Entertainment desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 3

Banker's formula for offers on Deal or No Deal TV show

Is there some mathematical formula or algorithm by which the dealer would arrive at the number for his monetary offer? Is there any rhyme or reason as to how he came up with these numbers? Thanks. If it matters, I am referring to the USA version of the game show. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself has some theories, but of course the actual formula is privileged information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article had limited information, but I didn't see any "theories". Are we talking about the same article? I am referring to the Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) article. Also, if it is indeed a "formula" – privileged or not – wouldn't mathematicians be able to deduce it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematical answer is simple, but gambling is about more than simple math, or else nobody would ever gamble. Specifically, winning 10X as much money isn't 10X as "good", for most people. If you gave most people a dollar and asked if they wanted to gamble it on a 1 in 10 chance of making it 10 dollars, most people would say no. But just how risk averse people are varies with the person, and perhaps their financial situation at the time, so finding the minimal offer to get people to quit would require knowing those people very well. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, I don't understand your post at all. You state: "The mathematical answer is simple." What is it? That is what I am asking about, the mathematical answer/formula that the banker applies in order to determine the offer price. You also state: "... finding the minimal offer to get people to quit would require knowing those people very well." So, this is not applicable in the case of the game show, correct? Clearly, the banker does not know any of the contestants well or even at all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The banker should logically offer less than the average of the remaining prize values. How much less would depend on how risk averse they think the contestant is (which might be inferred by how hesitantly they seem to be acting). Of course, this all assumes the banker is trying to save money, but it might actually be better to give away more money, if it increases their ratings and hence ad sales. StuRat (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using logic (as you stated), I have often calculated the average of the remaining unopened prizes. That never seems to "work", though. The offer numbers seem more haphazard that calculating a simple average. Which is why I came to this board. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where the risk aversion comes in. If the two remaining suitcases contain half million and a million, then the contestant likely won't settle for much less than the average of $750K. On the other hand, if the two remaining suitcases contain a penny and a million dollars, then the contestant might be willing to take quite a bit less than the half million average, to ensure that they don't risk getting that penny. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the reason the banker offers less than is strictly mathematically correct (total of the remaining prizes / no. of suitcases) is not to "save money", but rather to keep the contestant playing + increase the suspense = more viewers. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the show in quite a while. When a given game is over, do they reveal the contents of all the cases? Because if they do, it should be pretty easy to figure out at least a rough version of the formula. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your question (or theory). First of all, yes, they do reveal all of the unopened cases at the end of the game. But, still, we all know what is in these cases, anyway. They simply contain the unaccounted for prize levels remaining on the board. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You start with a certain number of cases, and the individual amounts are constant, right? That is, the total money to be won always starts out the same. Or does it? Supposing the game starts with those constants, and that the banker doesn't know what's in which case, what happens after the first case is selected? Is it opened first? Or does the banker make an offer first? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The player chooses a case; that case is opened; then, the banker makes an offer. In other words, the sequence is that the case is opened first, and the banker's offers are subsequent to the opening of the cases. In fact, at the beginning of the game, the player has to open several cases (not just one; I believe it's five) before the first offer is given. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if two different games happen to start with the same five amounts (I realize the probability of that is low), then does the banker make the same offer both times? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I highly doubt that that situation had ever arisen. Statistically, it is probably nearly impossible for that to happen. As such, it likely never happened. So, we have no data to see what the banker did (or would have done) in such an event. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another consideration: doesn't the banker have no "real" incentive or motivation to save/lose money? It's certainly not his personal money. So, really, at the end of the day, he couldn't care less. Whether the "show" itself (the production company) saves or loses that money really does not affect the banker on any personal level. With the contestant, there is indeed a personal connection to the money and, hence, greater motivation to play the game "correctly" (i.e., to the player's advantage). Correct? Or am I missing something? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The whole object of the show is to "be entertaining", and that's difficult to quantify. Presumably if the offers were always "mathematically correct", then that would make things boring, so they throw in a random factor to try to make it exciting. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally relevant, but here are 5 Mathematical Strategies for Dominating Popular Kids Games. They do indeed ruin what little fun was there. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Is there any particularly reason to think there is a "banker"? Yes I know this banker is "shown" in the show (well I don't know about the US version but our article suggests it's no different), but I always assumed that's just part of the drama. Our Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show)#Format suggests it's actually the producers and that article an Deal or No Deal#Algorithm used by "The Bank" suggest there's probably a strong algorithmic componenet to it. I know because of history there's some controversy and legal issues when it comes to rigging game shows in the US Quiz show scandals#Law and politics, but I have doubts that these would prevent the banker basically being a prop. Of course I don't disagree the money likely isn't that big a consideration, compared to the entertainment value. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the "algorithm" section in that Wikipedia article. I will go read it now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a human who plays the part of the banker. Whether he has any part in the decision making process is an open question. StuRat (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had always assumed that the banker was merely a figure-head (i.e., an actor or just a "warm body" to appear on screen) simply parroting whatever the producers told him to say. I thought that was a given. No producer (production company) would give that sort of power/discretion (about spending the producers' money) to one individual. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinball Wizard - from Soho to Brighten

In "Pinball Wizard", the line "from Soho to Brighten" - does that indicate a geographic difference only, or does it imply a cultural, class, or economic difference? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it refers to scooter rallies by London based mods to the south coast, and the playing of pinball in cafes whilst rallying. I take it as a literal description of Tommy's history. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's the Pinball Wizard's history (Elton John), not Tommy's (Roger Daltrey). See Tommy. Tevildo (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some confusion over who the Pinball Wizard is, especially in the film version, but the lyrics of the song itself make it clear that the Pinball Wizard is Tommy. The Elton John character is an unnamed pinball champ that Tommy unthrones. He's the narrator of the song, singing about the Pinball Wizard, who is Tommy. "Ain't got no distractions, can't hear no buzzers and bells... That deaf dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball...He's a Pinball Wizard, there has to be a twist". The singer of the song is clearly singing about Tommy, who is the Pinball Wizard. That John is credited in the film as the Pinball Wizard (rather than as the singer of the song "Pinball Wizard") is a source of some confusion when you listen to the original work, or the sense of the lyrics of the song. --Jayron 32 06:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um? I would disagree on that point.

Ever since I was a young boy
I played the silver ball
From Soho down to Brighton
I must have played them all
But I ain't seen nothing like him
In any amusement hall
That deaf dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pinball

"I" and "that deaf dumb and blind kid" are quite clearly distinguished in the lyrics. It's true that the song describes Tommy as "a pinball wizard", but it's sung by "The Pinball Wizard", which I agree is confusing. But Elton John's character is the one who played pinball from Soho to Brighton. Tevildo (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already pre-agreed with you on that point. No need to bring it up again. The narrator is the one who played from Soho to Brighton. But there's no indication that the narrator of the song is himself the Pinball Wizard, the lyrics of the song only name Tommy that... --Jayron 32 00:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was the Pinball Wizard until Tommy came along, and then "I've just given my pinball crown to him". Britmax (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it wasn't Elton John or even the earlier Rod Stewart but "Local Lad" who sang it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some archive footage of young people behaving disgracefully at Brighton in 1964 see Whitsun Playtime Aka Mods & Rockers Clash. Tut, tut - the youth of yesterday. "Whitsun" was the moveable public holiday that we used to get at Pentecost. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Quadrophenia (film), which dramatizes the above incidents; Brighton is an important location in the mythology of the Mods and of The Who. --Xuxl (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]