Box 23 should say, Banana Sandwich

If ever there was a valid time to use it, this is it.

Lets change that!

Box 23 will say, Banana Sandwich!!!!!

Haha, oh God.

David was a nice bloke and it was great to see he'd come such a long way in life, but that deal was pretty bad in the first place, especially as he didn't really seem to think about it before saying "deal" (could be due to the editing though I suppose).

I guess the mid-game crash after the great start shook him up and he was terrified of winning a blue. The banker's gambles are getting silly now - some of the ones recently have been bad enough but an effective offer of £3k on £100 vs £35k is a terrible offer. Probably one of the worst ever 2-box offers. I've seen the Banker Gamble being offered on blue vs £35k where a player's dealt for about £15k!

I'm sure the money will mean a lot to David and I hope he enjoys it and puts it to good use. As I said, it's great to see someone like that make a go of it in life and come out on top. But unfortunately he displayed one of the worst examples of gameplay I've ever seen on the show. And I'd still be saying that if he'd had £100 in his box before anyone says I'm using the benefit of hindsight...

Very derisory offers today and absolutely no excuses for not going all the way to the end

David handed that game to the Banker on a silver plate with that poor deal

Have to agree with killersbee.....Such a promising start to Season 4 and now it's starting to wreak of bad decisions and cautious deals yet again

Those decisions by David at the 3k and the BG were truly dreadful, I just don't understand why he made them.

Not a lot of variety in the 250k since Halloween, 11 and 13 have each had it 3 times in the past 7 shows, and 11 has had it 5 times in 23 shows.

Who are you to call him an idiot? £3,000 is likely to be a lot of money to David.

And three grand tax free for a fortnight's work is rather splendid in anyone's book.

Sorry but if he needed the money he should have dealt at £15,000! It was a dreadful!!! And £3,000 was a dreadful offer with that board. We are all aloud are own views!

Of course you're entitled to say you thought he made a bad decision, but there's no need to call him an idiot.

At the risk of upsetting everyone, I will say at the start I was rooting for David more than most people of late, and anyone who bullied him deserves to be shot if the things he said are true. But he seemed the type who would win a blue and it would feel horrible.

But as for the game, it just seems like a game of cat and mouse at the moment, the offers are the worst i can remember, and people are dealing simply for the fear of leaving with nothing. I guess the fact that he had mometnum completely against him counted for a lot, I'd hate to have a start that was "too good", as any big hit give the banker ammo to make the next offer terrible so much as one or more blues remain. After seeing a game like that, I can certainly respect more why Richard got out when he did!

(And incidentally David won more than I would have too becuase I'd have swapped due to the offers being so poor).

Just gotta hope for a better game tomorrow!!

So he dealt £3,000 with a 50% chance of £32,000.. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33.. 11x more? Perhaps he doesn't quite grasp the concept of the banker's gamble?

That game was divided off from both the audience and David methinks - because to have the biggest 7 amounts at 11-box should have merited an offer of £20,000 at the very least! David fell victim to some serious banker tightness!

In the end, that £3,000 deal was understandable for one reason in my honest opinion; if his final two were £100 and £20,000 for example, the way the offers were so nasty to him, I for one would have expected a nasty stick. Unfortunately the caution wasn't rewarded...and effectively he did hand the game to the Banker on a plate.

Still, it was good to see someone's dreams come true again...I wonder if he'll continue to pursue game shows now he's had some success!

David seemed a really nice guy but I'm completely baffled at the final decision he made.

BTW going on Mister Al's Toteboard

http://www.bothersbar.co.uk/toteboard.htm

The odds of having the power 5 in play at 8 box are 1 in 470.25.

The deal was more understandable than the rejection of the banker's gamble. We all thought Fadil's low offer (£7,700 was it?) was the most insulting, low offer on that finish. Granted, he had 1p. And then today's player effectively dealt £3,000 with the £100 instead of the 1p. For crying out loud!

The Banker must be feeling the 'credit crunch' quite badly judging by the offers he made today. For the offers to only rise £6,000 (from the original £9,000 in round 1 to £15,000 in round 3) in the space of two rounds which consisted of 5 blues and £10,000 is dreadful.

The deal itself surprised me, even more so the Banker's Gamble not being accepted. I had a suspicion that a Banker's Gamble would be offered if the £20,000 or £35,000 remained (less so £35k though) and when Noel was on the phone you could tell what was coming. If the Banker's not careful it might be something players try to use to their advantage in the future by dealing an offer at 5-box (or before) and "play it safe" in the hope that if the round goes in their favour the Banker will offer the gamble, but if the game goes bad after the deal then the player will at least have what they dealt at and not risk going home with a blue (if that makes sense).

David himself seemed nice and it's nice that he eventually got his dream of appearing on a gameshow after hearing about what he's been through.

When David was called up to play, I had a feeling that he would adopt cautious gameplay. However, I didn't expect him to be that cautious!

His board was almost the best you could wish for at 11-box, with the bottom 7 amounts knocked out and the top 7 amounts in play, but the offers were quite frankly disgraceful. I suppose some players (increasingly few) are of the mentality that when a game crashes in the fashion David's did today, it is better to cut your losses. He could see the game ebbing away to dust, and decided to leave with a lowly but useful sum. The drop in offer got to him, so much so he probably didn't even consider the fairly stable board he still had (that's how it would appear from the edit, anyway). Yes, it was probably one of the worst deals ever, although there is competition.

Now, the banker's gamble was the really bad decision - if you got those odds in a casino, you'd be laughing, and to not take such an obvious gamble combined with taking an extremely poor offer if we're honest, has almost certainly made that the worst show of 2008, if not of all time.

It was just not good television. Horrendous banker play, poor decision making, cocky banker play, even poorer decision making, and a victory for the mathematicians in the end (presuming they'd kept the box, unlike KP). I did like David as a person, but he didn't have a clue how to play the game, there was a real chance to punish the banker today and I'm annoyed it wasn't taken.

That's an interesting point, although I suspect the banker will use this game as an opportunity to give more rubbish offers, in the hope that players take them thinking they may have an outside possibility of a banker's gamble, and then not offer it. I don't think we'll see a repeat of today's BG in a hurry!

Incidentally, that was the lowest selling of the £35,000 box ever, beating the last person to sell the £35k box, Marysia. She dealt for £6,600 also at 5-box, and also turned down the banker's gamble, and that wasn't exactly welcomed kindly!

Indeed - and this was far, far worse!

The strategy of Dealing with half an eye on a Banker's Gamble later isn't intrinsically unsound, but we won't get anything this favourable again.

It's great that so many people get on here and give their opinions on the games played but when it gets personal by name calling - however it is intended - is going too far.

He wasn't idiotic. At worst, his gameplay was...