Yesterday while watching Yvonne's game, she said that she was very happy to win £11,000, as that was a year's wages for her. I think the deal was fine for her, and might have done the same myself, but it got me thinking about how much money people want from the show has changed since show began, to a more moderate target.

I mentioned to my Dad, who also watches the show daily, that an amount around £11,000 seemed to be what players were looking for, when just a couple of years ago, it was around the £20,000 mark. He said he thought that people's low targets were "killing the game", which I thought was a bit strong, but I agreed that the show wasn't as exciting as it used to be.

There doesn't seem to be anyone appearing the show who says "I'm here to win big money", or specifically say they're looking for an amount of £75,000+. While I've put this down to selective casting and the recession, one reason which I hadn't thought of may be influencing the players: how long they have to wait before playing.

At the moment, players are waiting up to 12 to 18 months before playing the game. On the telly, a recent contestant said he applied in December 2008, just as we were entering the recession. What I'm concerned is about to happen, is that there will be a large influx of people appearing on the show in 2011 who are highly cautious due to their need for money, because their situation probably hasn't improved or even deteriorated, due to the effects of recession.

While I think on the one hand that people should get a chance to play the show, I think that the show is at risk of becoming too one-sided, in that it will become too easy for the banker/producers to make offers without having to put much effort into it.

If this were to happen, the show would have to compensate, leading to more gimmicks, Noel encouraging more players to gamble further than they want to, and if a run of bad luck happens, an increasingly uncomfortable atmosphere hanging around the show.

What I think the show's producers should consider, is to start auditions again, and say that everyone from before the auditions earlier this year has to reapply. Or, if that's not possible, bring forward some of the people who auditioned in 2010 to appear in early 2011, to dilute the mix. It sounds harsh, but the show is at risk of becoming a targetist's playground, with Noel the increasingly irritated school teacher.

The main point is, that players shouldn't have to wait around so long before appearing. 12-18 months is excessive, and waiting has a psychological effect on how much players win on the show. Because of this, there's going to be a highly cautious period in 2011, exacerbated by the producers taking measures to force players on. Reducing the waiting time would have a beneficial impact.

There's many problems with the show I can mention: takes too long; overuse of gimmicks; second part of the show is virtually irrelevant; but this one's the most serious, and would linger with the show for a long time. Players cast from the 2010 pool would be more representative of the state of things today, less so from the ones in 2009, providing a more balanced and more entertaining game and show.

Hope you're still reading, a bit long I admit! Thoughts, comments?

Interesting point, yes the recession has hit a lot of people hard for a while now

And because of that, we are slowly beginning to see no point in having large amounts on the board that no one is ever going to win because:

a) Bad luck which happens from time to time

b) Contestants just can't seem to stop throwing them away after dealing

c) Those who do go to the end, never get the big wins

And yes, £11,000 could be the new £20,000...just like £7,500 was the new £26,000 years ago...

I don't think it is in trouble exactly, though I do agree with most of your points crazyeddie on this excellent post. The overriding feeling I get however is that there is always a balance between the moderate and risky, it's the just that the risky never get a chance to show it because of their box contents!

The show has survived thus far, with caution probably winning the day about 75-80% of the time (apart from Post Laura, November 06- Feb 07 in filming terms?) and the producers have reacted in the past, the crank the offers lower, they introduce a new twist etc..

Maybe Noel's influence will start to appear more, but ultimately if that's what it takes to keep the show alive then so be it. I think the only thing really wrong was the lack of box wins of £35k+. They are there, but just maybe a 1-2 a month (NOT EVERY DAY!), and it might drag the others on slightly further to create the real balance of big/small wins that the show built on.

I do hope that made sense!

1 or 2 every month would be good, but IMO it should be happening at least 4 times a month

If you want 4 power 5 box wins a month, you'd have to be prepared for at least the same amount blue box wins a month too.

I don't know if I would want to see 4 power 5 box wins a month. I think power 5 box wins have a great novelty about them, and feel great when they do happen because they are quite rare. If it became too common, the novelty would wear off, and interest in the show could dwindle because they've seen the great result too often. Of course, as long as this didn't happen with the £250k, then I think the show would survive, as people watch every day to see that moment. However, if people were winning £75k four times a month straight from the box, then it doesn't seem to special anymore, and then we're relying on the jackpot victory to get that feeling back.

Again, I have to sadly disagree

It would more likely shut Noel up about no big wins than make the show dwindle and yes, there would have to be blue wins just to keep the balance in check

But at the end of the day, the show needs big wins as well as other wins (and losses if may be) that happen on the show, whether they be clever deals, turnarounds, red in the box wins or banker spankings

This is an amazing topic!

And of all people, it was Wilson who first brought it up! Although he brassed it differently, the general gist was that there was far too many targetist players on the show and ever since the recession it's near enough everyone now, and the only people who seem brave enough to go on are the older players, and not really a variety.

And then him of all people, slammed the fact that Corrine had just won 1p that day!

Thanks guys. Thought the post would be a bit controversial, glad it was thought provoking! Haha Big-Davey, it comes to something when even I'm thinking along the lines of Sr Wilson himself!

Interesting that there seems to be a general consensus that there needs to be more frequent larger wins, though not too frequently. The idea seems simple, but is it possible without compromising the game?

There's a paradox in that to have higher wins, players need an incentive to no deal and open the box; but, since the loss of the phone-in competition and reduced ad revenue, producers are under pressure to cut costs. They've had to increase the number of shows filmed a day to 4 to save money, and would be reluctant to increase wins.

One option is to deweight the top prize on the board. It's possible to reduce the top prize to £200,000 and lower some additional amounts, without affecting the excitement of the show, or making the board too safe. This would increase the number of no deals, though the average amount won on the show would decrease. Here is an example of an adjusted board.

Another option is to lower the number of offers to 5. This would be a big step, as the producers would have to work twice as hard to get the offers right, but it would increase the excitement of the show. An offer structure such as 17-12-8-5-2, merging the 14 and 11-box offers, would change the game significantly, making it faster, and add more purpose to the offers.

An extra option is to reduce the number of boxes to 20. This would slightly increase the likelihood of having the larger amounts to the end, make the game faster, and increase turnover of players having to wait. One downside of this is that because of the reduced number of board combinations, the game may appear to become more repetitive.

Since the producers are already very good at making offers, I'm going to suggest a separation of roles: allow the banker to be played by the producers, and the offers he makes on some days be made by others on the production team. In chess, for example, watching a novice play a grandmaster is no fun, as s/he doesn't stand a chance. Watching a novice play someone at a similar level or higher, however, at least gives the opportunity that the novice can win.

Possibly the most controversial option is to re-introduce the phone-in competition. Noel won't like it, but the show needs the funds, and the producers can't take too many risks without the money to back them up.

And perhaps most importantly: speed the show up! Players are all different, but most of them struggle to be entertaining for the whole period of filming. Making it faster would help increase the excitement - but not too fast, as the show would have a barrage of players acting like screaming monkeys. (needs a monkey icon)

Fundamental flaws in the existing game can't be hidden with the use of gimmicks, such as one-to-open offers, which have only tended to work on versions worldwide where there are big jumps in offers; banker's gambles, that encourage players to deal, so that they may take it later; or the producers/Noel encouraging players to no deal beyond their comfort zone through guarantees or psychological pressure.

The show definitely feels as though its had better days before it, and all the mystery's gone. Unpredictability used to be its greatest asset, but it's been ignored, to an extent where the show feels stale and old. This could give the game and show the chance to liven up in the next year and become more entertaining to watch once more.

So, my recommendations are:

Make the game faster: at least 5 minutes off running time
Get players who actually want to play on the show
Deweight the £250,000, make the game less target-friendly
Change the offer structure: less is more
Make the banker less predictable, more risk taking, less perfect
Re-introduce phone-in competitions

And, while I'm at it:

Consider increasing the summer break from from 4 to 8-12 weeks, to reduce show 'fatigue'
Reducing the frequency of gimmicks - occasional use on the show is fine
Reduce use of in-phrases such as "OHO", "death box", "curse of the newbie" in the show's editing. While they are part of the show's history, they slow the game down, or appear in edits only when something relevant to the phrases happens
Let players decide if they want to deal early offers without undue pressure otherwise. It's painful to watch players who consider early offers being pressured into no dealing them

But most importantly, to get a good feel for what the show is, look back at the show's history, from 2 years ago and further. I'm not saying the show should be exactly like that - far from it. But it does need a bit more variety, and a bit more light entertainment - it takes itself too seriously at the moment.

I'm not saying that everything above should be implemented - after all, I know there are forum members who would disagree with some of the changes, such as reducing the top prize and re-introducide phone-in prizes. But, at this stage, the show needs a new direction, and anything is on the table.

Well, on average you'd only get a Power Five amount on the table about five times a month anyway. For four of them to be won you'd need 80% of the players to No Deal to the end of the game regardless. That necessarily means that 80% of the players who bring a blue to the table will win it.

Does anybody really want to see ten blue wins every month? I know I don't.

Oh, and I respectfully disagree with most of what crazyeddie said. The £250,000 amount is inextricably tied up with the show now. It's as much an iconic symbol of the show as the 1p, or indeed as Noel himself. Besides, I don't see that the vast majority of offers would be significantly less if the top prize was £200k instead anyway. The only significant different it'd make would be to the tiny handful of players who have it still in play at 2-box, or indeed do happen to do a Laura/Alice and win the thing. (I can't see altering the lower amounts on the board making a huge overall saving either. At least when you compare it to the potential loss of viewers who might suddenly decide that the show is less exciting because the amounts are lower than they're used to.)

As somebody who has so little worthwhile to do with my life, I've been sad enough to have sat in the audience for over 100 games. (Aside: see if you can spot me in tomorrow's game. I'm East-side.) A big reason why the show has been such a success is because it allows time for a lot of the laughs that take place in the studio to make the final edit. But I know how much hilarious stuff still gets cut out to fit the timeslot. Cutting the running time of the programme runs the risk of losing even more of that, and turning the programme into a mindless procession of box-opening, with no time for the humour and jokes that is actually a huge reason why the show is so enjoyable. And since a great amount of that humour comes from the quick wit of the Banker, I wouldn't want to see other people taking over that, admittedly unseen, role.

Oh, and I genuinely don't know what crazyeddie means when he said "Get players who actually want to play on the show". I don't think anybody is there against their will, is there?

This is a wonderful post, because it considers sensible ways of changing the show to tilt the balance subtly towards risk-taking while explicitly rejecting the lazy and morally bankrupt approach of goading players on that we have seen to date. (And MisterAl spectacularly points out the side-effects of going too far, for which he should be applauded.)

I am going to disagree with you on additional offers, because they seem to have the effect of making it seem easier to take a risk ('just one more') and sometimes this can end up producing a spiral of gambling, particularly where losses are incurred. (We've seen that on several occasions here, and a study of the Australian version explicitly mentioned that a number of players say they will play 'one more' and then turn down the next offer, and sometimes more, after that.)

20 boxes, that'd work in gameplay terms, but it wouldn't fly with viewers. Prize tree changes, probably ditto. As 5-3-3-3-3-1-1-1 has been such a frequent irregular guest on this show, it only makes sense to make it permanent. Add other twists for theme weeks - heck, even juar a themed variant on the 'egg theme' to replace the trick/treat variations.

The point from crazyeddie about the experienced Banker destroying many contestants got me thinking. How about, for Banker's Birthday week next year, the Banker 'takes the week off' and the offers are made by some past contestants with a reputation for knowing the odds? Dan Judge's game almost felt like it was groomed for just such a twist: other guest Bankers could include Aaron, Ned, Huddy, Geordie (though he'd probably say No Deal to any offer ) and perhaps a couple of females for balance. (Sarah the maths teacher? Georgina, who was constantly ignored in the Wakey Winter and got ruthlessly edited out of most games as a result?)

On the initial substantive point, I think it would be greatly unfair to do anything beyond fast-tracking a greater number of contestants, there shouldn't be any re-applications (and there's too much potential for scandal if there was, and that would destroy the show far more than any contestant caution ever could). The new four-a-day taping schedule will help reduce the backlog a tad.

The point nobody's making: is this actually what the viewers want? What do they want? I suspect risk-taking contestants is pretty low on the list for most of them - far more important is that they can relate to the players in some way and that they are entertained in a given way for 45 minutes. The casting for contestants who have recently appeared in the chair, based on the recaps I've read lately, certainly match that.

My personal suggestions in a nutshell similar to that of Eddie earlier:

* Make 4- and 3-box offers permanent
* Continue to cast on personality first and risk preference second - in fact, I don't doubt there's already more than enough casting for players with high risk tolerance
* Greatly reduce the emphasis on encouraging gambling from Noel - let the game speak for itself, and let the players speak for themselves
* If you want to reduce show fatigue, remove the weekend show, perhaps adding a 'Game of the Week' or a classic game in that slot
* Encourage more statistical players on the show, and have some of the old ones take the place of the Banker in his birthday week

This is turning into a really interesting topic!

Personally, from a DOND game I want to be entertained first and foremost by a contestant with a vibrant personality, and if they end up winning a load of money all the better of course, but I think it's accurate to say I don't just tune in for the big wins.

As people have rightly said, it's the banter and humour that makes the show so enjoyable to watch and separates it from other gameshows; you can tell everyone is having a great time, and it's like a party the viewer is being invited to with the best shows.

Reducing the running time would rather destroy this spirit, and it would become rather mechanical with limited time to show anything other than box opening. With this in mind, it is credit to the production team that they have made an essentially basic format so immensely watchable day after day for over 4 years.

My feeling is that most things still work with the format, but due to the economic climate the archetypal contestant has clearly changed towards generally being more targetist, but I don't think that's necessarily a problem. As far as I'm concerned the player is free to make whatever decision they like, personally I'd always treat an offer in the context of the board rather than my current economic situation, others put more emphasis on this.

In my view, the game becomes unnecessarily complex if you involve outside factors, more and more players take it more seriously now as they worry about their finances, which is understandable, but this most likely means they don't play the game how they might have played it a couple of years ago, which is natural but perhaps not totally rational given the risks in the game itself haven't changed, it's just the money has become less of a 'bonus' and more of a 'must-have' for players. But this is at odds with the initial premise of Deal being a source to finance rather than a source of finance (the rational mindset at the beginning of the game being the former I'd argue).

Fascinating times for the show certainly, but as long as the offers continue to be varied and the contestants continue to be entertaining, I see no reason why the show won't go on for a good few years yet, and I don't think the average win dropping will affect its future greatly to be honest, it's more a people-driven show anyway. The only change I might make is to perhaps drop the weekend show and have a longer summer break to avoid viewer (and spreadsheet!) fatigue, surely it doesn't need to be on quite this often!

...And there finishes possibly the most rambling post I have ever made, apologies if some of it doesn't make sense!

Which I agree with



Not if they deal around the £75k mark or more



Not me, that's for sure, but that's the way it goes

I think I'll leave it to others to point out the massively obvious flaw in this particular argument.

I'm only pointing out that the 80% of No dealers don't have to go to the end to win a blue, they can avoid that by dealing at high amounts should the boxes be really kind

And besides not all of the 80% will have blues, they have just as much of a chance of having a red

No. If they're going to No Deal to the end, then by definition that prohibits them from accepting an offer. If you're now saying that people should actually deal those good offers, then you won't have 80% of players going to the very end any more, and you won't get those four Power Five box wins per month that you crave.


Well, of course. That's where these four Power Five box wins will have to come from, after all. But the players that do have blues are the ones who'll will give you the ten blue wins per month.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I'll try to be as clear as I can. If more players No Deal their way to the end, then we'll see more Power 5 wins, but we'll also see more blue wins. If more players decide to Deal before the end, then we'll see fewer blue wins, but we'll also see fewer Power 5 wins. Having more Power 5 wins with fewer blue wins is a mathematical impossibility.

The amount of contestants who have won £75,000 or more in the last 3 calendar years:

2007 - 10
2008 - 5
2009 - 3

Bear in mind too that one of the three in 2009 was Alice who had already dealt for less than £20,000 before getting a generous banker's gamble to win her £250,000

This would suggest that the recession has been a factor in seeing more cautious dealing than chasing of the big money.

I see what you're trying to say now

And Rico, that is interesting...it does bring back to what I mentioned earlier about the recession

Ooh, it's all getting a bit heated! Arguing with Mister Al on mathematics is not advisable, as I once found out! (Incidentally, I think the aforementioned was sitting next to DOND stalwart Lynn in the audience today...)

A stat I could come up with is that if everyone since the show started had gone to the end, it is indeed true that the banker would've paid out over £10 million more and there would've been considerably more power 5 wins, but there would also have been well over 700 blue wins as well! (I think it's currently around 260)

So, instead of just under 20% of players going home with a blue which he have currently, this would be a whopping 52%! I know which I'd prefer...