banner_jpg
Username/Email: Password:
News Article
New Poll - Game Show Risk
jacob66 gives some good poll suggestions. For the scenario, just imagine you've already won a good amount of money (like $50k USD) and you're potentially doubling it.

You can submit poll ideas here
http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3903

Previous Poll Results:
Question: If you could prevent one part of your body from getting worse with age, which part would you choose?
Choices:
Heart - votes: 257 (6.5%)
Brain (thinking ability) - votes: 2535 (64%)
Lungs - votes: 41 (1%)
Joints - votes: 233 (5.9%)
Metabolism (digestive system) - votes: 210 (5.3%)
Muscles (e.g., abs) - votes: 94 (2.4%)
Face - votes: 90 (2.3%)
Teeth - votes: 89 (2.2%)
Breasts or reproductive organs - votes: 80 (2%)
Hair - votes: 53 (1.3%)
Skin - votes: 181 (4.6%)
Other - votes: 95 (2.4%)
There were 3958 total votes.
The poll ended: October 17th 2020

Cognitive ability is overwhelming the winner! I hope none of you get dementia or Alzheimer's
Posted by lambchopsil on 
October 17th 5:06pm
Comments ( 11 )  
[ View ]  [ Add ]
Comments

» VawX on October 17th, 2020, 10:26am

Not really into gambling so most likely I'll go with the second option mmm...
But it really depends on how much you currently win and how big is the risk/reward ratio mmm...

thread

» hahhah42 on October 17th, 2020, 11:03am

Depends on the expected value—which, if you're going to be on a game show, is something you should know to a reasonable estimate. That said, going for the bonuses is usually the better play, at least on American game shows.

thread

» calstine on October 17th, 2020, 11:15am

This is an easy one, at least for me: Decline and go home with your current winnings. (I'm not much of a risk-taker, so...)

thread

» residentgrigo on October 17th, 2020, 12:08pm

Decline unless the sum is below let´s say 5000 $/€. Not really when bonus rounds start of course.

An interesting non-fiction dramatization to think about in case you wonder how Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? works or worked. Quiz (2020):
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10228230/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ingram
I don´t think he did it if you pressed me and who cares more importantly. Eat the rich.

thread

» kuroipon on October 17th, 2020, 3:07pm

I guess if I wasn't so broke that 50k would be a godsend I would risk it, but alas, I'd decline.

thread

» rokyun_ on October 17th, 2020, 5:50pm

I'd love to say the second option, which is actually what I voted for, but man when I think of how I get with gacha games and I'm not sure of what would actually happen 🤣
(I feel its like, once you roll and get your fav chara the rest of your pulls are going to be terrible)

I guess I'd just have to make the decision there and weight the chances to see if risking it were worth it, tbh.

thread

» Ceiye on October 18th, 2020, 1:20am

I've read Kaiji, I've seen what happens in "riskier" rounds. So heeeeeeeeellll no

thread

» HikaruYami on October 19th, 2020, 6:14am

It depends on the amount of money but I put Play and risk losing it all because for any game show I've seen, the riskier rounds are generally the only way to get the actual high values of money?

I'm a professional software engineer and I have a few hundred thousand saved up... at age 29. If I were to go on a big game show, I wouldn't think of the money as "mine" until the show was over. I wouldn't just set $30k of my own money on fire, but if I'm currently being offered 30k to go home vs 60k or maybe 100k to win a risky round, hell, why not?

On the other hand, if we were talking like 200k vs 400k, I would take the 200k, for sure. But most game shows don't just offer values that high (who wants to be a millionaire being a notable exception, but you're actually allowed to hear the question before deciding to go home on that one so it's not so much "risky" as "I know whether I know this" ).

thread

» zarlan on October 20th, 2020, 12:00pm

Unless the amount you'd get to keep is hardly enough to be worth mention, it makes no sense not to decline.

Speaking of which: Anyone who thinks that the best way to determine whether one should gamble or decline, is a matter of doing simple math on the prize amount versus probability, is a fool.
The value of winning, say, 100,000, is nowhere near twice that, of winning 50,000.
(I intentionally didn't specify currency)
Quote from HikaruYami
I wouldn't think of the money as "mine" until the show was over. I wouldn't just set $30k of my own money on fire, but if I'm currently being offered 30k to go home vs 60k or maybe 100k to win a risky round, hell, why not?

In that situation, you are doing the same thing as setting $30k you have, on fire.
There is no practical/functional difference.

thread

» HikaruYami on October 22nd, 2020, 6:27am

It's just a mindset in order to let myself have fun. My answer was written as such because I don't need the money in the first place. I'm debt-free, and have plenty of savings. For anyone with a specific net worth, there's a value for that person that adds a certain percentage to their net worth that they consider "significant". For poor people, lottery tickets are fun and worthwhile entertainment because hey, it's just $2, right?

For me, I don't choose to gamble with money I've already taken home, but if I were on a gameshow being offered $x new money, I'd have fun with it if $x is below around $100k. I'm not claiming there's a practical difference--I very specifically said "I wouldn't think of the money as "mine" until the show was over", not "the money technically wouldn't be "mine" until the show was over". I'm only making an objective statement about the mindset I deliberately have in order to allow myself to have fun, not an argument that this is the "correct" way to look at things.

My threshold for how much money to have fun with on a gameshow is just higher than yours *shrug*. The fact that you even said yourself "Unless the amount you'd get to keep is hardly enough to be worth mention [sic]". That's proof that you acknowledge such a threshold to exist--if you were in a gameshow where you were offered 30 but could gamble it up to 60, it sounds like you'd be fine taking that gamble for fun, right? It's exactly the same thing, but my number is bigger.

Hell, if I had $10mil saved up, I literally wouldn't have a cutoff. $1 billion being offered, or I can gamble for $2 billion? Sure man. 10 mil is enough to live off of in the way that I want to live--I don't want an extravagant lifestyle. But hey, wouldn't it be hilarious to have $2 billion? That's basically how I approach game shows. Life is more fun that way 🙂 To me, you sound poor, but more likely, you're just boring.

thread

» zarlan on October 22nd, 2020, 3:42pm

Quote from HikaruYami
…because I don't need the money in the first place.

That does rather change things.
Quote
For poor people, lottery tickets are fun and worthwhile entertainment because hey, it's just $2, right?

Hardly. The insignificant entertainment value of lottery tickets, is not why people buy them.
The lottery is a tax on hope/desperation. (some say it's a tax the mathematically illiterate, but… hope/desperation can make people buy them, despite knowing that it doesn't make any sense)
Also, the price varies …and people can but multiple tickets.
Quote
the mindset I deliberately have in order to allow myself to have fun

…which, in that context, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Quote
My threshold for how much money to have fun with on a gameshow is just higher than yours

So your answer isn't really different to the people saying "decline", at all. (I'm pretty sure essentially all of us, have a threshold, were the amount is low enough, that we're fine taking a chance)
Quote
if you were in a gameshow where you were offered 30 but could gamble it up to 60, it sounds like you'd be fine taking that gamble for fun, right? It's exactly the same thing, but my number is bigger.

Depends. If the possible amount won't go much higher than that, I'd just take the 30. At those low values, I'd consider the possible higher winning, to be too insignificant to bother aiming for
…but then, I don't particularly consider gambling, to be fun, and would, in these cases, only care about possible winnings.
Quote
Sure man. 10 mil is enough to live off of in the way that I want to live--I don't want an extravagant lifestyle. But hey, wouldn't it be hilarious to have $2 billion?

Oh, I'd find things to spend billions on. Big projects.
Not personal stuff, mind you. 10M would be more than enough for that, certainly. (I guess you might say I'd be kinda extravagant with some things, but mostly not, and I generally dislike fancy stuff, anyway)
Quote
To me, you sound poor, but more likely, you're just boring.

Poor? Yeah, and have greater needs than average, due to invisible disabilities… : (
Boring? I think people who gamble for fun, are boring.
There are so many way more fun things, far more enriching/constructive/engaging/satisfying, things to do …which also don't involve risking poverty.

Also, gambling is, by definition, something that exacerbates wealth inequality, as well as giving money to people who haven't provided any value. (generally you earn money, by doing something of value …or, at least, that is how it's supposed to work. The richer people get, the less true that rule gets)
So I not only consider it boring, and unwise, but also bad for society.

thread