Ok, he took a cautiously early deal, on a board that promised a lot more, and from an entertainment point of view, it wasn't the greatest finish to a game. I'd have thought he wouldn't take the £18k out of principle because the banker had LOWERED the offer. But anyway...

The money obviously meant a great deal to him, and he was willing to sacrifice the audience's further entertainment for it, and I don't blame him for that at all, as it's not implicitly stated in the application form that the player has to "entertain the audience by turning down significant amounts of money" (I don't believe).

I'm just surprised he turned out to be such a rigid targetist. But who am I to argue? - after all, he is £18k richer for (as people say) standing around in a studio for a couple of weeks, where he's seen a number of catastrophic trainwrecks.

So, he is the 30th 11-box dealer, and let's not forget 6 people have achieved OPWs by dealing at this point (much to most of the forum's disgust), and Ronnie could have done the same, anything can happen. Be interesting to see how many players have dealt with the top 3 still in play (surely Ronnie's the only one...?)

I like MK1 Noel hes just telling it like it is in the context of the game and basically saying what were all thinking without blatently saying it to them - they were foolish.

I only watched the show half an hour ago but I was that annoyed that I thought I'd over-inflate the offer some more.

Right off the top of my head I can name Jenni and Steven dealing for £26,000 and £27,500 with the top four in play at that point. Any more for any more?

Michaela's deal for 24k. Thank goodness that didn't happen now....

I'm curious, what do you mean by Noel Mark I and Noel Mark II in terms of eras. As I've stated on another thread, I'm not bothered by his presenting whether he's biased or not.

It came out of a comment from someone (latheboult IIRC) that Noel had flipped to being biased towards Dealing and either him, me or possibly someone else suggested this was a second version of a biased Noel after the gambling-happy one we saw lots last year and again today. Perhaps it's misplaced.

Good spot there with Michaela...

No, but not say anything at all. People giving information away either do so at their own disadvantage (targets) or bull to get higher offers (can't stand it)



It's more of an incentive to keep us watching. Most people on here can see through people who say they are going to be our second quarter millionaire. Who's actually said they are going to go to the end and win £250,000 then win it? Morris probably the closest....



They are both disasters. Winning 1p, in terms of gameplay, is pretty dire. But so is dealing £18,000 and finding out you would have had seventy-thousand pounds. You've blown a lifechanging sum, without a doubt. Saying 'oh well it could have gone the other way' is just like winning 1p and saying 'oh well it could have gone in my favour'. No good now is it. It never actually happened in your game, you lost.

I would have dealt £70,000. I would have had tons more respect for Ronnie if he did that. He would have stuck a peice of dynamite to his target and blown it through the roof. Imagine the feel good factor of that. Yeah, his 5 box was pretty damn amazing but £70,000 was a good offer for that situation so fair does to anyone who deals there. Not a no-risk bail at the third offer for 18k, even when it's a decreased offer.

You do have a point as I've said back in the early days not to reveal anything indepth, otherwise The Banker wll hook onto you like a shot.



Be honest, would you had the same offer at five box if you played the game your way by selecting the boxes in the order you wanted?

But in the latter situation, you at least have that £18,000 to console yourself with. In the former you have nothing, other than a penny and the "honour" one apparently gets from No Dealing to the end...

To Travis: Perhaps £70,000 is a little high with two blues left but it would have had to be above £60,000.

To Daniel: Unless you've already turned down a lifechanging sum, and then winning 1p, you've not really lost anything gigantic. However dealing and then finding out you've had a lifechanging sum, that's a massive gap and I suppose it's bad in a different way. Obviously turning down a massive lifechanging sum, then winning 1p will be pretty damn dreadful. But IMO so would be dealing £3,100 and having £250,000 (Could have just as easily happened on Beryls board)

Ronnie was a lovely bloke. his deal was rather early but he needed the money so i hope he puts it to good use i'm sure he will!!

But presumably for Beryl, £3,100 was enough for her that she would be able to cope with missing out on the £250k.

I guess you could say the game comes down to "Would this offer be enough of a consolation for you if it turned out you missed out on the top prize?". For you, hardly any offer would be enough; for Ronnie, the £18k clearly was.

Well thank god beryl did not play her game now, just looked back on the thread for her game, only two pages long. I think we would be looking at 20 pages had she played her game today.

It clearly wasn't.

You only had to see the pathetic jigging and dancing to celebrate everytime one of the power 5s were opened to see that he was desperate not to be made look even more pitiful than he already was. He would have been gutted if the £250k had been on the table no question. Especially after all that baloney about being the first male player to win the £250k.

It was the most humiliating deal I've ever seen particularly after the Banker reduced his offer. The Banker must have wet himself laughing.

and crazy jane for 27K

ronnie's deal was cautious though, if he had dealt at 8 box it wouldn't have been so bad. .

there must be middle of the road type people endemol can select for the show who may gamble on good boards, there's too much 20-25K ceiling targetism nowadays.

40/50/60K wins etc are rarer than they used to be.

it's more the lack of variety nowadays thats annoying me, even last april wasn't so bad and I could understand many of the cautious deals made then because of inflated offers.

I had hoped the tide was turning with big ron's , rachels and eunices games.

I wonder if the person/people who work out the offers actually get pleasure out of games like today. I'm sure Endemol wouldn't be happy if they had to give out high amounts every day but I'm sure no game show makers are happy when people don't win.

If you're correct in saying the production team make the offers, then why the hell do they try and get people to deal with such an amazing board ahead of them (reminding them of 250k knock out results etc and ringing back to increase the offer)

Tells you a lot about the financial situation for the show...

Well, they have to play a character who's supposed to want to stop a player from going on.

If they constantly pressured the player into going on via the banker, then the character of the banker wouldn't be very realistic...

So they get Noel to do that.

In my opinion, the offers shouldn't be pitched too high or too low. They should be pitched so that they give players decisions to make.