16 Responses

1. marc Power

   1

   September 28th, 2008 at 12:23 pm

   the ionic part is that even though she won only that amount (I don’t want to spoil it) (only lol) it was way more exciting than the recent $1m win on the primetime version.

2. andrew b

   2

   September 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

   What was THAT?

   “A true example of how the show is supposed to go.”

   You call that last deal how the show is supposed to go?

   I just see no logical reason why you would choose Deal over No Deal with the situation she was in and what she said.

   If she was crying when she found out she couldn’t leave with less than 75K, why would she leave the game even though 100K was the minimum?

   If it “doesn’t matter” if 500K is in your case and you sell it, it shouldn’t matter if you win 100K, because you just said you couldn’t lose in this situation.

   Then you said that you don’t care that 500K was in your case. You just lost $225,000 and you don’t care? Then why did you care about the possibility of losing $175,000 with a 100K win?

   When Howie said that you were “set” with the 75K being the winnings floor, you cried. The only reason why you would possibly deal with a huge safety net is that you see the lower amount as a “loss”.

   - If 100K isn’t enough for the car you came here for, I’d have to mortgage my house to buy it.

   - If you see 100K as a loss, why would you say that a board where 75K can still be “won” as a board you can’t lose on?

   How I see it, you might as well play - it saves $50,000.

   While there are a bunch of perfectly valid reasons to say Deal at 275K, every one of them is also a reason to say No Deal, but only stronger because of the offer being 25K under book.

   No matter how much you think Deal is the logical choice, No Deal is always going to be ahead of it for the same reasons, only stronger.

3. James

   3

   September 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

   I pretty much agree with Andrew. That was quite possibly the worst decision I’ve ever seen on any game of Deal or No Deal, and there have been a lot of them. What makes it so bad is that she was in the scenario that every contestant dreams of: the top case with another high-amount case remaining. Now I understand the offer was a lot of money, but this was the only chance to see a true grand prize winner (not someone winning on a million dollar mission) and she blew it.

   The least she could walk away with was $100,000. I understand $276,000 is a lot of money, but in that exact game situation you have to take the risk and try to win it all. My thinking is “I’m going for the grand prize, and even if I don’t get it, I still walk away with $100,000.” She was in the perfect spot to go for the grand prize, but like so many people before her, she gave up. Awful game decision.

4. Chelsea

   4

   September 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

   Whats wrong with you greedy people! Before I went on this show it was easy to make logical decisions when your watching it at home, but when your 2 days from going into labor and emotions are high you do what you have to do! Hind sight is always 20/20 and sure it would have been great to go for it but I couldn’t do it. Keep in mind taxes takes half and 50 grand isn’t going to change your life. I’m proud of myself! Just thought i would offer some insight to those of you have never had to face a decision like this before, it’s hard! Don’t judge!

5. R.V.

   5

   September 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

   Andrew B and James, the game is NOT about YOU. It is about the CONTESTANT. It has nothing at all to do with mathematical set points. It’s about the CONTESTANT’S psychological set point. No two contestants will ever think alike. I will admit, the banker’s final offer was not a fair deal, but considering that she had to make more-or-less an on-the-spot decision, I’m glad she had the chance to make it in the first place.

   This is why I like Deal or No Deal — I absolutely enjoy the psychological aspect of contestants making pressured decisions to stay or go. Chelsea is set for a good part of her life thanks to this show. Who cares if the deal wasn’t fair — it’s still a lot of money!

6. James

   6

   September 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

   I’m highly skeptical that you are the real Chelsea, but in any case, this is not about being greedy but about taking a risk when the game situation calls for it. Now I’m glad that you’re happy about your win. You say $50,000 isn’t life changing. So you found that $138,000 was a life changing amount? If you did, that’s fine, and I’m sure a lot of people are glad that you got it. You just have to understand that there are people that saw your show who think your reasoning in taking that final offer was flawed.

   I said in my first post that I would turn down that final offer and go for the grand prize, and that if I didn’t win it, I would still be happy with $100,000. You called my decision of being satisfied with $100,000 ($50,000 after taxes) greedy, yet you’re saying that $50,000 wasn’t enough and that you needed more ($138,000)? Can you still call me greedy?

   This is nothing about greed or 20/20 hindsight. A lot of people will never experience being on a game show and playing for such a high amount of money (myself included), but if I were in your shoes (not considering your life situation) I would have come to the conclusion that turning down the final offer was a worthy risk.

7. James

   7

   September 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

   R.V., I understand that the game is about the CONTESTANT, and that every person on that show has set a goal of how much they want to win. I won’t question the impact that Chelsea’s winnings will have in her life, but I will question her decision as it relates to the game.

   R.V., you said that the banker’s deal of $276,000 was not fair. I respectfully disagree. In fact, that was the only offer the producers could make. They met the player at the middle. Had it been any lower, it would have been a bad offer for the player and it could have persuaded the player to turn down the offer and take the risk of going on. The higher the offer is over $276,000, the player has more incentive to take the deal.

   This whole discussion is about risk and risk aversion. I’m an economics major, so it is in my nature to observe this game and think about it in the way that I do. I won’t discuss the life aspect of the show, which is the heavier role, but I’ve seen contestants who have been in Chelsea’s position and have been risk-averse. They take a guaranteed payout of less than expected value ($300,000) to avoid ending up with an unexpected amount ($100,000 or $500,000).

   Besides the contestants, I believe the best aspect of Deal or No Deal is observing people dealing with risk. There are people who won’t agree with me when I say Chelsea’s situation was a perfect time to take a risk, and that’s fine. As you said R.V., each person is different, along with their thinking.

8. Chelsea

   8

   September 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

   Well I see your point, but I can promise you with all of my heart, it’s completely different when your there. Had I been given a commercial break to think about it my decision may have been different, but as it is i’m very happy with my choice.

9. David Howell

   9

   September 28th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

   Fellow Economics student here. (In conjunction with politics, or political science to the Americans… we also don’t have a conception of major/minor, we just talk of ‘a degree in ‘, a major/minor would be ‘ with ‘ and many students, myself included, have an evenly split joint degree that is equivalent to a single-subject one in terms of class time, listed as ‘ and ‘. But that’s irrelevant to this.)

   …I’m siding squarely with Chelsea. Even if you were in a position to make entirely sound judgments (and you weren’t) taking that last offer would have been completely and utterly sound.

   At the final two, it’s simple - it comes down to the utility of the gaps between the offer and each case amount. If the gap to the larger amount is bigger, No Deal. If smaller, No Deal.

   Note ‘utility’. For those who aren’t economics students, that’s the actual value of money to a given individual. This concept is central to Deal or No Deal, and is why people take below-mean offers at all. Would you turn down 100k on a penny/200k finish? (Actually, Andrew, you probably would…) Nope, didn’t think so, and that’s because the first 100k means more than the second 100k. This generalises. Most people have a smoothly declining marginal value of money, if you wish - each additional dollar means ever-so-slightly-less than the last one. Just about everyone has an instinctive understanding of this but not a precise one - and it is that grey area where Deal or No Deal produces big dramatic decisions.

   James says that with the non-trivial guarantee of 100k, it was a ‘perfect time to take a risk’, and indeed studies of international versions have found that’s a common perception. But if we imagine that Chelsea was on the primetime version instead, had just won 100k on the lotto before taping, and was left with a penny and 400k and an offer of 175k… would she have taken it? Would you? Because that is the precise same situation, only presented differently.

   Also, is part of the fuss the fact it was the jackpot case? Would we have so many complaints if this exact final two and offer came up in primetime? (Oh wait, we rarely have fewer than three million-dollar cases in primetime now. Sigh. Which reminds me, this is Jessica’s final two halved… and Jessica was heavily pregnant too, and turned down an offer ever-so-slightly more generous than this… is the difference that she had a couple of go-getting family members with her, and a hugely-hyped jackpot, which the syndie 500k isn’t?)

   For what it’s worth? I’d have taken it too, but with a little reluctance. I’d have been a lot less reluctant to take Jessica’s 561k, if only because I wouldn’t have wanted the media circus surrounding a million-dollar winner…

10. Jim

    10

    September 28th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    As another Economics major (God, it’s like it’s Econ night here or something) I in no way could blame her for taking the $275,000. Yes, I agree the best move would have been to take the risk, based on the 25k difference. I would have loved to see her go, it would have been fantastic television. But, I will never say with money of that magnitude, that you should take the risk. It’s strictly your call. And minds can certainly change. I only saw the last 3 rounds on here, and I don’t know how it went on the show, but if you have a strong board early on, of course you want to keep going. That’s not being greedy, that’s playing the game.

    BTW Chelsea, I gotta say, when you found out you had the 500k in your case, you certainly took it well. Congrats on a great win.

11. Moey

    11

    September 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    It seems that you have to be pregnant/expecting to win a ton of money on DoND. The first million dollar winner was a pregnant woman and now this lady won a ton on Daytime DoND is also pregnant. Wow

12. andrew b

    12

    September 28th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

    Not Mary Morolla. 10 bucks.

13. steve

    13

    September 28th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    I’m not going to argue numbers or risk/reward ratios… All I’m going to say about Chelsea’s game is that I personally would not have had the guts to say “no deal” to $88k, much less $176k. Chelsea played an amazing game in my view, because she had the nerve to play on way beyond what I would have done. Congrats to Chelsea on her win! Hope the baby is doing well!

14. Julia

    14

    September 29th, 2008 at 12:11 am

    Wow…I still don’t understand how anyone can go on a game show, be offered $276,000 and turn it down. Yeah…the top prize is $500,000, but how many times will a top prize ever be won on a game show with as huge a jackpot as this? Now too often. Frankly, I think the top dollar amount is only there to make the deals higher, and offer more money. I would have dealed at $276,000. Point blank…I would have dealed. I mean, as much as you’re nervous, and these pregnant women are emotional and such with hormones raging, you need to think about it…possibly lose $176,000, or possibly win $224,000 more? I say if you have the $276,000 dangled in your face while on the show, you wouldn’t turn it down. Many people who go on game shows say that going on one is NOTHING like playing at home, either while watching or playing on the computer. On the computer, DoND is just a game of chance. While in the studio, playing the game turns into a psychological game. NEVER say “I would do X if I was on the show” until you have BEEN on the show. You will never know what you would do until you experience the same situation yourself.

15. David Howell

    15

    September 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    I agree with Julia’s logic, with a significant caveat to her conclusion; contestants can be swept up in various extraneous influences which could cause them to do anything - there is a reason S&P continues to insist on hosts not influencing the game, fifty years after the quiz show scandals. On US DoND, that can mean the audience, family (in the network episodes) or case-holders (in the syndie episodes) - the latter of which seemed to get Chelsea as far as she did. In the UK, you have all three of those and a host who has dramatically influenced the show, causing contestants to almost universally associate ‘playing the game’ with ‘taking the box’ and therefore having to fight hard to not ‘play the game’. Given Noel’s free rein, Howie would drag players in the opposite direction to Noel, which is just as bad (perhaps worse in terms of televisual excitement).

    In short, Julia is right to say ‘you never know what you’d do’. But the implication that it’s easier to say No Deal at home than in the studio isn’t always right. Sometimes it’s easier to say ‘that’s enough’ sitting at home looking at your battered finances than it is to do it in front of a baying audience of hundreds with huge potential winnings screaming at you on a digital display.

    And in answer to the third economics student to post here, in the early rounds with a bank offer pattern as clearly asymptotic to the mean as this one, you’re going to play on with any sense, regardless. Unless you get a board as terrifyingly unstable as, well, the one that triggered an early Deal on the double run episode (from what I’ve been told of it). That Jim recognises he would take the offer despite knowing the expected value of the gamble is $25,000 higher than the guarantee is a sign he is at least slightly risk-averse at these stakes and knows it. By the sounds of it, his risk-aversion is strongly related to the stakes involved (more so than mine, probably).

    I must also stress that this was still fantastic television. To see such happiness at a huge win, and such ability to brush off ‘what might have been’, makes good television, certainly now.

16. jay

    16

    September 29th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Besides, she’s got $275,000 (which can help A LOT) for the new addition in the family. Granted, smaller amount’s could help too. But, when you’ve got a new baby to think about, you tend to take less risks…not more.