Dan, they are not letting you live this down!!!!

Noel and the pressure to make 'good television'.

Oh, wait, that produces the same outcome.

I'm reminded of a quote very early in the show's life, on the Bar, asking why, 'in a game with only one decision to make', the players 'do not consider the one thing they have available to them - mathematical probability'.

Whilst probability can be used to help players make their decisions, I think a lot of players wouldn't necessarily take notice of it even if they did know the odds of certain things happening. If they have a 4 blues / 1 red board, the chances are that obviously they'll have a blue in their box. However they could be lured by the sight of the red and want to give it a go, regardless of the odds. Conversely, even if a player has a 4 reds / 1 blue board (and therefore a good chance of having a red in their box), the blue simply being there on the board at all could spook them into dealing.

I think that surely explains why some players seem to make "bad" decisions at times. Maureen the other week had a board which was in her favour, but she dealt because she was clearly spooked by the prospect of a blue win. Similarly, other players such as Sarah have been lured in by the sight of the big money on the board and have no dealt generous offers on weak boards, simply in order to try and have a go at winning the big money.

Very true. And in many ways that's the fascination of the game. This run of episodes will be all the more fascinating because the players will be making informed decisions thanks to Dan's presence on the wings - hopefully better ones (last week certainly hinted as much, and today's episode didn't challenge that either).

I agree that on games like today at 5-box, the odds are against you keeping the £75k in play but then you consider what odds you are getting if you keep it in play (in today's case probably at least 10-1 on a 40% probability) so that helps you decide whether the risk is worth it. That's why decent poker players who come on the show should have an advantage.

Gutted for Steve.

To go from such a healthy board to irreversible train wreck was really undeserved. And to pick the £75k at the last possible moment like that, complete nightmare (though my gut was saying he should have gone for Ty)

Still, some nice humour and Steve has something money can't buy - congratulations to him on the latest addition to his family

Let's hope so, although having done some detective work, I should think you would have more informed knowledge about this than most, having seen a February episode already In light of your comments on Noel, I really can't wait for that!

I think this nails it perfectly for me.

Steve never had a real tempter. The £16k was decent and it wouldn't have been the worst deal in the world, but I think it was justified to go on a little further. He was unlucky really. The £1,500 off was ridiculous.

First of all, just give up Mark. We don't want change, it works fine as it is.

Secondly, that was a harsh game. Steve was just very unlucky. The £1,500 offer was an insult and I wish it would have worked out for him.

I think Dan is one of the best additions to the show for a while. I don't mean that nastily to any current contestants but it is good to have a statsman on the wings.

I've had some really nice comments so far. I was a little surprised by this. I assumed that a calculated and sensible approach to offers is not what the average viewer would like to see. I thought the viewers just wanted to see people take big gambles in the search for the big ones!!

There are undoubtedly people like that out there, and indeed on here there are some who just want to see players gambling, but most of us like to see a good game played sensibly with a sensible risk taken, with sensible advice from the wings, and you undoubtedly have given and will give excellent advice to contestants.

Put it this way - the show doesn't have enough statsmen on the show - that's why those who do get on the show are remembered always (Ned and Ed for example) - That's why I'd love Lewis or KP to get on the show one day

Dan, if you can save people's games and help them make better decisions with your knowledge, then I'm all for it. Here's hoping all goes well for you.

There's 2 sides of me that watches the show. There's the "contestants should read the board and not take unneccesary gambles" side but there's also the "wanting to see exciting finishes to the game and people win big money" side. Games like Morris's and Orry's come to mind as ones where I probably didn't agree with the gamble at the end but they make compelling TV.

As a few here would say, this place isn't typical, it draws a particular crowd, quite a few of them mathematical. At the same time, don't forget the core daytime TV audience is students and pensioners - both groups noted for money issues (and in the latter case, disproportionately likely to read conservative-leaning newspapers, many of which have railed against casino expansion and the like).

All told though, I believe your assertion was probably broadly true. It has probably become substantially less so in light of the fact we are now in a recession that can be easily blamed on excessive and irrational risk-taking.

The viewers want excitement and entertainment. A format as open as this one can produce it many different ways - although it is a show about risk, it doesn't need risk-takers to be entertaining because of the emphasis that can be placed on the contestants. For a while, the show was failing in that respect; that is no longer true.



Compelling is the word. I suspect many people - often, though not always, including myself - end up willing the player to lose, while others obviously don't! It's certainly edge-of-your-seat stuff no matter what outcome you're rooting for, just like the end of a close sporting match.