.

I like trivia games.


----------



## JDHutt25 (Dec 27, 2004)

So this is pretty much "Lets Make a Deal" only you can't win a donkey?


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

JDHutt25 said:


> So this is pretty much "Lets Make a Deal" only you can't win a donkey?


I never knew, but if someone "won" something like a donkey, they didn't get to keep it did they?


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

timr_42 said:


> I never knew, but if someone "won" something like a donkey, they didn't get to keep it did they?


Actually, they never received the gag prizes ("zonks") until one contestant demanded to keep the elephant. This cost the producers a fortune, so from there on it was written into the contestant agreements that a "zonk" winner would get another small prize as a substitute.


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

ok I just started watching this. When did Howie go bald?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

This is bad. I give it a week.


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> This is bad. I give it a week.


I don't think it is intended to go much longer then that.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm amused... not like there's anything else on. I'll keep watching.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

my GOD do I HATE stupid people!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Paperboy2003 said:


> my GOD do I HATE stupid people!


Ok, that's nice. And that has what to do with this show or this thread?

Anyway. This is kind of an interesting show - it's pure chance and "game theory" as the Wiki article puts it... at what point will the risk be too much for the contestant to continue? Will the contestant base their decision to continue on what the banker's offer is, or whether the chance of having a good case selected?

I do think based on the description on Wiki that they made a good decision to simplify the show for the US audience, esp. given a limited run. This gets the same general point across without the weird random elements added in of guesses/superguesses and other audience members participating and stuff, and gets more contestants involved and playing the game.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Ok, that's nice. And that has what to do with this show or this thread?


OK.....let me add my second part to that:

....who can't understand simple odds and probability.

Better?


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

corollary:

My GOD, do the producers LOVE stupid people. 

I enjoyed the show tonight. I think I'll be sick of it by Friday, though.


----------



## zyzzx (Jan 22, 2002)

I kind of enjoyed it. I thought it was going to be boring but my wife and I were getting into it at the end. We figured out that the "Banker" was simply the average of the cases left somewhere in the first game. It's interesting to think about when it's best to take the deal or to continue. Kind of like the stock market, you don't know until the end when your highest offer is going to be made.

We'll keep watching.


----------



## Dafaso (Dec 13, 2000)

I'm sick of it after the first contestant. No deal.


----------



## mmilton80 (Jul 28, 2005)

cherry ghost said:


> This is bad. I give it a week.


This was, perhaps, the funniest thing I have heard today. Kudos to you, cherry ghost. Kudos to you.


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

It's okay. The main problem I see is that once the big numbers are knocked out it's rather anticlimactic.

I tried playing the online version. I managed to pick both the 1¢ and $1 cases.


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

OMG this was bad.


----------



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

This was really bad. The (original) Dutch version is so much better.

Producers definitely love over the top people. I'm not sure who was worse, the husband or the wife playing the game.

I'm glad it's only a week long event. It wouldn't last longer than that.

Howie sucks as a presenter.

My $.02.

deb


----------



## itstrue (Dec 20, 2004)

I enjoyed it. The game has just enough suspense and if you get some good characters as contestants it could be decent lightweight entertainment. Since there is nothing going on this week, I will probably look at it until I get sick of it, but it will go the way of Millionaire and Weakest Link in a hurry if NBC decides to make a full-time go of it.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I like it but I wouldnt watch it regularly. I could see it on the Gameshow Network.


----------



## ayrton911 (Sep 4, 2000)

Yes, as a one-time or once a year event, it is pretty good entertainment, at least for me. I find it pretty exciting, but I agree it would get old fast, if they kept it on more than this week.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

The show is like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, in that they are perfect shows for TIVOing. You can watch the whole 1-hour show in about 20 minutes. Hell, you probably can even watch it with 3x Fast Forward (faster for commercials, of course).


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

I liked it. But as I see from some of the comments above YMMV.

So does the "Banker" have software running that generates the "deal" amount? It would seem to be relatively easy to program that.

Since the thread title doesn't have a date listed for the episode:


Spoiler



I would have walked with $90K. I *really* couldn't believe she didn't take the $138K. But she really wanted to. I wonder if hubby had to sleep on the couch?


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

I liked it...it was something different, which is quite rare these days...
I wouldn't want to watch every single night for an extended period of time, but it will keep my interest for a week...
I don't think the first lady was necessarily stupid...speaking of simple odds, chances were that she would still pick a briefcase with a smaller amount at the end, and "The Banker's" offer would go up more...
Taking chances, baby...that's why you go on a game show...can't be a wuss all the time, and when else are these opportunities gonna come along??? Any idiot can say afterwards "Well golly gee, I guess since it turned out that she didn't have the $500,000 briefcase, she should have taken the offer", then what happens if she had the $500,000 briefcase???
I wanna see someone eliminate the top 6 prizes with their first 6 elimination picks...just because that'd be something that I'd do...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MasterOfPuppets said:


> Any idiot can say afterwards "Well golly gee, I guess since it turned out that she didn't have the $500,000 briefcase, she should have taken the offer", then what happens if she had the $500,000 briefcase???


No, she should have continued to say "no deal" until she was down to 5 cases. At that point, the expected value of her case was $110K, but the banker offered her $163K or something. That was the first time that she was offered more than the expected value and she should have jumped on it...


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

I enjoyed it... I am guessing our contestants didn't really need the money that bad, or are just that stupid. I can't imagine not taking the 138k.

Howie has been bald for a few years at least. 

I do think we need hotter models... They were just eh...


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I liked it and I'll be watching this week. I agree that it probably would get bored after a while unless they start putting special rules/twists in the cases as they are opened.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

I don't understand why the re-make of "Let's make a deal" failed? The one hosted by a relative of the Bush''s, can't recall his first name.

It was on for several weeks last year.

If this brainless "deal/no deal" is a success, I'll really have to wonder about the audience.

I generally like Howie Mandell but, man, there was not even a hint of his usual schtick!


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I just kept thinking about how he would react if someone touched him. He was on Celebrity Poker Showdown and wore gloves because he was concerned with germs (I think he has OCD).


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

omnibus said:


> I generally like Howie Mandell but, man, there was not even a hint of his usual schtick!


Thank god!


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

This show didn't do it for me. The biggest challenge of the show for me was trying to figure out the formula they used for the "Banker" offers. I predicted to my wife before we started watching that this was going to be one of those shows where they could have played the game in 10-15 minutes but they were going to stretch it out to an hour. 

I think that woman and her family were actors paid to help get the show going. They were too quick with witty comments, they just didn't seem genuine. If she was playing so that she could have a house, she could have taken the 30k bank offer and been fine, and she shouldn't have hesitated to take the 138k offer if what she wanted was a house.


----------



## AstroDad (Jan 21, 2003)

Thats online game is a good time waster. So far the best I have done is $294k. Although once the suitcase I picked was the $750k one.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

I liked playing the online version... Usually I would have ended up with under $1000, but made a deal for over $50K...


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

On the online version I made a deal for $150,000 but I ended up having the $500,000 suitcase :grrr:


----------



## ToddAtl (Jul 27, 2003)

I thought it was entertaining. I agree with those who think contestant #1 was a plant of some sort, the husband's routine was just too actor-like. I will tivo the rest of the week since there is nothing else on but I think I will definitely be spacing out my viewing of it over the next few weeks...


----------



## maharg18 (Dec 4, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> I think that woman and her family were actors paid to help get the show going.


I was thinking the same thing.. The producers couldn't have asked for a better game for their first show.


----------



## CharlieB (Mar 13, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> I think that woman and her family were actors paid to help get the show going. They were too quick with witty comments, they just didn't seem genuine.


Agreed. And I think Howie's OK for a show like this.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

DeDondeEs said:


> I think that woman and her family were actors paid to help get the show going. They were too quick with witty comments, they just didn't seem genuine.


I don't think that they were actors. If so whomever came up with the line that she was a grandmother is certainly pushing the stereotypes.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Not actors _per se,_ but the producers are definitely "casting" contestants and their "helpers" with an eye toward entertainment value, not an eye toward understanding probability and statistics.

The show's also heavily edited, so who knows how long it really took to come up with those good lines? 

I'm a big game show fan, so I'm certainly in favor of game shows airing in network prime-time, but the problem here is that there really isn't much game to this game show -- it's not too far removed from those state lottery "game shows" that are completely based on luck.


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

Have the writers and producers not heard of DVRs? They tried to add suspense by building up the tension, then going to a commercial, but to me, at least, it failed, and I laughed the whole time:

"We'll find out what your deal is... after the break!"

30ss-30ss-30ss-30ss-30ss-30ss-30ss-30ss

"We're back!"


----------



## mmilton80 (Jul 28, 2005)

Here's my idea for a new game show. It's called Who Really Wants to Be a Millionaire and people get in a room and wait. The host then says "Who really wants to be a millionaire," and the person who says yes wins.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

AstroDad said:


> Thats online game is a good time waster. So far the best I have done is $294k. Although once the suitcase I picked was the $750k one.


I played a few times to get the hang of it. Best I did was $284k and I picked the $500k suitcase.

I missed the episode last night but I think I'll tune in the rest of the week.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

Picked the 1MM suitcase (it was #1), but I cut a deal for $518,500

Woo hoo....Beers are on me!


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Dumbest. Show. Ever.

Sorry, but the game shows 40 years ago were better. We've reverted back to "Pick a hand, any hand"?!?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

mmilton80 said:


> This was, perhaps, the funniest thing I have heard today. Kudos to you, cherry ghost. Kudos to you.


Thanks, fellow outsider.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I sure am having fun playing the on-line version.


----------



## ggalindo (Sep 9, 2005)

I have seen the original Australian version of this show; major differences:

1. Only a half-hour in length, none of this stretching out the one contestant
2. Host of AU show much more dynamic than Howie (tho he was coming around toward the end of the episode)
3. It is not "dumbed down" like the American show. I cannot believe how many times they had to explain the concept. It's simple folks.
4. Bank offer is made "automatically", none of this phone call nonsense.

I usually am not overly critical, but my wife and I last night could not believe how bad of a job NBC did with this show. It was good with Tivo, after the first few minutes, we had to watch it on 2x fast forward. I cannot believe the first contestant, we both thought it was a plant. 

We will watch tonight, just hoping it is better than last night.


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

omnibus said:


> I generally like Howie Mandell but, man, there was not even a hint of his usual schtick!


He came on towards the end when he made a joke towards the guy contestant that was taken seriously, and Howie goofed on him that _"It's just a joke!"_ It seemed like Howie wanted to take that further.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

ggalindo said:


> It is not "dumbed down" like the American show. I cannot believe how many times they had to explain the concept. It's simple folks.


I don't think it's an issue of "dumbing it down"; it's just that this is the first time it has been on American television. They also wanted viewers who tune in partly through to be able to understand what's going on.

I expect that the very first time it aired on Australian TV, the concept was repeated several times as well...


----------



## Dssturbo1 (Feb 23, 2005)

it was ok. 

they need a ten second timer for the deal/no deal choice.
and better dresses for the hot girls.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

It was bad. Having the first contestant take a full 50 minutes of the show made it impossible to watch but I did the impossible and watched it. I got tired quickly.

Make the game for each contestant go faster by getting rid of the fake phone call, giving the contestant a set time limit (10 seconds for example) to decide deal or no deal, and have less talking from the host about the rules. We know the rules, Howie...they took all of 2 seconds to figure out.


----------



## bobsbizzy (Jun 20, 2002)

Perfect show for Tivo/DVR. Put it on 1x fast forward and you can clearly follow whats going on without the time wasting build ups and silly comments.

Thank you Tivo.

P.S. First contestant was crazy not to take the $138,000. After taxes she would have had a very decent down payment on a house and her future would have been secure. 
P.P.S. Best looking grandma I've every seen


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

It just takes too long to get through one contestant. I'm not using the TiVo (and I know I should be) but the show needs to get finished with each contestant more quickly. The drama gets old.


----------



## tarrkid (Dec 29, 2004)

I'm watching this for the first time right now...

It's kind of catchy. It is rather drawn out, I'll admit, but it does drag you (okay ME) in a bit. (Don't think less of me!)


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I thought tonight (night 2) was much better than last night. Though he should have taken the quarter mil.

I played online and the first time I played, I made a deal for $460,000. It was down to a 50/50 shot, and it turns out I had the $1,000,000 case. Still the right move, though. It's not about what's in your case, it's about what your odds are.


----------



## Miro127 (Jan 20, 2005)

Worst. Show. Ever. :down: :down: 

(Yet somehow, I still watched the whole freakin thing )


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

"I'm wearing my lucky bra."

TMI on national television.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

It seems that the online deal is not the same as the show deal. Online deals are odd amounts (since it's just the average of all of the remaining amounts) while the show deals are round amounts. EDIT: Actually, that makes sense... they don't want you to be able to compute the deals by sampling a zillion times.

And I HATE the Howie voice-overs they have now and then. Guess he isn't THAT good of a host.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

JETarpon said:


> I played online and the first time I played, I made a deal for $460,000. It was down to a 50/50 shot, and it turns out I had the $1,000,000 case. Still the right move, though. It's not about what's in your case, it's about what your odds are.


Actually, the odds say that you made a bad move.

No matter what the other briefcase had, there was at least $1M on the board. Divided by 2 (the number of remaining cases), that means that the expected value of your case was at least $500K. If you sold it for only $460K, then you made a bad deal.


----------



## tarrkid (Dec 29, 2004)

martinp13 said:


> It seems that the online deal is not the same as the show deal. Online deals are odd amounts (since it's just the average of all of the remaining amounts) while the show deals are round amounts. EDIT: Actually, that makes sense... they don't want you to be able to compute the deals by sampling a zillion times.
> 
> And I HATE the Howie voice-overs they have now and then. Guess he isn't THAT good of a host.


I THOUGHT I heard a voiceover... !


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

A few thoughts:

Definitely a TiVo show. Can't handle the fact that they try to draw 15 minutes worth of stuff out for a full hour.

The dresses on the models on Night 2 were much better than Night 1. I wonder who picked those horrible blue things for the opening night?

I don't think the Banker offer is the average of the remaining cases. It's close, and it appeared that the first contestant followed that pattern pretty well, but the second guy got so many low cases in a row that the offer would have jumped way too fast. At one point, the previous offer was somewhere in the $35,000 range and then the next time there was still over $1.2 mil on the board and only 6 cases left. This should have made the offer somewhere close to $200k, but instead it was "only" $99k. 

This is definitely something that I'd only watch in this circumstance (Limited run, nothing else on, TiVo, etc.). I can't imagine tuning in to see what happens on this once a week, especially not when other shows are on. I love game shows, but I like the ones that require the player to have a little skill. It makes playing along at home much more fun.

For those who want them to shrink the show to half an hour or speed up the pace of play, remember that they're trying to make their money with the commercials they are showing. If the show were half as long, they'd only have half the income. If they speed up the pace, they'll be giving away too much. Sure, the manufactured drama is lame and I probably wouldn't be watching if I couldn't FF through it, but that's what they have to do to make the numbers work.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

devdogaz said:


> If they speed up the pace, they'll be giving away too much.


I don't agree. Tonight they gave away, what? Less than $200K? Even if the faster pace caused double the payout, that's still very, very cheap compared to the cost for dramas. If the increased pace could make more people watch, then they could easily offset the payout via commerical costs.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> I don't agree. Tonight they gave away, what? Less than $200K? Even if the faster pace caused double the payout, that's still very, very cheap compared to the cost for dramas. If the increased pace could make more people watch, then they could easily offset the payout via commerical costs.


It's a double-edged sword. Do you run the show in half the time and hope that the quick pace draws more viewers and allows you to charge more for the ads, even though there are only half as many? Do you stretch it out to an hour, realizing that you'll lose some viewers who can't stand to sit through the garbage?

Ultimately, they had to make the decision beforehand, because with a limited run, they obviously can't go to the advertisers next week with the ratings and ask them to pay more for the commercials. I don't know if they made the right call, but considering that NBC has nothing else going for it, I don't blame them for stretching this out for an hour. What were they going to do with the second half hour every night this week?


----------



## mattpol (Jul 23, 2003)

This is the worst show ever in the history of TV. (Well, maybe that's not true, but it's awful beyond words and required that absolute statement to show how serious I am about my hatred for this show).

And to the person who compared the concept of the show to the stock market, I ask you whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?


----------



## porges (Feb 28, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Actually, the odds say that you made a bad move.
> 
> No matter what the other briefcase had, there was at least $1M on the board. Divided by 2 (the number of remaining cases), that means that the expected value of your case was at least $500K. If you sold it for only $460K, then you made a bad deal.


Depending on what the other case had, maybe not; there's more to it than expected value, because (assuming we're talking about real money, not online scoring) the marginal utility of each dollar is not the same. At the extreme, if the two remaining cases are $0.01 and $1,000,000, then the expected value is $500,000.005. Does that mean that accepting, say, $400,000 is stupid? Not if the difference _to your life_ between a penny and $400,000 is greater than the difference between $400,000 and a million. (Or maybe that should be between $500,000 and a million. Either way, you see my point.)


----------



## forecheck (Aug 5, 2000)

lambertman said:


> Actually, they never received the gag prizes ("zonks") until one contestant demanded to keep the elephant.


Stampy


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

martinp13 said:


> "I'm wearing my lucky bra."
> 
> TMI on national television.


Not for me! I actually think she's kind of cute.


----------



## bkmunroe (May 24, 2002)

I played the online game and won the million dollars. Although the banker made an offer that gave me an easy decision. The last case on stage had 500K and I was expecting the banker to offer close to 750K but he only offered 532K. So, I was just risking 32K for a chance to win an additional 500K.


----------



## berfy (Apr 24, 2005)

DeDondeEs said:


> This show didn't do it for me. The biggest challenge of the show for me was trying to figure out the formula they used for the "Banker" offers. I predicted to my wife before we started watching that this was going to be one of those shows where they could have played the game in 10-15 minutes but they were going to stretch it out to an hour.
> 
> I think that woman and her family were actors paid to help get the show going. They were too quick with witty comments, they just didn't seem genuine. If she was playing so that she could have a house, she could have taken the 30k bank offer and been fine, and she shouldn't have hesitated to take the 138k offer if what she wanted was a house.


You can't get a two bedroom CONDO in Los Angeles for under $450,000.

138K wouldn't buy a tool shed in L.A.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

porges said:


> Depending on what the other case had, maybe not; there's more to it than expected value, because (assuming we're talking about real money, not online scoring) the marginal utility of each dollar is not the same.


It's true that marginal utility must come into effect when making such a decision, but JETarpon's rationale for his decision was: 


JETarpon said:


> It's not about what's in your case, it's about what your odds are.


The odds---that is, statistics/mathematics---say that he made a bad decision. The odds don't take marginal utility into account. Social science might, but not mathematics...


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

I must be the only one but I enjoyed the show. It was refreshing and a change from the other game type shows. Its only a 5 day run and I plan to watch all 5 days. I am not going to burn a DVD or anything but I will keep watching.


Rich


----------



## itsmeitsmeitsme (Nov 13, 2003)

cherry ghost said:


> This is bad. I give it a week.


I'll bet you that this will be back sometime in 2006.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Rkkeller said:


> I must be the only one but I enjoyed the show. It was refreshing and a change from the other game type shows. Its only a 5 day run and I plan to watch all 5 days. I am not going to burn a DVD or anything but I will keep watching.
> 
> Rich


You're not the only one. I like it too and I'll be watching all week. I do think if they go for a more permanent run, they should add a few more twists to the rules as they go on just to keep things interesting.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Ok, for the non actuaries out there, the way to figure the expected value is add all the cases left, then divide by the number of cases? Do you consider the one you have as well?


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Lee L said:


> Ok, for the non actuaries out there, the way to figure the expected value is add all the cases left, then divide by the number of cases? Do you consider the one you have as well?


Add all $ amounts left on the board (not just the cases left) and divide by the number of amounts you added. It also appears that the average you compute isn't always what the banker will offer; he could round that value but it's a good guess.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

All the idiots calling in at 49 cents a pop are paying for the show and the money givin away.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> The odds---that is, statistics/mathematics---say that he made a bad decision. The odds don't take marginal utility into account. Social science might, but not mathematics...


I was not looking at pot odds. I was looking at the straight percentage chance that I would make a decision that would result in me ending up with less than I could walk away with right then.

That was the first decision I had to make where the chances of me making a choice that would lower my payoff was >= 50%. Every other time, there were more choices below the current offer than there were above the current offer, so the odds said that I should go for it. When it came down to a 50/50 shot, I was no longer a favorite to improve my payoff.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

JETarpon said:


> I was not looking at pot odds. I was looking at the straight percentage chance that I would make a decision that would result in me ending up with less than I could walk away with right then.


But you *have to* take expected value (or "pot odds") into account!

Let's say there were only two briefcases left---$10 and $1M. By your logic, a banker offer of $50 and a banker offer of $900K would be the same---both offers are between the two possibilities for your briefcase.

But even common sense tells you that you should reject the $50 offer and accept the $900K one...


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

*shrug* I'm finding enjoyment in the show. It's nothing groundbreaking, it's nothing glamorous, it's not going to change the face of game shows forever... but it's enough to keep me entertained for an hour, which is more than can be said for a lot of shows these days. 

But they need to change the host. I think Howie does a horrible job as the host.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

Howie is one of the worst shows i've have ever seen. except for the guy who hosts Learn from the pro's.


----------



## BLeonard (Nov 19, 1999)

This show is really stupid!

But having said that I'm watching every episode this week.

I think I'm giving it a chance because I like Howie Mandel.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Forgetting about odds, I think anybody with the choice of a 50% shot at $1 million dollars, or a 50% at $1 would be crazy not to take $400,000+.

Like was said above, the difference between $1 and $400,000 is much much greater than the difference between $400,000 and $1,000,000.

-smak-


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

So that brings up an interesting question. What would people do if there was $500,000 and $1,000,000 left at the end? Would you take the $750,000 offer or go for it all? After all the worst you could get is $500,000. I probably would take the deal.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

DancnDude said:


> So that brings up an interesting question. What would people do if there was $500,000 and $1,000,000 left at the end? Would you take the $750,000 offer or go for it all? After all the worst you could get is $500,000. I probably would take the deal.


No deal for me. I'd go all the way. If the only two options on the board were $500,000 and $1,000,000, and I knew the case I had picked had either half a million or a full million.... I'd gamble the whole way.

Fortune favors the bold.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

I would definitely go for it at $500,000/$1,000,000. I would probably go for it if the banker offered any amount below $75,000 no matter how few big money spots were on teh boar. I mean $75,000 would be nice, but after taxes it is just not that much when the chance for much higher amounts is there.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Howie IS an awful host, and the voiceovers really need to go. It'd be one thing if they weren't so incredibly obvious... but this is almost as obvious as a really bad foreign movie with English overdubs.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

I ran into the Indian version of this (don't ask!) and thought it was hilarious, pitiful and ridiculous. Kept my interest long enough tow atch the whole show, though! So I can see how addictive it is!

It is one of my parents' favorite (game)shows. I'm SO glad I have more than one TV and multiple TiVos 

Edit: Oh. the Indian version invites either celebrities ot participate (and donate the money to a charity), or working class folks. At least in the two episodes (sigh, I admitted it) that I watched!


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

I can get through a full online round in about two minutes, which makes the actual show pretty painful to sit through with all the drama they insert.

The mark of any long lasting game show is that the dilly-dallying and chit-chat are kept to an absolute minimum. 

Jeopardy is great because they get right into it, have loads of questions, and don't spend too much time on the chit-chat.

Wheel of Fortune is great because the wheel is practically always spinning.

Millionaire sucked because it was a trivia game in which they only seemed to ask five questions per hour. :down:

Deal or no Deal is nice, but, as I showed above, the game can really be played about 30 times quicker than they draw it out to be. It'll survive for a while due to the novelty, but the slow pace of the show will kill it just like how Millionaire died.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I'm still waiting for someone to have to open 5 briefcases and choosing 4-8-15-16-23


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

What annoys me about this version is that they seem to drag it out, then go to commercial. Their timing is just awful.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Skittles said:


> Fortune favors the bold.


UT!


----------



## tonyonlinux (Dec 12, 2005)

I have always been a big fan of game shows but this one here really doesn't impress me that much. Maybe it will get better. Speaking of game shows what ever happen to the show Strip poker? NO it isn't adult rated or anything to that nature. It was actually a game show here on Hotlanta14 here in Atlanta,GA for the longest time. The contestants would strip down to generally a bikini but the chicks were really nice. 

Do any of you think they will actually give away a million on this show before it bombs?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

tonyonlinux said:


> Do any of you think they will actually give away a million on this show before it bombs?


Well, the show's only scheduled to be on for a week. At the current pace, that's about 8 contestants. That's about a 27% chance that one of them even picks the million dollars. And then half seem to sell their briefcases, so that brings it down to about 14%...


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to have to open 5 briefcases and choosing 4-8-15-16-23


LOL!


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

The "Howie Voiceovers" were in full force tonight....terribly annoying! I mean, at *least* have him record them on stage....he sounds like he's in a nice studio and it just *doesn't* match.

Of course, I'm sure he did record it in a studio.

I'm still watching though. Surprised by how many times Howie touches people's shoulders. Just no hand touching from what I could see.


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

I tried the game online. I took the deal with three cases left and got $381,500. My suitcase was the $750,000 one.


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

I FF'd through the whole thing, 30ss'ing through the ads. Damn, you're right, you DO get the exact same effect as watching it in normal time!

As I said above, this show will die simply due to how they stretch it out. People will quickly tire of that.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

ashu said:


> I ran into the Indian version of this (don't ask!) and thought it was hilarious, pitiful and ridiculous. Kept my interest long enough tow atch the whole show, though! So I can see how addictive it is!
> 
> It is one of my parents' favorite (game)shows. I'm SO glad I have more than one TV and multiple TiVos
> 
> Edit: Oh. the Indian version invites either celebrities ot participate (and donate the money to a charity), or working class folks. At least in the two episodes (sigh, I admitted it) that I watched!


Heh I'd love to be able to see that.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

I read this thread for the 1st time today:

If it wasn't for the 'fun' of the math, i wouldn't watch it. Plus it's fun guessing what the offers would be for my wife and I. Having that woman's kids on the phone was really bizarre. Obviously they were coached but it just seemed way too staged for me. We think the players are just greedy and not really doing the math. If we think it's painful watching at home, imagine the poor audience? wonder how many hours it is to shoot one show and if the changed audiences between shows? I see they told the contestants to bring a change of clothing but like anyone believes this wasn't all shot in one day.

I think someone said howie is OCD about touching. I recall him reaching out to someone, but forget who. 

The banker is probably some execs kid who 'got to be on tv' after nagging daddy lol. And all those monitors up there are a tad overkill. 

I dislike dragout games and stopped watching things like millionaire and weakest link for that exact reason. Who need the chit chat and obvious attempt at inflaming emotions? geez um


----------



## joeinma (Jan 11, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> What is this show about? I went to the site and it's some briefcase exchange game. But they have 50 models for some reason. Why all the hot babes?


They have the models because the show is so bad, they at least give us something to look at.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

can someone test the online game for me? it's stuck at loading 100% for both IE and netscape

http://www.nbc.com/Deal_or_No_Deal/game/

edit...playing with buttons got things working....now to win!


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

atrac said:


> The "Howie Voiceovers" were in full force tonight....terribly annoying! I mean, at *least* have him record them on stage....he sounds like he's in a nice studio and it just *doesn't* match.
> 
> Of course, I'm sure he did record it in a studio.
> 
> I'm still watching though. Surprised by how many times Howie touches people's shoulders. Just no hand touching from what I could see.


Amazingly bad tonight. I noticed it as well. Since the producers have realized how stupid the American public is, they know they have to keep explaining the game.

It is really bad when they do the voice over when his back is turned and expect us not to notice.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

RegBarc said:


> What annoys me about this version is that they seem to drag it out, then go to commercial. Their timing is just awful.


I don't get this. This is a Tivo forum. I assume if you read/write in this forum, you have a Tivo. Can't you just skip over the commercials? Or do you actually watch it Live?

BTW, I played the online game once. I got $500k in my briefcase, and I took it.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Woohoo!


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Magister said:


> Amazingly bad tonight. I noticed it as well. Since the producers have realized how stupid the American public is, they know they have to keep explaining the game.


My original theory was that for each new 'day' they had to explain it to the people legally. But then when they switched contestants on the same day, yet explained it again, I thought it was pretty stupid to repeat what you would have already heard in the audience. FF really is a must for this game. Watching it live must be like watching Buffy on TNT...horrible.

And when they come back from just a commercial and explain it, thats when i get the foam brick out and hit the tv!


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

Its a TIVO show for sure after putting up with 30 min of commercials.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

SeanC said:


> Woohoo!....


Nice score on Beserker CrabMan!


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

5thcrewman said:


> Nice score on Beserker CrabMan!


LOL

Awesome reference! Thanks man!


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Ok I just wasted 30 minutes playing online.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

newsposter said:


> I think someone said howie is OCD about touching. I recall him reaching out to someone, but forget who.


He definitely doesn't like to shake hands -- he's been bumping fists with everybody on the show. But he doesn't seem to have a problem with, for example, putting his arm around someone.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

Like the game concept.
HATE Howie Mandel, especially Bald Howie Mandel.
The "banker" concept is silly. What's the point of him being shrouded in a far-away booth? and "calling" on the "phone" to the stage? Waste of time.

Definitely a better viewing experience at TiVo-speed, skipping all commercials and other nonsense, just like Millionaire was.


----------



## tonyonlinux (Dec 12, 2005)

You know even though I think this show is really stupid I do watch it every night. Speaking of game shows who do you think will take Bob Barkers place on the Price is Right once he dies at the age of 150? How old is that guy now anyway. He was old when I watched him in the 80s


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

The Price is Right will die with Bob Barker.


----------



## Fraser+Dief (Nov 18, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to have to open 5 briefcases and choosing 4-8-15-16-23


Explain please, for us out of the loop old geezers?

It's a decent show, but the pacing is wrong. I think it would work better as an half hour show, with faster decisions, reveals of the cases, etc.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

Fraser+Dief said:


> Explain please, for us out of the loop old geezers?
> 
> It's a decent show, but the pacing is wrong. I think it would work better as an half hour show, with faster decisions, reveals of the cases, etc.


Some people are just 'Lost.'

The numbers are featured in the show 'Lost.'


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

Fraser+Dief said:


> Explain please, for us out of the loop old geezers?
> 
> It's a decent show, but the pacing is wrong. I think it would work better as an half hour show, with faster decisions, reveals of the cases, etc.


You must really be LOST


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

Wanna get a sneek peek at the future of game shows and how the producers will get you to watch live, including breaks for commercials? Here's the recipe:

1. User must have a DVR that's hooked to the internet.

2. Using the internet connection, and the live TV broadcast, millions of viewers will be able to play the game LIVE in front of their TV, and ONLY in front of their TV.

3. Not everyone can win a million dollars, but many people would play even for the chance to win $50, or a free month of cable/satellite. There could be ONE grand prize winner randomly selected from those playing at home, but the point is to have many winners of smaller prizes.

4. The overall point is that you would be captive for the 30 or 60 minutes that the show is on, and there's no point in Tivoing the show since you have to play live to win, and woe be you if you sneak away for too long during the commercial breaks and miss crucial parts of the show/game.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't think I'd be a very good contestant. To choose my own briefcase, I'd probably pick the one held by the best-looking model. 

And then after that, just 1, 2, 3, etc. It doesn't make a difference, so I don't understand why everyone doesn't do it that way...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jrinck said:


> Wanna get a sneek peek at the future of game shows and how the producers will get you to watch live, including breaks for commercials? Here's the recipe:


Isn't that exactly what they're doing with that cell-phone game I see flashed on the screen? Cell phones are better for the producers because you can have people watch in places other than their homes (friends' homes, bars, etc) and still get your $1.99 or whatever to play...


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> Isn't that exactly what they're doing with that cell-phone game I see flashed on the screen? Cell phones are better for the producers because you can have people watch in places other than their homes (friends' homes, bars, etc) and still get your $1.99 or whatever to play...


I don't want to play games on my small phone, especially at $1.99 per.

Besides, at the usurious data rates that Cingular charges, playing a game show on my phone would probably cost me three or four hundred dollars.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Fraser+Dief said:


> It's a decent show, but the pacing is wrong.


I agree with that completely. I watched it the other night with a 40% speed increase and it was a very amusing show at that rate. I couldn't imagine watching it at the regular pace, though. It's edited like a 22 minute show that has been padded out to 44 minutes.


----------



## tonyonlinux (Dec 12, 2005)

I would laugh my butt off if one of the contestants actually answered the phone instead of Howie. Then goes ' OH THIS IS JUST A STAGE PROP! ' The show is one of those that I watch just to kill time but really I don't understand the pure waste of time with the deal or no deal when 250,000 and up are still on the board. The bank offers you 9,000 dollars and you have 250,000 and the 1,000,000 still on the board? You would be an absolute moron to take the deal.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

The first lady on tonight's show (the teacher) played it exactly as the game should be played. It was thoroughly enjoyable watching her tonight. 

Howie saying "the highest amount offered by the banker in the history of the show" was a bit much though...it's only been on 4 days!!!!!

(Unless it was referring to all of the shows and they've just never had a higher amount?)


----------



## tonyonlinux (Dec 12, 2005)

atrac said:


> The first lady on tonight's show (the teacher) played it exactly as the game should be played. It was thoroughly enjoyable watching her tonight.
> 
> Howie saying "the highest amount offered by the banker in the history of the show" was a bit much though...it's only been on 4 days!!!!!
> 
> (Unless it was referring to all of the shows and they've just never had a higher amount?)


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing "Wasn't 9,000 the highest amount offered by the bank" on DAY ONE ?
I have to admit the teacher was kinda hot too.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

Anyone else notice the monochrome contestants? Black or White... And they alternate... Very PC...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Magister said:


> Black or White... And they alternate... Very PC...


This whole game is about probabilities. Their contestants' races could easily be pure chance---there's no reason to believe that they are chosen based on the color of their skin.


----------



## zyzzx (Jan 22, 2002)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202152.html?sub=AR

*A Sweet 'Deal' For NBC's Stocking*

By Lisa de Moraes

Friday, December 23, 2005; Page C01

The biggest thing on TV this holiday season?

A new game show on NBC.

In its first three broadcasts, "Deal or No Deal" jumped from just fewer than 12 million viewers Monday to more than 14 million viewers Wednesday.

Hairless, soul-patched, handshake-phobic Howie Mandel hosts the U.S. edition of the European hit, brought to us by Endemol, the company behind "Fear Factor" and "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." NBC ordered just five episodes of "Deal" and has aired one each weeknight this week at 8.

Competing against holiday fare, "Deal" already has outstripped the 13.8 million viewers of CBS's tear-jerky Christmas flick "The Christmas Blessing" and ABC's weep-fest "Holiday Wishes" episode of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" (13 million).

But "Deal" has a ways to go to beat some of the more traditional Christmas offerings. This year's run of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" clocked nearly 16 million viewers; another CBS Christmas flick, "Silver Bells," scored more than 16 million; and "A Charlie Brown Christmas" had more than 15 million.

That said, the first three nights of "Deal" opened bigger than the first three nights of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" back in the summer of '99.

Unlike "Millionaire" -- an ABC game show that also launched big during a low-wattage time of year -- contestants on "Deal" don't even have to know their left hand from their right. They only need to know how to tell the number 1 from 26 to be able to identify which of 26 sealed briefcases -- containing cash in varying amounts from one penny to $1 million -- he/she wants to select.

The player then tries to eliminate the remaining 25 briefcases, which are opened and the cash amount inside revealed. As each case is opened, the likelihood of the player's case containing big bucks increases or diminishes. After a certain number of cases are opened, "The Bank" offers cash in exchange for the chosen briefcase, and Mandel asks the player, "Deal or no deal?" -- which certainly is no "Is that your final answer?"

As befits a show of this dollar count, each briefcase is guarded carefully by a pretty young thing from the Hooters Modeling Agency, with pouty, come-hither looks and such names as Bonnie-Jill, AJ, Angel and Kristal (and who, in their video bios on NBC's Web site, offer up their ideal first dates, including: front-row tickets to the Ultimate Fighting Championship, "making a connection with someone," and of course: "I'm a wino, I love wine. . . . I don't need a big production, I don't need a movie").

Already, "Deal" has been a Christmas miracle for NBC. Its unveiling delivered an audience increase of about 25 percent, compared with the network's season average at 8 on Mondays.

Tuesday's crowd was up nearly 40 percent, and Wednesday's haul posted an increase of more than 60 percent at 8 for NBC.

Wednesday's audience is, in fact, the network's top non-Olympic result in the hour in nearly four years.

One cautious NBC suit predicted yesterday that last night's rebroadcast of the formidable "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" would slow "Deal's" ratings march.

To which we say: Bah, humbug.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> This whole game is about probabilities. Their contestants' races could easily be pure chance---there's no reason to believe that they are chosen based on the color of their skin.


No reason? I think the history of American PC'ism gives us plenty of reason to believe. Also, the alternating of races really gives us reason to believe they are chosen based on the color of thier skin. If not chosen for that reason, then the order in which they are presented...

We have plenty of reason to believe, and the only proof we have is what we see.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

I see that next week it's on CNBC. Are they just rerunning this weeks shows or are they 5 new shows?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Probably reruns since they do the same thing with the Apprentice.

I like the show but the voiceovers suck.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I hearby nominate Howie Mandel for the "2005 Donald Trump Obvious Voiceover Award." It totally reminds me of the cheesy voice over they used to kill off Poochie on the Simpsons .

I played online and picked the 1 million dollar suitcase off the bat, where do I collect?


----------



## btw04 (May 9, 2004)

Played the online game and was left with only 2 suitcases valued at 300,000 and 400,000 and the bank offered 285,000.
LOL
WTF?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Magister said:


> Also, the alternating of races really gives us reason to believe they are chosen based on the color of thier skin.


Well, it's impossible to determine the probabilities unless you know the size of the contestant pool and how many of each race are available.

Let's say that there are 10 contestants---5 white, 5 black. (Again, we don't really know---this is just for the purposes of discussion.) I calculate a 4.76 percent chance that the race order would be BWBWBW or WBWBWB. But a 4.76 percent chance is real--it's bigger than the probability that someone will pick the $1M case (3.85%)...


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

DeDondeEs said:


> I hearby nominate Howie Mandel for the "2005 Donald Trump Obvious Voiceover Award." It totally reminds me of the cheesy voice over they used to kill off Poochie on the Simpsons


"Wow, Poochie was from another planet!!?"


----------



## zyzzx (Jan 22, 2002)

btw04 said:


> Played the online game and was left with only 2 suitcases valued at 300,000 and 400,000 and the bank offered 285,000.
> LOL
> WTF?


I've been noticing this type of offer more and more on the show. I just do a quick approximation in my head on what the expected payout is and then compare it to the offer made by the "Banker". Earlier in each game it is usually low. It starts to creep up towards the end but if the offer should be very high then it usually isn't.

I think in last night's game the offer at one point should have been 300,000 something and the teacher was offered only 199,000. I'm glad she passed on that bad offer.


----------



## JTAnderson (Jun 6, 2000)

I've been enjoying this show, despite how drawn out it is. But I doubt that I'll be following it to CNBC next week and I'm even more sure that I won't be watching when it returns to NBC. One week is pretty much enough.

I suspect the staying power of this show will make Who Wants To Be A Millionaire look like a TV institution.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

The CNBC eps are definitely reruns.


----------



## Fraser+Dief (Nov 18, 2005)

5thcrewman said:


> Some people are just 'Lost.'
> The numbers are featured in the show 'Lost.'


Ah, thanks. Never watched the show.

Yes, I'm the one.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

well too bad no one got the million...maybe next year but get rid of the family and friends! and STOP clapping no matter what number they pick


----------



## Nfuego (Sep 27, 2004)

martinp13 said:


> It seems that the online deal is not the same as the show deal. Online deals are odd amounts (since it's just the average of all of the remaining amounts) while the show deals are round amounts. EDIT: Actually, that makes sense... they don't want you to be able to compute the deals by sampling a zillion times.
> 
> And I HATE the Howie voice-overs they have now and then. Guess he isn't THAT good of a host.


I agree! They are worse than The Apprentice voiceovers were!


----------



## Nfuego (Sep 27, 2004)

Fraser+Dief said:


> Ah, thanks. Never watched the show.
> 
> Yes, I'm the one.


Make that 2! I've never seen it either.


----------



## Nfuego (Sep 27, 2004)

Ok, folks....

On Wednesdays show, there was a guy that got down to 2 choices...$50 (I think) and $500,000 (or some big number).

He had gone with no deal quite a few times and dwindled down his offers, I think...

Anyway, my terrific DTV Local went out with 2 or 3 minutes left in the show. 

Can anyone tell me what happened?


----------



## jmenjes (Feb 2, 2003)

He was down to cases with $50 and $200K, and closed a Deal for $99,000.

Which was a good call, since the case he had all along only had the $50.


----------



## Bondelev-1 (Nov 27, 2005)

Z-Todd said:


> I'm going to laugh if the opening episode gets topped by the 7th Heaven rerun.


11 million people watched night 1. By Night 3, it had gone up to 14 million.

You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

interesting choice of words since a bunch of us liked it.


----------



## Nfuego (Sep 27, 2004)

jmenjes said:


> He was down to cases with $50 and $200K, and closed a Deal for $99,000.
> 
> Which was a good call, since the case he had all along only had the $50.


Thanks very much!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Watched it for the first time last night. I had played online earlier.

The game is pretty good, but the show is not. Too long, they could have many many more contestants without all the extra crap.

Am I wrong in saying that someone would have to be very dumb to win a million.

Unless they had the 750k and 1 million case left or maybe the 500k and the 1 million case left, they'd be a fool to risk it.

-smak-


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

lambertman said:


> interesting choice of words since a bunch of us liked it.


Indeed. Nothing like offending your peers.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I'm playing the online version and I'm down to just the 400K and 500K cases left, and the bank offered me 319K. They don't do stuff that stupid in the real show, do they?


----------



## zyzzx (Jan 22, 2002)

busyba said:


> I'm playing the online version and I'm down to just the 400K and 500K cases left, and the bank offered me 319K. They don't do stuff that stupid in the real show, do they?


Yes, many offers are below the average of the cases left, especially in the beginning of the show. I guess they want to up the offers in the beginning so they lowball for awhile.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

zyzzx said:


> Yes, many offers are below the average of the cases left, especially in the beginning of the show. I guess they want to up the offers in the beginning so they lowball for awhile.


Below the average is one thing, below the *amount of the smallest case remaining* is another thing entirely.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

smak said:


> Watched it for the first time last night. I had played online earlier.
> 
> The game is pretty good, but the show is not. Too long, they could have many many more contestants without all the extra crap.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking the same thing. The only way that someone wins the million is either of those scenarios or someone that already has a ton of money and a penchant for gambling does something wacky. I would definitely go for it in the 500,000/1,000,000 or 750,000/1,000,000 case.

So far it seems that anyone would be a fool to go for the first 3 offers. They are alwys way below what the cases are worth and there is usually almost no possible scenario that would actually make the offer be lower, even if they picked 3 cases and they were the top 3 amounts.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

The top prize has only been won once and it was on the Australia version. The contestant had an offer of 102K from the bank with briefcases of $5 and $200,000 and gambled and won.

In the UK the highest prize has been a bank offer of 120K, multiple briefcases were left. In the UK it's harder to win becuase while there are only 22 boxes to open you only get a bank offer after the first five are opened and then every third box after that.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

atrac said:


> Indeed. Nothing like offending your peers.


Well, if it is true...


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

SnakeEyes said:


> The top prize has only been won once and it was on the Australia version. The contestant had an offer of 102K from the bank with briefcases of $5 and $200,000 and gambled and won.


That's total gambling, because it's a dumb move.

Who in their right mind would do that.

Anyway, the game is pretty simple to play, it's always incorrect to take a deal early.

There are times when you have a hard decision. Like right now, i'm playing.

I have 50, 75, 500 & 400,000 left, the deal is $67,526. What do i do?

I have a 75% chance to up the deal probably by 50k, but if i'm wrong, i will lose 67,000. This is a tough choice.

-smak-

ps. I blew it, and then got an offer of $313. I probably would have taken the $67k if it were real $


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just played and got down to the last two cases: $25 and $1 mill. Thad bank offer was $355,000 so it was well below expected value. I chose no deal and my suitcase had the million!! Yahoo!! 

(Of course, in real life I would have bailed out several turns before that when $1 mil was the only big number left and I got offered over $100k.)


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

Is DoND going to continue?

I don't really care, though. I have three still on Tivo that I haven't watched yet. The dragged out nature of the show means I'm already tired of it.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

it's coming back in March. NBC made the call for more episodes last Wednesday.

Hot girl on the Thursday ep, btw.


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

The problem with the modern game show is that it's reticent to actually give away big money. That's why they drag what should be a three minute game out to forty-five minutes.

Remember how excited you got when you were a kid watching The Price is Right, and how the audience and you went wild when Johnny shouted "A New Car!"? We need more moments like that today.

This show would be better served by cutting the amount of cases in half, and top loading it with higher dollar amounts.


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

tonyonlinux said:


> Yeah, I was thinking the same thing "Wasn't 9,000 the highest amount offered by the bank" on DAY ONE ?
> I have to admit the teacher was kinda hot too.


The teacher seemed like she had a lot of personality; I really liked her.

Great casting by the show.


----------



## chrispitude (Apr 23, 2005)

My thoughts so far...


As others have mentioned the show is painfully drawn out. Having a contestant split up between nights is annoying. This would be much better with two contestants a night, each done in 30 minutes.
The banker/phone call bit is just silly.
Please, for the love of all that is tolerable, stop with those horribly done voiceovers! Yes, we get the point. Even if you think we don't, don't make them of such poor quality and so obvious.

I think at a 30 minute pace, the show would be more enjoyable. It's an interesting show concept, executed poorly.

- Chris


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Why not do a max of 250k and do the show 3 times as fast? They would give away less money theoretically and it would be much more exciting. that way they can have the big 1,000,000 or 2,500,000 Tournament of Champions or big money edition during sweeps.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

jrinck said:


> Remember how excited you got when you were a kid watching The Price is Right, and how the audience and you went wild when Johnny shouted "A New Car!"? We need more moments like that today.


They have done a handful of "Price Is Right" prime-time specials over the past few years, complete with frequent "A New Car!" shouts (although the announcer is named Rich these days). They did OK in the ratings, but they obviously weren't complete blockbusters for CBS, or there would have been more of them.


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

I heard on Fox News that NBC was going to order some more shows, to air around March.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

ready for your fix?

NBC is also moving "Las Vegas" from Monday to Friday starting in March. Donald Trump is changing addresses again, with "The Apprentice" moving to Monday where it will be preceded by the Howie Mandel-hosted game show "Deal or No Deal."


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Surprised it's going on Mondays; I had it pegged to replace the woefully past-its-moment "Fear Factor" on Tuesdays. Although, it is certainly possible that the show could be expanded to 2x week if the numbers hold up.

I have a tuner available both nights at that time, so it's cool regardless.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

lambertman said:


> Although, it is certainly possible that the show could be expanded to 2x week if the numbers hold up.
> .


And probably 5 times a week if they did not learn anything from Millionaire.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

_DoND_ will run nightly for a week (27 February to 3 March) before settling down to its weekly run on 6 March.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

newsposter said:


> ready for your fix?
> 
> NBC is also moving "Las Vegas" from Monday to Friday starting in March. Donald Trump is changing addresses again, with "The Apprentice" moving to Monday where it will be preceded by the Howie Mandel-hosted game show "Deal or No Deal."


Sounds like NBC is calling it quits on Las Vegas as we all know almost everything moved to Fridays gets canceled.


----------

