The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Kniwt on October 30, 2009, 11:50:37 PM
-
http://www.itv.com/TVGuide/default.html?tvgBegin=58 (http://\"http://www.itv.com/TVGuide/default.html?tvgBegin=58\")
According to the ITV listings page, Golden Balls (love it or hate it) returns Monday on ITV1 at 5 p.m. UK time. No word on whether these are actually new shows, but I believe that repeats are rare.
And while we're on the subject, U.S. conservative journal The American Spectator (found it in Teh Google, honest) has a short article about, of all things, Golden Balls, with a video of a £100k split or steal:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/26/prisoners-dilemma (http://\"http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/26/prisoners-dilemma\")
-
New episodes I believe, but it's just burning off stockpiled shows.
Also, the article is incorrect, you can't make a contract to share the winnings unless you go for the split method. That's written in the rules.
-
[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' post=\'229561\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 11:59 AM\']New episodes I believe, but it's just burning off stockpiled shows.
Also, the article is incorrect, you can't make a contract to share the winnings unless you go for the split method. That's written in the rules.[/quote]This brings up a question: are the players isolated before the show? Are they dismissed in turn? If not, how hard would it be to say "I'm going to steal: If you want to see a sniff of the money, split and I'll ring you tomorrow?"
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'229562\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 01:32 PM\']"I'm going to steal: If you want to see a sniff of the money, split and I'll ring you tomorrow?"[/quote]
...and then the other guy decides if he wants to be extorted like that or not, and if he decides "fark that guy," he Steals too and Threaty McThreaterson goes home with bupkus.
-
Yes, that is good to hear that another series is up. At least after seeing all the shows they have on YouTube. It finally got to them to bring it back.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'229567\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 06:06 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'229562\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 01:32 PM\']"I'm going to steal: If you want to see a sniff of the money, split and I'll ring you tomorrow?"[/quote]
...and then the other guy decides if he wants to be extorted like that or not, and if he decides "fark that guy," he Steals too and Threaty McThreaterson goes home with bupkus.
[/quote]
And this kind of situation is one of the reasons why I think the Prisoner's Dilemma is such an interesting game show device.
-
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'229581\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 08:17 PM\']And this kind of situation is one of the reasons why I think the Prisoner's Dilemma is such an interesting game show device.[/quote]
Which is funny, because that kind of situation precisely illustrates why it's awful.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'229562\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 08:32 PM\'][quote name=\'Brig Bother\' post=\'229561\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 11:59 AM\']New episodes I believe, but it's just burning off stockpiled shows.
Also, the article is incorrect, you can't make a contract to share the winnings unless you go for the split method. That's written in the rules.[/quote]This brings up a question: are the players isolated before the show? Are they dismissed in turn? If not, how hard would it be to say "I'm going to steal: If you want to see a sniff of the money, split and I'll ring you tomorrow?"
[/quote]
Yes, isolated from each other before, and seperated and taxied home pretty quickly after dismissal, from what I've been told.
From what I gather, it's basically Endemol covering legal bases in case someone offers exactly that sort of split and then reneges on it.
This is a bit more interesting interpretation of The Prisoner's Dilemma on television, pre-dating Goldenballs by almost ten years, an experimental late night Channel 4 show called Trust Me hosted by "Nasty" Nick Bateman, who was thrown out of our first series of Big Brother for cheating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyab8gRQ6c (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyab8gRQ6c\")
-
[quote name=\'Darion Blackwood Daniel\' post=\'229576\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 08:54 PM\']Yes, that is good to hear that another series is up. At least after seeing all the shows they have on YouTube. It finally got to them to bring it back.[/quote]
Yes, it was all those views on YouTube that convinced ITV to air the remaining episodes that were already in the can.
I've always thought that the best way to defuse the whole "screwing over with no retribution" aspect of the prisoner's dilemma is to add a third option, one that guarantees a small portion of the pot to you regardless of what the other player chooses, and causes the other player to get nothing if he does attempt to hose you. Split-Split, Split-Steal and Steal-Steal have the same outcomes, but the third option (let's call it "Secure") awards the player 10% of the pot no matter what. If both pick Secure, they each get 10%; if it's Secure-Split, the Splitter gets half as normal, and if it's Secure-Steal, the Stealer leaves with nothing but bad karma.
-
[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'229602\' date=\'Nov 1 2009, 06:18 AM\']I've always thought that the best way to defuse the whole "screwing over with no retribution" aspect of the prisoner's dilemma is to add a third option, one that guarantees a small portion of the pot to you regardless of what the other player chooses, and causes the other player to get nothing if he does attempt to hose you. Split-Split, Split-Steal and Steal-Steal have the same outcomes, but the third option (let's call it "Secure") awards the player 10% of the pot no matter what. If both pick Secure, they each get 10%; if it's Secure-Split, the Splitter gets half as normal, and if it's Secure-Steal, the Stealer leaves with nothing but bad karma.[/quote]
So exactly one of the three possible Steal scenarios gets the Stealer a thin dime, thus reducing the interest in Stealing a great deal. And committing to picking Steal is now condemning the other guy to winning at most 10%. That doesn't fix the problem.
The problem that still exists (and the problem the Prisoner's Dilemma will ALWAYS have by its very nature) is that the outcome that creates a Grand Prize winner is also the one that ends the show on a complete downer, 'cuz the other guy got farked for trying to be a good guy. And that the only ending that ISN'T a downer is a Split/Split, which nobody cares about. (And in your example, Secure/Split still ends with "Aw, you could have made more money if you'd trusted him!")
(And it's never the optimal play anyhow. If one guy says "I'm going to Steal!" the optimal response is to Secure. If he says "I'm going to Secure!", the optimal response is to Split, and he says "I'm going to Split!" the optimal response is to Steal. When the outcome that creates the happiest ending is also the poorest play strategically for both players, that's a fundamental problem.)
Some people, as we've seen above, apparently like watching someone get farked for trying to do the right thing, but I think those people are far and away in the minority.
-
[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' post=\'229597\' date=\'Nov 1 2009, 05:25 AM\']This is a bit more interesting interpretation of The Prisoner's Dilemma on television, pre-dating Goldenballs by almost ten years, an experimental late night Channel 4 show called Trust Me hosted by "Nasty" Nick Bateman, who was thrown out of our first series of Big Brother for cheating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyab8gRQ6c (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyab8gRQ6c\")[/quote]
How does one cheat at Big Brother?
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'229669\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 07:10 AM\']How does one cheat at Big Brother?[/quote]
In this case, it apparently had to do with this dude trying to manipulate houseguest votes for eviction. Might be that the UK show has tighter rules about that than we do.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'229584\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 10:41 PM\'][quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'229581\' date=\'Oct 31 2009, 08:17 PM\']And this kind of situation is one of the reasons why I think the Prisoner's Dilemma is such an interesting game show device.[/quote]
Which is funny, because that kind of situation precisely illustrates why it's awful[/quote]
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is it really Prisoner's Dilemma? I think there are enough deviations to say that it isn't, and that is probably the biggest flaw.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229689\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 11:52 AM\']I think there are enough deviations to say that it isn't, and that is probably the biggest flaw.[/quote]
Please elaborate, as I fail to see what make it sufficiently different to say that, and as such I further don't see a) what changes you would make to make it a "true" Prisoner's Dilemma, and b) how that would improve the situation.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229689\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 02:52 PM\']I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is it really Prisoner's Dilemma?[/quote]
More or less. On this and Friend or Foe, you can either a) screw your opponent and benefit, b) get screwed while your opponent benefits, or c) screw each other (not in the good way) and wind up with nothing.
They're both derivative of the Prisoner Dilemma the same way Wheel is derivative of Hangman. It's not 100% based on the concept, but it has enough elements to where you pretty much know its inspiration.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'229669\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 03:10 PM\'][quote name=\'Brig Bother\' post=\'229597\' date=\'Nov 1 2009, 05:25 AM\']This is a bit more interesting interpretation of The Prisoner's Dilemma on television, pre-dating Goldenballs by almost ten years, an experimental late night Channel 4 show called Trust Me hosted by "Nasty" Nick Bateman, who was thrown out of our first series of Big Brother for cheating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyab8gRQ6c (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyab8gRQ6c\")[/quote]
How does one cheat at Big Brother?
[/quote]
Basically writing down names and trying to influence peoples votes with them, somehow away from BBs eyes. Nominations being your personal choice is the original BB format's big format point. It is impossible to underestimate how big a deal this was when it happened, the media and the internet (you could only watch the live stream through the internet) pretty much exploded in Britain overnight.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'229690\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 03:27 PM\'][quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229689\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 11:52 AM\']I think there are enough deviations to say that it isn't, and that is probably the biggest flaw.[/quote]
Please elaborate, as I fail to see what make it sufficiently different to say that, and as such I further don't see a) what changes you would make to make it a "true" Prisoner's Dilemma, and b) how that would improve the situation.[/quote]
With TV Prisoner's, there's only 3 possible payouts for each player (all, half, or none), and those 3 are arranged in such a way that your decision is pretty much irrelevant. If your opponent chooses Steal, you're boned, and if he chooses Split, then it's only a question of how much you like money. With typical Prisoner's, there's 4 outcomes, organized such that your choice factors as much as the other guy.
As for implementation, the best example I can think of right now would be playing around with Friend or Foe and making front game and end game separate pots. If they Friend, they split both; if they Foe, then the endgame pot goes away and they split the front game pot; if they Split, the Foe takes it all. I don't necessarily think that translates for better TV, but I think that Prisoner's is a bad GS concept in any form.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229710\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 04:19 PM\']I don't necessarily think that translates for better TV, but I think that Prisoner's is a bad GS concept in any form.[/quote]
Okay, but your original statement:
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229689\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 11:52 AM\']I think there are enough deviations to say that it isn't, and that is probably the biggest flaw.[/quote]
...implies that if it WERE a carbon-copy of the actual Dilemma that it would work.
So, um, pick one.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'229710\' date=\'Nov 2 2009, 04:19 PM\']with TV Prisoner's, there's only 3 possible payouts for each player (all, half, or none), and those 3 are arranged in such a way that your decision is pretty much irrelevant. If your opponent chooses Steal, you're boned, and if he chooses Split, then it's only a question of how much you like money. With typical Prisoner's, there's 4 outcomes, organized such that your choice factors as much as the other guy.[/quote]If you generalize that one of you defects as one outcome, then there are three.
The problem is that the TV version is done improperly. The dilemma is that if you defect and the other guy doesn't, you get away relatively painlessly, and the other guy is left to be the 5,730 day carryover champ on Don't Drop the Soap, but if you both defect, you're both worse off than if you had cooperated.
When you present the dilemma in terms of competing for a cash prize, I basically decide how much money I'm going to let you have, and you the same. And after we leave the stage, none of us will be worse off than when we started.
Perhaps there's the problem.
If you were to have the Solitarians cooperate or defect, and the game outcome would determine how much sleep the players got to have (or not have), that would be closer to what the real dilemma portrays. Such an event could also be played out on Survivor; if you had both teams bring all of their food to a challenge, and there was a possibility that the food would be lost for keeps, or it would be multiplied.
/I heard that there was to be a Solitary IV.
//but which network will air it?
-
If I understand "Trust Me" correctly, the pot keeps going up the longer you trust the other pod. So in that, there's incentive to keep trusting. But then, the pot reaches an end point, presenting the Prisoners' Dilemma.
Here's the question: Could "Trust Me" be played with an unlimited pot? Then there would be no Prisoner's Dilemma, it's how long can you trust the other guys. Granted, the game would have to be spread over more than one episode, so maybe they'd have to air more than one game concurrently, a la "$64,000 Question.") Perhaps, at some point, there's an offer to split the pot--either you vote to split, however, or to continue the game.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'229761\' date=\'Nov 3 2009, 05:33 PM\']Here's the question: Could "Trust Me" be played with an unlimited pot? Then there would be no Prisoner's Dilemma, it's how long can you trust the other guys. Granted, the game would have to be spread over more than one episode, so maybe they'd have to air more than one game concurrently, a la "$64,000 Question.") Perhaps, at some point, there's an offer to split the pot--either you vote to split, however, or to continue the game.[/quote]
Well the players can force a split at any time - I presume they were unaware before the recording of the potential prizemonies involved. There were four episodes made, two games an episode, only one game ended prematurely with a split if I recall correctly.
However you do seem to have inadvertantly reinvented How Much Is Enough? so well done.
-
[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' post=\'229784\' date=\'Nov 3 2009, 04:20 PM\']However you do seem to have inadvertantly reinvented How Much Is Enough? so well done.[/quote]
Yes, but this version would be much slower! :-)