Okay, so he clearly went too early, but he managed to make a good deal, nonetheless. Here's an idea. Why not just cut out the proveout (read: torture) rounds and just open the player's box right after the deal? Then you'll really know whether or not the player made a good deal right away. That way, we'll get less negative commentary from Noel, and things like that. Of course, then you'll have to drop terms like OBW, TPW, etc., and replace them with GD (Good Deal) and BD (Bad Deal). Personally, I think it would work better that way, because I think everyone's tired of Noel's unnecessary negativity. Please, let's have some better games in future. This week was, for lack of a better word, strange.

That might work if the show adopted the American system of having more than one player in each show but as it is they've got to fill 45 minutes, so opening the box immediately after the deal would mean a very long and drawn-out first couple of rounds if the player took the third offer... (plus it would make it blatantly obvious when the player was going to deal, although it still sort of suffers from that problem as it is)

Eh? I would have thought Deal or No Deal was a cracking show to go on if you needed some money! Stand around for a couple of weeks opening boxes, make a few friends, have a few drinks and if the luck is with you when it's your game, take home a sizeable sum of money to do with as you wish! Sounds perfect to me really...

I agree. Whilst it is nice to see if the player dealt at the right time with the virtual extinction of gamblers on the show the proveout has become little more than a 'how much have they squandered today' routine.

Once the deal is done they should just open the box and then get on with the next game. They could either span shows or they could have easily squashed yesterdays and todays games down to fit one show.

And C4 should be more selective in the games they show. I see no reason why they have to show stuff like yesterdays and todays games at all. If players make lamentable deals they deserve not to be shown. And before anyone says 'what about continuity' Joe Public has no idea who's on the wings save for one or two. If it saves us having to suffer rubbish like todays game who's going to complain?

If the last few months have been as bad as people say they have then it sounds like they'd run out of games to show after a week or so...

I really wanted him to have picked the 6th round boxes in the 4th round....then the thread would have been half the length it is.

What did get me was the fact that he dealt AFTER the offer had been lowered. Now he's done that, god knows what the banker will do to ome of the others. I wouldn't have been as bothered if he'd took 20k as it stood, even though I would have liked him to go on with that board, unless the offer had been 30k+

I don't really know where I stand on this targetism issue. While playing on makes for more exciting games, and a lot of people say that if he needs the money that badly, why go on a gambling show is all valid, but where else was someone his age going to get 18k from? He couldn't earn it!!

Still an amusing contestant, and at least he made a huge profit on his box. I bet most of the people who are laughing at him would have ended up with pocket change anyway, which would have shut them up.

Yes, and seeing people win a few coins is really entertaining isn't it (well apart from a few exceptions)?

By that reasoning where the decision is the wrong one, then the only games that should get shown is power 5 box wins or deals at 2-box when they have a blue and avoid a big value on the wings!!

All im going to say is that im starting to see the point of the "wakeyists". I would really like to see some more gamblers on the show right now!

But in saying that £18,000 is a lot more than 50p which i think a few people would have got today (including me)! Yes Ronnie should have got on but if he needed the money then £18,000 is a lot of money!

Well Done Ronnie on £18,000!!

It would be interesting, if straight after the deal the contestant's box is opened, then they'd have to open all the other boxes how they would've. I prefer the show how it is though, opening the player's box at the end!

18k or 50p....I'll rest my case....(I'd of ended up with 50p )

Well done Ronnie...enjoy the dosh...

Aitch,

Without a proveout you would never know fully what you would have won if you carried on. As other people have said, it adds continuity to the show as well.

I agree with Dhale, deals should only be done because the board is unstable not because they have their own target. Let's face it, if they are on the show for a target like today, all they're doing is getting an offer and saying deal because it's their target - no analysis at all.

Yes, the show is there PARTLY to fulfill dreams and targets - but that has to be done with some board analysis and taking a risk - otherwise little effort has gone into getting their target winnings and the show's then become a charity at the end of the day...

When someone puts their target on the line (or gambles to get their target) it's much more tense (see £10,000 Hannah who put her target on the line and gambled it for £10,000 - imagine how naff a 2k deal would have been on her game)

Targetists are fine and would be much more welcomed on the show if they took a risk to get their target. The targetists we are getting at the moment are of the wrong kind - they deal their target as soon as they are offered anywhere near it - no board analysis or risk. Turns that show into a charity and the result can be horrible.

The US abandons the proveout as soon as everything above the offer has gone. That makes sense.

And in fairness, some shows have a 'natural' length rather higher or lower than 45 minutes. Not just directly correlated to their Wakeyism either - Bob from last year was an eight-box Dealer, went too soon AND too late, but he was so talkative (and generally seen as amusing) that his game was massively squeezed to get to 45 minutes. By contrast, Steve who played on April Fools' Day 2006 had an hour-long show and his game would have felt slow in a 45-minute timeslot, even though he made it to two-box!

(Of course, some will be glad this wasn't how the game worked in 2007, because Bunney could have had a double episode to himself what with providing both a big-money gambling game and lots of humour around it...)

I'm not sure really...

For those who argue that some of these contestants are undeserving - I don't think that 'willingness to take a risk' should be a factor that marks one out as 'deserving' of lots of money. Otherwise the show is implicitly endorsing gambling even more than it does already, and I object to that on a daytime show watched by a lot of children.

Instead, if you want to have contestants 'earn' their money, go back to the format's roots; add a quiz qualifier in. This format was originally meant as nothing more than a high-stakes endgame for a lottery quiz in the Netherlands, replacing a former quiz endgame in 2002 when the euro was introduced. I'd sooner see contestants 'earn' their shot through a test of skill than through their fiscal attitudes.

Can you really blame the players though? If I needed a certain amount of money for a specific purpose and someone offered it to me for doing basically *beep* all then of course I'd take it, it would be stupid not to.

A run of "targetist" players is obviously not good for the show in terms of entertainment but it's the fault of the show and the people choosing the contestants, rather than the contestants themselves.

I've said this plenty of times. But my guess is most of these contestants would murder their Granny to get on the show so flannelling the selectors by claiming to be gamblers and going for the £250k would be a piece of cake for them.

Ronnie even bullsh*tted the other contestants he was going for the £250k before he played. So lord knows what they say to the show selectors to get on there.

'Let's see who is fearless now' is another gem Ronnie spouted after the first offer.

You can't believe a word any of them says.

While the argument does not seem to be as apparent in this thread as in others, I still want to say my bit. I'm posting it in here rather than Janna's thread as similar things apply.

If, as people have put it, the show is going down the pot, then why are you still watching and therefore posting. It can't be that bad otherwise you would not watch another show again.

And yes, both Ronnie and Janna dealt earlier (at points where i wouldn't have dealt myself let me say). But that doesn't make them as bad as Derek and Bash's game. They were horrible and show that in certain cases, going to the end is not a good idea. Dealing isn't a sin in this game, people do it. Get used to it.

Now, feel free to poke holes in my argument (which i expect will happen) but well done Ronnie. £18,000 is lovely money.

Exactly, as I said earlier. I bet those who have complained about the early deals, including today are going to tune in tomorrow or/and next week to see another show. As Noel always says "You'll be back tomorrow".

How the show is going down the pot if the country is still watching it? For a daytime show it is still appearing in Channel 4's top 30 shows each week and for the week ending 30th March. All the weekday editions appeared on the channel's top ten list, with four shows appearing in the top six! Although the Saturday edition is registering around 1.5 million due to the timeslot when the football is on, it still manage to acheive the 2nd/3rd most watched show on the channel on the day.

I've said last year that I would express a concern for the show if it has a trend when all the shows are disappearing from the top 30 shows each week and register a poor audience share.

Listen carefully - I shall say zis only wance.

Once again (and for the umpteenth time) let me explain. Many of us started watching the show in an era where there were plenty of gamblers who went for the big money. Some were successful and some weren't. But these games were tense and exciting. This made the cautious targetist games bearable because we knew tomorrow there would be a good chance that a gambler would give us another exciting game.

However for 6 months or more we have had a relentless run of ultra cautious targetist players (usually with a depressing sob story) with the very occassional game where someone has gambled or taken some risk. More recently players seem unable to take even slight risks on solid golden boards. The show has gone totally to pot.

Despite frequent breaks from the show the reason I keep watching is because when we actually get a decent game it is entertainment of the highest quality. Only this week we had Eunice's game which was an absolute gem. Is it worth suffering all the dross we've had this week in order to catch a game like Eunice's? My answer at the moment is yes.

So every day I watch hoping for excitement and entertainment. It used to be commonplace and now it is rare. There will, no doubt be a time when enough is enough.



Its the hope that keeps me going.

It's not dealing on the whole that's bugging me. No where do I imply that dealing on the whole is wrong it's BAD deals that annoy me! Dave's deal was good.... Big Ron's 31k deal was fantastic, I was egging him on to take it - because those offers were actually good! I actually was glad he didn't seem to care about the £80,000 (?) offer, because the one he took was good. On the flipside... Ronnie's deal was awful. The higher offers afterwards were just hilarious because he made a self inflicted error - just like I found Matty's game hilarious because he made a self inflicted error.

EDIT: I also second basicasic's thoughts.

Would you rather players come on the show and announce to the banker that there is no way they are going to gamble and have no chance of winning the £250k?

He might have said a few days ago he was going to be the second £250k winner but after the week we've had, pub talk means nothing. I wish Noel would stop hyping up that someone might be the first male £250k winner with a third of the game to go.

Imagine some getting to the £32k (now £50k) mark on Millionaire and Chris Tarrant hyping the fact that they might win a million (and I don't count saying you're 5 questions away from a million as hype).

I absolutely hated Noel's "this could be the worst disaster in the history of DOND". Worse than Matty's 1p win? Worse than the £15k dealers of a £250k box. How on earth is winning £18,000 a disaster????????? A disaster would have been no-dealing at 5 box and blowing £71k (which I guess some people would have done today with the top 3 in play)

Quite. Even if the player had all three lifelines at that point (which I reckon is about comparable to having the rest of the Power 5 at eleven-box, both in terms of rarity and in terms of value) Tarrant wouldn't do that.



It would have been £69,999.50 blown actually. But pedantry aside, I utterly agree.

Biased Noel Mk I is back. Hope you're happy, folks. 'Cause I'm not.

Not that I like Biased Noel Mk II any more...