Tonight's Deal Or No Deal

I rarely plan on watching Deal Or No Deal, but I often find it difficult to turn the channel if I happen to flip to it while looking for something to watch. I did want to watch tonight's episode, though, since the contestant was Wesley Autrey, the New Yorker who dove onto subway tracks to protect a young man who had fallen on the tracks after having a seizure. They both survived and he was rightly declared a hero. According to his wikipedia page the titles bestowed upon him include "Subway Superman," "The Hero of Harlem," and the "Subway Hero." On the show, Autrey got down to 5 cases with the $1,000,000 and 4 small amounts still in play. He rejected offers of $209,000 and $305,000. Then with 3 cases in play he hit the $1,000,000 case, rejected the $5,000 offer, and with only $25 and $10,000 left, his case was opened and he had the $25 case. Besides the $25, he was also given a new Jeep. Usually I'm indifferent to whether contestants do well or not, until they get to the point where they're getting large offers with a few cases left and only 1 large amount left in play, and knocking it out will leave them with virtually nothing. If they decide to keep going in that situation, my indifference quickly gives way to enthusiastically rooting against them. Tonight's episode was different though, and when it was clear that Autrey was determined to keep going, I wanted him to win big. And I wasn't the only one. Usually the host, Howie Mandel, tries to prod contestants into continuing, as it makes for more compelling television. Tonight though at every offer he pleaded for Autrey to consider what he was risking. When Autrey and his supporters tried to rationalize his risky choices by saying that he wasn't really risking anything since he "came here with nothing," Mandel kept pointing out that he was indeed risking a hell of a lot of money. After Autrey got the offer of $305,000, Mandel went to the button and pointed out that if he pushed the button he was guaranteed that amount, but if he kept going he could leave with as little as $25. He looked so serious pleading with Autrey, I almost expected him to push the deal button for him.

It seems likely that the very traits that made Autrey a well-known hero in the first place - a quick, impulsive judgment to make an action that could very well lead to serious injury or death - are exactly what led to his poor performance on Deal Or No Deal, walking away with only $25 (and then after the game ended a new Jeep as well), when he easily could have won $305,000. If only he would have considered what he was risking and pushed the button at an earlier time, he could have won a lot of money instead of the paltry $25 he ended up leaving with. But obviously if he had thought things through on that subway platform, and after carefully considering his options decided to take the safe course of action and do nothing, he never would have been or Deal Or No Deal in the first place.

And since I probably won't ever write about Deal Or No Deal again, I want to say how much I detest the whole "Now let's see if you made a good deal" charade they do after the contestant makes a deal to see if their case held more or less money than they accepted. I think the only thing that matters is whether or not the contestant made a good decision based on the available information at the time. Autrey received several large offers that I think he should have accepted based on what was left in play. If he accepted one of those offers and then it turned out that his case did hold the $1,000,000, the quality of his decision doesn't change even though it would surely feel like it. It's just like poker, when you're on a draw to a straight or flush, if you're faced with a large bet and the odds say it's not worth it to continue, then that's the correct decision even if you would have made the hand if you would have continued. Imagine the lesson in mathematics Howie Mandel would receive if he showed up at the final table in the main event of the World Series Of Poker and after someone with a draw made a laydown he came up and said, "Now let's see how good of a fold you made." Instead of that charade, I think that after the final decision is made, whether it was to take the deal or an all or nothing decision is made and the contestant ends up with nothing, I think they should playback the advice of the contestant's friends and the crowd, and give their advice a fresh listen now that the contents of every case is known, and the greed to try to win a large amount even if it means not winning anything is no longer a factor. This wouldn't be as entertaining television as the whole "Now let's see if you made a good deal" charade, but it sure would be nice to see the embarassment on the faces of all the people who gave bad advice.