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

[Sonia_123]

This is likewise a bet but in different way, since it has almost all the features of gambling then it is gambling.

Money, wins and losses are involved and remember that gambling has to do with all these which their actions are gaining attention which means they are having fun and if you look at this properly the persons involved are having their fun and at the same time entertaining others and we all know that gambling is all about having fund and entertainment therefore I see it as pure gambling.

[danherbias07]

Kind of. But I believe it's not because no money was staked.

It's a game. Although there's a sense that it is gambling because you are making a choice that would make you win or lose. But in my own opinion, it is not gambling because even if you lose, nothing was taken away from you. Just the chance to make some easy money through a game show that offers it. We cannot even compare it to a lottery because you buy tickets there. So somehow, you will still lose something even if it's a small price. That's the rule. It's gambling if we are staking something.

[Hispo]

I think those kind of games in which those contestants do not necessarily have a stake of money, but still have a chance to win a significant amount of money could be classified as pseudo-gambling or quasi-gambling. The only thing which separates it from gambling is the fact they do not need to pay anything in order to participate, but they need to invest some of their time and also be in front of a camara, so the hosts of the show can make money off of all of it...

By definition, it is not gambling, but it is pretty close.

[STT]

Legally it wont be classed as gambling but psychologically yes its all about that kind of unknown risk to reward type gamble.   I consider gambling a normal human event we take a chance on all sorts of things and I think that's why its instinctive and in built compelling hence why this gameshow went around the world successfully, they know what they are doing but would never label it so plainly and get peoples back up about it.

[rbynxx]

I recently bumped into watching the Deal or No Deal in the BBC Brits channel at my friend's house and it got me thinking whether it should be classified as a gambling game or not because the contestants do not place bets with their own money but the entire game revolves around chances, risks and deciding whether to accept the banker's offer or continue with playing the game hoping for a bigger prize. 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. 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 was meant for entertainment because people are selected to participate in it with no money involved. I think your friend was right because it was really for entertainment that was brought by the game show, and even if it has some elements of gambling, it doesn't mean it was gambling. Can you say that head and tail selection to start a match is gambling when, in fact, it was just to select who gets to start first?

[Achalugo BTC]

It was meant for entertainment because people are selected to participate in it with no money involved. I think your friend was right because it was really for entertainment that was brought by the game show, and even if it has some elements of gambling, it doesn't mean it was gambling. Can you say that head and tail selection to start a match is gambling when, in fact, it was just to select who gets to start first?

Well, you might be right, as the game show has now turn to gambling and it seems that people are really enjoying it to be what it is now because they don't treat it like a fun anymore, they preferred it to be a source of income of them, even though they are aware of the risks involved and also know that the chances of losing are pretty much that winning, yet, they won't relent as they have made up their minds to make money out it, despite that its still important for gamblers to always do the necessary thing, as its the only means they can experience peace.

[iv4n]

For us, who watch it's a show, but those who are playing the game are gambling... A lot of people in the thread wrote that there is no stake, but the moment the banker gives you an offer, that offer is your stake. You can take the money & run, or you can gamble to win more... and this game of picking boxes is all about luck. If you are lucky enough, you will remove blue boxes and low red ones... the banker will give you a good offer. At the same time, if you believe that you picked the jackpot box, you can go all the way. And every time the banker will offer a higher amount, and you will have to gamble and make a final decision...

[Julien_Olynpic]

The situation here is very simple, and previous users have rightly noted that the game in question cannot be considered gambling, as participants do not bet their own money. However, there is a certain imitation of gambling here for the simple reason that certain elements of gambling are present. These elements include trying to predict the outcome, weighing the odds, and a sense of tense anticipation associated with the possibility of winning or losing. This is disorienting and makes one believe it's gambling. But in reality, it's just a show.

[davis196]

I recently bumped into watching the Deal or No Deal in the BBC Brits channel at my friend's house and it got me thinking whether it should be classified as a gambling game or not because the contestants do not place bets with their own money but the entire game revolves around chances, risks and deciding whether to accept the banker's offer or continue with playing the game hoping for a bigger prize. 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. 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?

Deal or No Deal is definitely not gambling, since nobody is placing any bets. However, this is a luck-based game, where the participants have to decide whether to take the risk(open the last box) or hedge the risk(take the deal with the "banker", before opening the last box). This is a game mechanic, which can be somewhat related to gambling. I do remember that someone tried to make an online gambling version of the Deal or No Deal game, where the online players had to stake money in order to play the game. Of course, that particular online project was a failure, because everyone would believe that the game is rigged and the randomness of the boxes cannot be verified.

[Cointxz]

I recently bumped into watching the Deal or No Deal in the BBC Brits channel at my friend's house and it got me thinking whether it should be classified as a gambling game or not because the contestants do not place bets with their own money but the entire game revolves around chances, risks and deciding whether to accept the banker's offer or continue with playing the game hoping for a bigger prize.

The one on the tv is plain game show not gambling as you already pointed out that they not risking money rather just playing for entertainment for a chance to win without any risk. Gambling always involves risk hence by the definition by the word gambling itself.

However, there’s an actual gambling game for Deal or no Deal which you can play on Evolution gaming live games.

You can browse here: https://games.evolution.com/

[Sim_card]

In as much money is not placed to bet. People can actually get addicted to it.

I don't understand how can one get addicted to it when you don't have the opportunity to be in the show all the time. It's only what you have easy access to and can afford it that can make you addicted and not a game that it can be once opportunity in a lifetime because I don't think the game is only for some particular participants to continue participating in it. It's just like who wants to be a millionaire that you strive hard to get selected.

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

In as much money is not placed to bet. People can actually get addicted to it.

I don't understand how can one get addicted to it when you don't have the opportunity to be in the show all the time. It's only what you have easy access to and can afford it that can make you addicted and not a game that it can be once opportunity in a lifetime because I don't think the game is only for some particular participants to continue participating in it. It's just like who wants to be a millionaire that you strive hard to get selected.

I can't recall though, but there could be casino slots games that I might have seen before. And it's on the arcade as well, so in order to play this game you have to insert some money on it and play.

So that could be seen as gambling per se, not directly, but if it involves money then it could be seen as gambling. Same with the game of "Monopoly", this used to be a child board game but now it turns out to be so addicting playing it with the slot version.

Anything could be in the beginning could be perceived as non gambling until someone entities turn it into one.

[PostQuantumBTC]

For us, who watch it's a show, but those who are playing the game are gambling... A lot of people in the thread wrote that there is no stake, but the moment the banker gives you an offer, that offer is your stake. You can take the money & run, or you can gamble to win more... and this game of picking boxes is all about luck. If you are lucky enough, you will remove blue boxes and low red ones... the banker will give you a good offer. At the same time, if you believe that you picked the jackpot box, you can go all the way. And every time the banker will offer a higher amount, and you will have to gamble and make a final decision...

You have a very good point, the person do not started with money, but as the first box is opened, the person can walk away with money, if the person continues, he has started gambling. But some people will still argue that it is not gambling just because the person did not use money at all in the show to start, but to me you are more right, it started not as gambling, but later it turned to gambling.

[The Founding Titan]

This is probably where we start to wonder if there is a difference between betting and gambling because while ot an extent you can call it gambling, deciding to not call it a bet might not be the correct decision to make but then if it's a bet then how is it not gambling.
I would just say that there are different forms of gambling, you don't have to stake money first for what you are doing to be called gambling, we should also consider other parameters when deciding on whether we can call something gambling or not.

[Rubuchi]

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.

why I argue that it looks more of a gambling to me is owing to the fact that despite that the said participants are not made to pay any amount of money to be qualified, you cannot say they did not invest in this show themselves, indirectly. Because before they came to the show, they had to spend money for transport and logistics, invited a few of their family members who came to support physically and emotionally and also encouraged their supporters to watch the game. I don't know how the selection process is in depth and I'm not sure if there are some financial commitments in the process to whether it is directly or not. So if we look at it in that direction, we should be able to say that the participants also have something to lose financially and emotionally which sometimes the emotional and mental pain costs more than the money invested.

[Taskford]

I recently bumped into watching the Deal or No Deal in the BBC Brits channel at my friend's house and it got me thinking whether it should be classified as a gambling game or not because the contestants do not place bets with their own money but the entire game revolves around chances, risks and deciding whether to accept the banker's offer or continue with playing the game hoping for a bigger prize. 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. 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?

Got your point towards how you classify that gameshow, but for me I don't think they are can be called as gambling. Because players or their contestant didn't risk any money by participating on that show. If the contestant is spending money and have chance to lose then maybe with that we can agree that its a gambling.

In legal sense its a gameshow, but their concept is same like as gambling. This is why people feel some sort of excitement feeling or even they are tense when the briefcase picked by players is about to open then see the amount inside.

[DPHOR]

For me I must say that whatever that involves uncertainty of an event or results is always known as gambling.
Gambling is what you either put money or not but are hoping for a certain results that would likely come out and this involving either the person winning or not.
Whatever you place, it may involved money or not but at the end are expecting a specific results which happens to be either 1 or 0 is. In as much winning is involved then it is gambling.

[Fortify]

I recently bumped into watching the Deal or No Deal in the BBC Brits channel at my friend's house and it got me thinking whether it should be classified as a gambling game or not because the contestants do not place bets with their own money but the entire game revolves around chances, risks and deciding whether to accept the banker's offer or continue with playing the game hoping for a bigger prize. 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. 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?

Deal or no deal is a game show and it spread worldwide with a version in many countries, it was highly popular in the UK because it is a fairly simple format to follow. If you consider that the contestant doesn't put any money up front, they simply walk away with a prize of differing size regardless, then I wouldn't call it gambling. There is a large element of randomization and it appears the only element they have control over is whether to take an offer at different stages throughout the game. Just because a game involves greed and a decision point on when to cash out does not make it betting. It's like calling the stock market betting, because you buy a share at a certain price after analyzing all available information with the idea that it will go up in price, but then the market takes over which can result in a higher or lower price.

[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.

why I argue that it looks more of a gambling to me is owing to the fact that despite that the said participants are not made to pay any amount of money to be qualified, you cannot say they did not invest in this show themselves, indirectly. Because before they came to the show, they had to spend money for transport and logistics, invited a few of their family members who came to support physically and emotionally and also encouraged their supporters to watch the game. I don't know how the selection process is in depth and I'm not sure if there are some financial commitments in the process to whether it is directly or not. So if we look at it in that direction, we should be able to say that the participants also have something to lose financially and emotionally which sometimes the emotional and mental pain costs more than the money invested.

Now that's a valid point. Money does not have to be involved before it is seen as gamblling like i said before now. Inviting friends and family, including supporters, knowing fully well they have little chance of winning the show is what makes it gambling. I believe they have spent some money as well to fix all things needed for the supporters to be comfortable.

[bitLeap]

I recently bumped into watching the Deal or No Deal in the BBC Brits channel at my friend's house and it got me thinking whether it should be classified as a gambling game or not because the contestants do not place bets with their own money but the entire game revolves around chances, risks and deciding whether to accept the banker's offer or continue with playing the game hoping for a bigger prize. 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. 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?

Gambling involves betting and being wagered, and in the deal or no deal games I've seen, participants initially don't spend a penny. So in my opinion I prefer to call this game 50% gambling and 50% not, because participants rely solely on knowledge, and there's a process that mimics gambling, such as the offer to double their winnings.