I think Amrik might well have swapped had the banker's gamble been offered (and taken). He didn't look particualrly disappointed when the £75k was revealed in his box, and he said 14 was a special number to him at the start.

I don't know why but I struggled to get into it a bit today, maybe it was the fact that the top two had goone in the opening round. I didn't see Amrik as a big gambler so either it was going to be a trainwreck or an averaging deal (which it was). Don't think I would have dealt, but I certainly would have taken £25k at 5-box. It sounds loads more but it isn't really. £25k sounds like a big win whereas £15k just sounds average I guess.

Still it was 75% of the mean and people were dealing similar amounts on much better boards last summer, so can't really criticise it! It actually was very reminiscent of Lynne's game but with a cautious player, she lost the big two in the opening round, kept most of the other 5-figure amounts to near the end, with all the safety nets going in the latter stages to leave a £75k/worthless blue last pair!!

(Maybe it was the fact there was no Walter wishing him Happy Birthday/Easter!!! - he's left a big hole)

Really looking forward to Love Week though, should be interesting!

I think the banker got it wrong today. (For the record, I'm talking from the shows point of view, I'm delighted that Amrik took the money which he was clearly happy with). I think that the producers pitched it too generous for a man who would never ever gamble. The offer was way too safe, he snapped the bankers hand off. Everything that we got to know about Amrik leaned towards him not being the kind of person to push for the big money and very happy to take a safe, average (in DOND terms) amount of money. The worst thing that can happen in a show is for there to be a no brainer decision. For Amrik, I knew that would be an insta-deal. Pitch it at 10k and he might have started to think about it a bit.

It always seemed from the conversations I had with him that he was not desperate for the big money and he didn't really hide that from the producers and the researchers, so I am really surprised that they paid him so handsomely to get him out of the chair at a relatively early stage. 75% mean, top box only 5 times more than his. I think some more gamble-friendly characters would have taken that tbh.

The producers messed it up a bit to be honest. they got the lightning quick deal and the "I don't care what is in my box" finish. It was mentioned to us the following day that we should talk through our thought process a little more before accepting offers and also to not make out like the big money doesn't matter. It sort of gave the game a flat ending. The fact they had to tell us that made confirmed that they knew that.

In my opinion, that is why the BG didn't come up, because it would have been just as quick a decision and they knew it by that point. It would have been a wasted plot twist that they could save for a better moment.

Also, some of you may know that it is a tradition to put £100 behind the bar if you win over £5k and even though Amrik wasn't a drinker and wouldn't come to the pub, he still left some money for us all, which kind of sums up what a lovely guy he was. The fact he didn't come to the pub was a big obstacle for getting to know us all because we were there all the time!!! but he really made an effort in between shows an d was a true gent. Main thing is that although I think the producers messed up slightly, I'm glad they did, because he went away with the money he wanted and when it comes to the producers being happy or my fellow contestants and friends being happy, it's my DONDers all the way!!!.

Well done Amrik!

Aww Dan, how nice of Amrik to leave some dosh behind the bar for you all, even though he does'nt drink! (sounds like my kind of chap! )

I've got to be honest, after Walter's game anybody being next would find that a hard act to follow. I had the feeling that he wrestled with his conscience (is that spelt right?) at the previous offer of £7500 so I knew he'd bite the hand off the banker at 15K .

I think he really had to justify missing a big family wedding in India, and if 15K did that - then all power to him.

Also, am SO looking forward to Love-week, that tonight seemed a bit low-key anyway. Am so chuffed for Amrik and his family - hope they all have a fab holiday!

On a board that stable, he had little room for stinginess.



£10k on that board would be a laughably simple No Deal for me - would it really have been worth consideration for him? £13k might have been worth trying.



Myself included, with a tinge of reluctance. There wasn't much upward potential there for an eight-box configuration, but nor was there much danger.



And why, pray tell, is that a bad thing?



That would be fair enough. Note, however, the way it was introduced - in quite the opposite manner, hinting that the player was prepared to take it and the Banker wasn't going to risk that. Quite, quite bizarre.



Speaking as a fellow teetotaller, that's great to hear. If only because it shows that being teetotal doesn't exclude you from being known totally - maybe I have a chance of getting on?

[quote]Main thing is that although I think the producers messed up slightly, I'm glad they did, because he went away with the money he wanted and when it comes to the producers being happy or my fellow contestants and friends being happy, it's my DONDers all the way!!!.

I cannot possibly agree more with that statement. Well done for your screw-up, banker!

I think that the formula is that if they want edge-of-the-seat tension, they'll offer low to encourage a gamble. If they want a feel-good programme, they'll offer high to ensure that the player goes away with something. For whatever reason -- maybe because of Walter's disastrous game? -- I'd guess that they wanted a feel-good game today.

Good point, well made.

Reasonable game, decent result, I'm certainly not going to criticise Amrik for not playing all the way, especially after that disastrous opening round and £15k was a respectable 8 box deal.

It was a shame it didn't pan out for him but them's the breaks and the show is about more than just the box you bring to the table

I don't get why the producers have to make people seem unhappy when they could have had more when in reality they're happy. When you deal you're essentially accepting the fact you're happy with the amount you've taken despite there being more money available on the board.

Do they want people like Walter to start crying if they have a disastrous game and win next to nothing (which is the flip-side of the same coin)?

It's not that the producers want people to lie about it if they really don't care, but, the way they pitch it to us is that it doesn't look good when someone shows a lack of respect for large amounts of money. I sort of agree. They don't expect you to lie, but Amrik was talking over Noels bo opening because he was so happy with the money, not giving the final box opening the tension that a lot of viewers would like to see. They don't expect tears or a de-niro-esque performance, but not to be flippant.



Good point and I think they may have probably been thinking about that, but I think they would have gotten a insta-deal on £12-13k. I definitely picked up on his intentions to stay very very safe and I think they could have picked a figure that would at least got him to ask a few questions, before dealing on a figure that he would still be very happy with.



Amrik would have thought really hard about that one and I'm not sure that he would have no dealt. He seemed to have a great fear for the end of the game. Can turn down good money early, but not later on.

I had predicted an offer of 10K at 8 box which would have been worth considering by a targetist but also set up a more interesting finish. Having said that I also agree with misteral that sometimes the producers want to create a feelgood show, and that is exactly what we got yesterday as Amrik had really personalised the game, and said what he wanted the money for.

No. And there's no contradiction between the two - they want people to seem (be?) gutted with a Deal gone wrong but not with a No Deal gone wrong, so more people No Deal! It's as simple as that as far as I'm concerned and I really hope Dan or anyone else on the wings right now can prove otherwise!

'It doesn't look good when someone shows a lack of respect for large amounts of money', Dan? By that token, it doesn't look good when someone turns down big offers without even thinking, yet there have been many occasions where Noel practically enforces that view on players! (Wording careful to reflect his less-bad form of late.)

Yes, I'm angry!

I really don't think people really take Noels words to heart at all. I think he is there to offer the flip-side argument to whatever a player is thinking. He needs to build tension on the decisions. Most players will take on board the words of the other players before they think of what Noel says.

To be honest, I don't think anyone cares what Noel says (in a gameplay sense). I know that I didn't think about Noels words when I was considering offers. I wonder if my fellow DONDers agree (without giving anything away about your shows). I think it would take a pretty naive and suggestible person to make decision based on anything such as what Noel says or what the banker says.

...like the several hundred thousand children watching the show every day? (Irritatingly, no source available. Channel4sales.com no longer show the demographic breakdown of DoND's audiences, but they used to, and I remember seeing that the overall audience was several hundred thousand lower than the 'adult' audience. If you'd joined last year when the forum was ruined by a bunch of 'Wakeyist' kids ('Wakey' himself is a teenager), you'd see where I was coming from.)

I'm not worried (quite as much...) about three or four 'naive and suggestible' contestants making out-of-character decisions. I'm worried about three or four hundred thousand 'naive and suggestible' kids and teenagers.

I think I understand your reservations a bit better now. Interesting point. Don't disagree with it really, but it's about making good TV and giving the viewers what they want..... Although thats how "the Running man" started I guess

In all seriousness though, I see your point a little clearer now, but I guess the problem of easily accessible and glamorized gambling doesn't end at DOND. I thought your issue was with the Game and the player and not the message it sends to others.

KP, you have left me wondering if you actually like the show?!! Surely the whole programme is about gambling to a certain extent? I agree with Dan, without giving anything away, that Noel's role is to build up the tension, and make good TV - hes a TV host after all. I think the word I would use for it is Devil's Advocate. Something that was edited from a game thats already been shown, is me being asked to give advice, and as i often said, i urged the player to think about the actual money offer - Noel came up behind me and called me a chicken - I said i was only pointing out what COULD happen and he agreed in the end that there are 2 ways of looking at it.

I get the quite obvious vibe that you arent a Noel fan???!!

At the end of the day, Noel doesnt really know very much about anyones personal circumstances, so his comments are based on what we learn from the player at the table and how they seem to be playing.And also how the board is looking. i dont know whats different with this show than any other gameshow where money is involved and chances need to be taken regarding gambling. Amrik obviously had a personal target, when he was in the region, he dealt - it didnt matter what Noel said! Thats my opinion anyway!

OK OK guys, let me quickly explain.

KP is a faithful fan of the show, but his patience has been stretched over the last 18 months of the show because of Noel's behaviour - on TV at least, it seems that one day Noel is all for gambling and playing to the end, and the next he's trying to make the person deal.

Les from July, he is a prime example of this. He comes on the forum a lot too, so he might even be able to chuck his two cents worth in this. But sometimes, regardless of the board (bearing in mind Les had £50 and £100,000 left), Noel was really talking up the chance to win £100,000 and make it sound like it's definitely worth going for, despite the offer being £25,000! Les seemed on screen at least like a careful player of the game, but ended up saying No Deal and consequently winning the blue in his box. And since then, KP has thought that Noel talks people out of playing sensibly sometimes depending on his mood etc.

I really hope I've explained this well, KP - if not I do apologise.

I think Nol is there to be the devils advocate though. it's not random when he decides to encourage safety or otherwise. He's there to build the tension at the decision times. If a player looks like he will definitely play safe, he has to give the other side and try and get the audience guessing what his decision will be. On the flip side, if someone looks hellbent on gambling, he will play up the virtues of safe play to hopefully induce a bit of mystery over what the player will do.

I thought KP didn't like this as a gameplay tactic (from Noel), but it seems his views are on a greater, social level. I see his point, but I wouldn't blame Noel. The audience want the tension and DOND will give them what they want, the moral implications of this are another matter.

A bit of clarification here.

Dan is right that I am worried for the players, just as no doubt he is, but my first criticism of the show is from a societal perspective. Such is the life of a social scientist (I expect to graduate this year with a BSc in Economics and Politics, and I have also studied sociology, psychology and mathematics at various points in my post-compulsory education).

Yes, DoND is fundamentally about risk management, which can be phrased as the extent to which one chooses to gamble. Indeed, every player takes a risk by turning down (as not one person has failed to do so far) the first and second offers, as my signature reveals. (I would have taken two of the offers in question, and recommended that the player dealt in one other instance.) It's about big financial decisions, which may or may not be risk-taking, and the host's job is to take it as it comes. Traditionally this has been by espousing the option the contestant is leaning away from, a Devil's Advocate position as Clare-Louise herself puts it, in order to maximise the show's emphasis on agonising personal vexation. This is not intrinsically A Bad Thing. At other times, and this was most evident in early 2007 in the slipstream of the jackpot win, there is a pure out-and-out endorsement of risk-taking made clear before a box is opened. This, in my view, is unquestionably A Bad Thing.

Clare-Louise asks what's different about this show compared to other risk-reward game shows. Not an unreasonable question; by means of an answer I offer you this, and then I offer you this, and I ask you to compare and contrast the behaviour of each respective host.

I am very glad to see that such an overt display of disapproval of a No Deal from Noel was left out of the final edit of a recent game. Apparently the editors have got the message that we are in a recession caused by the collapse of a bubble blown by risk-taking financial institutions.

In answer to Davey - he's pretty much nailed it. I would have worded 'faithful fan of the show' as 'faithful fan of the format', because it is the format and the game that I fell in love with, and it is some of the production decisions which make the show what it is that I have felt so anguished by.

Then again, I've been a net saver all my life and that's not the thing to be in an age of 1% interest rates and bank bailouts, so it only stands to reason I'm a passionate advocate for the merits of financial conservatism...