Tipping Point (TV programme) - would the result have been the same?

[fourquenelles]

Not sure if this is the right place for this but it is sort of a philosophical question.

I love Tipping Point. At the end, if the jackpot hasn't been won, contestants are given the option of taking the money already accrued or swapping it for 3 more counters so they can attempt to get the jackpot counter out of the machine.

If they take the money already accrued the 3 extra counters are played anyway to "see what would have happened".

My pondering is that I don't think that would have been what happened. The very fact of not taking the exchange puts the world on a different time line to the one in which the exchange was taken at the point it was first offered. I am not very good at explaining what I mean so perhaps a philosophy major could help me out here.

Do I have a point? Thanks.

No I agree with you, and that's what annoys me about the show. The coins would likely fall slightly differently every time so there is no way to see what would have happened. The way that the tokens land then is not necessarily the way that they would have fallen if they'd chosen to continue.

Thanks PralineCookies you have articulated my concerns about this much better than I could.

It's a mistake football fans make all the time. "we lost 2-1, but if that shot in the first minute had gone in instead of hitting the bar, we'd have drawn 2-2".

No, if the shot had gone in, the game would have re started from the centre spot and the rest of the game would have been entirely different. You might have lost 4-1. You're best player might have broken his leg after 5 mins and never played again. You would have left the ground at a slightly different time, perhaps been killed in a car crash, and not be here to discuss the game.

A great analogy Lifecraft thanks.

I have been on and won Tipping Point and even I haven't thought this deep into it 😁

Congratulations Onemansoapopera! Was it the full £10000? I bet it was fun on the day.

It's a similar thing to The Monty Hall Problem isn't it?

I don't see it as quite the same Vanya but I am going to have trouble explaining why. The Tipping Point issue is that the assumption is that the three extra counters played would behave in exactly the same way as they would have done if they had been played at the time of the main game. My argument is that the could not behave in exactly the same way because the environment has changed.

Tomorrow's question : exactly how many angels can sit on the head of a pin ?

Surely this is just common sense. If you'd taken the trade then you would have dropped the counters at different times than in the 'what if' scenario, so the outcome might have been different. Similar to Deal Or No Deal, where after a deal they used to play on to see 'what they would have won'.

I don't think it matters though, it's just a game show. And it can help indicate whether the player made the correct choice or not, even if it can't tell you for sure.

It's a similar thing to The Monty Hall Problem isn't it?

Errr..no. Nor is it like Deal or No Deal. Those things are fixed. Tipping Point is different because if you don't drop the counter at the exact moment you would have done otherwise, the outcome is completely different.

What I perhaps badly was trying to say is that a wider philosophical conversation about artificiality on game shows exists, not that they were identically comparable...

Surprised by sniffy DUH responses to be honest.

Nor is it like Deal or No Deal. Those things are fixed. Tipping Point is different because if you don't drop the counter at the exact moment you would have done otherwise, the outcome is completely different.

It is similar to Deal Or No Deal though. Because you can't know for certain that the boxes you select in the 'what would have happened' scenario are the same as the ones you would have chosen in live play. That's unless you'd decided in advance which boxes you were going to pick (i.e. 1-22 in numerical order). Like if you were playing for real you might have been more cautious, you might have spent more time deciding which box to pick and you might have changed your mind. In hypothetical play they usually just steam right through. Same with whether you would have said 'deal' or 'no deal' at each point. The only thing that's fixed is the amount of money in your box (and even then you're sometimes given the choice to swap boxes).

Like if you were playing for real you might have been more cautious, you might have spent more time deciding which box to pick

You make it sound like there's an element of skill involved. It's 100% luck. Are people more cautious when picking their lotto numbers, or throwing the dice. How does it help them?

You make it sound like there's an element of skill involved. It's 100% luck. Are people more cautious when picking their lotto numbers, or throwing the dice. How does it help them?

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm saying that Tipping Point and Deal Or No Deal are both similar, in that after you've decided to end the game early and take the money, they both let you play on to see what you would have won.

But, like with Tipping Point, you can't know for certain that this hypothetical outcome would have happened in live play. With Tipping Point you don't know that your counters would have fallen the same way. With Deal Or No Deal you don't know that you would have chosen those exact same boxes (unless you had a set order decided in advance).

I might have thought I'd select box 3 next (containing 1p). But in live play I could have spent more time thinking about it and decided I had a better feeling about box 13 instead (containing £250,000).

I just don't get Deal or No Deal. Why do people spend any time thinking about it. It's a load of old tripe. Just pick boxes at random. It makes no difference to your chance of winning. How can a good feeling mean anything. If it did, why doesn't everyone win £250K?

fourquenelles no I got just under £3k it just would not drop for me (and bragging rights of having cuddled Ben Shepherd of course 😆)