Well done Carla on winning £30,000!

To be honest, I would have gone at exactly the same point. £30,000 is a lot of money to me. And despite the £75K and £250K still being on the board and possibly being moments away from winning big big money, it was too much of a risk. And could easily have gone horribly wrong, and the result being £30K being a distant memory and walking away with just a few hundred quid.

sorry, didn't make myself clear there. What I meant was well done for ing the banker over that bad £20k offer she got at 7-box! it'd have been horrible if she'd crashed and burned after NDing £20k but luckily she didn't

I missed this as on holiday so here's my saying:

Another player blew the chance at the £250k. We need a very brave player to go on there and go for it and what will be, will be.

The end.

I very much doubt we will ever see a player no deal a £250k/blue finish with a non-joke offer. We've only had 3 no deals in nearly 1,000 shows with the £250k in live play.

Very sensible deal today but we seem to be having a run of high reds coming to the table recently. My attitude is that if you have a £250k/blue finish having dealt beforehand, then the 2 box offer would be the only one to compare your deal to. Had Carla had the Kirsty finish (one of the 3 no deals I mentioned) then there may be some regret but the fact that it was a 10% chance would comfort me.

What a great game. Carla was absolutely delightful to watch, and i love the fact that she has a 37 year old b/f (Gives hope to all us dirty old men )

Seriously, although her approach to the game was slightly skittish, she never seemed unfocused and remained level headed throughout. Can't fault her deal at £30k either, though with two of the power five still in play and a strong likliehood of the a blue/red finish i can also see the appeal of going on, mind you no way would i have turned down the £65k.

Despite the prove-out still a more than satisfactory result, especially after the Bankers rather cruel double-cross at the 7 box offer. With the benefit of hindsight that feels a bit like a set up, was the Banker hoping she'd hit a red with that box just so he could goad her (and to a lesser extent Daniel) a little? Still it backfired on him in the end (sort of)

So yes, definately a strong start to the week

It's easy to say that but if someone offered you £30,000 real money or a 4-1 chance of getting £250,000 what would you do? Take the money or gamble with a strong odds-on chance of getting nothing?

You could win £1 having blown the chance to go home with a life changing sum of money.
For many people £30,000 would be more than just life enhancing!

I thought Love Week had finished yesterday? When Carla talked about wanting the love necklace back I was just waiting for the Banker to ring and say she could have it...and unsurprisingly he did (well the offer after one box part, not the actual necklace). Though admittedly it did add to the tension in today's game and I thought the Banker was on rather evil form today by offering that £20,000 after previously declining £25,000.

With only 2 boxes to open after the 'bonus offer' I can only presume the low offer was made to try and make Carla got to 5-box. Thankfully it went in Carla's favour and she was offered a reasonable £30,000 at 5-box, and I had no idea weather she was going to deal or no deal at that stage. In fact Carla seemed rather unsure herself.

It's a shame that the prove-out didn't destroy the game, but it felt like the right deal for Carla.

I would clap, but Noel rather scared me today. I thought he said on Noel's HQ that he's never been so angry in a studio before.

As many people have said, that was definitely the right deal for her - if in doubt, the best policy is often to deal, as it was clearly apparent there would've been significant regret had she gone away with a blue, and afterwards it appeared she wasn't too disappointed with the £250k being on the table - she had, for her, a massive £30,000!

It's important to define your tipping point with finely balanced offers such as these. A deal with a 30% disaster scenario can almost never be an obvious mistake unless it's for a complete joke offer (neither should it be treated like one afterwards regardless, I should add).

Before the offer came up, I was thinking around the £35k mark, so it was probably just sufficiently below this figure to carry on. It was as borderline as the £25k under 3-to-open rule, though, so well pitched offers on a strong board.

Not sure why the £65k 2-box offer was 'mathematical' though - I presume Dan was trying to remember the FD (he said £62,500 rather than £62,750). It wasn't 30% of anything, so another example of flawed maths from the banker, I suspect (of which Ed's "62% chance of taking out the top 1 at 5-box" was another).

Yet another instance where a Power Five amount was undersold by a huge margin. Someone else needs to win the quarter-million already, but no one seems to have the guts to do it. I'm not impressed.

But hey, if she's happy with what she won, then that's okay, I guess. There was much more money to be had in this game, though - and no one can deny that.

Everyone attacks me in 3... 2... 1...

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! Kitty, kill Mad Mark!

Leave him be, Kitty...his fault his expectations are sky-high...

.......

Dan probably quoted half the top box, then the extra £2,500 was pure Wakeyist inducement.

The FD on Carla's finish is a shade over £64,000.

Do you mean half the mean? Are you talking about the end when I suggested the offer should be £62.5k? Why did the banker think that £65k was the mathmatical offer. Haven't checked it yet, but is it the same percentage of the mean that was given at 5box?

Infact no, the mean at 5 box was approx £65k and he offered less than half.......

Anyone got any suggestions as to why £65k was the mathematical offer?

I guess the offer is the same as the mean from the round before, but that isn't a mathmatical reason to offer something......

Maybe the banker worked the mean out incorrectly, or maybe I'm dumb and have missed something....

I did, yes. Half the mean. Or a quarter of the top box. We all make mistakes

£65k was the mean at the last offer, £30k was less than half, this was more than half the mean. There's only one argument here, and that the producers were once again spinning your 'mathematics' for Wakeyist gain.

I suspect that the word 'mathematical' was used not to suggest that there was some specific formula being used, but rather to suggest that the earlier mind-games were over. He wasn't trying to be 'cruel' any more, he was being 'mathematical' by making an offer based, not on emotions or gameplaying, but on logic.

That makes more sense. The underlying logic being 'If you'd gone on at five-box I'd have realised I couldn't risk an irrational offer on a £250k final two'.

Not with £250k there.....surely - he'd have lost his mind totally if it was.Even I wouldn't risk throwing away £250,000...even if the other amount remaining was £50. Though I despise it as it voids the game, I could understand it coming into play with, perhaps £35,000 or £50k, maybe £75k as it has in the past. But I couldn't see the Banker's Gamble in sight on that final two.

Maybe I'm just too far behind with my theories/opinions on DoND. Need to update myself. But anyway, welldone Carla. £30,000 is a hell of alot of money.

It would be a complete farce if they used banker's gamble there. They seem too be easing off on the banker's gamble now anyway. it should only be used as an occasional 'surprise' and not 'written into' the rules of the game so players start expecting it.