So am I. Nobody like you has been chosen for three years. Perhaps they cast you thinking you could use mathematics to sway people into a No Deal? When did you get 'the call' confirming you were on? I'm willing to bet now it was after October 2007, as games recorded from then onwards saw much more conservative play (moreso even than I would recommend).



Indeed.



Quite. They have to keep the veneer of legitimacy for their ridiculous 'play the game' approach, with all the moral questions it poses, in the final edit, and which you have threatened like no other contestant.

And before anyone pipes up 'the show's about gambling!', it's not. It's about making big financial decisions. Deal or No Deal already feels like an anachronistic show, and it's barely three years old in this country (the format itself is now seven years old, having originated in the Netherlands). It feels like a legacy of the casino-capitalist bubble of the mid-2000s, and I don't see how it can last the recession without some major changes to its approach. As you have revealed, there's more than enough room in the recorded shows to allow a different edit to be aired.

I've looked more aggressive (in terms of gameplay) than I really was. The other person who should feel hardest done by is Alfonso. Who has come accross on TV as a real gambler, turning down all the offers, no matter what, but I definitely didn't get that vibe at the time. I actually thought he gave some of the most reasoned and fair comments during my time there, but in the edit, he seems like a full on Wakeyist! This is definitely not true in my opinion.

At least he has got £20k to get over it, ha ha ha.

That is why I think Dan's game will be very interesting and could be one of the best banker v player tactical battles ever seen on DOND (especially if Dan gets a bit of decent luck with the boxes) and is one game I am really looking forward to seeing.


Jim

A lot of the contestants were telling me the same, but everything depends on the boxes, without them, you've got nothing........ could be good, could be bad, lets see what happens ...... ha ha ha ha!

You need the boxes to at least cooperate enough to produce some sort of decision. As long as there's room for a non-trivial decision, Dan's game will be a cracker.

I get the impression that the offers for Dan's game will be pitched perfectly in the middle (neither over generous nor forcing him on) otherwise it would be too easy for him to make a decision!

All I will say was that people tended to have 2 drastically differing opinions of what offers I would get when it was my show.

The first school of thought was that the banker will have seen the amount of "safe" advice I have given and think he can get me on the cheap, hence, low offers.

The second school of thought was that the banker will know that he can't offer me 40% mean offers after bad rounds because he knows I can read the board, meaning I would get high offers.

What happens will remain a mystery..... for now!

I would subscribe to a third school of thought, which is that the producers will have seen you being clearly smart and want to associate 'being smart' with 'being Wakeyist', hence low offers...

Rico offers another, namely that the game is about decision-making and Daniel isn't one to make a bad call, hence moderate offers.

The best move for the Banker in my opinion against you is to have the generosity smoothly cranking up through the game in the old school style, regardless of board disturbances (the offers might jump around in raw numerical terms, but there would be a steady increase in generosity). This recognises you will make rational calls for your level of risk-aversion, it's just a case of finding that level.

That would be how I would play me. test me at 50% mean, then 60% then 70% etc. Wait until he gets by breaking point.

(the 50%, 60%, 70% not being set in stone and mean not being the only factor, but I get your drift.)

I hope these stupid naggers won't drive her off the forum.

Having no idea on how your game will produce the final outcome I have a feeling the old man will win but I could be wrong though.

Let's just hope the Banker doesn't try and use the same tactics as he did to Geordie in the early days of the show - hoping that the game produced the 1 in 56 crash that he had.

(This will probably make more sense to the old Bother's Bar posters than to the rest of you).

I'm starting to get worried about the editing too - Alfonso dealing when he did certainly stunned me as i thought anyone giving advice like he did on the wings would never have dealt £20k with the top two, another power 5 back-up and a necklace to play! Had it been someone who came across as cautious I certainly wouldn't have been.

Yes I remember well the treatment Geordie got... bad game severely punished by the Banker who never gave him the slightest escape opportunity.

Although the stats men have a varied history - Aaron (as seen on The Krypton Factor tonight!) got extremely generous offers. Ned got all kinds of mind games with extra offers didn't he, and Ed I seem to remember got joke offers early on but then got the respect of the Banker and took him for some fairly serious money!

Dan,

I hope you do a 'nan' and bow out on the first offer!!!! That would have thrown them!!


Nah, not really............ reallly looking forward to your game!

Rob

Interesting. We all know you're intelligent and an excellent mathematician, but you and he also know the game involves risk and a large element of luck.

Here's a theory (and it's not aimed at you personally Dan) .....

Maybe though the banker would start lower against a mathematician , possibly as low as 30% of the mean and edge the offers up slowly in a bid to frustrate the contestant and make them deal earlier. He doesn't know going into the game what your target is (if indeed you have one) ... and your target may be lower than the mean at the time of the offer. Also by offering less than the mean he way see it as a way of getting the contestant to play on.

I'm really looking forward to your game ... potentially it's going to be a great battle of minds between you and the banker.

I think that The Banker knows that mathematicians are less likely to have an 'I'm going to the end no matter what' attitude. Aaron from March 2006 prefaced his game by clearly stating "I'm here to do a deal, but it has to be the right deal". And show 600 Sarah -- a maths teacher -- was described by The Banker as "a mathematician looking for a deal". (She got out of the game at 11-box.)

Maths types aren't going to be persuaded to go on by their own superstitious beliefs or 'lucky' numbers, see?

That's very true.

But I would suggest that 90% of contestants are there to do a deal, so it's no different for a maths player from a superstitious contestant.

And the banker could use that to his advantage by offering lower offers than the mathematician expects to see in an attempt to make them play further than they would feel comfortable.

I think it's safe to say, considering how the generosity of the offers has significantly increased since Dan's arrival, he will be respected and will get good offers. Here's hoping the game works out well enough for him to be able to capitalise on said good offers!