Talk:Set for Life

Odds of winning

Since I'm not the best one to phrase it, if the odds need to be posted...

The odds of being "SET FOR LIFE", if neither the contestant nor the guardian angel stops the game, are 4 in 1365. These odds can be explained as follows.

Let's say that a contestant were to draw all 15 light sticks. Of these light sticks, four will be red, and eleven will be white. The number of different ways that the four red sticks and the eleven white sticks can be drawn is equal to:

$C_{15}^{4}={\frac {15!}{4!11!}}=1365$.

All the contestant has to do is pick eleven consecutive white sticks to be set for life. One can select red sticks, but only at the very beginning, when one cannot fall further down the ladder. There are only five possible ways to do this.

WWWWWWWWWWW(RRRR)
RWWWWWWWWWWW(RRR)
RRWWWWWWWWWWW(RR)
RRRWWWWWWWWWWW(R)
RRRR(WWWWWWWWWWW)

(Those in parenthesis are sticks that would not be drawn, as they would then be irrelevant to gameplay.)

As can be seen from the chart, there are only four ways to win the top prize, as the fifth way would lead to the elimination of the contestant after the fourth red stick is drawn. The odds are thus 4 in 1365, or 1 in 341.25. Wjmorris3 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The odds do not need to be posted because the odds are original research, and pretty irrelevant. They assume that the sticks are placed at random - which I don't know is definatively claimed by the show. And it assumes thusly that the sticks are chosen randomly, which contestants are not apt to do.

But it brings up an interesting question. If a contestant picks a red stick at ANY point other than first, have they lost any chance at the top prize? That's a pretty lame game, and makes it virtually impossible to ever win that money (significantly less likely than the odds in other no-skill money games like Deal or No Deal. TheHYPO 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The way it's set up now, with an eleven step ladder, and eleven white sticks, any red stick sends you down a step, so long as you're not on the bottom already. As such, the ONLY way you can win the top prize is to draw eleven consecutive white sticks. You may draw up to three red sticks to start with, but once you draw a white, you need to continue to draw whites to have any hope at the top prize. Wjmorris3 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note...

No, it's not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and declaring something "interesting" is not writing unbiased, informative article content. As to the meaninglessness of the gameplay, if it was truely meaningless, they wouldn't air it. The intent is clearly that the purpose of playing past any potential guardian angel stoppage is to create tension and suspense once the angel's decision is revealed. And while you might consider this "meaningless" to the gameplay, the show is a TV show... not a home board game. And suspense is a meaningful part of the show, at least in the view of the producers, or they would just say "Sorry Bob, your guardian angel stopped the game". Wikipedia articles are not a place to put your personal opinions in. If it were, I'd mention that the entire implimentation of a guardian angel is really stupid, and I don't see why any intelligent contestant would not simply tell their Angel "It's my money... I'll decide when I stop - under no circumstances are you to stop the game". But the article isn't the place for opinion. TheHYPO 00:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My God, you're arrogant.

If you have comments or criticisms to make about someone else's contributions, then by all means make them. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and any good contributor will welcome your input. There's no need to act rude or elitist.

By way of illustration, I shall now respond to you as politely as the tone of your original comment will allow:

1. Yes, it is. It's one of the most interesting aspects of the game, both on a game-theoretic level and on the level of popular entertainment, that play continues after the guardian angel has already stopped the game. Now you might argue, and perhaps correctly, that the mere fact that something is "interesting" does not qualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia (a database that is supposed to contain only factual information). However...

2. "It is interesting to note..." is being used here only has a transitive device to help connect this paragraph to the previous one. You could have written instead "It should be noted...", "It is worth noting...", "Another fact of the situation is...", or nothing at all. I picked "interesting" because it helped highlight the slightly subtle nature of the idea to follow and it sounded good. If you're don't like the word "interesting" I happily encourage you to replace it with something else. However...

3. Even if you don't like the word "interesting", that has no bearing on the relevancy of the paragraph and is no reason to remove it. The paragraph is not stating my "opinion" on the matter. It is stating objective game-theoretical facts about how "Set for Life" works. What the contestant does after the guardian angel has stopped the game is irrelvant to the outcome. This is not my "opinion", this is a fact.

4. You're quite correct that part of the game's purpose as a television program is to try to build suspense. You're also quite correct that this is something the producers are deliberately trying to do by having the game continue after the guardian angel has stopped it. I actually considered stating as much in my original write-up, but decided not to since, as you've so enthusiastically reminded us all, Wikipedia articles should only include facts; and guesses as to the thoughts of the producers (no matter how accruate those guesses doubtlessly are) technically don't fall under the category of "facts". I did, however, include the accurate and factual discussion of the irrelevancy of play after the guardian angel has stopped the game precisely to highlight this noteworthy contrast between the pure game itself and the manner it which it is played out and presented due to being a ratings-driven television show. What conclusions the reader wishes to draw from this contrast I left up to him.

And finally, on a slightly separate issue, even if you wanted to delete the entire paragraph in question, there was nothing gained by the other numerous modifications you made to the article. Your new version is both less informative and harder to follow than mine. You removed useful, informative sentences for no apparant reason and rearranged other sentences in a disorganised manner that makes it significantly harder for a reader new to the topic to understand.

Nonetheless I have, for the time being, refrained from making any changes to your work. Since, based on the personality you've displayed, it's obvious that you would immediately change them back, it's clear that there's no point in my making the effort until we settle whatever issue it is that you seem to have here. OverMatt 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the following is not intended to sound smug or arrogant; this is just how I read the article and that paragraph in particular. I have no quarrell with you and no reason to have one, and I'm just doing what I think is best to improve the neutrality and readership of teh article.

It is 100% inappropriate to use the phrase "It is interesting to note" in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is 100% about fact. If you can show me any citation that this is "interesting", please do. Otherwise, the interest that that paragraph holds is completely the opinion of each reader. It may be interesting to you. That does not make it a fact that this is the most interesting aspect. Someone else might think that the guardian angel is the most interesting thing to note. Someone else might think that the light posts are fascinating; someone else might think that the most interesting aspect is how if you pick a red at any point other than the start, you've already lost the grand prize. Point being, it's not a fact, and not objective to tell the reader what is interesting. It as objective as saying what the "best" and "worst" parts of the game are, which I hope you agree, is not impartial.

"It should be noted...", "It is worth noting..." - these are no different. They are telling the reader what they should note. It's an encyclopedia. If there is any information that the user should not note, then it shouldn't even be in the article.

But to move on to the point of why I deleted the article, It is 100% true that from a point of view of winning money, the portion of the game after the angel has stopped it, does not affect the outcome. But I will stress that the reason I delete even that information is because it's drawing out the obvious conclusion from previous facts.

The activities within the isolation booth are not aired until the game on the stage has ended by the contestant pulling eleven white sticks, four red sticks, or walking away on their own. Once one of these situations occurs, the game is then reviewed round-by-round, and the video of the angel is played, showing whether they chose to stop the game or not. Regardless of the contestant's own decision to play on or quit, if the angel has pressed the button at any point, the game is considered to have ended then, and the contestant wins however many payments they had earned to that point.

I believe that (particularly in that final sentance - starting at "regardless"), that it is clear that yes, if the angel has pressed the button, that the gameplay after that point, is nullified.

However, The specific wording used in the previous edit was "any additional play by the contestant is completely irrelevant". I do not believe this is the case. It may not ultimately affect the player's winnings, but "irrelevant" is pretty all encompasing. As I said before, there is obviously a reason chosen not to simply end the game. It's about the suspense of seeing whether a great outcome or unfortunate outcome (after the player is done) will be reversed by the angel. It's a lot more dramatic to see a contestant win set for life, but find out they were stopped afterwards, in comparisson to Deal or No Deal, where the game is over, and then they just "play for fun" to see what would have happened. But that's all my personal opinion. Point being, it may not be "relevant" to the contestant's final winnings, but it's not entirely irellevant with regards to the show, and I believe that the fact that it doesn't affect the winnings is obvious from the already explained rules. I would not be opposed to adding a sentance if you really think it's unclear that "Any sticks the contestant chose after this point are effectively rendered inconsequential to their winnings.", but I don't think it's necessary

I want to be clear that I deleted the paragraph mainly because it repeated the same fact over and over (Any play after the angel ends the game is pointless), and verged on sounding opinion-based towards "there is no reason for the game to keep going and it's kind of stupid". As a demonstration:

1. "It is interesting to note that if the guardian angel stops the game, any additional play by the contestant is completely irrelevant." < #1 mention of irrelevance
2. "It does not matter what choices the contestant makes after that point or what the consequences of those choices may be." < #2 mention of the exact same thing in different words
3. "The game has, in every meaningful sense, already ended and any further actions will have no effect on the outcome." < #3 mention that any more gameplay is irrelevant
4. "Nonetheless, play continues until the contestant draws all four red sticks or chooses to stop." < This is true, but already mentioned in the above explaination of how the game works, and just sounds a bit smug like, "even though I'm telling you the gameplay is irrelevant, for some reason the producers have the contestant play out the game anyway", and is just not necessary.
5. "As a result, it is possible for a great deal of additional airtime to be devoted to a game that, in every meaningful sense, is already long over." < #4 mention that the game is "effectively over" ("completely irrelevant", "inconsequential", "meaningfully ended"). This is the sentence where it sounds like it's basically saying "They are just wasting your time by making you watch this meaningless play")

The only two new points added by the paragraph are that: The gameplay is effectively when the angel has pushed the button (which I think is already covered in the last paragraph as it stands in the article now), and that TV time might be devoted to a game that is long over. That doesn't require a whole paragraph to explain. And as I said, I don't think that needs to be spelled out. It is clear in the article now (and if you think it needs the sentance I suggested above added to be clear, then add it), that when the angel presses the button, the game has indeed ended, and the player's further choices are rendered undone; it is also obvious that this is a TV show, and that yes, the choices will have been shown on TV. It's the same as if one were to edit the American Idol (or similar shows) article to say that "The only thing that matters in the results shows are the reading of the results, and it's common for 25 minutes of the 30 minute episode to be irrelevant clips of the contestants doing inconsequential things and not engaging in the contest." It may be true, but it basically sounds like an opinion about the production choices of the show.

I should also point out that if only one sentence in the above paragraph had been added, it's possible that it wouldn't have sounded quite so pushy, but when you repeat the same opinion 3 times in a paragraph, it seems like a strong push to get an opinion across. (for example, I've probably, in my rambling, repeated the same thing a few times in this comment - and that's because I'm trying to make my opinion clear to avoid misunderstandings. It would obviously not be appropriate in a wikipedia article)

Again, this isn't personal, and I'm not bashing you. I'm trying to explain the viewpoint from which I believe that the paragraph was unnecessary. TheHYPO 09:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

1. If you're going to write a lengthy response to me, at least have the courtesy to read my initial post accurately before you do so. You'll save us both time.

I already agreed that "interesting" is not a technically correct word to be using in this context and, as such, offered my heartfelt support should you desire to change or remove it. There's no need to harp on this point over and over because I already conceeded that you were technically correct.

As an aside, you're really being overly picky about such a small, virtually harmless detail. And trust me when I say that, coming from me, that means something. Both personally and professionally I'm extremely anal about exactly this sort of issue. In fact, as a professional, it's my job to be so. And even I think you're making too big of a deal out of this when a simple change of a word or two would resolve the whole issue.

2. You're also correct that the word "irrelevant" is, arguably, too strong in isolation. Rather, it may be better to say something like "completely irrelevant as regards the outcome of the game". In fact, this very point occurred to me yesterday after I posted my alterations to the article, and I would have made such a change myself if we hadn't ended up in this digression.

3. I can assure you that the point made in the paragraph in question is not obvious. Many, many people would never realise this without having it spelled out for them. Games of this kind are notorious for eliciting all sorts of foolish, fallacious misconceptions on the part of the ordinary person.

It's true that most people would (hopefully) realise that the final prize will not be affected by actions taken after the angel has stopped the game. However, not all people would. You'd be quite surprised by the number who would never notice this "obvious" fact. Thus, it ought to be stated explicitly. But more importantly, that's not all the paragraph is communicating. The paragraph is highlighting the fact that play continues, uninterrupted, despite what the angel has done. This disconnect between the game the contestant keeps "playing" (and which the audience is made to keep watching) and its total lack of relevance to the outcome is one of the most unique aspects of this show. The show will be much better understood by those aware of this concept.

And for the record, your "Deal or No Deal" example only supports me in this. You claim that "Set for Life" is much more dramatic than "Deal or No Deal", in which they just "play for fun" after the game is over. However, you only see this difference because you're falling into exactly the sort of subtle trap I'm talking about. In actuality, there is no difference whatsoever. In both cases the game is over; yet in both cases they also keep "playing" (in a manner of speaking) to try to create drama and suspense. The only "difference" (such as it is) is in the presentation. "Deal" admits when the game is over and doesn't pretend otherwise. "Life", on the contrary, essentially lies to the audience by implying that the contestant's choices still matter when, in truth, they don't. It's obvious to everyone what is happening on "Deal" (since the show makes it obvious) but many people don't realise that the same thing is actually happening on "Life", albeit in a disguised form. If people understand this, they'll understand "Set for Life" better.

4. As to your accusation that the paragraph is repetitive or redundant, that's a very subjective assessment. First of all, the three sentences you declared "identical" in meaning are all saying slightly different things. This is to help minimise any misinterpretation of the point being made. Second, I write this sort of stuff for a living, and I can tell you that it is typically not effective to state a subtle point once and immediately move on to something else. If you think this point is obvious, then that's good. I also think it's obvious and I would like to believe that others would as well. Unfortunately, however, that isn't the case. This point is, for most people, quite subtle and counterintuitive. To make them understand it would require something like the (rather short) paragraph I wrote. The single, indirect sentence you include on the subject is not nearly enough to make most people understand the information you're trying to convey.

5. And speaking of single, indirect sentences, you also failed to respond to my comments about your numerous other, small changes to the article that seem almost entirely unmotivated. Your new version is very abrupt in its language, offers little to no development of important points before moving on, and states its points in a confusing order that someone new to the topic will find difficult to follow. As your reader, it seems like most of your changes were made simply for the sake of making changes. In particular, you seem to place a great deal of emphasis on being concise which is, all other things being equal, a good virtue of writing. However, you should never sacrifice clarity for brevity, which is what you've done here in several places.

If you can't give me some reason to support your many changes, then I'll be altering them in the next couple of days. OverMatt 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Every point you've made is essentially covered by the single sentence I suggested adding in my post > I would not be opposed to adding a sentance if you really think it's unclear that "Any sticks the contestant chose after this point are effectively rendered inconsequential to their winnings.", but I don't think it's necessary

If you think it's unclear, I don't think anything more than that sentence is needed to clarify the point you're trying to make.

I disagree with your Deal or No Deal point. There is no question here that there is no difference between Deal and Set for Life in the fact that the gameplay is over, but there IS a difference in the presentation, and thus, the drama - because we don't KNOW the game is over - the only person who knows is the angel. Thus, there is a difference between the two (as a TV show). I am not falling into any Trap. Trust me, If someone pulled 11 whites in a row, you would feel suspense when they went turn by turn over the angel's videos to see if the angel screwed the guy over. Alternatively, you feel suspense in Deal or No Deal more when the player is deciding whether to take a deal or not - the suspense in deal or no deal is from the deal/no deal decision, while in this game, the suspense is both in the player's quit/no quit decision, and then potentially in finding out how much of the game has counted. Once a Deal or No Deal contestant has taken the deal, there's a bit of "I wonder if they should have gone on", but there's no potential for the prize to change from that point. In this game, there is potential for the result to be reversed.

That's the difference (that has just come to me as I wrote that sentence) even though you see the game as "pointless after the angel has pressed the button", the fact that they don't show the angel's decision until AFTER the game changes the scenario. From the POV of the audience and those watching, the angel's decision essentially can "reverse" part of the game that they've already seen. You can say the gameplay is irrelevant, but while you are WATCHING it, you don't know that it is - that's the whole point of withholding the angel's decisions. It would be different if they told you the game was over and THEN had the contestant play for fun, but this way you see how far the contestant would have gone without knowing if the game was over or not. There is a fundamental difference even for the player in playing out the game unknowingly, or playing it out for fun - even if the rounds don't count, there's still a difference in the play.

I maintain that there's nothing subtle about this issue. "Any sticks the contestant chose after this point are effectively rendered inconsequential to their winnings." < this sentence is unambiguous and does not require a slightly different wording after it to make it any clearer.

I don't think my point can be explained any clearer, so if we do not agree, the simplest step is to just request a Wikipedia:Third opinion to get some outside perspective. I would also like to point out that the fact that you "do this for a living" (are you an encyclopedia editor for a living?) does not make you right, nor does it prove that you are any good at your job (I'm not saying you aren't, but just saying it's your job doesn't make you an expert, nor does it make me any wronger than you). I assure you, a big part of my line of work is clarity of writing and making unambiguous written points. TheHYPO 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)