People who take the money on Millionaire when it's a 50/50 chance are SO RETARDE!!!

SuperInfinity

How anyone can be so sickeningly stupid is beyond me.

SUPPOSE YOU'RE AT 8,000 POUNDS. YOU CAN ONLY LOSE 7,000 POUNDS. YOU WILL GAIN 8,000 IN THE 50/50 CHANCE THAT YOU WIN. TRUST ME.... IT ****ING WORKS OUT!!!!!!!...................

That would be reason enough to go for it to begin with, but the fact that you have the potential for winning 16,000, 32,000+.... makes quitting at 8,000 ridiculously laughable.

I just saw TWO people doing this. One of the guys also threw away a 50/50 with his idiocy when he had a PERFECT opportunity to use it.

They're so stupid it makes me weep.

Ian Beale

They still make that show? And over €10k is a lot of money.

00112984

They really are loike soooooooo retárdé. Trés retárdé, I say.

starbelgrade

People who call other people retarded, but can't even spell the word properly, make me weep.

Iwasfrozen

I'd rather walk away with 8k then have a 50/50 to gain 16k.

SuperInfinity

Ah, people are always so helpful and nice in pointing out grammatical errors on the internet aren't they?

As it happens, it was actually a TYPO. So you were incorrect in your assumption that I mustn't be able to spell the word "retarded".

FearDark

This is how you say "retarded".

Its near the end..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebacoqX-I6k

Iwasfrozen

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Ah, people are always so helpful and nice in pointing out grammatical errors on the internet aren't they?

As it happens, it was actually a TYPO. So you were incorrect in your assumption that I mustn't be able to spell the word "retarded".

I presume your finger being glued to the caps lock was also a typo? Or was that just ignorance?

SuperInfinity

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I presume your finger being glued to the caps lock was also a typo? Or was that just ignorance?

Don't you mean the shift key?

FearDark

Dear OP. You do know you can change the title of a thread if you click on that little icon beside the thread title.

Just saving you from being raped.

sock puppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion

You might want to familiarise yourself with the concept OP

zuroph

So you wanted to ask the audience here at AH what we thought? we don't care, phone a friend.
I'll get my coat...

Fringe

Who's the retard when they pick the losing answer and end up with only a grand?

OutlawPete

It may be a 50/50 chance and will / could gain more than what the stake is, but so what.

On Deal or No Deal, people can be down to two boxes.

One has £50,000 and the other has £1,000.

The offer is £14,000 .. so they should definitely take it just because they are getting waaaay better odds than the 50/50 / Evens??

What if they don't want to risk the £14,000?

Which takes us back to the Millionaire.

Why should they risk the €7,000 .. just because they are getting better than even money odds?

SuperInfinity

SuperInfinity wrote: »

How anyone can be so sickeningly stupid is beyond me.

SUPPOSE YOU'RE AT 8,000 POUNDS. YOU CAN ONLY LOSE 7,000 POUNDS. YOU WILL GAIN 8,000 IN THE 50/50 CHANCE THAT YOU WIN. TRUST ME.... IT ****ING WORKS OUT!!!!!!!...................

That would be reason enough to go for it to begin with, but the fact that you have the potential for winning 16,000, 32,000+.... makes quitting at 8,000 ridiculously laughable.

I just saw TWO people doing this. One of the guys also threw away a 50/50 with his idiocy when he had a PERFECT opportunity to use it.

They're so stupid it makes me weep.

So if I gave you ten million euro but offered you the chance to triple it or lose it on a 50/50, what would you do?

If you say you wouldn't risk it, then you proved your own logic wrong. If you risk it, you're an idiot.

TootFkingSweet

starbelgrade wrote: »

People who call other people retarded, but can't even spell the word properly, make me weep.

lol -_- sad but true

KeithM89_old

60% of the time it works, every time...

fergalr

SuperInfinity wrote: »

How anyone can be so sickeningly stupid is beyond me.

SUPPOSE YOU'RE AT 8,000 POUNDS. YOU CAN ONLY LOSE 7,000 POUNDS. YOU WILL GAIN 8,000 IN THE 50/50 CHANCE THAT YOU WIN. TRUST ME.... IT ****ING WORKS OUT!!!!!!!...................

That would be reason enough to go for it to begin with, but the fact that you have the potential for winning 16,000, 32,000+.... makes quitting at 8,000 ridiculously laughable.

I just saw TWO people doing this. One of the guys also threw away a 50/50 with his idiocy when he had a PERFECT opportunity to use it.

They're so stupid it makes me weep.

People who take the money on Millionaire when it's a 50/50 chance are SO RETARDE!!!

No, they aren't.
I see why you are falling into this error of reasoning, though.

You need to read about the utility of money, and the fact that its a not a simple linear function.


A simple example to make it clear that its a non linear function is as follows:

Imagine you are worth 1million euro, and I offer you the following game:
I will pay you 10million euro, if you roll a six on a dice.
Otherwise, you lose everything. (No insurance etc is available).

Would you roll the six on the dice?
Technically, the bet has positive expectation. (If you could do this bet many many times, it'd work out really well to play the game).


However, for you, playing the game once, the most likely outcome is that you lose everything you have. (Your existing 1m)

The cost to you of losing everything you have is so terrible, that its really not worth your while taking the bet. The extra 9million euro if you roll the 6 won't improve your life nearly as much as losing everything you have will disimprove it.


And its the same with the gameshow.

If you have won 250K, and you aren't sure what to do, in general you should not take the 50/50. Sure, you might win 250k, or 500k or even 1m.

But 250k makes such a huge difference to most people's lives that the additional utility of the extra money does not make a 50/50 worth risking that huge difference.

Anyway, this is well studied in economics and decision theory. Just read up on the utility function of money, and you'll find more detailed information.

I just posted that in one line on the last page.

fergalr

sock puppet wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion

You might want to familiarise yourself with the concept OP

I really don't think its risk aversion.
I think its much more the diminishing returns of the extra money, and the non linear utility function.

I think, for most people, it's completely rational to take, say, the 250k, even if they are 75% sure of the answer to the 500k question.


Of course, when reasoning about utility, other information is always important.
If your kid needs a life saving operation, that can't be done for less than 500K, and you have no other way of making the money, you'll totally risk the 250K on the same chance.

But, trying to reason about the case of most people, for whom 250K is a lot of money, and for whom the utility of extra money diminishes rather a lot, it makes sense to leave most of those bets unless you are very sure of the answer.

BrokenArrows

personally id take the 8k and be happy about it.
im not going to risk 7k on a 50/50 shot.

It works out if you have a few goes at it but in the show you only have one go at it.

laugh

7/8 on a complete unknown quantity is not good odds.

Iwasfrozen

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Don't you mean the shift key?

No, I mean caps lock.

bigbadbear

They're defo 'RETARDE' provided they have the ability to repeatedly be a contestant on who wants to be a millionaire

Firewalkwithme

The OP's example is far from being the dumbest thing you can do on Millionaire.

I once saw a player on the show who had reached the 32,000 landmark and had already used up all of his lifelines refuse to attempt to answer the 64,000 question despite Chris Tarrant making it clear several times that he couldn't lose any money by giving the wrong answer - he could only gain. In other words he just threw away a free 4/1 shot at doubling his money!

xoxyx

If you put me on the spot right now and offered me either €8,000 guaranteed, or else €16,000 50/50, I'd take the €8,000.

I must be a total dope!

sock puppet

fergalr wrote: »

I really don't think its risk aversion.
I think its much more the diminishing returns of the extra money, and the non linear utility function.

I think, for most people, it's completely rational to take, say, the 250k, even if they are 75% sure of the answer to the 500k question.


Of course, when reasoning about utility, other information is always important.
If your kid needs a life saving operation, that can't be done for less than 500K, and you have no other way of making the money, you'll totally risk the 250K on the same chance.

But, trying to reason about the case of most people, for whom 250K is a lot of money, and for whom the utility of extra money diminishes rather a lot, it makes sense to leave most of those bets unless you are very sure of the answer.

To be honest I was going to post up a simple utility curve but I had the strangest feeling it might have been lost on the OP.

OutlawPete

Deleted User wrote: »

I just posted that in one line on the last page.

And I posted it a nano second before you, which makes me king of the thread \o/

I think.

SuperInfinity

Deleted User wrote: »

So if I gave you ten million euro but offered you the chance to triple it or lose it on a 50/50, what would you do?

If you say you wouldn't risk it, then you proved your own logic wrong. If you risk it, you're an idiot.

I would take it because I would never have to work again with that type of money. There's only so much money you can have before it becomes more or less trivial whether you have any more or not.

fergalr wrote: »

No, they aren't.
I see why you are falling into this error of reasoning, though.

You need to read about the utility of money, and the fact that its a not a simple linear function.

I understand what you're saying and I know that it's not a simple "linear" thing. But no amount of interest rate or debt or anything like that could justify taking 8,000 euro when you could win so much more. Not unless you were short of food and starving, then it might make sense!!!!

The 1 million euro is large enough that I wouldn't risk it for the 10 million. And the 250,000 may be the same way (although it is highly borderline, you would still be back in work the next day, especially since you'd at least have 32,000). But not with 8,000. With 8,000 it doesn't make sense.

tl;dr: I know it's a case of diminishing returns when the sums are huge, but only for very, very large sums of money. Not 8,000 pounds or whatever.

Blisterman

I'd love to be you, able to gamble with £7000 away so easily.

xoxyx

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The 1 million euro is large enough that I wouldn't risk it for the 10 million. And the 250,000 may be the same way (although it is highly borderline, you would still be back in work the next day, especially since you'd at least have 32,000). But not with 8,000. With 8,000 it doesn't make sense.

You don't understand what €8,000 means to some people. To some people, €1,000 means putting their children in better clothes, paying the rent, putting a bit off the car loan, and catching up on the utilities. No way they'd risk €8,000 on a 50/50 bet when the €8,000 would pay for the necessities and any more would go on luxuries.

Joey the lips

starbelgrade wrote: »

People who call other people retarded, but can't even spell the word properly, make me weep.

I can spell properly very well thank you

fergalr

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I would take it because I would never have to work again with that type of money. There's only so much money you can have before it becomes more or less trivial whether you have any more or not.



I understand what you're saying and I know that it's not a simple "linear" thing. But no amount of interest rate or debt or anything like that could justify taking 8,000 euro when you could win so much more. Not unless you were short of food and starving, then it might make sense!!!!

The 1 million euro is large enough that I wouldn't risk it for the 10 million. And the 250,000 may be the same way (although it is highly borderline, you would still be back in work the next day, especially since you'd at least have 32,000). But not with 8,000. With 8,000 it doesn't make sense.

tl;dr: I know it's a case of diminishing returns when the sums are huge, but only for very, very large sums of money. Not 8,000 pounds or whatever.

As other posters are saying, once you agree that the utility curve is quite subjective, you've really got to consider the personal circumstances of the contestants.

8K might be putting the kids through education next year, paying off the loan shark, getting the medical treatment, buying the parent the holiday they've always wanted before its too late, etc.

I hear what you are saying, but its subjective stuff, and its not necessarily an irrational decision from the point of view of the contestant, depending.

desodon

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

The OP's example is far from being the dumbest thing you can do on Millionaire.

I once saw a player on the show who had reached the 32,000 landmark and had already used up all of his lifelines refuse to attempt to answer the 64,000 question despite Chris Tarrant making it clear several times that he couldn't lose any money by giving the wrong answer - he could only gain. In other words he just threw away a free 4/1 shot at doubling his money!

3/1 shot

starbelgrade

Joey the lips wrote: »

I can spell properly very well thank you

Some of your spelling is retarde.

zuroph

desodon wrote: »

3/1 shot

I love that you regged to say this. New favourite poster

desodon

zuroph wrote: »

I love that you regged to say this. New favourite poster

HA HA had to start somewhere

SuperInfinity

desodon wrote: »

HA HA had to start somewhere

What the internet needs more of is people correcting others' obvious grammar/technical mistakes.

cleremy jarkson

I was watching millionaire before and somebody was on 64000 and had just used a 50/50. In this situation I think it is worth taking as good a guess as you can to get to 125000. It's unlikely you'll get the chance again and if you do get to 125000, there is a slight chance that you could know the 250000 question without needing any lifelines.
If you take a gamble and lose, you lose 32000.
If you take a gamble and win, you win 64000 with a chance to earn another 125000 (or more) after that.
And 32000 is still loaaaads of money to go home with, more than anybody should expect to be able to win on a game show for answering questions, to be honest!
So in that situation I would take a stab at it.


In the situation described in the OP; If I hadn't any idea whatsoever about which one of the two answers to pick (and assuming I've no lifelines left), I definitely would not risk losing 7000 to get up to 16000. This is because 8000 could do lots for me and if I lost that after having it, I'd feel like puking my stomach up. Also, it would be a very tricky position to be in if you were on the 32000 question, with no lifelines and you had a vague idea which answer it probably is...you could end up being sucked in and losing it all.

/wwtbam 101

Jesus Wept

Deleted User wrote: »

I just posted that in one line on the last page.

It's time you increased your posts per page.

Jesus Wept

Anyhow the guy (girl?) was well within their rights to pass, sometimes you just have a feeling for it and you can't put a percentage on that, even if it's 50-50.

SuperInfinity

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

I was watching millionaire before and somebody was on 64000 and had just used a 50/50. In this situation I think it is worth taking as good a guess as you can to get to 125000. It's unlikely you'll get the chance again and if you do get to 125000, there is a slight chance that you could know the 250000 question without needing any lifelines.
If you take a gamble and lose, you lose 32000.
If you take a gamble and win, you win 64000 with a chance to earn another 125000 (or more) after that.
And 32000 is still loaaaads of money to go home with, more than anybody should expect to be able to win on a game show for answering questions, to be honest!
So in that situation I would take a stab at it.


In the situation described in the OP; If I hadn't any idea whatsoever about which one of the two answers to pick (and assuming I've no lifelines left), I definitely would not risk losing 7000 to get up to 16000. This is because 8000 could do lots for me and if I lost that after having it, I'd feel like puking my stomach up. Also, it would be a very tricky position to be in if you were on the 32000 question, with no lifelines and you had a vague idea which answer it probably is...you could end up being sucked in and losing it all.

/wwtbam 101

Thank god I'm allowed to remove my thanks as I read with horror the second part of your post!!!!

Stercus Accidit

Op's post is retarded, but not OP himself, he's a really smart guy says the charter.

His post is totally stupid however.

He belongs on deal or no deal, where other idealistic people with no grasp of statistics flitter away easy money.

SuperInfinity

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Op's post is retarded, but not OP himself, he's a really smart guy says the charter.

His post is totally stupid however.

He belongs on deal or no deal, where other idealistic people with no grasp of statistics flitter away easy money.

What do you mean "says the charter"?

Superbus

SuperInfinity wrote: »

What do you mean "says the charter"?

The charter. The rules. You aren't allowed call someone stupid.

SuperInfinity

Superbus wrote: »

The charter. The rules. You aren't allowed call someone stupid.

You mean you aren't allowed to call someone else on the boards stupid, right? I can hurl abuse at Ivor Callely or Larry Murphy if I want to...

He can't call me stupid, so that must mean the charter calls me a really smart guy? Yeah, I can see how that works out logically alright, clearly a bright spark behind that one....

biko

This thread is retarde.