While I normally never include Deals for over half the average in the Horrible Deals club, today's game may be an exception. Dealing just above half the average on the very stable board Dave had is £24k Michael level cautious, as ANY board reader would certainly decline that offer with a 60% chance of being guaranteed at least £3,000 and only a 10% chance of a significantly lower offer.

No.

We've got a runaway leader already, folks....

I voted NO. It wasn't horrible. It may have been questionable, and difficult to understand, but never was it 'horrible'.

Edit: First part written before ACB himself voted 'yes'....

I didn't vote YES as it would somewhat ruin the point of this thread.

I voted yes.

Yes.

I'm abstaining because I find both the decision and the concept of the Horrible Deals Club make me almost equally uncomfortable.

I voted no. I'm fine with labeling deals as cautious, but calling this one stupid and horrible is way too much.

No. It was a very cautious deal, certainly, but far from one of the worst of all time.

The banker is extremely volatile, so any final two with 10p in it could easily lead to a derisory offer that forces the contestant to open their box, and the potential gains weren't all that great unless you were prepared to go to the end and hope you had 15k or 20k in your box. Which, of course, many would be, but evidently he wasn't.

Also, the 'Horrible Deals' club is an extremely judgmental idea in general.

It wasn't as bad as Richard's!

Is there are "don't care" option?