Is Deal or No Deal (DOND) a Gambling or Just a Pure Game Show?

[blomen]

as far as i can tell, this is just a simple game show  

i don’t understand why it should be considered gambling. the contestants aren’t putting any money on the line, and they’re there to have fun as well as to win money. there’s nothing more to it.

i don’t even think this needs to be debated. if you think this is gambling, then my giving you a random amount of money should also count as gambling. that’s just ridiculous.

[Die_empty]

This show aired here in Brazil too, and to me, it has nothing to do with gambling. People sign up and are selected to participate; there is no payment whatsoever from the participants. It is simply a television program that rewards its participants while making a profit from advertising.

My definition of gambling is that the individual would have placed a bet using his money with the aim of winning more money. This means that there should a bettor who is willing to take the risk of losing his money if he chooses the wrong options or winning more money if he makes the right decision. But in the case of  Is Deal or No Deal participants don't place bets with their money, so its not gambling.

[Agbamoni]

It is gambling. Gambling is all about risk. You don't have to risk your own personal money before it should be called gambling. As long as something of worth was risked, then it is called gambling. It can also be someone else's money. In this case, people were invited to come and play a game. By so doing, they were given a choice to quit or gamble with the amount for a bigger win. This simple act makes it gambling.

[alastantiger]

He said this is what differentiates it from gambling substantially but I on the other hands believe that this DOND game shares same psychological elements with gambling such as the taking of high risks, chasing of higher rewards and making decisions under uncertainty. I believe these are the major things that define gambling. But this is just my opinion, I would like to hear from you, what's your own opinion when it comes to this game?

It is a game show but also a form of gambling, there are many games like this and they portray their self as family game but the main ideology around the games is based on gambling and that is why we have a high rise of gambling on the younger age citizens rising across the nation because lots of family watch this game shows together and the children pick up on the gambling that is being advertised on the game. Deal or no deal gives the player an opportunity to take a deal or gamble on future promises which is exactly how gambling works hence you can say it's gambling but the only thing here is that the organizers of the show are using the idea of a game show to cover up the gambling intentions behind the program.

[jossiel]

I believe these are the major things that define gambling. But this is just my opinion, I would like to hear from you, what's your own opinion when it comes to this game?

I also think that's a gamble based on those factors that you've said.

A chance of winning higher reward and you'll have to put risk in order for you to win that means that you're already gambling.

IMO, any game that has a way of risking money is already a gamble. No need to have that debate whether it's just all for a show or a gamble because it actually is.

[Japinat]

I do not see it as gambling. Although this is still a game of chance and people are after the prize, but they don't pay the game or buy ticket to make an entry, so they have nothing to lose financially even if they won't win in the game.

Any activity that does not require money for us to play, that is not considered gambling, even if there are chances and prizes at stake.

[Maslate]

Just a pure game show, it becomes more interesting because the players are up for a prize, something that they don't have to pay in the first place.

However, it can only be considered as gambling if players are obliged to pay first so they can participate, but I don't think that's a requirement to be able to join in the show. Once you're invited to join, without no money involved, you are entitled immediately to be one of those benefactors of the prize at stake as long as you win the game. If not, better luck next time.

[JunaidAzizi]

Well, I think that both you and your friend are right in their own ways. The DOND is using the psychology of gambling, but you can't call it gambling because we would consider it gambling if the contestants paid to play and risked their own money to win something of higher value. In this game, the contestants are selected for the show, and they don't have to pay, nor do they have to pay the show if they win. However, if we look closely, there is greed, high risk, and a release of dopamine, which indicates that it resembles gambling. But it's not gambling, in fact, it is just designed to look like it and nothing else.

[Finestream]

Are people losing their money from this certain game? I guess what they only lose are the chances and probability to win, but they have not lose any amount of their money. So this is not associated with gambling, everything we have seen here is just a pure game show that is full of thrill and excitement.

Now, if you are seeing this game as gambling, that could also be your personal point of view. But for me, to gamble is to lose your personal money, but here we don't lose any amount from our own pockets. We just don't win the prize.

[AYOBA]

Since the emotional factor involved in gambling is present, the behavioral patterns and risk management loop that's involved in high stakes gambling is also evident, I could consider it as gambling no matter how beautifully they try to paint it.
The risk and reward tensions is there, and if course a player has to experience the thrill and excitement too that such games just as gambling, offers.

No matter how the gambling pay goes i will never allow myself to get into it deeply because that is what lead a lots of people’s to get into the gambling addiction quickly, and what make most of the people involved their self into gambling nowadays it because they notice that so many earn huge amounts of money from the gambling; whereby they forget that this same gambling is involved so many risk factors; the high the win the higher the lose that’s all about gambling.

[Hazink]

That's not gambling as far as I'm concerned. What I consider to be gambling is when money is actually being staked, but in this situation, it's a game where you try your luck without actually risking your own money and if you are lucky enough, you move out with free money that's not what gambling is about, they share a little bit of similarities, but it's not really gambling.

[Oasisman]

When I had this discussion with my friend, it almost turned into an argument, he said it is not a gambling game and just a pure game show since it does not involve the player staking any money.

Your friend is not wrong. The primary definition of gambling is when a player spends money to stake/place bet on something, in this case, on the box. DOND is just a game show, but you're also right, the way it was designed is just like gambling, because there is risk involved. However, the player won't gonna lose anything even if they don't take the banker's offer (higher) and open a box with the lowest amount. So, on the player's end, they have nothing to lose, they just need to maximize their potential winning amount, and that is the only thing that needs to be done there, not much of a pressure in contrast when you're actually placing money to bet on that box.

IMO, it is not gambling. Though some small elements mimic gambling, but in this case, the player has nothing to lose.

[Cantsay]

I have seen people argue that those prediction sites which allow people to make predictions without having to risk their money are not qualified to be called a gambling platform. So, if I should work with that same logic, then it would be okay to say that this Deal or No Deal isn't necessarily a gambling game, it should be a game show.

If the participants happen to pay a certain amount to procure those boxes that they eventually have to either keep or convince their opponent to switch with them, maybe we could then consider it as gambling, then,

[Sanitough]

Luck is there, chances are there, but I cannot link it to gambling. Certainly because we don't get to risk our hard earned money, but there is huge amount of cash prizes that we will win if we are lucky and smart enough to answer all those questions.

And just because emotions are high due to uncontrollable excitement for player and even the audience, still that is not considered gambling. The very main reason that we don't lose a dime, that is enough to say that there is no small portion of gambling involved in this particular game show.

[Odusko]

We can't really call that gambling even though that game is closely related to gambling because of the way and manner that their outcomes become sometimes, why we can't refer to them as a gambling game's us because participants are not betting with they own money, but the money of the house and some of the games are based on intellectual reasoning to win them.

[Orpichukwu]

My definition of gambling is that the individual would have placed a bet using his money with the aim of winning more money. This means that there should a bettor who is willing to take the risk of losing his money if he chooses the wrong options or winning more money if he makes the right decision. But in the case of  Is Deal or No Deal participants don't place bets with their money, so its not gambling.

In this game, you don’t start it with money, which is correct, but when you are playing it, you get to a stage where you need to decide to take the risk of trading your box for money or remain with the box and keep on playing, which that part of the game involves risk and luck, which could can make some people to conveniently regard it as gambling.

[alani123]

Deal or no deal is a game of chance but it's kind of skewed towards the player because you always have a lifeline to win something with nothing through the banker. The banker offer is historically better than the average suitcase of the player because to them.good TV matters more than being cheap on the offers based purely on chance.

So really it's something that if compared to gambling had a positive EV whereas gambling has an edge against the player at all times.

[freedomgo]

I don't consider it as gambling but a show of giveaway that you must participate in a game of try your luck to make it look funky and attract more people to it.

I believe that there must be a sponsor and the participants don't have to pay a dime to partake in the game which means that they have nothing to lose therefore, I don't see it as gambling.

Simply put, if these people are not losing what they have to lose, then obviously this is not gambling. Gambling is often recognized with consistent losses and few wins, but here they have nothing to lose, only their chances to hit the goal prizes, nothing more.

With gambling, you will go home sad and devastated if you did not win, but with Deal or no Deal, you enjoy the game and has even got consolation prizes, so definitely this has nothing to do with gambling.

[EluguHcman]

I don't see such nature of events as gambling and it is not every events that has a pay of prize for the participants does not really mean it is a gambling event.
Of course there is are shows like that you have just illustrated which are just pure entertainments.

If you are not still convinced with my opinion then you should ask yourself if are those footballers that participants in the football matches gambling in the event of the match or tournament. Of course not and that is just similar to this so Deal or No Deal game you have explained.

[Vaculin]

Not everything that is played by luck is already considered gambling. Luck and chances are part of different aspects in our life, so we can't really tell that things that involved luck and chances are automatically seen as gambling, although life itself could somehow be called as gambling.

Deal or No Deal does not show or require deposits to play, in fact they even pay their participants with little token just to have them in their show. So its the opposite way around, the people do not play to pay, but the show organizers pay the participants instead especially if they hire VIPs to play.