With the fallout from Tracey's game still ongoing, many have pointed out there have been an awful lot of disputed twists to games. With that in mind, I ask you simply: what was, in your opinion, the worst twist in a game of DoND ever?

I find it hard to argue against Tracey's because it was so obviously goading her into a gamble when she was quite happy with her win, but I'd make a case for the very first Trick or Treat because it legitimised the idea of eight-box being just another speedbump rather than a serious offer?

I'd have to say Caz's Double or Nothing. The banker didn't give her the option of opting-out if she no-dealt, which in my opinion should've happened.

Now, I can't remember the name of the contestant, but the twist was easily the worst of all time.

Basically, the player originally dealt for 15k at 11-box. However, they then revealed (after the break) that they meant to say no deal... so they were offered the question again, and sid no deal. They later dealt for 7.5k. They ended up with a blue and 15k, and the banker offered them the opportunity to open their box and win 15k, and if it was the blue they'd still get the 7.5k they dealt at.

In other words, he was offering the contestant the chance to double their money for absolutely no risk whatsoever. Now, if it'd been a case where, say, if the blue was revealed his money got cut to 3k or so, that would have been a different story. But ultimately, it completely destroyed any pretence that the banker is trying to get people to win as little as possible. It smacked of desperation for a feel-good ending.

At least in Tracy's game there was a small risk of things going wrong...

Oh, thanks so much for reminding me of Dennis's game; talk about covering their tracks after bullying him out of an 11-box Deal!!

I'm going to have to admit that one was worse.

There are more than I can remember but I loathe ANYTHING that is done after all the main 22 boxes are opened. It almost renders the whole of the proper game irrelevant. Once all the main boxes are opened that should be the end of the game, forget any props that might be unopened. (ie Cats at Easter 2010 with Brenda and Kath, the boxes in Tracey's game the other day, the stupid snowballs in Franny's game at Xmas 09, I'm sure there are others). If they are used as part of an offer, that to me is absolutely fine (ie find the smiling cat and the offer doubles). Also if they player refuses a special gamble like that, they should not guilt-trip them by finding out if they would have made the right choice.

And I also hate SWAP-only offers on big red v tiny blue finishes, unless the player has specified they'd rather have that than a monetary offer (for instance John in March last year was fine becuase he asked for it, Anji's I hated). When Julie won £75k in Oct 2008 when the last really massive win had been £100k Betty, it smacked of desperation for a big Wakeyist finish, and I felt it went to one of the least deserving contestants ever (when compared with the tough decisions, say Betty and £75k Lynne had to make).

Are you talking about Huddy? I think he was the one who dealt and then the audience decided he should no deal, but then he dealt anyway (or something like that).


I have a feeling that was a different player to Huddy, but I could be wrong.

I remember expressing me and others expressing displeasure at the first ever banker's gamble (over 3 years ago now!). Banker's gambles seem quite tame and "old school" now! One of the points that was raised at the time was that it was unfair to others who hadn't been offered it, but nowadays, I'm not sure what's "fair" seeing as many players get offered twists when others don't, and sometimes they end up causing more problems than good...

Here's a couple. Not the worst twist, but still bad:

22/11/09 Mike

Board:
£100
£750
£1,000
£20,000
£75,000

Offer: £10,000



Though this one is a contender for worst, in terms of unnecessary complexity and desperation for a feelgood ending:

02/11/09 Roy - 4th Birthday Special



(Edit: Oh, and to add to that, any game where money was given away as a 'consolation' for not winning enough. Was around just after the summer break in 08 or 09?)

Just to be clear, the twists in and of themselves aren't a bad idea. I like the inventiveness of the production team who make them.

But, it's clear that they are primarily used to encourage people to play past a point that they are comfortable with. On the one hand, the show wants everyone who plays to be nice and friendly. On the other, they are made to be memorable, even if the board doesn't allow it.

The constant twisting of the game's rules has created a warped and weird version of the show. It's a pathological response to a format that needs reform; but, for reasons that only Channel 4 and the Deal team know, have chosen not to undertake.

In short: it ain't what you do with twists, it's the way that you do it that makes or breaks the game. And currently, I don't know if the producers can - or want to - recognise that the game is broken, and will become the next casualty of Channel 4's cost-cutting measures.

I know that I, and others on the forum, would be happy to give the producers the red pill, if and when they're ready to do so. Right, Mr B?

The first twist that I genuinely thought was unfair was Helen B getting a couple of grand anyway from The Banker after winning a blue on the birthday show. I wanted her to win big, but if the producers are going to totally disregard the contents of the box, why bother with the game in the first place? Same when it happened to Brian a year later. Totally unfair on every other blue winner ever and made a mockery of the show. I suppose it being an hour long episode (and David J's a year earlier being incredible) added to the letdown.

Since then the damage has already been done. The Banker could offer 1p every round and then give the contestant £250,000 at the end for all I care, it stopped being the simple show I loved years ago.

Denis's game. A nice guy being played by the show who then felt guilty and gave him such a no brainer get out clause. Around the same time, Anji(?) the asian lady not given a two box offer and forced to open her box to a blue win. If i remember right a penny as well! And forced box swaps, maybe not twists as such but any deviation from the nature of the game that seems to unfairly hinder a player or overtly benefit a player more than the rest of the players if its not a special week or show.

Any twist that's not in a special week - only during those weeks should special twists happen.

David made the good point that so many twists have been randomly applied that its hard to determine whats fair to one player isn't to another. For example one player may come up with a (genuine) sob story which will garner them a special offer or gamble that would seem heaven to many other players. The 6box gamble of Traceys game comes to mind. Other times the banker will refuse to give monetary offers because the board is bad or equally as bad - joke offers.

I too won't go on about the longevity of the show because I am a fan regardless of what monster its become, although I do miss the good ol' days of season one with the catchphrases and freshness. I do wonder however if the show can go on another 5 years. If it does, what will Noel look like and will he get increasingly more cranky as he becomes a septuagenarian.

The recent one where they were practically begging her to gamble was quite bad.

I otherwise do quite like them. Keeps it fresh. But they should only ever be something the player is comfortable with. It's not easy viewing otherwise.

My favourite one was a youtube clip of a not too attractive woman who got to 2-box. She'd said the offer at 5-box left her no choice and no dealt. The banker then gave her no choice at the end and only gave the swap. She won the blue I think this has happened a couple of times, but that clip was brilliant. The banker is supposed to be evil after all

Wasn't that actually Julie who won £75k? Can't remember.

The description certainly fits Julie. I remember my dad thinking she looked like a man.

Oh. Just rewatched it and she did win it. Sigh, that's spoilt that memory

I honestly never warmed to the now-mandatory box 23 feature when it was introduced at the start of 2014. Pretty much for the same reasons stated on here by my namesake. It renders the 22 boxes opened in the main game pointless and it doesn't help that not many people have been brave enough to risk a large amount of money on Box 23. I'm also not a fan of the offer button either

Still, box 23 is a much better twist than that AWFUL gimmick in £15k Dennis' game in 2010. Talk about having something handed to you!

I think Box 23 served its purpose in that it subtlely encouraged people to go deeper into the game. In the latter half of 2013, contestants in general got so cautious that many couldn't bear the thought of going on at 8 box, let alone 5 box! This was reinforced by the some of the few players actually prepared to play the game having a train wreck and winning a blue. Box 23 gave contestants that extra push to turn down a stingy offer at 8 box that they would likely Deal pre-2014, as they now have the opportunity to recover the situation even if the game went completely pear-shaped. Sadly, it took the Banker nearly 6 months to actually respond to this by making better offers, causing a record proportion of players to be forced to the end and win a blue.

The Offer Button , at first, worked well as a twist. It gave roughly half of the players more flexibility in the game, and often it lead to better results. Sadly, since November the Banker has been making it much trickier to get the button, and contestants have become MUCH less competent at predicting offers, leading to the button being in play roughly one game a week if that! Plus, lately even when the button is in play, the Banker almost never places a premium on it, and often makes even stingier offers with it in play (I.e. Adele's £4,000 offer on a 3 blue/£75k board ).

I honestly think both twists have their pros and cons. Neither is the worst twist the show has had, but neither has proven to be a great twist as well. I'd say Box 23 has been the better twist overall, though.

I think the worst "twist" the show has had is the Banker's hand-outs to blue winners back in 2008. Seriously, if he wanted a feel-good ending, why not make a decent bail-out offer in the conventional game rather than force the player to win a blue and then give them an extra grand for their trouble.

Anyone remember those silly little boxes they had some years ago? One with DOUBLE and one with NOTHING. The first time, she said NO DEAL. Then Noel brought out 2 more boxes and the player still said NO DEAL. As if that wasn't bad enough, a further 2 boxes came out and then she DEALT. It was a very flawed gimmick. You'd only have to pick the same number 3 times because there's a very high possibility of at least one containing the DOUBLE.

That was Tracey's game from January 18, 2011. In fact, it was THE gimmick that caused this thread to start. I'm honestly glad they've only appeared once since then (The other time they came out was in Tony's game a few months after Tracey, he'd already dealt at £11k, and it was basically the same gamble as Tracey's, but there wasn't as much pressure on Tony to take the gamble, and he decided to keep his £11,000. Thankfully, there was no 'hypo-gamble' to try and guilt trip Tony, and after he said 'No deal', the credits just rolled)

The mini-boxes would've been more interesting if they were incorporated into the main game, by being part of an offer (e.g. £15,000 + 1 box - if the player dealt, they'd get to pick one of the mini-boxes at the end, and if they found the 'double' box, their winnings would double to £30,000). Really, Box 23 is like a permanent version of the mini-boxes, except the player has only one shot if they choose to play it