Dan, when you were 'imploring' Trev to Deal, did the thought of a potential Banker's Gamble cross your mind at that time? (I was definitely thinking that it was likely on a high red vs. low red finish -- which is of course what happened. Even more reason to Deal in my opinion, since the player could still have a chance of the big money, but with a reduced risk of disaster.)

Very good point, MisterAl, and I was thinking the same. On that configuration, a Deal was definitely not the end of the game, and the player could have the advantage of reassessing at two-box without risking the prospect of a blue/orange finish.

Exactly. The only situation where a No Deal would have been better would have been hitting the 10% chance of the £50k/£35k finish.

I'm glad someone asked that actually. The forcefulness was brought about for 2 reasons really. Firstly, it would have been much more of a throwaway bit of advice if Noel hadn't made me beg and highlight my opinion he should have dealt. It was my third show and if noel tells me to beg, I will do. After all, he makes the rules and knows what makes good TV.

Secondly, me and Trev talked a lot about offer strengths and probabilities of improving, etc and one thing that he really wanted to hear me tell him (in my wording) is how high is offer was in relation to the average on the board (I think I remember this to be about 85%). This was higher than the 10 games before by some way (the only games that I'd watched for a long time). Also we were looking at risk/reward and in that case, he was 1/5 to get an offer that is only 3 times higher (approx) than he dealt on, making there little value in his quest for significantly bigger money (hindsight is a wonderful thing though).

Trev really wanted to here my view on the board and I gave him my opinion. I did however regret the fact that I asked (nay, emplored) him to take a deal. I realized straight away that wording it like this can come across differently to anyone who wasn't part of the night befores conversation (Alfonso, Trev, Deb and Andy). You will definitely notice a difference in how I word my opinions from this show onwards.

As for the bankers gamble. I said earlier that he was never an all or nothing person. I can tell you that some of the agonizing over that decision were for the cameras, lol. He was never going to risk it for £50k. He's a humble guy and he wanted to enjoy his experience and a guaranteed big win was better for him than a coin toss for a massive one.

oh, and to be honest, I had never thought of the bankers gamble at 5 box, because I didn't know what it was, ha ha ha. I hadn't watched the show in some time so I was not expecting that twist.

It would have been a clever tactic though MisterAl. I like your thinking, but it would have been pointless for this player as he was never going to risk it anyway.

Another good game with the best offer I have seen for a very long while. Well done to the Banker there! (I wouldn't normally say that, but that was an amazing offer, one which I would have taken).

I had a feeling that the £50k would be left and that the B.G would be used, and I was proved right. I personally wouldn't have risked it with the £1,000 but may have given it a go with a slightly larger red.

All in all, a good game. And a decent win.

The following statements should be read knowing that they are coming from someone who has criticised the host consistently for more than three years, and stopped watching the show consistently for two, both of which are strongly related to each other.



Right. Yes, little bits of advice are par for the course and as such can often get ignored. 'Oh, Daniel says Deal... someone else says No Deal...' Your opinion, being very soundly grounded in the mathematics of the game and also very strongly held, was evidently seen as worthy of greater emphasis, and also obviously presented an opportunity to put you in the spotlight. You can't have 21 people in the spotlight all the time in a 45-minute show,and it's generally easier to focus on maybe a half-dozen. This put you in that group for sure.

I note, however, that you felt the need to go along with what Noel says. I cannot stress enough how much I hope the players don't feel this, because Noel regularly makes his feelings on the game very clear indeed, with value-loaded words such as 'squander' and 'courage' (the latter a real misnomer, because it is courageous to ignore him and 'play the game' - another one that really annoys me - in the manner of his choosing, which is actually not playing the game at all but simply brushing aside the offers and hopping for the best!).



Something that doesn't come through in the heavily edited version we see on Channel 4. It is a very generous offer relative to the long-run average, too, even considering the relative stability of the board (I say relative because £1k and even £5k aren't particularly amazing safety nets against Power 5 amounts). I note, with great interest, that you had no awareness of the Santa v Scrooge games, where offer generosity was all over the place in many ways because of the twists involved. However, this was especially generous and an instant Deal.



Which is more than the presenter does.



1/10, actually. Ten possible two-box finishes, the only one clearly better was £35k/£50k. That, however, merely strengthens your assertion to him anyway!



I only wish that the presenter would regret the fact that he asks (nay, implores) people to take a gamble, in the same way you have regretted the reverse. Fortunately, this was the right decision in anything but hindsight, and I would rather people do what you did and not the reverse, given that the show has quite enough pressures the other way.



A point of view that, in this of all times, should be much more accepted on the show. The very fact he felt the need to play up the possibility that he would take the risk 'because it's good telly' makes me feel sick.

I can't wait to hear more of your contributions, even if on the show itself they'll now be somewhat neutered. And I really, really can't wait for your game!!

As others have said, statistically it was right to deal for £15,500, to be honest I was expecting
an offer of £10,000 which would have been reasonable.

Advice on the wings is often poor it has to be said, but Dan's
was good as he based it on probabilities.

Banker's gambles are only likely to be taken if they are weighted
in the contestant's favour because true gamblers wouldn't already have dealt in most cases!

KP. Some good points there.

Sorry I wasn't clear with the 1/5 comment. What I meant that if he were to win the big amount of money (specifically £50,000), he was 1/5 to have it in his box even though it was only about 3.3 times more than he had already won.

Not to mention the fact that 30% of the time he's going to get rid of the top 2 and in that case, the amount of money would be cut to below 2.5K (best case scenario) which represents at best a 1/6th of the deal on 5 box. Hitting the worst possible round will happen 1 in 10 and that would make his offer cut to below £500 which is 1/31st of the money he had. Either way, the numbers didn't lean towards needing to take the gamble in my opinion. Thats what my opinion was broadly based on: -
1 in 5 to get the big which was only 3.3 more
1 in 3.3 would drop his offer by at LEAST 6 times
and 1 in 10 would drop his offer by at LEAST 31 times.

3 things that made me think that THIS PLAYER should take the good deal that was offered him.


I can tell your comments come from someone who isn't keen on the host, and I can see your reasons why, but it isn't as bad as you might think. Noel does help encourage bravery, but he can also see when people really don't want to go on and he does tend to give advice that errs on the side of caution a little more. I have a few examples, but they are from games in the future and I'll not spoil them, I'm sure the discussions will arise at the time of airing.

As for Noel getting me to beg. It was all cool. I'm sure noel can see that Trev wouldn't be swayed by the little stunt and if it was a little old lady who only wants cash for a new boiler, I think noel would definitely not emphasized the fact I "implored" him to go on.

You have no idea how glad I am to hear of that, Dan! Can't wait to see those discussions... and how they edit the games in question...

I'm glad theres another statsman on here. I will say that I quote a probability wrong later in the series but the banker doesn't pick up on it. I wonder if you'll spot it???







...you will. I was off by 0.003%

I have to say, and not to spoil forthcoming shows, Dan's advice was always based on maths and probability foremost and he was a great addition to the wings. His one advantage over the banker however was that he knew us personally and therefore was able to give advice based on his knowledge of maths and his knowledge of the player. I'm sure that will be evident throughout Dan's time on Deal.

I am self proclaimed "no good at maths", so Dan certainly became my maths brain!!

Awwww, your going to make me blush.....

Good game, Excellent five box offer that was wisely accepted.

Like Walter I thought Trev gave the impression he was going to go all the way, whether that was a front for the Banker's benefit or not i don;t know but his deal did catch me off guard (Though most players i probably would have expected it)

Shame it didn't pan out for him but still a healthy result

nice result for Trev there, shame about the £50k in his box, but £15,500 isn't to be sniffed at!

pleasure dan!!! its only the truth!