Josh's blog on Deal or No Deal was very interesting.  I've watched the show a few times and find it quite amusing.  Regardless of who is right or wrong in the "challenge of rationale" between Josh and the ego-centric, self-centered, but immature other person (blocking Josh's email just because he didn't want to engage in an intellectual challenge) ... what is quite clear is that people are IRRATIONAL ... each one thinks that they can beat the odds.

In a world of random events and probabilistic outcomes while it is possible to temporarily "beat the odds" in the long run such is absolutely impossible .... a fair coin if flipped enough times will revert to the mean of 50% heads, 50% tails ... and each outcome is independent.

But a person on D or N-D sits there and sees $5, $100, $100,000 ... with an offer to sell out at whatever price ... yet they fixate on the "possibility of hitting $100k".  The real key to the game (aside from the discussion on mean vs expected value) ... is how many briefcases must be opened on the next turn before you get a new offer ... and that is what Josh was alluding to.  If you have $5, $100k, $400k, and a $1M on the table ... and the next step is to open just one brief case ... that looks very different than if you have to open 2 .... In a 1-briefcase scenario the expected value of the next turn would be $168k to $500k (and if the CURRENT offer is below $168k then he should not take the offer).  But, in a 2-briefcase scenario then the range of outcomes is $53k to $700k ... and that my friend is the real challenge .. with such a wide range in the NEXT round ... you would EXPECT to walk away with as much as $700k or as little as $53k ... but it really has nothing to do with the current values on the table ... only the OFFER vs the NEXT round ....

... Josh ... you agree or disagree?