Another decent game (there hasn't been a really poor one for a while now, or so it seems to me). I liked Ryan, he seemed a nice, genuine guy.

I have no problem with his deal, £23,000 is good money, and with the £250,000 the only figure above it, a no deal would have been risky (although perfect in terms of the 2-box scenario). And it wasn't that far away from his target, I'm sure it will at least help to some extent.

That's a good point. I am reminded of Brunhilde's game where she chased her own similarly ambitious target and ended up clearly regretting it, and everyone criticised her No Deals apart from the usual suspects. Who have now gone (and I have to laugh at where the £250,000 was - Box 3 ) so, well, I'm mightily relieved people aren't being hypocritical and complaining about this Deal.

The particular thing about this was what Ryan's target was. Brunhilde's was for one concrete thing with a fixed cost, an operation at a private hospital; Ryan's was for paying off family debt, and it is sensible to accept an offer of a portion of that as having a portion of the effect. In other words, Ryan's utility curve had a point of inflection at £30k - which believe it or not makes it more sensible to Deal in the £20k bracket, because the upside potential in terms of utility is greatly limited. There was a 40% chance of more than £30k, a 20% chance of much more, and for someone like me whose utility curve is relatively smooth, that's very tempting. For someone for whom £60k is not that much better than £30k, it's not.

Oh yeah, definitely. £23,000 is going to help considerably to clear debts, whereas it may not be enough for an operation (I can't remember the exact figure she wanted). The deal was right for him.

I suppose it all comes down to what people need the money for. To me, £23,000 would greatly help my life as I have no significant thing that the money would need to be used on (well apart from university/education). I wouldn't be using the money for one use, but instead to be financially secure (to a certain extent) in the upcoming years of my life.

I'd have similar use for £23k, and have no idea if that'd put me off chancing my arm on that board.

Definitely right for him and it shows the demerits of absolute rigid targetism - even for targetists!!

To be honest, I think the fact that I have no desperate requirement in terms of money at the moment means that if I ever got onto the show, I would go by the board, and not be a targetist. Because to me, even £3,000 would be a great sum of money to have.

I don't see the problem with being a targetist however, but perhaps it restricts you actually playing the game.

I agree totally (this is a really good discussion!). I'm not a targetist because I have no overt specific aspiration that a five-figure sum of money could fulfil.

Good discussion here (so much better than the Wakeyists v everyone else arguments we used to get!! ) - I like to think I'm not a targetist, howver there is a certain point where if the offers get above a certain amount (usually 30k if there are two blues left and 50k if there's at least one blue plus an orange) where I get into "I can't possibly turn down that much when i could still go home with only (say) £1,000"!!! I think Martin's game on Bonfire Night would have been a recent example, where I'd had to have taken the 51k at 5-box or whatever it was, as there was a 10% chance of the last offer being something like 3k (on 10k/blue). 75k Kirsty would have been another (10% chance of a 3k/£500 finish).

I think that "point" for many players is bang on 20k. (similar to today with Rhys I guess, he still could have ended up with an all-blue last pair or an offer about 3k on 15k/blue from which you'd also have to no-deal).

I do have the other trait of a non-targetist the other way though - and that's I always deal great offers on poor boards, I remember John in April 07 (the one who in a choir) got offered 5k at 11-box on a 35k-high board where the mean was 6k and turned it down, I'd have snapped it up immediately. He had two great rounds following it (5 blues and 10k) and he only got double his money!!

This is the kind of conversation I tried to instigate with the Wakeyists and look where it got me, earned me a reputation for cowardice!!

John's game is one I remember for NOT watching - after commentating on Jeannie's game the day before and being put off the show pretty much once and for all.

I liked Ryan, and was really pleased to see him play a blinder. He was only robbed of an OPW for not picking the right box in a new game Noel has recently called "Turning Left or Right" (leaving one box on either wing til the end heading to the last box selection).

And thanks Mike for doing the show commentary for me; was meant to be me but my laptop died yesterday afternoon at the grand age of 4 years old!

R.I.P. Divvy's Laptop

Yeah, it is far easier to have this sort of conversation without the Wakeyists.

I guess I would classify myself as being right in the middle of the two. I'm definitely not a Wakeyist, but I'm not a targetist. I'd deal an offer if I thought it was good and was a fair offer for the board. Saying that though, I wouldn't be afraid to have a go at the banker for giving me a poor offer (a few shown in Rhys [£15,000 with that amount still in the game plus the power 5] and Vincenzo's game).

I don't know how you'd classify that style..

Kellyist. Stick it to the Banker for not offering enough, but be more than ready to admit when enough is indeed enough!

(Etymology: from Andy Kelly)

Ok, then I'm most likely a Kellyist.