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...