I just don't get Goldenballs...

[Conrad]

The Tv Show on ITV, we watch it every night when eating our tea.

 

The things is though, I just don't understand why anybody would split the money at the end!

 

It's got nothing to do with decency or anything like that, it's not as if you will see that person again. You have a 50/50 chance of winning the money regardless so you should just steal. How stupid would you feel if you split and they stole?...

[JamieP]

Steal every time, i never understood that either:)

[Dr_Doom]

I've not seen that show but i still don't get 'Deal or No Deal' and my mates explain it to me on a weekly basis!!

[liam1]

steal every time i would hate to split when someone steals and see them take all the money.

[Stan]

I've not seen that show but i still don't get 'Deal or No Deal' and my mates explain it to me on a weekly basis!!

 

It's just picking boxes at random to eliminate the different amounts of money in them - the only thing I don't get is the contestants who have 'feelings' about certain boxes, or lucky numbers they pick..... I just shout at the TV "it's all completely random luv!"

[mathew]

at last someone else sees it my way!

ive been trying to explain to my mom for months the reason that splitting is pointless.

if you are going to split you are hoping the other person does the same so in that case you might aswell steal. at least that way there is no way the other person would leave with money.

[Snooze]

if you are going to split you are hoping the other person does the same so in that case you might aswell steal. at least that way there is no way the other person would leave with money.

 

Why do you care how much money the other person gets?

 

As stated, you're never going to see them again, so the only thing that matters is how much money YOU walk away with.

 

The decision is a psychological one, not a simple, probability-based one that you suggest.

 

If everybody just did "steal", then no-one would ever win anything. Eventually people would realise that to win something, there needs to be some sharing going on. That's the interesting bit: if you both realise that some sharing needs to happen, can you genuinely convince the opponent that you ARE going to be sharing (and then screw them over....).

 

If you played this over and over, people who always "steal" because they don't want the other person to get anything or they're scared of looking like a gullible tw*nt on TV will always end up worse off than someone with a varied approach.

 

This is the level at which the game plays. The players are already past the "well, I might as well just steal" stage that you are talking about......

 

Still a rubbish program tho'!

 

 

Of course, the best approach is to tell the opponent, "I'm just going to steal, but I'll give you half the money afterwards" (this deal cannot be performed in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" because there the reward can't be split).

An irrational person who just gets annoyed that you said such a thing will steal and end up with nothing. A rational person will realise that they might as well trust you, seeing as they'll be no worse off anyhow.

 

In game theory, the situation you describe could be defined as a "Nash Equilibrium", which is a bad situation for a game, because it means everyone should always steal, as you describe. However, this is only bad in a game if the only thing that matters is the result relative to the opponent. In a game show, like Goldenballs, the only thing that matters to the players (or the only thing that should matter to rational players) is their own absolute result relative to their start position.

[Chris Wilson]

Mealtimes should be a period of social intercourse, you know, stimulating conversation, savouring the roast beef, a little fine wine, discussing the stock market, how the racehorses are doing, whether Eaton is in decline. Not watching dross like that, and it's dinner, not tea. Tea is taken in the afternoons. Just trying to help....

 

 

Anyone know what time KFC opens, I'm starving.

[Wez]

[Snooze]

LOL

 

Mealtimes should be a period of social intercourse.

 

Aha - that's what we've been doing wrong all this time!

[mathew]

Why do you care how much money the other person gets?

 

As stated, you're never going to see them again, so the only thing that matters is how much money YOU walk away with.

 

The decision is a psychological one, not a simple, probability-based one that you suggest.

 

If everybody just did "steal", then no-one would ever win anything. Eventually people would realise that to win something, there needs to be some sharing going on. That's the interesting bit: if you both realise that some sharing needs to happen, can you genuinely convince the opponent that you ARE going to be sharing (and then screw them over....).

 

If you played this over and over, people who always "steal" because they don't want the other person to get anything or they're scared of looking like a gullible tw*nt on TV will always end up worse off than someone with a varied approach.

 

This is the level at which the game plays. The players are already past the "well, I might as well just steal" stage that you are talking about......

 

Still a rubbish program tho'!

 

 

Of course, the best approach is to tell the opponent, "I'm just going to steal, but I'll give you half the money afterwards" (this deal cannot be performed in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" because there the reward can't be split).

An irrational person who just gets annoyed that you said such a thing will steal and end up with nothing. A rational person will realise that they might as well trust you, seeing as they'll be no worse off anyhow.

 

In game theory, the situation you describe could be defined as a "Nash Equilibrium", which is a bad situation for a game, because it means everyone should always steal, as you describe. However, this is only bad in a game if the only thing that matters is the result relative to the opponent. In a game show, like Goldenballs, the only thing that matters to the players (or the only thing that should matter to rational players) is their own absolute result relative to their start position.

 

i'd still steal.

[Mike]

I got home strangely early tonight and noticed those dam 'egg heads' still stealing air time 'doing what comes naturally to them'... cheating!!

 

In the tie break today the loser general public team got 'which African country's leader was overthrown by some random person you've never heard of', and the eggheads got 'which tennis player appeared in Anger Management?' What a piss take... and they mulled it over like it was an actual dilemma. Tw@ts.

 

Is this the biggest con ever? why do they have to go into the 'question box'? the answer is blatantly written under whatever camera they're using.

 

..and every time I watch that program I just want to punch that 'CJ' character repeatedly in the head!?

 

[Stan]

The only thing that annoys me about Eggheads is how everyone has to debate their 3 given answers, they should just say the answer that is correct, not tell everyone why the other 2 answers aren't correct

[Mike]

process of elimination is probably the one aspect of that show I'm fine with.... there is so much else to HATE!

 

The key to the whole thing is 'TAKE OUT THE GRANNY'... with her gone their powers are weak.

[Tannhauser]

In the tie break today the loser general public team got 'which African country's leader was overthrown by some random person you've never heard of', and the eggheads got 'which tennis player appeared in Anger Management?' What a piss take... and they mulled it over like it was an actual dilemma. Tw@ts.

 

Not if you're better at history than pop culture, surely. I didn't see the episode, but I had to google your Anger Management just now, whereas I bet I'd have got the African coup one.

 

It's only easy if you already know the answer.

[Mike]

really you wouldn't have... one of the three options was John Mcenroe. I haven't even seen the film and I knew it.

 

It's a blatant fix... the moral of the story is never come home from work early, you might still find remnants of daytime telly lying around.

[Tannhauser]

Of course, the best approach is to tell the opponent, "I'm just going to steal, but I'll give you half the money afterwards" (this deal cannot be performed in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" because there the reward can't be split).

An irrational person who just gets annoyed that you said such a thing will steal and end up with nothing. A rational person will realise that they might as well trust you, seeing as they'll be no worse off anyhow.

 

In game theory, the situation you describe could be defined as a "Nash Equilibrium", which is a bad situation for a game, because it means everyone should always steal, as you describe. However, this is only bad in a game if the only thing that matters is the result relative to the opponent. In a game show, like Goldenballs, the only thing that matters to the players (or the only thing that should matter to rational players) is their own absolute result relative to their start position.

 

Cool. Game theory was adapted by biologists to try explain how social behaviour evolves. It has been one of the keys in understanding how altruism and sharing can appear in animals, when it might be assumed that cheating and selfish strategies would always win out.

[Mike]

I didn't even get that far.

 

The sight of Jasper Carrott is enough to have me reaching for the remote.

[Tannhauser]

really you wouldn't have... one of the three options was John Mcenroe. I haven't even seen the film and I knew it.

 

It's a blatant fix... the moral of the story is never come home from work early, you might still find remnants of daytime telly lying around.

Yeah, but (a) you're basing that on observation of watching very few shows and (b) in your opinion, you just happen to think that's an easy question.

 

But people's knowledge sets vary, don't they? To me, this is a ridiculously easy question (also without having seen the film):

 

Who directed Battleship Potemkin? (a) Eisenstein (b) Borodin © Turgenev

 

For somebody else, maybe that would be hard work.

 

Whereas for me, an impossible question would be something like "Who won the world cup last time round?" or "Which one of the following won gold for Britain in the Olympics?" because that kind of stuff doesn't interest me.

[Jake]

 

I have no idea which tennis player was in Anger Management. Even after looking at the cast list I still don't know.

[jevansio]

I don't think it'll be long before a gameshow called "Toss the Coin" comes along where that's all they do for an hour, and it'll still get massive TV audiences with phone in advert games

 

Edit I've already PP'd that name BTW

[Mike]

I have seen 'many' episodes of Eggheads.

 

Fundamentally, why do they have this 'question booth' mechanism, whereby the question answerer goes into an unseen space (abet, their face is shown). Anything could happen in there. We're led to believe this is some isolated space where they can't confer, but equally the answers could be shown to them away from our view.

 

It's written all over the face of that one who won millionaire, she looks nervous every day.

 

I think they somehow drug the visitors to make them appreciate their nice 'day out'... even if I didn't win I'd be grateful of the promised 'after show' free bar. Like they give a toss either?

 

However you look at it, it's a scam.

 

Bring back 15 to 1, now there was a quiz show.

[Mike]

 

I have no idea which tennis player was in Anger Management. Even after looking at the cast list I still don't know.

 

You could hazard a guess if John McEnroe was one of the three options.

[jevansio]

I have seen 'many' episodes of Eggheads.

 

Fundamentally, why do they have this 'question booth' mechanism, whereby the question answerer goes into an unseen space (abet, their face is shown). Anything could happen in there. We're led to believe this is some isolated space where they can't confer, but equally the answers could be shown to them away from our view.

 

It's written all over the face of that one who won millionaire, she looks nervous every day.

 

I think they somehow drug the visitors to make them appreciate their nice 'day out'... even if I didn't win I'd be grateful of the promised 'after show' free bar. Like they give a toss either?

 

However you look at it, it's a scam.

 

Bring back 1 to 15, now there was a quiz show.

How does 1 to 15 work?

[Mike]

How does 15 to 1 work?

 

OK, so I may have had a glass of wine.

 

15 people, straight questions - if you get the question right, you nominate the next person. Battles take place, but ultimately you can't hide from the trivia. It's relentless. William G Stewart takes no nonsense.