And now I'm going to do something that even surprises me. I'm going to defend Dan Avila.
With the influx of poker shows on TV, we've all learned something about "pot odds". In laymans terms, that means, when faced with a decision, you compare the percentage of the time you will win the hand based on what you can see (your own hole cards and the board) with the percentage of the money in the pot that was once in your chip stack. When the winning percentage is higher than your contribution to the pot, all other aspects aside, you stay in the hand.
So let's translate this to Greed terms: Avila risked $200,000 for a shot at $2.2 million, and was faced with picking four right answers from nine. As a rule, in any given Greed question, you can usually plunk out three of the four right answers pretty easily...it's that's fourth one where you make your money. So essentially Dan had to think he was facing a 1 in 6 chance at WORST, and that's assuming that after plucking out those three there weren't any answers he could quickly dismiss as idiotic.
(I realize that assuming three of four right answers are gimmies is a BIT of a stretch, but I'm trying to understand his reasoning here. It seems plausible.)
So:
Dan's pot odds: $200,000 to win $2,200,000, or just a hair over 9%.
Odds of bald-faced guessing one right answer from six: a hair under 17%.
So in poker terms, it made sense. Me, I woulda taken the money and run, but nobody ever accused me of being a great poker player.
(I also would have SO missed the question: no WAY would I have picked "chocolate" OR "peanut butter".)
