Well, disaster nicely averted there. Well done Mr 123!

I'd have said No Comment, because I've already dealt.

We'll see about that.

Also, seeing the decisions about swaps made me realize I forgot to put the swap question in. That explains my edit to the Round 6 post! I don't think this affects anyone at all, though.

NO DEAL AND NO SWAP!

If the offer were something odd like £249.99 I would have dealt, but... NO Deal.

DEAL, to ensure something of value out of the game.

£50 is still something.

Just for you, good Sir: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=25015&p=799944#p799944

Yes, £50 is a fair amount of money, but £200 is of more value. To be honest, I'm not really bothered now that I've crashed.

I'm posting this early because I expect to be elsewhere tonight, and I'm going to pose a question to you players. It's low stakes, anyway.

Round 6 results

In live play, opening box 10 (original box)
Archstered
box11
KP *
Skyline

In live play, opening box 21 (swapped box)
American Coupon Boy

Dealt at 8-box for £16,500
JoelDavies

Dealt at 5-box for £16,000
daniel123

Dealt at 2-box for £250
hogwild94

* Assuming No Deal and No Swap.

Here is your fate!



Another poor swap outcome for American Coupon Boy.

Final results
£16,500 (OPW): JoelDavies
£16,000 (TPW): daniel123
£750 (OBW): Archstered, box11, KP, Skyline
£250 (TBW): hogwild94
£50 (OBW): American Coupon Boy

With that, Week 2 is over. Stay tuned for the reveal of the formula, Deal-Eye analysis, and the question to which I alluded!

The Formula
It is calculated to be a percentage of the Fair Deal. Start at 100% and subtract the following values:

• 8% if the £250k is still in play
• 18% if the £250k was taken out in the previous round
• 8% for each non-£250k power 5 figure taken out in the previous round
• 8% for each hobo 5 figure still in play

But add the following values:

• 7% for each hobo 5 figure taken out in the previous round

In addition, to add some variance, a random integer between -3 and 7, inclusive. This is generated via random.org. Whatever is generated, that amount of percentage points is also added to the offer (e.g.., generating 7 means +7% to the percentage, and generating -3 means -3% to the percentage). I thought of this as a "random generosity factor".

Here is how each offer was made:

First offer

• -8%: £250k still in play
• -8%: 1 non-£250k power 5 taken out in previous round
• -40%: 5 hobo 5 still in play
• +7%: random generosity factor

Sum: 51%
Total: £5,593.76, rounded to £5,500.

Second offer

• -8%: £250k still in play
• -8%: 1 non-£250k power 5 taken out in previous round
• -32%: 4 hobo 5 still in play
• +7%: 1 hobo 5 taken out in previous round
• +7%: random generosity factor

Sum: 66%
Total: £7,322.03, rounded to £7,250.

Third offer

• -8%: £250k still in play
• -16%: 2 hobo 5 still in play
• +14%: 2 hobo 5 taken out in previous round
• +4%: random generosity factor

Sum: 94%
Total: £16,365.56, rounded to £16,500.

Fourth offer

• -8%: £250k still in play
• -8%: 1 non-£250k power 5 taken out in previous round
• -8%: 1 hobo 5 still in play
• 7%: 1 hobo 5 taken out in previous round

Sum: 89%
Total: £16,382.72, rounded to £16,500.

Fifth offer

• -8%: £250k still in play
• -8%: 1 non-£250k power 5 taken out in previous round
• +7%: 1 hobo 5 taken out in previous round
• -2%: random generosity factor

Sum: 89%
Total: £15,834.80, rounded to £16,000.

Sixth offer

• -18%: £250k taken out in previous round
• +2%: random generosity factor

Sum: 84%
Total: £249.33, rounded to £250.

I thought this system had some potential. However, I realized a key flaw before I posted the second round: The Fair Deal already takes the power 5 and hobo 5 figures into account, so by lowering for having the £250k or hobo 5 figures in play, I'm essentially hurting you twice. I think putting in some bonuses/penalties for what happened in the previous round has some potential, though. I can easily be wrong with that, but it's what I think.

===

Deal-Eye:



Once again going all the way to the end, and incurring a LOSS if it were playing against daniel123 or JoelDavies, a WIN against American Coupon Boy and hogwild94, and a DRAW against everyone else!

At least this affirms that the final offers were better than the earlier offers.

===

Questions (plural, actually)

I'm thinking of reneging on my "formula only" policy and personally inventing next week's offers. This can come off as being "unfair" since I "know the outcome", but I do that already when I play my own Deal games online because their offers are always horrific. I'll keep to what the offer I made upon seeing the board for the first time is. Does this sound fair, or should I either introduce a new formula or permit a guest banker to reign?

Secondly, certain people think that this would be more realistic if there were some negotiating between banker and player. I'm not fond of allowing for free negotiations due to how the offers are shared amongst all the players in live play. However, I'm toying with this idea I had that goes as such:

• Once per game, you can "negotiate" the banker by offering an amount you think the offer should be.
• If the banker "accepts" it, that will be your new personal offer. If the banker "rejects" it, your new personal offer will be the original offer minus 10%.
• Negotiating will take place via PM, to prevent players from using previous negotiations to their advantage. I might also want all Deal/No Deal decisions to be done by PM, but I like the activity in these threads.

The question is what constitutes the banker "accepting" an offer and what constitutes "rejecting" it. My idea is that I have a pre-determined figure that I'll call the "max negotiable offer". If your negotiated offer is higher than that, I'll reject it; otherwise, I'll accept it.

Again, this would be once per game, to prevent abuse of this system.

Does that sound fair? Should it be modified? Or is this too much of a twist that takes away from the "What would you really do?" theme? I'd appreciate feedback.

Week 3 starts Saturday night at 12 AM BST!

That is absolutely fair. The real Banker usually only allows players to negotiate 1 offer as well, usually at 8 box or 5 box.

Yes, that does seem fair. I'm in favour, as we know, of a guest banker, who could even be one of our own but abstaining from participating in the week's game.

I'm not fond of Deal or No Deal decisions being via PM, as I too like the activity here. That part I think is fine as it is.

Also, an OPW and a TPW to start myself off with, two weeks in and it's looking rather positive here.

Sounds brilliant!

Excited now!

To not even be at £300 makes this a very Spartan offer. Thank goodness I didn't jump in in time to swap

On the offer pattern - I see what you're doing here, the only problem is that it defaults to sub-FD offers pretty much as a matter of course. I've been dabbling with different offer formulae, and the net result of this was a ludicrously complicated "Magical Mechanical Banker" that is based on Deal-Eye but changes the pair values based on a number of criteria which can be edited for each player. (These are: targets, risk-aversion, anxiety over a blue win in general and a 1p win in particular, and willingness to "confetti chase.") That produces a "personal benchmark," and I've set offers to be randomly generated within certain percentages of that benchmark for different stages, increasing in generosity through the game.

It gets messy to explain, but here's the offers it produced in practice with this same board, with the "default" settings (£20k target, other modifiers set to zero):

OFFER 1: £9,999
OFFER 2: £11,500
OFFER 3: £20,000
OFFER 4: £17,000
OFFER 5: £15,000
OFFER 6: £300