Tonight, the American version of Deal or No Deal airs its 100th episode. I was intrigued by this program when it first went on the air. Many of my friends dismissed it as a mindless game show. "You don't have to know anything," they said…and they were right for the most part. But I still found it intriguing for the situations its presented, and I liked the way Howie Mandel handled the proceedings.
My interest in it came and went, and some time around Show #50, it really plunged. I still have the TiVo set to grab episodes but I rarely watch much more than the first three and last five minutes of any game. When the big numbers are eliminated early, I don't even watch that much. There have been a lot of those games — probably more than the producers like — and I guess that when they keep touting a potential million dollar win, you get spoiled. All the padding and stalling and dramatic music really wear on you when the most the player can win is a measly $25,000. (On an episode last night, a lady opened all the large amounts long before the end. She ultimately won a dollar, setting a new record "low.")
I've also come to find the value system of the show to be occasionally vapid. I have no trouble with what some see as the "greed" aspect of it. I don't view it that way. As in any negotiation or any investment, there's a time to get out and a time to stay in, and success hinges on finding that sweet spot between too early and too late. That's one of the things that's compelling about the show. A friend of mine, commenting on last night's big $1 winner said, "She should have quit while she was ahead." Yeah, but she was "ahead" after the first offer. That's not what the game is about.
What I do find silly is the idea that you pick, say, Case #8…and then it's a sign of courage or something admirable to keep saying, "I'm absolutely certain the million dollars is in my case." Uh, why? It's one thing to have confidence in your new invention or your new screenplay or your new strategy. I'm not sure it's always admirable to have blind faith in something like that but at least it's faith in your skill or talent or cleverness or informed judgment. I don't get the point of having faith in your random choice.
But then I've never believed there's a lot of value in blind optimism. The few times I watched Fear Factor, I was repulsed way before they got to the part where the contestants eat fried mule anus. At the beginning, six contestants are all saying over and over, "I will win, I will win, failure in not an option." Well, it's not only an option…it's the future for five of them. Five of them are going to lose. I'm all for positive thinking but I've never felt there was any value to believing your victory is predestined. I've always found that if you're aware of the possibility of failure and realistic about its probability, you can do more to avoid it.
Deal or No Deal also has an odd admiration for the taking of risks. In fact, they seem to have instructed the "advisors" — the friends who come along to coach the contestant and root them on to financial victory — to keep saying, "Remember…you're a risk-taker!" Contestants are picked to be on the show because they're not wealthy or successful, and winning a hundred grand or more would truly change their lives. So if they're "risk-takers," taking risks hasn't gotten them very far in the past. More to the point, if there's a skill to playing Deal or No Deal, it comes from knowing when not to be a "risk-taker." There are points where picking another case represents very little possible loss so you go on…and then there are points where one wrong selection and you're going home with chump change. So you stop.
In spite of all this, there's still something I find mesmerizing about the game especially when — as the American version hasn't in its first 99 shows — it gets down to a choice between the top prize and a far lower one. (I think the only time any U.S. player had only two cases left and one held a million, the other was $750,000…so there wasn't a whole heap of suspense there.) The show however is produced in local versions all over the world…including a Canadian version hosted by Howie Mandel!
The following clip is from the British version, where the host (or "presenter," as they call him) is a man named Noel Edmonds. The show differs a bit from the American version in that there are no lovely models. They bring in 22 contestants and each selects a case at random. Then one of those people is chosen to play the game and pick the other cases, one by one. It'll all become clear in the clip but the main thing you need to know is that the folks opening the cases in lieu of the models are contestants who weren't selected to play this round. Also, of course, the top prize is in pounds — it's £250,000. Last time I looked, the British pound was worth a hair under two bucks in American money so 250,000 of them is the equivalent of a little under a half million clams U.S. If that seems horribly lower than the usual top prize in this country of a million dollars, remember that on the American show, the top prize is in one out of 26 cases, not 22, so the odds are a little different.
But enough of this. Here's what happened on the British Deal or No Deal in January of this year…
