Well before I get on with my views on schadenfreude, I ought to mention this evening's Celebrity Deal or No Deal, where Louis Walsh of X-Factor fame made some very brave decisions throughout, and was eventually left with a final two of £3,000, and the top prize of £250,000. The Banker offered him £70,000, and, despite several supporters urging him to go for it, he dealt.
And, it turned out to be the right decision, as £3,000 was in his box.
Therefore, Mr Walsh will not be receiving criticism from some for not gambling.
Compare this to regular DOND contestant Tony Pugh, who, two weeks ago tomorrow, dealt £2,000 more than Mr Walsh did on a final two of £500 and the £250,000 (so a weaker final pairing than Mr Walsh) and had the £250,000.
Naturally, the Internet community was up in arms about how Mr Pugh should have been brave and gone for it, yet nobody has complained about Mr Walsh taking £2,000 less on a STRONGER final two.
It's all very well to be criticise someone for not gambling when their decision has been proved to not be the right thing to do, but you often don't realise how risky a gamble it was before the decision has been made.
There is one word that crops up on the forum an awful lot: HINDSIGHT.
Hindsight is used by commentators of the show to decide what they think of a game, and whether the player has made a sensible decision or not. Most use it to say whether a player taking an offer was good or not, but some jokingly subvert this by using to say whether turning down an offer was good or not.
For example, flipping back to Mr Pugh. It's easy to say now, with the benefit of hindsight, that turning down £72,000 would have been the right thing to do. But, what if he had gone for it, and had had the £500 in his box instead? Then, the people calling him 'a coward' for not gambling may well be calling him 'greedy' for gambling and losing.
This is another thing I am opposed to; people being selective in their criticism of players. A wee while back, I read a comment on YouTube where someone remarked that people will call a player 'brave' if they gamble and win a big sum, 'greedy' if they go for it and win a small sum, and 'a coward' if they take an offer and miss out on more money.
Honestly, you just can't win sometimes.
At the end of the day, not every game of Deal or No Deal is going to be perfect; you just have to take something like this on the chin, and move on.
In my next post, I will be looking at the support for 'gambling' in favour of 'caution' that I have observed. Stay tuned for that in the near future.
Hi Jack.
ReplyDeleteI can’t specifically comment on DOND since I’m not a regular viewer. Still, I’m intrigued by the two ideas of viewer schadenfreude, and the question of gamble v. caution.
I suppose that it’s only natural that certain shows will exploit schadenfreude. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen DOND going for the jugular on this, but I can think in particular of one quiz show which did. If you cast your mind back to the heady spring evenings of 2007 you might recall a rather curious National Lottery offering called the People’s Quiz. Not much loved, and not at all mourned. In this show it went out of its way to build up Mark Labbet as very much the Big Bad Wolf, and in case the viewers didn’t get that this was happening, Kate Garroway supplied copious “I hope you lose” comments to him especially for the hard of thinking. Mark was in the final two, and it was a winner take all show where the winner would get the largest jackpot ever offered in a quiz by the BBC - £200,700 ( 2007 – geddit !!) . Now, I’ve known Mark for a long time, and he has NEVER so much as even suggested that it wasn’t all kosher and above board , and if it’s good enough for him, then it’s certainly good enough for me. However you can bet that the production team were rubbing their hands together with glee when Stephanie Bruce won. Virtue triumphed etc. etc.
As regards gambling v. caution, well, here I can speak from personal experience. Back in 2006 I was on Millionaire. I had £16,000 I could have taken, and I gambled on the £32,000. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Yes, I got on with it and I’ve lived with it – it was my own stupid fault. I might never have applied to Mastermind a few months later if that hadn’t happened – all things happen for a reason etc. etc. But I have to say that were I in a similar position ever again I would definitely take the bird in my hand, and leave the £32,000 in the bush where it belonged.
I see what you mean Dave. You do raise some good points. I've heard some pretty poor things said about that People's Quiz show you mention, but what the did there is just unreasonable. I suppose these sorts of things will always be controversial, but that's what some shows are going to do to attract audiences.
ReplyDeleteThere's a rather blurry line, isn't there. As I said I've known Mark for a long time, and he's not necessarily everyone's cup of tea, but I did think that went beyond the line. Mind you , being on that show certainly can't have done him any harm in getting the gig for The Chase - a show which I have to say fits him like a glove, as it does Shaun, Anne and Paul.
ReplyDeleteThanks for every other excellent post. The place else may just anyone get that kind of info in such an ideal manner of writing? I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I am at the look for such information. joker123
ReplyDelete