arithmetically challenged people

It's all about extending the "suspense".

There's also the possibility that the viewers might not have been able to understand why she didn't roll again ;-)

John

Even Jackie Gleason got nervous on The $64,000 Question. I'd probably would have done the same ;)

Poly

OK, guess I'm mathematically challenged, then. Of course she has to roll again, at least once more (and possibly twice if #3 is a one), as the 8 is still less than the 10 you're saying she requires.

But she's bound to get at least 1 on each subsequent roll, so no matter what happens she wins. Accordingly, as the OP indicated, there's no need to bother.

Sylvia

Perhaps his dice have a zero on one side :-)

Trevor.

Maybe she believed the more points she would get the bigger the prize ! ;) =D

There is a little tale about a woman being greedy ! ;) =D

Bye, Skybuck.

"William Sommerwerck" schreef in bericht news:iqetrg$ek4$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me...

Depends on the rules you did not mention. She still does not have 10 points even though she sure will have them when she rolls one or two times more.

Nevertheless I want to know why the person is a woman. I suppose there's another answer that will make the difference. :)

petrus bitbyter

You need to understand the rules of game TV to understand why they did what they did. It was not an option to 'give it to her', she was required to roll.

Rules?

Sylvia.

Yes, the federal government has rules in place for game shows, in effect since the early 60s, following a number of scandals where contestants were given 'special' treatment.

Of course she rolls the die. She has to, because she needs to get ten, and she only has eight. So, by the rules of the game she has to keep rolling until she gets the ten she needs, or runs out of rolls. Getting a good start is not the same as winning.

No, you are not mathematically challenged. You are absolutely correct. So, there are at least two of us who can read.

Oh! - I get it now. She's rolling to obtain a number on the die between 1 and 6 inclusive. This wasn't made clear in the original statement. I didn't know what she was rolling for. If its just a number on the face of the die, then sure. She has already won the game, so there is no reason to continue....

One possibility. Or she might have to match some number from 1 to 6 that someone else pulled out of a hat, or there are many other scenearios that might be in the game. If all she has to do is get the number that comes up on the die, then she has already won after two rolls.

"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No.

The above is a famous problem. I've left out the attribution to give you a few minutes (or forever, if you want) to enjoy it.

Bob Morein (310) 237-6511

I've not seen the show, as I'm on the East of the Atlantic. The fact is that a win is not inevitable with the score given. The di(c)e *could* fall off the table on one or more subsequent rolls, for no score, unless it's a sealed die shaker. I'd agree it's almost vanishingly unlikely....

As pointed out by another poster, the show rules (which may be known only to the contestants and the show crew) might state that rolling must continue until the needed score is reached or exceeded.

Yes, by about 50%, and that fact has caused a *lot* of argument and discussion in another group that I frequent.

The "Let's Make a Deal" paradox has been argued about for decades.

The correct answer is that changing your selection is statistically likely to result in getting the "good" prize 2/3 of the time.

The simplest explanation is that the contestant chooses a curtain with a bad prize 2/'3 of the time, and the host always reveals one of the bad prizes behind a different curtain. Ergo, 2/3 of the time the good prize is behind the unchosen/unopened curtain, and you should switch.

QED.