Kramer the racist

[paganangel]

On a tangent here, but that show has to have the lowest skill requirement of any game show.

All you have to do is pick numbers and not get greedy....

little bit of math helps.
someone like my brother could go on and know almost exactly, when to quit

 

[Marquis]

little bit of math helps.
someone like my brother could go on and know almost exactly, when to quit

It is absolutely trivial. All you have to do is wait for the banker to offer you a deal bigger than the average of your remaining suitcases.

Even if you're not great at math, some quick preparation before you go on the show should make this a no brainer.

 

[paganangel]

It is absolutely trivial. All you have to do is wait for the banker to offer you a deal bigger than the average of your remaining suitcases.

Even if you're not great at math, some quick preparation before you go on the show should make this a no brainer.

he undercuts the average of the remaining suitcases almost every time. that may never happen.
high end math cats will tell you that if you watch the show enough times you'll see patterns emerge.

the banker doesn't always operate on a simple average.

until the contestant is picking one case at a time he almost never does.

his method of calculation varies with respect to length of the game.
number of cases in play.
values of cases.
number of cases the contestant has to choose and more.

 

[Marquis]

he undercuts the average of the remaining suitcases almost every time. that may never happen.
high end math cats will tell you that if you watch the show enough times you'll see patterns emerge.

the banker doesn't always operate on a simple average.

until the contestant is picking one case at a time he almost never does.

his method of calculation varies with respect to length of the game.
number of cases in play.
values of cases.
number of cases the contestant has to choose and more.

I've seen him offer more than the average several times, and I've only watched the show three times at most.

What difference do patterns make?

 

[paganangel]

I've seen him offer more than the average several times, and I've only watched the show three times at most.

What difference do patterns make?

think back, if you noticed, those times he offered more than they average...did he offer them during play, or were they the, "if you had picked that case" offers?

there's some controversy over how honest they are.

i'ne only watched three contestants over two hours. but the offers are way under average until the very end. if you knock out big values right away, it becomes statistically better to play on.

as far as your questions with regard to pattern, you'd have to ask a high end math guy, but over time they show themselves.

example, while the cases may be assigned random values, over time clusters and patterns will show up and you can change your odds by picking cases according to those patterns.

that's just the math. think like the producers. are they looking at which girls get eliminated by men vs. women? blondes vs. redheads?

but wait, even if they are, what does that mean. it seems they'd want you to pick the big money values to keep the offers down. but they don't. the longer you don't take the deal, the better the ratings. but then ratings are only worth so many giveaways. people have to win and lose so much within certain boundaries.

how do they know how much is worth losing and how much is they have to give away to maintain ratings?


they ask guys like my brother.

 

[Marquis]

think back, if you noticed, those times he offered more than they average...did he offer them during play, or were they the, "if you had picked that case" offers?

He offered them during play, of course.

there's some controversy over how honest they are.

Honest in what sense?

The only thing they could do which I would consider dishonest is to somehow change what the suitcases contain during the game, which I doubt they do.

i'ne only watched three contestants over two hours. but the offers are way under average until the very end. if you knock out big values right away, it becomes statistically better to play on.

This doesn't make any sense.

as far as your questions with regard to pattern, you'd have to ask a high end math guy, but over time they show themselves.

example, while the cases may be assigned random values, over time clusters and patterns will show up and you can change your odds by picking cases according to those patterns.

that's just the math. think like the producers. are they looking at which girls get eliminated by men vs. women? blondes vs. redheads?

but wait, even if they are, what does that mean. it seems they'd want you to pick the big money values to keep the offers down. but they don't. the longer you don't take the deal, the better the ratings. but then ratings are only worth so many giveaways. people have to win and lose so much within certain boundaries.

how do they know how much is worth losing and how much is they have to give away to maintain ratings?


they ask guys like my brother.

So you're suggesting that there are patterns like, "redheads are more likely to contain big numbers, if a male is playing"?

I'm not saying that the show doesn't hire actuaries to calculate this sort of thing, but I am saying that:

1. It seems unlikely and unnecessary
2. Even if they did do it, it would be trivial to do it with enough abstraction that it would be nigh impossible to make inductive premises or deductive predictions

I suppose that's possible, but I wouldn't rely on this if I was on the show.

It seems to me that an obvious way to control how much they give away and how much suspense is created is by having the host take longer to open cases when the producers tell him to. Which he obviously does, by stalling, cutting to commercial breaks at strategic times and so forth.

However, we're talking about different things anyway. You're talking about the likelihood of picking the right case and I'm talking about what to do with the bankers offer.

If I had a record of every case ever opened on the show, where the model holding it was standing and a general description of the model, I might imagine I could MAYBE increase my potential of picking the right cases by a few percentage points at most. The producers would have to be IDIOTS to make it any less random than that.

The bankers offer however, is clear as day. A dollar over the mean, take it. A dollar under the mean, don't take it. Any other decision is just gambling.

 

[MechaBlade]

Good Paul Mooney clip, Marquis.

 

[Marquis]

Good Paul Mooney clip, Marquis.

Mind the wisdom of Negrodamus.

 

[paganangel]

He offered them during play, of course.



Honest in what sense?

The only thing they could do which I would consider dishonest is to somehow change what the suitcases contain during the game, which I doubt they do.

i'm talking about being honest when they tell you what they would have offered you had you kept playing.

This doesn't make any sense.
it does. after eliminating the highest values, the odds are you'll eliminate a few lower values. to take the deal before that means you haven't given a chance for the offer to go back up.



So you're suggesting that there are patterns like, "redheads are more likely to contain big numbers, if a male is playing"?

I'm not saying that the show doesn't hire actuaries to calculate this sort of thing, but I am saying that:

1. It seems unlikely and unnecessary
2. Even if they did do it, it would be trivial to do it with enough abstraction that it would be nigh impossible to make inductive premises or deductive predictions
why? think they're spendin all their $ on howie mandel? casinos do it. so do gameshows. to what extent is another story. they bring in an outside guy, he views a sample of the game, within a few hours he can give them a breakdown. do you have any clue what they spend on set design and such with reference to audience approval? it's scary.
I suppose that's possible, but I wouldn't rely on this if I was on the show.
then you wouldn't increase your odds. remember, you suggest a few times. the math geeks we're talking about watch EVERY show A FEW TIMES. as far as the accuracy of the predictions? what predictions, it's probabilities, and only that.
it gets really scary when you consider that the odds change with every pick

It seems to me that an obvious way to control how much they give away and how much suspense is created is by having the host take longer to open cases when the producers tell him to. Which he obviously does, by stalling, cutting to commercial breaks at strategic times and so forth.
they do that too. but that's largely a time issue. he gets a feed from the production booth or cue off camera to increase or decrease his time
However, we're talking about different things anyway. You're talking about the likelihood of picking the right case and I'm talking about what to do with the bankers offer.

If I had a record of every case ever opened on the show, where the model holding it was standing and a general description of the model, I might imagine I could MAYBE increase my potential of picking the right cases by a few percentage points at most. The producers would have to be IDIOTS to make it any less random than that.
the producers don't have a choice if it's random. very hard to manipulate with out analysys.
The bankers offer however, is clear as day. A dollar over the mean, take it. A dollar under the mean, don't take it. Any other decision is just gambling.

it's still gambling. and it's not very clear as to why it's the best method.

 

[Marquis]

i'm talking about being honest when they tell you what they would have offered you had you kept playing.

Ah, I've never seen that happen.

it does. after eliminating the highest values, the odds are you'll eliminate a few lower values. to take the deal before that means you haven't given a chance for the offer to go back up.

Not even close.

If you eliminate the top 4 values, chances are still equal that you'll choose the best available value (the 5th best overall) or the worst value.

You wait until the banker offers you more than the average of the remaining suitcases, it's really that simple. You don't need to be a "high end math guy" to understand this. Basic understanding of statistics will do.

why? think they're spendin all their $ on howie mandel? casinos do it. so do gameshows. to what extent is another story. they bring in an outside guy, he views a sample of the game, within a few hours he can give them a breakdown. do you have any clue what they spend on set design and such with reference to audience approval? it's scary.

It's not an issue of expense, it's an issue of utility. Whatever advantage they could eek out by manipulating the placement of the suitcases would be extremely minimal, otherwise it would begin to work against them.

If they can save $2 by spending $1, they'll do it. If it costs them $2 to save $1, they won't.

then you wouldn't increase your odds. remember, you suggest a few times. the math geeks we're talking about watch EVERY show A FEW TIMES. as far as the accuracy of the predictions? what predictions, it's probabilities, and only that.
it gets really scary when you consider that the odds change with every pick

If there's a logical point in here, I can't find it.

they do that too. but that's largely a time issue. he gets a feed from the production booth or cue off camera to increase or decrease his time

The show is an hour long, and the amount of advertising time they've sold doesn't change during the episode. It's not an issue of time, it's an issue of how much suspense they want to create and how quickly they want to keep the game moving.

the producers don't have a choice if it's random. very hard to manipulate with out analysys.

Yes, but if it's NOT random, than it becomes easy to predict which cases contain what.

Let me give you an example.

On a standardized multiple choice test like the SATs, the choices need to be random enough to where you can't say, for example, "C is the most common answer, if you don't know the answer, guess C and your chances of success will be 4% greater than guessing A."

However, the answer choices are NOT completely random. The Educational Testing Service (that runs the SAT) avoids multiple answer choices of the same kind in a row. In other words, statistically speaking having 3 B's in a row is going to be less common than it should be, statistically, if it were random.

A smart test taker can use this to their advantage by being skeptical when they see 3 B's in a row.

Get it?

it's still gambling. and it's not very clear as to why it's the best method.

Well, I guess you could say that the picking of the suitcases is gambling, but again, choosing whether or not to accept the deal is NOT.

It's math, plain and simple.

I promise.

My father's a math professor and I took two years of calculus in high school.

 

[Drinking Cap]

I'd love to read through this thread to see how it went from Michael Richards racist rant to debating the probabilities of Deal or No Deal.

Well, that's not true. If I did I would. As it is, I'll just make up a reason as to how it happened.

 

[Marquis]

OK, one small caveat if you want to get super technical.

If the banker offers you the EXACT statistical average of your remaining offers, which I have never seen happen and I doubt ever will happen...

then and only then is it a gamble, and you should make your decision based on whether you are more or less risk adverse.

 

[paganangel]

Ah, I've never seen that happen.



Not even close.

If you eliminate the top 4 values, chances are still equal that you'll choose the best available value (the 5th best overall) or the worst value.

You wait until the banker offers you more than the average of the remaining suitcases, it's really that simple. You don't need to be a "high end math guy" to understand this. Basic understanding of statistics will do.
for each individual pick, yes, but not over time.
the odds of picking a graduting serious of numbers in a random sampling is not the same as picking a random sequence.

It's not an issue of expense, it's an issue of utility. Whatever advantage they could eek out by manipulating the placement of the suitcases would be extremely minimal, otherwise it would begin to work against them. minimal matters.

If they can save $2 by spending $1, they'll do it. If it costs them $2 to save $1, they won't. it wont cost them to check.



If there's a logical point in here, I can't find it.



The show is an hour long, and the amount of advertising time they've sold doesn't change during the episode. It's not an issue of time, it's an issue of how much suspense they want to create and how quickly they want to keep the game moving.

but the show still has to end within a certain time period, there's like 12 minutes of commercials or something.



Yes, but if it's NOT random, than it becomes easy to predict which cases contain what.

Let me give you an example.

On a standardized multiple choice test like the SATs, the choices need to be random enough to where you can't say, for example, "C is the most common answer, if you don't know the answer, guess C and your chances of success will be 4% greater than guessing A."

However, the answer choices are NOT completely random. The Educational Testing Service (that runs the SAT) avoids multiple answer choices of the same kind in a row. In other words, statistically speaking having 3 B's in a row is going to be less common than it should be, statistically, if it were random.

A smart test taker can use this to their advantage by being skeptical when they see 3 B's in a row.

Get it?

get it. but it's not exactly the same. the contestant has to know IF it's random or not. sooo..they watch. a lot. if it's random, there will be clusters. if it's not random, they can see man made patterns, as you said. it would actually help them (as you suggested) if they were man made as they would become more prdictable.

Well, I guess you could say that the picking of the suitcases is gambling, but again, choosing whether or not to accept the deal is NOT.

sure it is. it's the part of gambling wher you cut your losses.

It's math, plain and simple.

I promise.

promise? my point all along is that it's math.

My father's a math professor and I took two years of calculus in high school.

i took two years of calculus in hs too. then i took stats in college.

ask yer pops about college kids who broke the casinos, or guys who count cards.

you say it's math and i agree. but i also say, math is everything.

and like i said, my bro is a statistical analyst for a VERY well known firm. and he's done prjects for tv and film companies. we were talking about the show the other night as we watched.

he understands it more than me, but he initially followed your theory. i disagreed and pointed out some anomalies. he shot them down and he was right. i tried to explain some others, but could nail down exactly what was the flaw in his reasoning. 3 minutes into the next contestant and the little bastard was explaining to me what i pointed out to him, but couldn't understand myself. i didn't know how the banker arrived at his calculations, but i knew how he didn't.
we watchede for another80 min or so, and he'd figured out about half of it.

 

[paganangel]

OK, one small caveat if you want to get super technical.

If the banker offers you the EXACT statistical average of your remaining offers, which I have never seen happen and I doubt ever will happen...

then and only then is it a gamble, and you should make your decision based on whether you are more or less risk adverse.

what if your remaining values are 1c. 400000, 500000,750,000, and 1mil?

 

[Marquis]

what if your remaining values are 1c. 400000, 500000,750,000, and 1mil?

Very well.

.01 + 400,000 + 500,000 + 750,000 + 1,000,000 = 2,650,000.01

2,650,000.01 / 5 = 530,000

Expected value = $530,000

If the banker offers you $530,001, you take it.

If the banker offers you $529,999, you take your chances with the suitcases.

Your brother will not disagree.

 

[paganangel]

Very well.

.01 + 400,000 + 500,000 + 750,000 + 1,000,000 = 2,650,000.01

2,650,000.01 / 5 = 530,000

Expected value = $530,000

If the banker offers you $530,001, you take it.

If the banker offers you $529,999, you take your chances with the suitcases.

Your brother will not disagree.

yes he will.

the odds are 3 out of five that you will do better if you eliminate one more case. they're in your favor.

edited to add, if you think that's too big a risk work out susequent alternatives and combos longhand...the longer you play, the better your odds.

 

[Marquis]

yes he will.

the odds are 3 out of five that you will do better if you eliminate one more case. they're in your favor.

edited to add, if you think that's too big a risk work out susequent alternatives and combos longhand...the longer you play, the better your odds.

You're embarassing yourself, honestly.

This is not a subjective question.

 

[paganangel]

You're embarassing yourself, honestly.

This is not a subjective question.

no, it's not. do the math.

it's all gambling, but it's in the odds.

your taking playing it safe, for guaranteed results as best use of math. i'm assuming best use of math is playing the odds for the optimum result.

 

[Marquis]

no, it's not. do the math.

it's all gambling, but it's in the odds.

your taking playing it safe, for guaranteed results as best use of math. i'm assuming best use of math is playing the odds for the optimum result.

I don't know how to explain this in a way that it'll make sense to you. You seem to be missing some fundamental understanding.

What you're saying isn't exactly false, it's just redundant and misguided.

As a former math teacher myself, I hate to walk away from this without helping you understand, but I just don't know where to go from here.

 

[bg23]

alright, who hijacked?

 

[paganangel]

I don't know how to explain this in a way that it'll make sense to you. You seem to be missing some fundamental understanding.

What you're saying isn't exactly false, it's just redundant and misguided.

As a former math teacher myself, I hate to walk away from this without helping you understand, but I just don't know where to go from here.

start with this: if it isn't false, and it's math after all so there's no such thing as it being "not exactly false", then what's the problem?

i think we were both being redundant.

what do you mean misguided?
i'm talking about recognizing odds to make better bets. you're talking about safer bets.

that's a different opinion on how one should play a game, any game.

i also don't see how the tipping point is one dollar over average. that may be what you think i'm missing.

are you suggesting that once it goes over avg, it will never go higher? if so, how come? if that's the case, then i definetly missed it.

 

[Marquis]

start with this: if it isn't false, and it's math after all so there's no such thing as it being "not exactly false", then what's the problem?

i think we were both being redundant.

what do you mean misguided?
i'm talking about recognizing odds to make better bets. you're talking about safer bets.

that's a different opinion on how one should play a game, any game.

i also don't see how the tipping point is one dollar over average. that may be what you think i'm missing.

are you suggesting that once it goes over avg, it will never go higher? if so, how come? if that's the case, then i definetly missed it.

Just read this

I guess the producers of the show are rather lucky that people don't understand this.

 

[paganangel]

Just read this

I guess the producers of the show are rather lucky that people don't understand this.

and right here, is where i get thrown.

if she were to remove more cases and reveal amounts less than $300,000, the banker’s offer would likely go up to compensate for the increasing mean. Keep in mind, however, that there’s only a 20% probability of this happening

100, 400, 1000, 50000, 300000.

what i can't see is how the probability of eliminating one of those options bringing the mean up is only 20%.

 

[Marquis]

and right here, is where i get thrown.


100, 400, 1000, 50000, 300000.

what i can't see is how the probability of eliminating one of those options bringing the mean up is only 20%.

He's not saying there's only a 20% chance of the mean being raised, he's saying there's only a 20% chance that she holds the $300,000 case.

 

[paganangel]

He's not saying there's only a 20% chance of the mean being raised, he's saying there's only a 20% chance that she holds the $300,000 case.

look at the quote again. there IS a 20% chance of the case being held by her.

but he's saying there's only a 20% chance eliminating another case will raise the banker's offer.

"keep in mind there's only a 20% chance of this happening."

this refers to the bankers offer going up.