Deal or No Deal Random-ness

[Francis Asis]

On DOND the independant adjudicator puts the money in the boxes at random. Then the contestants pick the boxes at random. I have a theory that if you select the numbers at random when playing the game you are in danger of over-randomising and introducing order. Am I right or am I talking through my hat?

[wildwood]

If the cases are really allocated the money totally at random than the only skill involved is how greedy the contestant is.
I do not for one minute believe that these type of chance games are 100% genuine as presented. It would often lead to very boring games.

[Francis Asis]

OK. that's your opinion on the show. do you have an answer to my question though?

[dundurn]

There are three reportedly random events on DOND. The amount in each box, the box each contestant selects and the contestant themselves. I can see no reason for the first two to be anything other than random. The only ways in which the producers of the show could affect the outcome would be to put specific amounts in "popular" boxes and to select a specific contestant on a particular day based on the amount in their box. Given that the distribution of the amounts is secret I can't see any way in which this can be made to work. Finally, given that the order in which the boxes are opened is down to the individual choice of the contestant, any show could be "interesting" or "boring" regardless of the choice of contestant or box content.

[puddicat]

theres no science its just pick at random!!

[Francis Asis]

I'm not talking about the show being "fixed" in any way. I'm talking mathematically. Is it possible to randomise so much that you introduce order?

[no-knowledge]

Why even have a independant adjudicator?

[Tim123]

You are talking through your hat.

[mumof3angels]

The last person to choose their box hasn't chosen it at random though, have they? They have Hobson's choice.

[Francis Asis]

Thank you Tim. The only person to actually answer the question I asked.

[chakka35]

Francis, randomness is not determined by what numbers are produced but by how they are produced.

For example in the national lottery the sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 is just as likely to be produced by the random process as, say, 5,12, 23,34,35, 40. The fact that we recognise 'order' in the former does not make them the product of order.

Nearer to your question: take six balls numbered 1 to 6 inclusive. Shake them in a hat and draw them out randomly. They come out as 6 2 4 31 5. Put those same balls back in and do it again. They come out as 1 2 3 4 5 6.

You have not produced 'order' by successive randomising. You have merely produced a random series which happens to correspond, by accident, with what we see as an ordered arrangment of those numbers.

[nightmare]

The fact that someone - anyone - actually selects such shirts, given that there exist alternatives, is truly frightening in itself.

[Francis Asis]

Chakka - Thank you. i understand.

[TCL-MUMPING]

There would be no difference if the boxes were eliminated one by one to reach a final winning box or if only one box at the start were chosen as the "winning" box. The point of the game is that The Banker makes an offer based upon the amounts he knows remain in the game and all this rubbish about thinking positive in an attempt to influence the outcome winds me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Francis Asis]

TCL - I agree completely. I used DOND as an example and everyone seems to have got hung up on it. i should have said shuffle a pack of cards and then try to re-shuffle them back into numerical/suit order.

[Muppit]

Making something completely random is very very difficult - especially with a finite system (such as 22 boxes). There is always the case where the last person has no choice but to pick the last box, etc, etc. So, by introducing more complexity to the system (3 apparent random factors in this case) you do actually reduce the overall randomness.

I think that the answer to what you are saying is actually yes, there is a danger with over-randomising, but it is pretty insignificant in this particular model!

I do understand the way that probability works, and therefore agree with everyone elses comments that the probability of creating order is always the same, but I defend my claim that all is not as random as it seems - not a long enough lunch to think about this one too much more!

[Tim123]

A less terse answer:

Do you mean that if, say, you give a sorted deck of cards a quick shuffle there is no possibility at all of them returning to the sorted order, but if you shuffle for longer they might?

If so, the answer is that if any ordering of the cards is impossible, rather than just highly unlikely, they haven't been randomised.