I think wanting a gamble to go wrong or enjoying it when it does is the extreme side of Anti-Wakeyism. It's effectively just the equivalent on the opposite side of wanting someone who deals early to pay for it by having the £250k in their box!

You're right, and it used to be dominant at this place would you believe! (As evidenced in Gary's commentary!)

So, which one to go for myself? Well, in terms of who I felt most sorry for it's probably between Dot, Brunhilde and Lynn, who pushed their luck just a bit too far by turning down what were fairly modest amounts in the context of the show but amounts that would have made a huge difference to them. The fact they dealt for the amounts they did proves that, even after it fell apart they were desperate not to leave with nothing, whereas most players would just have played on to the bitter end.

Swappy Barbara is leading the vote, obviously that was a horrible moment and I did feel for her even though she was a contestant I didn't particularly take to, and obviously it was painful to see a big win squandered in that fashion particularly as it was so long since we'd seen one and Matt had done a similar thing a couple of weeks before!

But in terms of the game I'd probably least want to watch again I'd say Donna's, we saw a spoilt child reaction from someone who had won a substantial sum of money, it looked as though we were just about seeing a relationship break-up on screen, and although perhaps the dream scenario finish with the £250k in her box was what she deserved for her initial reaction, you just wanted to see her take out the big amounts in the last round to stop her making any more of a show of herself, but instead it just got worse. That game was car crash TV at its absolute worst, and I'd say DOND's most painful red win ever!

These shows and some of the blue ones do make me ask the question, are there any circumstances under which they would consider not broadcasting a show (excluding events unrelated to the show itself like Amanda's)? And has any contestant ever requested this?

I've always wondered what would happen in the unlikely event of a 1st offer deal. I'm not sure if they'd actually bother showing it, as it wouldn't be the most exciting game ever.

Probably not.

It'd be up there with one of the more intriguing though, a one-off five-round proveout would be a sight to behold!

I think if it did happen, they'd almost undoubtedly produce a proveout offer where the contestant has the opportunity to undeal the deal they made.

Also, contestants in the early days were told if they dealt at the first offer, their show would never be aired...

it's almost impossible. the only circumstances would be someone dealing a ridiculous one like Howard's 18K or Paul H's 17.5K.

I guess in the early days they wanted to discourage very early deals to allow the show to build an audience, an extended proveout would have been confusing and seemed pointless to the new viewer, and perhaps difficult to fill the timeslot with at that stage.

Nowadays a first or second offer would have some novelty value, and I'd like to see it once but probably only once - perhaps unlikely though, at the moment I'm not sure if we'll ever see anyone go at the third offer again! And as H has pointed out, now the "un-deal" can of worms has been opened we may well see it in such a scenario.

But aside from early deals, I was thinking more about a situation which was an extreme version of some of the games discussed in this thread, or 1p wins etc - where a contestant was so upset by what happened in the game and/or the way they would come across on TV as a result, that they would decide it wasn't in their best interests for it to be broadcast.

Interesting. At the end of the day though, it's Endemol who make the decision over whether or not a show would be shown. So unless a contestant requested that a show not be shown because of extreme circumstances (such as Amanda's case), then Endemol would probably go ahead and broadcast it anyway. Let's face it, a game where the player took it really badly would make good TV (for some people) and would certainly be a discussion point!

But that would be a bit odd by signing up for DOND they're signing up to be on TV with public scrutiny! It'd be bizarre if endemol 'prevented' an episode.

I wonder how much contact, if any, they have with contestants between filming and broadcast of a show - which can be several months in some cases.

It may be that a contestant has real trouble getting over their experience on the show, whether that was through losing a lot of money or whatever, and that broadcasting it would just risk making the situation worse. I doubt Endemol would be keen to not air it, after all they have been known to take advantage of some particularly vulnerable characters on shows like Big Brother in pursuit of ratings. But it's an interesting debate as to how extreme the circumstances would have to be for them to consider it.

I wonder what Madie might have done about it if he'd played today? Not been offered 28k for a start but that's another thing....

I'd love to see his episode! it sounds really cool/funny/disappointing.
he must have been pretty embarrased by the AMO rejection.

Of the games that I've seen, I went for Lynn as the "most painful". Donna's was on a bigger scale, but the entertainment factor outweighed any "pain"...

The worst decision that comes to mind, which I think someone else has mentioned, was Di's no-dealing of £44k, to then deal at £8k one round later with £20k in her box. This and Donna's game were painful in some ways, but I thought the players brought in on themselves. A game like Lynn's just seemed to 'break' the player, and that's the most painful thing to watch.

A new candidate - Michael.

Hell yes! Michael for me! I still think Ingerlise's was painful but yesterday fate overshadowed caution and everyone was left feeling gutted!

Nobody would have predicted he would find seven straight blues!!!

It certainly goes into the hall of fame for 'most inexplicable Deal'; it's about the first I can ever think of which didn't make sense on any level. Even Beryl might have No Dealed it (except she'd have taken £9,191...)

If the £100,000 had been in his box, that would probably be one of the most painful games, but still either Stevie or Brunhilde for me.

I still don't think Michael's the one - I still think ones where the player had little control over events and made perfectly justifiable decisions only to be completely unlucky were worse - that was just one terrible decision.

I guess that deal was the exact polar opposite of Madie no-dealing 28k!

If he'd had the £100k in his box then it would have been right up there. At least the revealing of the blue at the end was some consolation, and the fact he'd surely have gone at the £9k anyway.

Not sure the purely unlucky ones who are true to themselves are as bad as the ones who go against their feelings or gameplan and pay for it (whether that's by dealing too soon, pushing their luck too far, or their decision on whether or not to swap!)