Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: DoND to add Double or Nothing feature  (Read 12023 times)

GS Warehouse

  • Guest
DoND to add Double or Nothing feature
« Reply #60 on: January 09, 2007, 10:23:48 PM »
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'142570\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 10:01 AM\'][quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' post=\'142542\' date=\'Jan 8 2007, 11:45 PM\']Suddenly...[/quote]...suddenly...[/quote]
[color=\"#FF0000\"][mutes Tim][/color]  I did that title already!  I think it's time to end this before someone tries to work in "Soul Kiss".

On the Double or Nothing concept, I think someone proposed (minds out of the gutter!) that contestants could wager any or all of their case/deal.  You know, like a Daily Double on steroids.  In its current form, it won't work.  After all, in the S4 end game on HSq, 94% of all contestants declined the double or nothing question.  (I could be wrong on that stat; I got it from Stosh).

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12987
DoND to add Double or Nothing feature
« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2007, 11:35:58 AM »
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' post=\'142657\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 10:23 PM\']  After all, in the S4 end game on HSq, 94% of all contestants declined the double or nothing question.  (I could be wrong on that stat; I got it from Stosh).[/quote]
Thing is, assuming the stat (or something close to it) is true, that was a game where you were gambling on your ability to answer a question.  Sure it was a risk, but a smart, confident player would at least have faith in his own strengths to affect the outcome.  DoND's game is a 50/50 crapshoot.

I'm also not sure that a wagering element is all that much better.  After seeing somebody win a bunch of money, is it really going to be all that interesting for us to see her wager a little of it?
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27681
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
DoND to add Double or Nothing feature
« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2007, 11:49:32 AM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'142719\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 08:35 AM\']
I'm also not sure that a wagering element is all that much better.  After seeing somebody win a bunch of money, is it really going to be all that interesting for us to see her wager a little of it?
[/quote]
Not really. Reason #14 (and if pressed I'm pretty sure I _could_ name 13 others) why the topheaviness of the board and the Mo' Money makes our version of the show suck.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

rialtus

  • Member
  • Posts: 350
DoND to add Double or Nothing feature
« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2007, 11:58:10 AM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'142719\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 11:35 AM\']DoND's game is a 50/50 crapshoot.[/quote]Let me see if I remember my gambling math correctly... the odds are straight up 50/50. The reward is double or nothing. Over the long term, half of the time the double will be chosen, resulting to two times the bet. Half of the time, the nothing will be chosen, resulting in nothing. The expected value is therefore the original bet, so the best choice is not to wager, since there is no long term gain to be had, correct?

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27681
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
DoND to add Double or Nothing feature
« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2007, 01:24:22 PM »
[quote name=\'rialtus\' post=\'142726\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 08:58 AM\']
The expected value is therefore the original bet, so the best choice is not to wager, since there is no long term gain to be had, correct?
[/quote]
Finally, someone who understands pot odds and why they don't apply to DoND. :)
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe