Deal or No Deal: a Study of Greed

[Occulus]

I just saw a social worker pass up $170,000 with an 83% chance that her case held $50,000 or less.

Case? What? For those of us who have not seen this gameshow, play begins with 26 models, each holding a briefcase, the host, and a player. The player selects one case from the pool- each case holding a random dollar amount from a penny to one million dollars- and hold it in reserve.

In the first round, the player eliminates six cases by calling their numbers one by one. The host asks the model to open her (they are all women) case. In each instance, it is preferable to see the smallest amount possible in each case.

The reason for this occurs between rounds. The host receives a call from "the banker", who makes an offer to buy the player's case. The amount the banker offers increases or decreases based upon the number of cases remaining, the highest available dollar amount remaining, and the probability that the player's case holds the highest available amount.

This can create a great deal of drama. In the situation I began with, the player picked the available case holding the two million (it was all doubled tonight), and the next offer from the banker dropped from $170,000 to $7500.

Her FIRST offer, after eliminating six cases in the first round without opening the two million dollar case? $50,000, right off the bat.

She ended the game with a (comparatively speaking) paltry $15,000. She did make a good deal in the end- the case she chose at the beginning was worth $.02.

Which leads me to my point.

What is it with this country, with out collective and individual insatiable greed? It runs rampant, and we always want more if there's even a chance we can get it. This show is a perfect study of greed- people will turn away from more money in one single lump than they have ever owned in their lives, on the off chance- typically, against them- that there's more to come.

That initial offer of $50K? I've been in debt for ten years, and it's finally less than $15,000. I would have hit that button and screamed out DEAL!! as loudly as I could.

Where does this insatiable greed come from? And, is there anything we can do about it? Is this human nature at work, or just our own, perverse society in action here?

[Broken_Hero]

1. Very good question, K and R....tn

[Occulus]

2. Don't get me wrong: the show has a fantastic premise,

it's all completely random, it's very very simple.. and yet....


:wtf: is WRONG with these people!!?!?

[Broken_Hero]

10. I don't know

what is wrong with those people...I'm very cheap myself...I'd settle for 50k or even less. I recall a show, where a woman turned down 95k plus a 15k dollar harley...her husband was in Iraq, and participating via satellite link...and she said NO to that offer, I about fell out of my chair....

I don't understand a lot of the contestants on the show. I've only seen 8 shows, give or take a show, but the one I describe above, takes the cake for me. I think the impulse, is related/similiar to the impulse gamblers have at the casino, be it rolling dice, or shoving quarters into a slot machine....

[Redstone]

3. Dude. It's a GAME SHOW. You don't really need to get THAT MUCH invested in it.

It's a GAME SHOW.

Redstone

[Occulus]

6. Actually, this show is the subject of at least one apparently legit study

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=636508

[Redstone]

14. Regard me as being corrected. Though I still don't want to watch it. No, thank you.

Redstone

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. insatiable greed makes good tv apparently.

I tried watching once. blah.

and Howie looks funny bald. I just couldn't feel it. :shrug:

[Az]

5. Its corporate education

Take a look at the reality shows. They are not reflective of reality. They establish artificial conditions that remove the humanity from the scenario. Instead of cooperation and empathy people are pitted against each other much like Corporations find themself set against each other in the business world. They are basically teaching us to think in terms of social darwinism.

We are taught to compete with each other and to never give a sucker an even break. We are taught that if we do not stab someone else in the back first they will stab us. All this serves to isolate us. In order to fill that gap the Corporations offer to sell us all manner of product to fill the empty void they created in our lives.

[Selatius]

11. Ultimately, this kind of conditioning destroys working class consciousness by...

destroying any idea of worker solidarity. When Reagan smashed the protests of air traffic controllers and smashed their labor union who wanted better working conditions, most Americans cheered what he did.

[dysfunctional press]

12. "reality" shows are not supposed to be reflective of reality...

all it means is that the shows are not scripted- as far as what the people say and their reactions are concerned.

[Az]

16. We are a learning species

We learn by observing other members of our species. Television has replaced a huge portion of our societal interaction. Instead of interacting with other humans most people sit in front of the glowing box and learn from what they see on the TV. If what they experience is reality TV then the ideas permeate society and become increasingly accepted as the norm.

[dysfunctional press]

18. you claimed that reality shows are not reflective of reality...

my point is that you are confused as to what constitutes a "reality" show.

and i doubt that 20 "survivors" voting tribemates off the island one at a time is going to become any type of social norm.

[Occulus]

19. I'd say Deal is "more real" than survivor

but only in the sense that there's real money involved, and actual decisions.

Most of those decisions appear to be bad ones. But who knows? Maybe a recently-immigrated family will win a whole lot of cash (as they intimated would/might/could happen on "a very special episode of Deal or No Deal" to air next week).

Not kidding.

[dysfunctional press]

22. reality shows are not meant to be "real".

they're just unscripted, is all.

[Occulus]

24. That's why the quote marks

"The Price is Right" is more "real" than "Deal". At least they sometimes have... excuse me... tottering little old ladies.

I've noticed they've stopped having women from American Samoa "come on down" to Contestant's Row, though. I wonder why...

[Newsjock]

7. It's all in the contestant "casting"

Any player who would even consider, for a second, accepting the first "offer" is immediately weeded out during contestant screening. Nearly all prime-time game shows ("Jeopardy" excepted, of course) no longer select people based on intelligence or other redeeming qualities -- they're cast in much the same way as any other TV show, with "central characters" designed to fit easy-to-digest stereotypes.

And it works. That's why the Monday showing of "Deal" is consistently in Nielsen's top 20 now. We may not like it, but far too many Americans do. (As do people in lots of other countries; this is by no means an exclusively American phenomenon.)

Not until "Deal" was there a major game show in which I so consistently rooted for the contesti to lose. In nearly every case, the players on this show are the epitome of everything that's wrong with American culture.

[Occulus]

15. Good points

But you actually cheer for them to lose? Geez, dude.

You're right about the casting, though. I saw a guy have a couple briefcases of cash presented to him (this was a clip from the show; I don't know what all happened) and he threw a wad of cash across the floor and slammed shut the box over the "deal" button.

Unreal.

[Raine]

32. I actually root for them to lose too cause

most of the contestants are so greedy, downright obnoxious and dumb about the odds when they lose big time I find myself actually laughing.:rofl: Yeah I guess I'm mean but oh well ... :shrug:

Edit: spelling

[rwheeler31]

8. This is fun gambling.

Howie Mandell is a Canadian and a comic.

[Occulus]

13. Maybe so, but it's still real money...

...and a lot more than I'd ever expect if I went to Vegas (assuming I'd do any such thing with my money in the first place).

It's just, watching this show, I can't understand why more people don't just take the very first deal. I mean, sure, you could get a lot more, but as I just saw, tempting fate can really bite you in the ass...

[hfojvt]

28. In my position it does not seem like $50,000 would make a big difference

It's enough to buy a car with lots left over, but it's not enough for me to quit my job. If I still have to goto the same job then a bunch of extra money and stuff does not make a huge difference. I already have a savings account and all of the stuff I want. Now $173,000 on the other hand. With that I would quit tomorrow. So I probably would hold out for something more than $100,000.

[ClintonTyree]

37. Howie Mandell is a Canadian....

that much is true. The "comic" statement is completely arbitrary though. I find him sophomoric and extremely low on the funny scale, which is why he's hosting a game show now instead of doing stand up I guess. He's probably making more money but he's certainly abandoned his right to be called a "comic". He falls into the "TV celebrity" category now. Comedy eludes the man like george bush eludes the truth.

[ComerPerro]

9. I agree, but that's why I'm will never be on Deal or No Deal.

Its not compelling television if you take the $50k right away and then leave

[Occulus]

17. This is, at its heart, deeply disturbing, of course

We can afford to toss away potentially a million bucks to a carefully-cast contestant, but we can't afford to put $100 worth of food into the bellies of a starving family?

[ComerPerro]

23. well, that's Republicanism and conservatism at work

we can afford to toss away a million bucks maybe once every few months because it is offset by profit and revenues generated BY occasionally giving out large sums of money.

However, giving small amounts to the needy isn't profitable.

That's why shows like Extreme Makover: Home Edition are a crock of shit.

[Occulus]

25. I've only seen one show give away a house.

"Dream House", back in the 1980s. Married couples. Bob Eubanks.

:puke:

[TahitiNut]

20. I've watched that show perhaps three times, never the whole show.

What I find most disappointing is the appalling absence of any sense of basic probability. This has to be the most math-illiterate industrialized nation on the planet.

[Occulus]

21. Most people can't calculate beyond very basic probabilities

I'd have no clue how to calculate the exact chance that "my" case held the highest amount available. I don't even know how to start.

[LibDemAlways]

29. Howie always frames a contestant's chance of

a windfall in terms like "There is a 40% chance that your suitcase holds at least $50,000." What the contestant isn't hearing is "There's a 60% chance your suitcase holds less than $50,000."

Caught up in the excitement of the moment, with friends, family, and the audience screaming "NO DEAL," it's easy for these people to turn down big money in hopes of even bigger money. And they quite often get burned as suitcase after suitcase reveals a big amount and they're left with a sum considerably smaller than what they already turned down.

Sometimes it's the family that gets too greedy. As I recall the social worker's mother told her to go for "one more suitcase" when it was clear she was pushing her luck and she herself was eyeing the "deal" button. Sure enough, she knocked out the last large amount.

[leftstreet]

26. I wouldn't humiliate myself on national TV

for anything less than $2 million!

[The Straight Story]

27. play it online for free and see what you would do....

I won a million two times in a row once. Sweeeet.

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

[Bluebear]

30. 'would have hit that button and screamed out DEAL!! as loudly as I could.'

But you see, it's like the host says. It's not about greed, it is about luck, timing and odds. If you have enough large prize amounts still out with enough 'lifelines' that you could not possibly exhaust all of those large amounts, it would be silly NOT to keep going.

[gravity]

31. Cognitive bias

That person didn't feel like they were playing with their own money, so they are willing to take more risks, since they felt like they weren't losing anything. Worst case scenario, the person comes out with the same amount of money she came in with.

This is irrational behavior but is common anywhere. If you are gambling you are up from when you started, chances are you will be more willing to take risks, even if logic and statistics states thats its an irrational choice.

If the contestants risked their own money on the table, they would have the opposite problem and be way too conservative even if small risks would lead to huge rewards, since people would feel like their risking their own money this time. People will do anything to avoid losses, which actually leads some people to risk it all if they already loss their own money beforehand, causing them to go further into debt.

[Raine]

33. "Who Want to be a Millionaire" was a much better show

you had to have some brains to get to the top and win the big prize. Unlike D or ND Millionaire didn't rely on pure dumb luck, intelligence is what counted.

Edit: spelling

[Behind the Aegis]

34. I saw that episode, well the end of it.

I look at it this way...nothing ventured, nothing gained. It wasn't as if she had put up her own money. If she had won the $.02, it still would have been more than she came with in the beginning. However, it takes a turn when you are risking your own money, but that is what gambling and the stock market are all about.

[Crabby Appleton]

35. enough is never enough nt

[OneBlueSky]

36. "Greed Makes People Stupid" . . . an eternal and universal truth . . . n/t

[Auggie]

39. As a stock broker told me once, "Hogs get slaughtered"

[soothsayer]

38. Hey, her mother (with an online shoe company) made her lose!

That ladybug lady wanted to take the offer, but her mom said 'just one more'. She should have asked her mom, Will you give me the $170k if I lose on the next turn?