The best thing to have is contestants who can make a decision based on both the offers and what's on the board, instead of only one of them, which a lot of players seem to be doing right now.

god, am i the only person that enjoyed the show? and happy that she got a good amount of money in which she could help her children and go on a decent holiday! Thats the only reason i watch the show, is to potentially see normal everyday people win money that could help them out in lives and Joanne today did that, so im happy! I also find it funny that some people get so worked up over the fact she didnt go on but im happy with the way it happened even though she dealt!

everyone is technically 'greedy' but I don't begrudge people trying to get free money - just frustration that in the past there was a better spread of players and luck and people were more to grips with the game whether they be analysts/gamblers/whatever.

it seems as if endemol are deliberately picking to many overemotional players too.

Don't get me wrong she had good intentions - the tears were a bit too much though and slightly detracted from the gameplay.

I'm sure they are picking the most emotional targetted cautious players all the time to try save themselves money.
Betty managed to slip the net though .

Didn't see this, but I reckon it's nowhere near as bad as what's being implied on here. I would have no-dealt, but I don't think the deal was that bad - taking the box you've got the same chance as ending up with more than you have of winning a blue, and then the 10k in the middle to balance it out, and only an all-red finish would give a much better offer at 2-box (30% chance). I don't think many people would have been happier with the decision if she'd come to it by that means though, rather than just taking it instantly.

It sounds like the kind of game I'd have been relieved she dealt becuase I really wouldn't have wanted her to have a trainwreck!

And I do think it's Endemol's fault - were there any people like this in Season 1? Can you for one moment imagine Mad Sarah breaking down at the start of her game? Or Pat M swapping for a box number that was a dead relative's birthday?

I can imagine someone going along for an audition and saying something like "I want the 250k, I'm going for 250k if it's still on the board no matter what, and don't care if I win 1p" - they'd get kicked out of the door straight away!

i stand no chance then

same

What rubbish. If ever they got anyone like that apply they'd handcuff them to the studio to make sure they didn't escape. It would be the salvation of the show.

Don't hold your breath though.

As soon as her name appeared on the board I was telling Noel to get the tissues out!

or perhaps Deal Or No Deal Or Maybe Deal Or Deal If I Open The Right Box And Get What The Banker Promised If I Do it...?

I'm in the flamed/basic/jiveclive camp on this one, it was absolutely hideous. One of the best things about DOND is the way you can get caught up in it, but I think today is the first time I've ever been angry at a contestant. I got told to calm down, when I was shouting at her just to deal and go.

Three things that really strike me about this - First, everyone's talking about her "greed" and her target, she accepted 10k and at one point was offered 9k. not a big difference, so if 10k was the target and she was such a pathetic character, 9k was a good time to get out, she was never gonna have the balls to go on and she knew it.

Second, the banker got it spectacularly wrong today. If his job is to get them out for the lowest price, 10k was way too high considereing she was falling apart. I reckon she'd have taken 7k or maybe even less rather than carry on, and if she did no deal and carry on, the game would have been blown apart in the next round, leaving her with a harder decision, and then maybe 10k would have been appropriate.

Third, what a bunch of total no-hopers this lot are, did you hear the advice they were offering? "Remember our conversation" twice that I can recall, and Harvey the "sage" getting three bites at the cherry and still only managing to state the bleeding obvious.

I wonder how many of you all applied to be contestants recently, and are looking at this crowd and wondering where you went wrong?

Folk definitely need to take more risks and more of a punt at 100K/250K etc but I think the point he's making is that there might be no tension if they didn't care about the money at all.

But gamblers/wakeyists are needed at the moment!

i have applied and i know instantly where i went wrong, i didnt have a sob story and secondly i said id play till the end and i wouldnt deal at any point of the show.
i therefore will have no chance of getting on. i could give quite a good sob story but to me thats your personal life and it should stay that way.
tom, dick and harry dont want to know your personal details so why air them.
come on endemol. get some decent players (and yes players not dealers) ASAP or your show will definately get the last curtain call.

*sigh* I never had flamedtresses down as a Wakeyist...



Quite. That's possibly the best definition of an analyst; targetists consider only the former, Wakeyists seemingly only the latter. Harvey's our best hope here...

i suppose you could bluff your way on to the show with a sob story then not bring it up?
Seriously though contestant selection must be 'a moral can of worms' because everyone is 'greedy' like basicasic said. Who 'deserves' to go on a show to win free money.

i just want to see a really decent run of games really with gambling and board analysis and well pitched offers and it's been a while with poor luck/player/board combinations bar a few decent games recently.

He's at least hinted at knowing how to read the board.

Although I suspect he might be a targetist, he seems the least bad of the bunch.

Totally agree with your comment on contestant selection, and perhaps the Dutch original was onto something by having an audience-elimination quiz...

I didn't find yesterday's show that good, not because of the deal, but more because it seemed very slow and not very entertaining.

Joanne herself was ok and to be honest I thought the deal at £10,000 wasn't that bad. The maximum she could win was £50,000 and so it's not like she blew a potential six figure sum away. I'd rather of seen her deal at that point than go on and destroy the board. Then the Dream Factory would of been flooded with tears if that had happened.

As for the Banker's Gamble, I did find it kind of pointless on this occasion. But I do like to see it as it at least adds an extra twist at the end (even if the majority of times no-one is going to take it). But why on earth did they have to complicate it even more? Why not just offer the Banker's Gamble and let the player to decide if they want to swap boxes. It would of been much easier and less confusing. So supposedly we wanted to see £35,000 on the table, because if the BG was taken the boxes would of been swapped, so technically the blue would of been on the table. But if Joanne had played on to the end she wouldn't of been offered the BG and might not of swapped and won £35,000 The fact the Banker knew she was not likely to take the gamble, why make a situation more confusing when there's no need to.

I think that the Banker's Gamble was used as some sort of extra guilt trip had she blown the £35,000.

As an ex player I see myself agreeing with Basic ,is it the chance of gambling with endemol's money the key ingredient or does a contestant presume they are going to lift a tidy sum for a 2 or 3 weeks work(work it is not!)
I like to see some emotion in people's game but crying early in a game is a turn off,endemol try to pick a variety of contestants but same as anything in life once in the chair they have no control over the contestant and how they wish to play .Basic has answered one thing that puzzled me why Savvas and Adam had strange burn marks on their wrists(they were out and out gamblers)

Correction - it was designed to give the impression she'd blown the £35,000 regardless of which box had it. Quite, quite ludicrous and manipulative, and I say that as someone who would like to see more risks taken than at present.

Stephen - I don't see it really as either of those things. Well, not exclusively either of those things. For me it's deciding, at each point, whether the value of the offer (bearing in mind money is always what you make of it) exceeds the value of playing on (clear-cut at two-box when you know it's a 50-50 shot of one of the two box values, before then you have to anticipate future offers but even then we're increasingly seeing those becoming 'knowns' especially on dangerous boards, which makes decisions more informed - I hasten to call it 'easier').

In terms of why we have this contestant trend, it comes down to what (Endemol think) the audience wants to see. If (Endemol think) the typical daytime TV audience wants to see these stories, they'll keep coming. While we might be the most-informed and loyal part of the DoND audience, we are a minority within it.