Why must there be so much outcry over squandered reds, or early deals?

At the end of the day, the player has made a decision, and it's their decision that matters, not what other people say they should've done.

All players should be subject to respect for their deals, no matter how bad a decision you think it was.

That's my opinion, and I hope you respect it. Any other thoughts will be welcome!

I totally agree.

I don't mind people disagreeing with the decision if they say "He/she should have gone on becuase......" but when it words like "pathetic" etc start getting used then yes, I think that's wrong.

If you ask me I think it's all too easy to say whatever you like from behind the protection of a computer screen, and the offenders would never say what they write here to someone's face. I just know if I was a contestant, and I'd dealt too early, I'd go absolutely apesh*t towards some of the inevitable comments there's likely to be on here, plus I like contestants to post on here and I think many of them are scared off by this sort of thing.

In fact the multiple bannings a few years ago were becuase a contestant who'd dealt at 11-box reacted badly to criticism on here IIRC......

If something goes wrong, then the player has to live with it. Agreements and disagreements are fine, but when some of becomes derogatory, then it's quite simply stupid. Early deals are not acceptable reasons to start criticising a player.

Some people even insult the likes of Corrine and Kerry-Anne, calling them "stupid" and the like for being such prolific gamblers. I don't get it. It's their decision to make.

As someone who has seen games as a pilgrim, I've personally seen players make decisions I've disagreed with but as others have said, it's the players decision to make.

This. Though we're all guilty of it once in a while (Richard anyone? It's the only game I remember really well...) I can't stand when people here get all worked up and say that a gambler deserved to win a blue on an intense gamble, or this OH DEAR, should've gone on played one more round crap.

It's all well and good to respect a players decision but like everything else in reality, not everyone is going to agree on the same thing. If you apply to go on to any show (not just DOND), then you are opening yourself up to any chance of criticism (Big Brother anyone?).



That game started all of the brutally honest posts on several games and that other 11-box deal is what led to even more shocking posts which led to the bannings.

For me, I did not like those deals at all but I would never cross the line, it's just too bad they did.

So in answer to the question, well no one is going to be perfect (with a exceptions like Suzanne), but perhaps those who take it to the extreme should tone it down a bit like me.

On the plus side, this forum is quite tame compared to some of the posts on Twitter during games.

At the end of the day someone who goes at £10,000 when the £250,000 is always going to get stick but that might turned out to be the right decision and at the end of the day it might just be to big a amount to miss.

It annoys me that people don't like people going at the third offer, they'd be no point in it if you knew everyone was going to go on. It's called Deal or No Deal, not No Deal or No Deal.

Someone like Kerry-Anne will always get criticized as it was in no way a sensible gamble, I can only assume she really didn't need the money that much.

In some ways it is easier to criticise a gamble (certainly an AMO rejection at high stakes like Kerry-Anne) than a Deal (harder to invalidate the "amount meant a lot to the player" argument, unless they turned down more earlier like £1k Michael).

As a statistically-minded observer, I take an equally dim view of all forms of immoderate play - gaining a reputation for caution in early 2007 when questionable gambles were a daily occurance, maybe losing that post-recession as players tended to stop earlier than I would rather than later - but I always criticise the player only to the extent of questioning why they made the decisions they did. In a high-stakes game of uncertainty, with all sorts of conflicting pressures on the decisions, of course people are going to make the odd howler. Premier League footballers make the odd howler, and they are extensively trained in what they do!

I did actually look at Kerry-Anne's game thread again and there's only a tiny amount of criticism towards her compared with games like Richard's, so it's nearly always early dealers who get it rather than people who take big risks!

Excessive gambling seems to be labelled as "brave" or "foolish", whereas excessive caution often only seems to be labelled as "cowardly". Although as other people (including KP) have said on here in the past, dealing early (and going against the grain) can be seen as being brave!

as someone who has had an audition,been contacted twice at halloween, and still not got on the show,i would appreciate as a contestant that it is a golden opportunity that is to be cherished and made the most of.i would personally DEFINETLY keep no dealing if the quarter mil was still in play, however i respect each contestants decision and i have NEVER criticised someone or been derogatory in any way on here.heated debate is good but we must appreciate the contestant will feel under a lot of pressure with the build up to their game, and some people may not handle it as well as others-Michael in cowboy wk for one.however the chosen few are VERY lucky to be chosen in the first place and its inevitable some folk will feel the need to voice their criticism on here.i personally wouldnt,or at least would keep my views to myself.so to all future contestants,of which i STILL hope to be one...remember its a golden, possibly life changing, opportunity,and you are VERY lucky to have been chosen out of thousands of applicants.so hey freedom of speech for those who feel the need to,but give respect to the individual contestant,and try and see the 'deal' from their point of view.garry aka 'hevelius'......DON'T STOP BELIEVING-HOLD ONTO THAT FEELING...

You see, my argument from an economist's perspective is that the very fact it is a one-time-only game for an individual player is actually a reason for dealing. Confused? Look at it this way: you play ten games of DoND, one after the other. You'll probably turn down every offer below the mean in at least seven of them (maybe you'll play slightly safe on the first couple to lock in a good result, but after that you'll go hell-for-leather). You can take a blue win or three, because you can make it up on the next one, or the one after that.

If you win a blue by going to the end on your actual DoND game? Well, guess what - that's it, and you leave with a small cheque and maybe a large regret if you're that way inclined, and you don't get a chance for redemption. You're only here once! And because of that, considerations of the utility of money come into play, and most people do have significantly diminishing returns to scale as the money goes up. Do players make bad Deals? Yes. Is that a justification for blind risk-taking? No.

On your point of a sense of destiny for getting through the application process - surely it's just as valid (and by that I mean "not really valid at all, but then I'm not superstitious") to say "I've been so lucky just to get here - I'm due bad luck, and it could come in my game".

I think DOND is quite unique. I can't think of another gameshow on UK television where the internet community (whether on here, Digital Spy or Twitter) get so passionate about the players. True there are threads on DS for other shows but I've never seen a Countdown contestant criticised for not solving an easy numbers game or spotting an easy 8 letter word.

Jeff Stelling doesn't chastise players for missing easy numbers games though.

How about this then?

So take gary the other day he has rotten luck all through his game he gets down to the final 2 boxes 1k and 100,000k he gets offered 44k i think it was and no deals it !

That was a no brainer as far as im concerened and a greed on his part ! I cant really respect a decision that was clearly wrong !

£75k actually. Not £100k.

24k actually mate.

No offense intended, but if Gary had won the 75k, I very much doubt you would be saying that. As I've said before, someone on YouTube perfectly summed up people's attitudes to DOND results: they said players are called greedy if they go for it and win the smaller sum (like Gary, Corinne or Kerry-Anne), brave if they go for it and win the bigger sum (like Dale, Sam or even Suzanne) or a coward if they deal and miss out on a bigger sum (like Richard, Wilf or 24k Michael).