Congratulations to Carol for playing the game in the way she wanted to and not Endemol's. Noel and The Banker's collective attempts to goad the contestant into No Dealing were seriously offensive. It was a joy to see it backfire. Pity she couldn't get an OPW.

You're forgetting poor old Mavis. Yvi gave it a decent go as well.

Well I was a little dissapointed she dealt as once again i felt there was at least one more round in it.

I do think it's frustrating when the player walks away from a strong board with what I would consider a below par offer as happened again with Carol. I'm not saying she should have played it to the end whatever happened but it was definatly worth another punt

To be honest though i wouldn't be so upset if her decision had been vindicated. If the board had collapsed in the very next round i'd have been happy to applaud her for getting out at the right time.

for me the game is about seeing the player make a profit on their box but the way they are playing at the moment they are not only losing out, they are doing so by a ridiculous margin.

This post (and similar by others) is very telling indeed. Don't forget this format originated as a bonus round at the end of a quiz show, and was never intended as a standalone show. Even the first wave of European versions shoehorned a quiz element in, though to no effect as everyone on the wings played eventually.

Any other time I'd totally agree with dougal18. In fact I'm sure I've used those very words before, and I agree that goading players on is indeed offensive and encouraging gambling outside the scope of DoND, where actual losses do occur (playing on the basicasic 'nothing to lose' maxim that's been unsurprisingly appropriated by more people at present). Only problem is that by naively going on to the First Acceptable Deal Point of eight-box, then wimping out, she probably was 'playing by the rules of someone else's game'.

(Trivia time! The above quote is from which musical?)

Anyway. I'm increasingly agreeing with the consensus that this is the origin. Probably a disproportionate number of DoND contestants - certainly compared to the average quiz show, even the ITV daytime ones - are from lower socio-economic groups, and/or are less educated. The people who, in short, wouldn't get past £10,000 on Millionaire (get used to it, it's been like it for a year), less likely to have the mathematical knowledge needed to discern what's a good offer and what isn't, and - this is the critical bit if you ask me - the group most affected by the credit crunch and food/fuel price inflation. Twenty grand is life-changing for such people, and probably moreso now than it was eighteen months ago at the height of Wakeyism (at which point, most of the same factors were working, but not the ones that implied financial difficulty, and now the result was a psychological vulnerability, not to the prospect of losing, but to Noel. I don't know whether to be pleased or not that something has defeated that one...)

It is terribly hard to say whether a quiz should be added. It would imply that some people somehow don't deserve the chance to play - and the notion of judging who deserves a chance to win big money on a game show is so tricky there are entireformats devoted to it.

I'm not 100% convinced that the rather unstable financial climate is causing this wave of cautiousness. It probably has a certain effect though. I think the main factor is the bad luck that "cursed" the show from early spring until the end of June. This seems to have lingered in people's minds. I find it strange that after a week of games where HUGE money could've been won, the players are still worried about the bad games. Even "gamblers" have dealt poor offers on good boards.

The show feeds off variety, which includes variety in luck, gameplay and the contestants. March 2007 was the worst period ever in my opinion: the contestants dull, blue chanting was everywhere and the deals which were made were mainly good but Noel did his best to scupper them, so people cried over mega money wins.

I don't think the past few weeks have been the worst ever overall, but it's almost definitely been the worst ever in terms of gameplay. Some would argue that January 2007 was the worst ever due to the "reckless" gambling - but at least the reckless gambling of that period did provide some excitement - something which poor early deals can't do. Luckily we've had a few characters like Slim and Jess recently who have maintained my interest in the contestants. If this run of monotonous bad decisions is matched by a dull group of contestants in the coming weeks, then this period will be the worst ever for me.

Absolutely, but these so called 'gamblers' tend to be the select few that pretend they are there to play the game for whatever it throws at them, when in reality they are the same, boring old targetist. This may be seen as an advantage as the banker sometimes takes to this 'I am a gambler' attitude and offers them slightly better money for the board. While this is better than the current gameplay, it's still a pretty dirty tactic and I think March/April 2007, as you described, showed a lot of this 'bull' so to speak.

I think another problem that the show faces is that even though there is little hope in the current 'wingers', I assume one person will be 'swayed' by the presence of big numbers on the table, and probably 'just go for it'. While this is certainly something the show needs at the moment, you can just imagine that the amount of luck on the table cannot hold, and the player will probably go to the end in the classic overdue trainwreck and win £750 or less, further enhancing a targetists ambition of bailing out for whatever money pleases them, oblivious of the board's strength.

The whole last nine months have been absolutely diabolical.

The main problem as I see it is one of self-perpetuation. A contestant may join the show full of enthusiasm, bravery and gambling intent but by time they have 2 weeks in the company of (and watched roughly 22 shows of) 22 spineless greedy numpties who can't muster 2 brain cells between them blubbing their way to yet another ghastly cautious cash grab they become exactly the same.

I honestly think the only way to stop the rot is to get rid of the lot of them and start afresh. But that wont happen because there is probably another 6 months of this tripe already in the can.

It didn't backfire though as No Dealing would have been the correct decision

Backfired in that the intended No Dealing pressure failed as Carol was obviously cautious and strong-willed (yes, those two aren't opposites) enough to say 'no, that's enough'.

This is interesting but you are making one massively flawed assumption. That ordinary viewers agree with you.

Typical DoND contestants are from the groups you suggest. But the benefits of this are great. Typical DoND viewers are from this group too. They see it as their show. They empathise with decisions that you deride. They don't do maths either, so they don't see "mistakes" just whether they would have done the same.

Plus, you see early dealing/non gambling as a clear negative. But there is no proof whatsoever - I've said this so often!- no proof whatsoever that that is true. Viewers don't need them to gamble. It's whether viewers can empathise with players; and they can; perfectly.

You are attempting to solve a problem that exists only among "wakeyists", mathematicians and economists who can see the "mistakes" people are making.

But the facts? Viewing figures up drastically on last year and a contract for the show extended. Channel 4, just TWO WEEKS ago, called Dond their best performing and most popular show. They see perfection where you see problems.

If you really want to dissect the show, then look at why people can't see what you do. Don't try and solve a problem they don't have.

And the quote's from Wicked.