Deal or No Deal?

Don't worry, I haven't yet sold out to The Man, so this isn't an advertisement for this awful show (read up if you haven't heard about it). Rather, I wanted to share this video, which is currently making the rounds on the internets.

I'll save you the time of reading the comments on this video from digg, reddit, etc...they basically sum to "OMG that guy is such a fool!!"

Of course, I have to agree. However, I feel that this situation opens up an interesting psychological question. My parents watch Deal or No Deal on occasion, and they always complain of "stupid" people who get "too greedy". I always laugh at this, because due to the nature of the game, you're really being greedy as soon as you eliminate a briefcase. (In fact, this judgment has been passed on many others, e.g., the characters in the movie 21. Some say when viewing the movie, "why didn't they just quit while they were ahead?!?!?")

Allow me to explain: Deal or No Deal is a game of 100% luck. There is absolutely no strategy involved in picking which case you want to be eliminated, nor is there a way to "outsmart" the bank. Interestingly, in my one quick viewing of the show, I thought that the bank offer was a straight average of the remaining cases.
As it turns out, the average is weighted, and as the game progresses, the average approaches the straight average. In other words, the bank will offer a "bad" deal in the beginning of the game, and a relatively "good" deal at the end.

Anyway, back to the story. I always find it funny when people judge the decisions of people on the show, saying something like "I can't believe it! Just take the deal and walk away! You have (insert amount here) already!"

Of course, this is not sound logic. At what point is it silly to not take the deal? Since each deal is worse than a straight average of the remaining cases, is it ever really silly? Of course, the deal is worse because it is a balanced alternative to risk. But I digress- imagine this:

play while cases > 0:
------>if logicalToDeal then return
------>eliminate case x with $y in it. //This raises/lowers my overall average, and thus, my bank deal.

At what point does logicalToDeal become true?
If you imagine playing a game, what determines the value of logicalToDeal?

Probably the only way to play the game is similar to generic smart money strategies: set a limit and stick to it. I will determine a money value X, where X is enough to make the game worthwhile. If I ever get a bank deal >= X, then I will stop playing.

Two things:
1) What is X?
2) What if you never reach X?

#1 is interesting in this case because you cannot lose money in this game. Unlike setting a limit for yourself at a casino, where you really have to set both an upper and lower bound, in Deal or No Deal, the worst that can happen is you walk away with the briefcase with the least amount of money. For sure, that would be a disappointment relative to what you could've won, but nothing truly bad will happen if you play too risky.
(This goes back to the kids in 21- at what point should they just have walked away?)

My overall point is that it is meaningless to simply state that one is a fool for not making a deal, walking away, etc. There is no set point where one path becomes more logical than the other in games like these, so the point where one should give up is mostly arbitrary and personal.

PS: wouldn't it be nice to be a contestant on this show? You don't have to have any intelligence, because there is no possible way to strategize, and you always win money. Sounds awesome!