Talk:Golden Balls

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golden Balls article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: British / Game shows Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Television game shows task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

I'm capturing todays show direct from a DTT stick so will be able to extract good quality pictures of some of the balls if required. --PrinceGaz 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table of values

Now that I've checked it, I've noticed that the table of ball values has numerous errors (values missing which have been seen, and incorrect duplicates / missing duplicates). I've decided to trash it as fixing all the errors would take ages, and it is a pain to update correctly each day. At the end of the series, it can be brought back (hopefully correctly this time) using the final list of values. PrinceGaz 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the first series is over, maybe someone should think about recreating the table of values with the ones that we know of? Given there are just 5 balls that haven't been seen, by the look of it, they could be guessed reasonably accurately, with a note saying as much? Bungle44 20:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't believe it. This is endlessly funny to me....I needed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon125red (talk • contribs) 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shows end

Can anyone confirm if Golden Balls has now ended. I don't think anymore episodes are being made. There are currently re runs on Challenge TV (Sky etc.) So it may be an idea to ad here the shows end date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.12.33 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split/Steal vs Prisoner's Dilemma

Feel free to undo my edit, but I'm going to point out the critical difference with the prisoners dilemma. The reason that the prisoner's dilemma has nash equilibrium at both parties defecting is that regardless of what the other party chooses to do, you are always better off by defecting. In this game, you only do better by stealing if the other person chooses to split, otherwise you should be indifferent between split or steal. In practice of course, people are not rational and would rather see their opponent get nothing than 'win', despite the fact that it makes no difference to them financially.

OlekG 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it struck me during my holiday (before dinner we watched Golden Balls between baths) that there is no reason to pick Split. If you think your opponent is going to pick Steal, there's no reason to pick either ball. If you think your opponent is going to pick Split, pick Steal. Then I got home and find that this was the basis of a complex gaming theory...

There would be a reason to pick steal if you though your opponent was going to steal - it stops them from getting the money. 86.146.73.174 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is a FANTASTIC discussion in the comments in this video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8 -- where what one contestant decides to do (promise 100% to STEAL, and evenly share after the show) results in his opponent having no choice but to choose SPLIT -- which the comments for the video discuss/explain very well, solid logical analysis. In short, because there is normally no INDIVIDUAL reason to EVER choose "split" (which the show producers depend on, for TV drama), you need to find a way to get your opponent to go against his individual interest ... which is only possible when you give him essentially NO CHOICE, convincing him that if he chooses steal then you both get nothing, 100% guaranteed. Entertaining and thought-provoking video clip! 142.229.100.60 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking purely mathematically or logically, one should always choose steal. The reasoning behind this is simple. If the other person picks steal, you cannot get anything, whatever you do. If the other person picks split, you get all the money if you picked steal, but only half if you picked split. Nobody can ever be 100% sure what the other player will do, so it's not true to say that if you think the other person will steal it doesn't matter what you pick. If the other person does steal, then, yes, it's irrelevant what you picked. So you need to consider what the best thing to do is in the event (however unlikely you believe it to be) that the other person chooses split. In this case, you picking steal is always best.

However, this is the Machiavellian approach - ie. playing the game without moral considerations. Many people, even having had the above explained to them, would still split, despite this clearly not being in their own personal interest. This could be because they believe it immoral or wrong to steal, or could be because they do not want their credibility to be damaged on national television.

There are some people who have such strong convictions that they would split whatever happened. However, the amount of money on offer does seem to have an impact. If the prize money available is, say, £200, I think that most people would think it not worth acting "immorally" and/or appearing "nasty" or "untrustworthy" on national television for the sake of £100. However, if you're talking £100,000 or something like that, then I think many people would consider it worth appearing untrustworthy and acting "immorally" for such a substantial sum of money. Of course, you can also look at it the other way round - if only a few hundred pounds are at stake, then you can steal without anyone being too bothered, but if you're talking about stealing tens of thousands, some people may consider that more morally reprehensible, and therefore refuse.

When I first saw this show, I though that this last round was rather pointless, as the choice of steal was always the logical one, but having seen a number of episodes, this is not true, because of the other considerations that come into play. ^Tom _Phil 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Split/Steal decision is the prisoner's dilemma. The dilemma in the prisoner's dilemma is that the best overall outcome comes about when both players cooperate (split) but the logical outcome is for each player to steal as their individual payoff is higher irrespective of what the other player has chosen. The moral/immoral argument has no real bearing on the choice unless a player attaches a personal additional payoff to the terms "split" and "steal". With the parts of the game that are visible (i.e. cash payoffs), however, the game is completely the prisoner's dilemma. Wtlau (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the prisoners dilemma though the prize is a shareable benefit. Wouldn't the best play be to unequivocally state you ARE going to steal but would share the money with them. So the ONLY way the other contestant could get anything would be by letting you do so. Are contestants prevented from doing this? (86.148.78.180 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

wow, I posted above a link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8 before seeing your comment here. There is nothing preventing contestants from doing exactly what you mentioned... And the video clip is proof :) 142.229.100.60 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

94.195.227.18 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah I didn't read all of this but I agree. The odds are 50:50 for either winning 100% : 0% or 50% : 0% . So if you steal, the outcome is better! 94.195.227.18 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Competitions and football

I've added details about the viewer competition and the scheduling removals which the football has caused. Digifiend (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical highest and lowest scores

The following is based on various premises:

Both contestants split;

No balls are duplicated.

The highest achievable score would also follow the premise of all the highest scoring balls being pulled out of the Golden Bank at the start and ultimately taken through to Bin Or Win, then all ending up in the "Five Golden Slots" and no Killers.

£339,000 is available on that premise - £169,500 each is the most both contestants could expect, if they both chose the Split ball.

As for the lowest score, this would be based on having at least four Killers left in Bin Or Win - the first ball would be a measly £10, the first Killer would knock it down to £1, the second 1p - as no denominations exist below 1p, it would stay at 1p for the third and fourth Killer - both contestants (assuming a split) would effectively result in them taking home 1p each. If there were fractions of a penny, they would take home 1/1,000 of a penny each - but it would be 1p. Mind you, they'd have to be VERY unlucky! Arthurvasey (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, theoretically the lowest score is 0. Nzseries1 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming taking an actual amount of money home - no zeros, stealing or negative quantities. Arthurvasey (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeats

Is it just me, or are they playing repeats at the moment? Why, when they have filmed episodes that haven't yet aired? I know because I was in the audience for them. Nzseries1 (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are currently showing a repeat run of episodes again, and they're being counted here as if they're new episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.248.74 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewer's competition

I would like to propose the motion that this section "Viewer's competition" should be removed as almost every show has competitions during ad breaks and serves no purpose in the article. The competitions are long closed now so why keep them. It is completely futile in this article and this is an encyclopedia not a money winning site. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 17:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden Balls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105000209/http://goldenballstvshow.com/ to http://www.goldenballstvshow.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]