DOCSLIB.ORG

MAR, 2019 (3/4/2019 - 3/10/2019) Date Updated:2/5/2019 4:39:43 PM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MAR, 2019 (3/4/2019 - 3/10/2019) Date Updated:2/5/2019 4:39:43 PM MONTHLY GRID (US PROGRAMMING) - MAR, 2019 (3/4/2019 - 3/10/2019) Date Updated:2/5/2019 4:39:43 PM MON (3/4/2019) TUE (3/5/2019) WED (3/6/2019) THU (3/7/2019) FRI (3/8/2019) SAT (3/9/2019) SUN (3/10/2019) 05:00A 05:00 AM WORLDWIDE EXCHANGE 05:00 AM WORLDWIDE EXCHANGE 05:00 AM WORLDWIDE EXCHANGE 05:00 AM WORLDWIDE EXCHANGE 05:00 AM WORLDWIDE EXCHANGE 05:00 AM AMERICAN GREED 43A - 05:00 AM THE PROFIT #606 - 05:00A (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) THE FRAUDSTER, THE EX- JACKIE'S COOKIE CONNECTION 05:30 AM ON THE MONEY 05:30A CNPFT10606KH 05:30A CNOTM03099H 06:00A 06:00 AM SQUAWK BOX (2 LINE 06:00 AM SQUAWK BOX (2 LINE 06:00 AM SQUAWK BOX (2 LINE 06:00 AM SQUAWK BOX (2 LINE 06:00 AM SQUAWK BOX (2 LINE 06:00 AM OPTIONS ACTION (2 LINE 06:00 AM OPTIONS ACTION (2 LINE 06:00A TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/NO BUGSTACK) TICKER/NO BUGSTACK) 06:30A 06:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 06:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 06:30A 07:00A 07:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 07:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 07:00A 07:30A 07:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 07:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 07:30A 08:00A 08:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 08:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 08:00A 08:30A 08:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 08:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 08:30A 09:00A 09:00 AM SQUAWK ON THE STREET 09:00 AM SQUAWK ON THE STREET 09:00 AM SQUAWK ON THE STREET 09:00 AM SQUAWK ON THE STREET 09:00 AM SQUAWK ON THE STREET 09:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 09:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 09:00A (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) (2 LINE TICKER/BUGSTACK) 09:30A 09:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 09:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 09:30A 10:00A 10:00 AM Premier League [3-9-19] 10:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 10:00A 10:30A 10:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 10:30A 11:00A 11:00 AM SQUAWK ALLEY (2 LINE 11:00 AM SQUAWK ALLEY (2 LINE 11:00 AM SQUAWK ALLEY (2 LINE 11:00 AM SQUAWK ALLEY (2 LINE 11:00 AM SQUAWK ALLEY (2 LINE 11:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 11:00A TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) 11:30A 11:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 11:30A 12:00P 12:00 PM FAST MONEY HALFTIME 12:00 PM FAST MONEY HALFTIME 12:00 PM FAST MONEY HALFTIME 12:00 PM FAST MONEY HALFTIME 12:00 PM FAST MONEY HALFTIME 12:00 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 12:00 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 12:00P REPORT (2 LINE REPORT (2 LINE REPORT (2 LINE REPORT (2 LINE REPORT (2 LINE 12:30 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 12:30 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 12:30P TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) 12:30P 01:00P 01:00 PM THE EXCHANGE (2 LINE 01:00 PM THE EXCHANGE (2 LINE 01:00 PM THE EXCHANGE (2 LINE 01:00 PM THE EXCHANGE (2 LINE 01:00 PM THE EXCHANGE (2 LINE 01:00 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 01:00 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 01:00P TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) 01:30P 01:30 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 01:30 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 01:30P 02:00P 02:00 PM POWER LUNCH (2 LINE 02:00 PM POWER LUNCH (2 LINE 02:00 PM POWER LUNCH (2 LINE 02:00 PM POWER LUNCH (2 LINE 02:00 PM POWER LUNCH (2 LINE 02:00 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00P TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) 02:30P 02:30 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30P 03:00P 03:00 PM CLOSING BELL (2 LINE 03:00 PM CLOSING BELL (2 LINE 03:00 PM CLOSING BELL (2 LINE 03:00 PM CLOSING BELL (2 LINE 03:00 PM CLOSING BELL (2 LINE 03:00 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:00 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:00P TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) 03:30P 03:30 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:30 PM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:30P 04:00P 04:00 PM AMERICAN GREED 161 - 04:00 PM UNDERCOVER BOSS #709 - 04:00P OPERATION CROOK, LINE AND HAMBURGER MARY'S (PRIME TIME 04:30P STINKER (PRIME TIME BUG) BUG) CNUCB0709NKH 04:30P 05:00P 05:00 PM FAST MONEY (2 LINE 05:00 PM FAST MONEY (2 LINE 05:00 PM FAST MONEY (2 LINE 05:00 PM FAST MONEY (2 LINE 05:00 PM FAST MONEY (2 LINE 05:00 PM AMERICAN GREED 164 - 05:00 PM UNDERCOVER BOSS #302 - 05:00P TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) ONLINE DATING TRAP (PRIME TIME DWYER GROUP (PRIME TIME BUG) 05:30 PM OPTIONS ACTION (2 LINE 05:30P BUG) CNAMG16400KH CNUCB0302NKH 05:30P TICKER/NO BUGSTACK) 06:00P 06:00 PM MAD MONEY W/ JIM 06:00 PM MAD MONEY W/ JIM 06:00 PM MAD MONEY W/ JIM 06:00 PM MAD MONEY W/ JIM 06:00 PM MAD MONEY W/ JIM 06:00 PM AMERICAN GREED 167 - 06:00 PM UNDERCOVER BOSS #903 - 06:00P CRAMER (2 LINE TICKER/NO CRAMER (2 LINE TICKER/NO CRAMER (2 LINE TICKER/NO CRAMER (2 LINE TICKER/NO CRAMER (2 LINE TICKER/NO SOMETHING'S FISHY: THE JEWEL (PRIME TIME BUG) 06:30P BUGSTACK) CNMAD03049H BUGSTACK) CNMAD03059H BUGSTACK) CNMAD03069H BUGSTACK) CNMAD03079H BUGSTACK) CNMAD03089H CODFATHER (PRIME TIME BUG) CNUCB0903NK1H 06:30P 07:00P 07:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #504 - 07:00 PM SHARK TANK #411 07:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #511 - 07:00 PM SHARK TANK #709 (PRIME 07:00 PM SHARK TANK #526 (PRIME 07:00 PM AMERICAN GREED 170 - 07:00 PM UNDERCOVER BOSS #507 - 07:00P $5 REDEMPTION (PRIME TIME BUG) CNSHK0411SKH SMALL TOWN, BIG DREAMS (PRIME TIME BUG) CNSHK0709SKH TIME BUG) CNSHK0526SKH FROM BOUNCER TO MILLIONAIRE FAMILY DOLLAR (PRIME TIME BUG) 07:30P CNDND10504K2H TIME BUG) CNDND10511KH FRAUDSTER (PRIME TIME BUG) CNUCB0507NKH 07:30P 08:00P 08:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #512 - 08:00 PM SHARK TANK #621 08:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #517 08:00 PM SHARK TANK #621 (PRIME 08:00 PM SHARK TANK #711 (PRIME 08:00 PM AMERICAN GREED 153 - 08:00 PM UNDERCOVER BOSS #803 - 08:00P MY BIG FAT GREEK GAME SHOW CNSHK0621SK1H (PRIME TIME BUG) CNDND10517KH TIME BUG) CNSHK0621SK1H TIME BUG) CNSHK0711SKH MURDEROUS PLOT MEETS REALITY TACO BUENO (PRIME TIME BUG) 08:30P (PRIME TIME BUG) CNDND10512K1H TV (PRIME TIME BUG) CNUCB0803NKH 08:30P 09:00P 09:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #508 - 09:00 PM SHARK TANK #909 (PRIME 09:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #518 09:00 PM SHARK TANK #804 (PRIME 09:00 PM SHARK TANK #816 (PRIME 09:00 PM AMERICAN GREED 156 - 09:00 PM UNDERCOVER BOSS #413 - 09:00P SOUTHERN CHARM (1 LINE TICKER) TIME BUG) CNSHK0909SKH (PRIME TIME BUG) CNDND10518KH TIME BUG) CNSHK0804SKH TIME BUG) CNSHK0816SKH CONN'S JOB (PRIME TIME BUG) FATBURGER (PRIME TIME BUG) 09:30P CNDND10508KH CNAMG15600K1H CNUCB0413NKH 09:30P 10:00P 10:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #503 - 10:00 PM THE PROFIT #609 - (PRIME 10:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #514 - 10:00 PM SHARK TANK #814 (PRIME 10:00 PM SHARK TANK #401 (PRIME 10:00 PM AMERICAN GREED 159 - 10:00 PM UNDERCOVER BOSS #613 - 10:00P THERE'S SNOW PLACE LIKE HOME TIME BUG) CNPFT10609PKH HEAD OVER HEELS (PRIME TIME TIME BUG) CNSHK0814SKH TIME BUG) CNSHK0401SK1H BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD GOES VIVINT (PRIME TIME BUG) 10:30P CNDND10503K1H BUG) CNDND10514KH VIRAL (PRIME TIME BUG) CNUCB0613NKH 10:30P 11:00P 11:00 PM THE PROFIT #608 - FEAT 11:00 PM THE PROFIT #513 - 11:00 PM DEAL OR NO DEAL #517 11:00 PM SHARK TANK #526 (PRIME 11:00 PM SHARK TANK #627 (PRIME 11:00 PM AMERICAN GREED 162 - 11:00 PM UNDERCOVER BOSS #512 - 11:00P SOCKS (PRIME TIME BUG) ELLISON EYEWEAR (PRIME TIME (PRIME TIME BUG) CNDND10517KH TIME BUG) CNSHK0526SKH TIME BUG) CNSHK0627SK1H ARTISTIC LICENSE TO STEAL HUDSON GROUP (PRIME TIME BUG) 11:30P CNPFT10608PKH BUG) CNPFT10513KH (PRIME TIME BUG) CNUCB0512NKH 11:30P 12:00A 12:00 AM THE PROFIT #607 - LYLES 12:00 AM THE PROFIT #403 - THE 12:00 AM DEAL OR NO DEAL #518 12:00 AM SHARK TANK #619 (PRIME 12:00 AM SHARK TANK #715 (PRIME 12:00 AM AMERICAN GREED 165 - 12:00 AM UNDERCOVER BOSS #302 - 12:00A BBQ (PRIME TIME BUG) SOUP MARKET CNPFT10403KH (PRIME TIME BUG) CNDND10518KH TIME BUG) CNSHK0619SK1H TIME BUG) CNSHK0715SKH AN UNGODLY SCAMMER (PRIME DWYER GROUP (PRIME TIME BUG) 12:30A CNPFT10607PKH TIME BUG) CNAMG16500K1H CNUCB0302NKH 12:30A 01:00A 01:00 AM THE PROFIT #606 - 01:00 AM THE PROFIT #609 - (PRIME 01:00 AM DEAL OR NO DEAL #513 - 01:00 AM SHARK TANK #709 (PRIME 01:00 AM SHARK TANK #512 (PRIME 01:00 AM AMERICAN GREED 168 - 01:00 AM UNDERCOVER BOSS #709 - 01:00A JACKIE'S COOKIE CONNECTION TIME BUG) CNPFT10609PKH FATHER KNOWS BEST (PRIME TIME TIME BUG) CNSHK0709SKH TIME BUG) CNSHK0512SK1H SCAMS ON FILM//GOD AND GOLD HAMBURGER MARY'S (PRIME TIME 01:30A (PRIME TIME BUG) CNPFT10606KH BUG) CNDND10513KH (PRIME TIME BUG) BUG) CNUCB0709NKH 01:30A 02:00A 02:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:00A 02:30A 02:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 02:30A 03:00A 03:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:00 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:00 AM THE PROFIT #609 - (PRIME 03:00 AM THE PROFIT #101 - CAR 03:00A TIME BUG) CNPFT10609PKH CASH (PRIME TIME BUG) 03:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:30 AM PAID PROGRAMMING 03:30A CNPFT10101K2H 03:30A 04:00A 04:00 AM STREET SIGNS (2 LINE 04:00 AM STREET SIGNS (2 LINE 04:00 AM STREET SIGNS (2 LINE 04:00 AM STREET SIGNS (2 LINE 04:00 AM AMERICAN GREED 10 - 04:00 AM THE PROFIT #605 - AFTER 04:00 AM STREET SIGNS (2 LINE 04:00A TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) TICKER/BUGSTACK) STEALING $$$ FROM THE CASERY (PRIME TIME BUG) TICKER/BUGSTACK) 04:30A SCIENTOLOGISTS | THE ART OF CNPFT10605KH 04:30A 2/5/2019 4:45:33 PM Page 1 of 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dealing with Metaphysical Evil: the Banker As Evil Genius in the British Game Show Deal Or No Deal
    Dealing with Metaphysical Evil: The Banker as Evil Genius in the British Game Show Deal or No Deal Melissa Dearey It would appear that evil is becoming more, not less, conspicuous in contemporary social discourses as a conceptual resource for explaining the derivation of social harms emanating from human (in)action and exculpating the failures of institutional or regulatory agencies to prevent them. Metaphysical evil is increasingly cited in a range of popular and official explanations of social harms resulting from moral failures at the individual and collective level. By ‘metaphysical evil’ I mean evil of a transcendent, demonic nature reflecting the seductive, cruel and wicked aspects of pure malice directed at ‘innocent’, unsuspecting or hapless humans that has been traditionally personified in a monstrous or Satanic figure of myth and/or the presence of a seducer implied by the Gnostic traditions and the theodicy, as well as within rationalist Cartesian epistemology. This type of evil is to be distinguished from the physical evil unleashed by, for instance, disease or natural disasters, or the humanist designation of moral evil delimited to the observation of socio-ethical-legal codes of behaviour as represented in the deontological ethics of Kant, specifically his concept of ‘radical evil’ ([1793] 1960). Kant's reconceptualisation of evil as ‘radical’, that is as ‘rooted’ in the human character and the result of the failure of all human beings to live up to their duties according to the norms of moral law, was intended among other things to do away with what he considered the failure of theodicy in general and its notional acceptance of evil as a metaphysical reality in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Personal Characteristics and Reference Dependence in Risky Decision-Making for a High-Stakes Game Show
    Name: Robin Rietveldt Student Number: 329975 Date: 27/06/2012 The influence of personal characteristics and reference dependence in risky decision-making for a high-stakes game show By Robin Rietveldt Erasmus University, Erasmus School of Economics _____________________________________________________________________ Abstract This paper takes a look at the decision-making of contestants in the game show “De Postcode Loterij Miljoenenjacht”, the format that is also known as “Deal or No Deal” in countries outside The Netherlands. I have sampled 41 episodes looking for differences in decision-making caused by gender and age. No significant effects were found but this might be related to the fact that the semi final has characteristics of a “selection round”. In addition I looked for signs of reference dependence in the data. The data showed “Winners” and “Losers” were less likely to deal compared to their “Neutral” counterparts. This proves that the course of the game is relevant to what decision a contestant will make at the end of the round. My theory for “Winners” not only includes effects of reference dependence but also the overvaluation of small probabilities. Keywords Decision making under risk; game show; risk preferences; risk aversion; prospect theory; deal or no deal _____________________________________________________________________ Introduction If I look back on the three years of economics education and have to name one core concept of the program that was of most importance it would be decision-making. Whether it was deciding what investment to pursue, what product to buy in the market or how to decide in games according to game theory. But knowing how to optimally decide, or decide rationally, isn’t everything.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Deal Or No Deal Cheating Its Contestants?
    OC TM Is Deal or No Deal Cheating Its Contestants? Daniel R. Shifflet, Bowling Green State University As fans of fair contests, we are lead to believe that game shows proceed with mathematical consistency. However, a slight anomaly in this basic assumption can be found while watching the game play of Deal or No Deal. During certain situations it seems like the show is cheating its contestants. Could any mathematician let this question go without further analysis? Of course not! So began an investigation into our hypothesis. Using simple statistical notions like expected value and linear regression, we show how to isolate this math- ematical irregularity and provide some evidence of its existence. What does this mean? Is foul play afoot? Read on to fi nd out. Introduction to open it. Th e amount within will be his In December 2005 a new prime time prize should he refuse all off ers by the Banker game show debuted on TV. Titled Deal or to buy the case. No Deal, the contest with mathematical What follows next is a series of rounds implications soon piqued my interests. After where the contestant chooses to open a a few viewings, I noticed a fairly dependable predetermined number of cases in play, pattern in the game play. However, I soon revealing monetary amounts that are then witnessed an episode that seemed to deviate taken out of play. At the end of each greatly from this path. How could a contest round, the Banker makes an off er to buy with thousands of dollars at stake, rooted in the contestant’s case based (somehow) on a gambling scenario, be allowed to proceed the average of the values still known to be in if it lacked mathematical consistency? In a play (the expected value of the game at that sense, it seemed that the show was “cheating” point).
    [Show full text]
  • Time Varying Risk Aversion∗
    June 2017 Time Varying Risk Aversion∗ Luigi Guiso EIEF & CEPR Paola Sapienza Northwestern University, NBER, & CEPR Luigi Zingales University of Chicago, NBER, & CEPR Abstract Exploiting portfolio data and repeated surveys of an Italian bank’s clients we test whether investors’ risk aversion increases following the 2008 crisis. We find that, after the crisis, both qualitative and quantitative measures of risk aversion increase substantially and that affected individuals divest more from stock. We investigate four explanations: changes in wealth, expected income, perceived probabilities, and emotion-based changes of the utility function. Our data are inconsistent with the first two channels, while they suggest that fear is a potential mechanism underlying financial decisions, whether by increasing the curvature of the utility function or the salience of negative outcomes. ∗ We thank Nick Barberis, John Campbell, John Cochrane, James Dow, Stefan Nagel, Andrei Shleifer, Ivo Welch, Jeffrey Wurgler and an anonymous referee for very helpful comments. We also benefited from comments from participants at seminars the University of Chicago Booth, Boston College, University of Minnesota, University of Michigan, Hong Kong University, London Business School, Statistics Norway, The European Central Bank, University of Maastricht, Warwick University, University of Montreal, the 2011 European Financial Association Meetings, the 2012 European Economic Association Meetings, the April 2013 NBER Behavioral Finance Meeting, UCLA behavioral finance association, Stanford University. Luigi Guiso gratefully acknowledges financial support from PEGGED, Paola Sapienza from the Zell Center for Risk and Research at Kellogg School of Management, and Luigi Zingales from the Stigler Center and the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision-Making Under Risk in a Large Payoff Game Show
    TI 2006-009/2 Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Deal or No Deal? Decision-making under Risk in a Large Payoff Game Show Thierry Post* Guido Baltussen* Martijn Van den Assem Facuulty of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam. * Tinbergen Institute. Tinbergen Institute The Tinbergen Institute is the institute for economic research of the Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Tinbergen Institute Amsterdam Roetersstraat 31 1018 WB Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)20 551 3500 Fax: +31(0)20 551 3555 Tinbergen Institute Rotterdam Burg. Oudlaan 50 3062 PA Rotterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)10 408 8900 Fax: +31(0)10 408 9031 Please send questions and/or remarks of non- scientific nature to [email protected]. Most TI discussion papers can be downloaded at http://www.tinbergen.nl. Deal or No Deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show Thierry Post* Guido Baltussen Martijn Van den Assem Abstract The popular television game show —Deal or No Deal“ offers a unique opportunity for analyzing decision making under risk: it involves very large and wide-ranging stakes, simple stop-go decisions that require minimal skill, knowledge or strategy and near- certainty about the probability distribution. Based on a panel data set of the choices of contestants in all game rounds of 53 episodes from Australia and the Netherlands, we find an average Arrow-Pratt coefficient of relative risk aversion (RRA) between roughly 1 and 2 for initial wealth levels between ⁄0 and ⁄50,000 and assuming full rationality. Risk aversion is lower if we allow for myopic or hyperopic framing.
    [Show full text]
  • Deal Or No Deal? Decision-Making Under Risk in a Large Payoff Game
    TI 2006-009/2 Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Deal or No Deal? Decision-making under Risk in a Large Payoff Game Show Thierry Post* Guido Baltussen* Martijn Van den Assem Facuulty of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam. * Tinbergen Institute. Tinbergen Institute The Tinbergen Institute is the institute for economic research of the Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Tinbergen Institute Amsterdam Roetersstraat 31 1018 WB Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)20 551 3500 Fax: +31(0)20 551 3555 Tinbergen Institute Rotterdam Burg. Oudlaan 50 3062 PA Rotterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)10 408 8900 Fax: +31(0)10 408 9031 Please send questions and/or remarks of non- scientific nature to [email protected]. Most TI discussion papers can be downloaded at http://www.tinbergen.nl. Deal or No Deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show Thierry Post* Guido Baltussen Martijn Van den Assem Abstract The popular television game show —Deal or No Deal“ offers a unique opportunity for analyzing decision making under risk: it involves very large stakes, simple take-or-leave decisions that require minimal skill or strategy and near-certainty about the probability distribution. Based on a panel data set of the choices of contestants in all game rounds of 53 episodes from Australia and the Netherlands, we find an average Pratt-Arrow relative risk aversion (RRA) between roughly 1 and 2 for initial wealth levels between ⁄0 and ⁄50,000. The RRA differs substantially across the contestants and some even exhibit risk seeking behavior. The cross-sectional differences in RRA can be explained in large part by the previous outcomes experienced by the contestants during the game.
    [Show full text]
  • Naïve Advice When Half a Million Is at Stake ☆ ⁎ Ganna Pogrebna
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Economics Letters 98 (2008) 148–154 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Naïve advice when half a million is at stake ☆ ⁎ Ganna Pogrebna University of Bonn, Department of Economics, BWL I, Adenauerallee 24-42, 53113 Bonn, Germany Received 26 April 2006; received in revised form 2 April 2007; accepted 5 April 2007 Available online 24 August 2007 Abstract In the television show Affari Tuoi contestants face decision problems with large monetary payoffs and have an opportunity to seek advice from the audience. It appears that this advice does not have a significant impact on the decisions of contestants. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Advice; Decision making; Television show; Natural experiment JEL classification: C93; D81 1. Introduction Taking and giving advice plays an important role in the life of many people. We seek advice from family, friends or colleagues in different situations. While we particularly value advice given by experts or people, who have experience with making similar choices, we are often guided by “naïve” advisors, who hardly possess more expertise or knowledge than we do (Schotter, 2003). Several studies analyze the impact of advice on individual decision making. Evidence in this field comes primarily from laboratory experiments. Particularly, Schotter (2003) surveys several laboratory studies on advice when nonoverlapping “generations” of subjects play ultimatum and coordination games. In these studies (e.g. Schotter and Sopher, 2004, 2007) subjects often rely on the advice of naïve ☆ I am grateful to Glenn Harrison, Anita Gantner and an anonymous referee for their insightful comments and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Marc Labelle Manager, Corporate Communications Phone: 514 380-4458 Cell: 514 512-4458
    Media contact only: Marc Labelle Manager, Corporate Communications Phone: 514 380-4458 Cell: 514 512-4458 PRESS RELEASE For immediate publication Vidéotron Internet: Now One Million Subscribers Montreal, July 24, 2008 – After announcing last April that the millionth illico digital television receiver had been put on the market, Vidéotron has just crossed another threshold of one million subscribers to cable Internet service, all categories combined. A resident of Montreal’s West Island, is the millionth customer, thus helping Vidéotron hit this new height. “Reaching the million mark of subscribers to our Internet products is truly a sign of trust from our customers,” says Manon Brouillette, Chief Vice-President, Strategic Development and Commerce. “But we are also demonstrating the importance we attach to customer satisfaction by offering a complete range of services tailored to Internet users of all kinds.” With this objective in mind, Vidéotron is engaged in constant development in order to offer the latest sophisticated technology and consolidate its position as the Canadian industry leader. Last February, Vidéotron announced the arrival of TGV 30 and TGV 50 Internet in cooperation with Cisco, once again pushing the speed limits for connectivity in the country. The two new Internet services allow unrivalled downloading times and join the company’s roster of Internet access options, listed below: • TGV 50 Internet: 50 Mbps • TGV 30 Internet: 30 Mbps • Extreme Plus high speed Internet: 20 Mbps • Extreme high speed Internet: 10 Mbps • High speed Internet: 7 Mbps • Intermediary Internet: 600 Kbps Satisfied customers In a Léger Marketing survey conducted last March, nearly 96% of Vidéotron Internet subscribers said they are satisfied with their cable modem Internet service.
    [Show full text]
  • Deal Or No Deal? Decision-Making Under Risk in A
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Erasmus University Digital Repository TI 2006-009/2 Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Deal or No Deal? Decision-making under Risk in a Large Payoff Game Show Thierry Post* Guido Baltussen* Martijn Van den Assem Facuulty of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam. * Tinbergen Institute. Tinbergen Institute The Tinbergen Institute is the institute for economic research of the Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Tinbergen Institute Amsterdam Roetersstraat 31 1018 WB Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)20 551 3500 Fax: +31(0)20 551 3555 Tinbergen Institute Rotterdam Burg. Oudlaan 50 3062 PA Rotterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)10 408 8900 Fax: +31(0)10 408 9031 Please send questions and/or remarks of non- scientific nature to [email protected]. Most TI discussion papers can be downloaded at http://www.tinbergen.nl. Deal or No Deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show Thierry Post* Guido Baltussen Martijn Van den Assem Abstract The popular television game show —Deal or No Deal“ offers a unique opportunity for analyzing decision making under risk: it involves very large stakes, simple take-or-leave decisions that require minimal skill or strategy and near-certainty about the probability distribution. Based on a panel data set of the choices of contestants in all game rounds of 53 episodes from Australia and the Netherlands, we find an average Pratt-Arrow relative risk aversion (RRA) between roughly 1 and 2 for initial wealth levels between ⁄0 and ⁄50,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Iseseisvalt Tegutsevad Robotid Ttüst
    2 (1776) . 29. jaanuar 2010 Tallinna Tehnikaülikooli ajaleht Ilmub reedeti üle nädala Kroonika Loe ... Kultuurkapitali Roboswarm: aastapreemiad TTÜsse • robotid tegutsevad 16. jaanuaril jagati TTÜ raama tu kogus parves Lk 1 Eesti Kultuurkapitali aasta preemiaid, neid andis kätte kul tuu ri minister Laine • Noored pürivad Jänes. Üks aas ta preemia laureaatidest tehnikaõpetajaks Lk 1 oli TTÜ rahvatantsuansambli Kuljus vilist lasrühma juht Ülo Luht kui 2009. a Professor Toomas Rang: üldtantsupeo „Meri“ kunstiline juht. Võta või jäta! Lk 2 • Anto Raukas – 75 Lk 3 • Noored kooli! Ka TTÜst Lk 3 • Energeetikasümpoo­ sionilt Pärnus Lk 3 Avaveerg Pakase vastu innovatsiooniga Jaanuarikuu kujunes Eestis ootama­ Ülo Luht. Foto Olev Mihkelmaa tult pakaseliseks. Kohati langes elav­ hõbeda sammas isegi allapoole 30 Rahvakultuuri sihtkapitali aasta­ Cel sius­kraa di. Aastavahetuse paiku pree mia sai ka TTÜ rahvatantsuansam­ alanud oh ter lumesadu muutis kogu bel Kuljus (kunstiline juht Ma rina Kuz­ Eesti jõu lu kaar ditaoliseks idülliks. netsova) sisuka hooaja ning tantsukultuu­ Teisalt pani see proo vile nii meie ri edendamise ja propageerimise eest. hoo nete sooja süsteemid kui katuste Rahvakultuuri sihtkapitali laure aa­ Iseseisvalt tegutsevad robotid vastupidavuse, ülekütmine tõi kaasa tide hulgas oli ka segakoor Noo rus, mille tulekahjusid ja leidis aset küllap kaud­ peadirigent Raul Talmar on ka TTÜ Aka­ TTÜst selt talvekülma dega seotud gaasiplah­ deemilise Naiskoori peadirigent. vatuski. Taas kord olid Tehnikaüli kooli TTÜ teadlaste juhtimisel on loodud suudab ruumis liikuda ja ko ris tada, turvaseirel näiteks haiglates, näi­ spetsialis tide ekspertarvamused ooda­ • • • süsteem, milles robotid suuda­ ning selle peale ehi tatud keerulisem tustel, lennujaamades, tööstus­ ja tud ning neid võis näha­kuulda­lu geda vad iseseisvalt täita neile antud peremeesrobot, millel on silmad, ärihoonetes.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Formats and Canadian Television: the Case of Deal Or No Deal
    Global Formats and Canadian Television: The Case of Deal or No Deal Ira Wagman Carleton University ABSTRACT This article discusses the circulation of format television, with a particular em - phasis on the Canadian version of the program Deal or No Deal . It argues for the importance of circulation as a concept for understanding the ways in which format television programs— and other forms of popular culture—travel in different cultural contexts. Through the case of Deal we can see how delays, interruptions, re-purposing, and reframing of artifacts are part of the daily rhythms that characterize the circulation of cultural works on a global scale and serve as a possible analytical opening for appreciating the flows of culture that have histori - cally existed between the United States and Canada. KEYWORDS Television; Canada; Circulation; Globalization RÉSUMÉ Cet article examine la circulation des formats télévisés, mettant un accent particulier sur la version canadienne de l’émission Deal or No Deal . Il affirme l’importance de la circulation pour comprendre comment les formats télévisés—et d’autres formes de culture populaire—diffèrent selon le milieu culturel. Avec Deal or No Deal , on peut voir comment les retards, interruptions, adaptations et recadrages font partie intégrante des rythmes quotidiens qui caractérisent la circulation des œuvres culturelles à l’échelle mondiale et offrent une ouverture possible pour l’analyse de ces flux culturels qui ont longtemps existé entre les États-Unis et le Canada. MOTS CLÉS Télévision; Canada; Circulation; Mondialisation he television show Deal or No Deal is a modern-day take on the shell game.
    [Show full text]
  • Deal Or No Deal? Decision-Making Under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Post, Thierry; Baltussen, Guido; van den Assem, Martijn Working Paper Deal or No Deal? Decision-making under Risk in a Large-payoff Game Show Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, No. 06-009/2 Provided in Cooperation with: Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam and Rotterdam Suggested Citation: Post, Thierry; Baltussen, Guido; van den Assem, Martijn (2006) : Deal or No Deal? Decision-making under Risk in a Large-payoff Game Show, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, No. 06-009/2, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam and Rotterdam This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/86601 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu TI 2006-009/2 Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Deal or No Deal? Decision-making under Risk in a Large Payoff Game Show Thierry Post* Guido Baltussen* Martijn Van den Assem Facuulty of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    [Show full text]