If Dermot could indeed cope with the consequences, fair play to him.

From what he said, I gained the impression it was an out-of-character gamble, and there were other reasons to believe it could be so. But I doubt even the players know what's going through their heads at that time in the chair... which can of course cloud their decision-making.

And the run ends....it happened to happen someday. [It started after Walter won £1, and ended when Dermot won £1....]

I personally would have dealt, but if he was determined to try and get the biggie, then fair play to him. And he took it rather well, which helps.

I just hope that this game doesn't lead to a run of cautiousness...

Feel gutted for Dermot, I really do. Incredibly brace decision to No Deal (in fact one of the most unsure/unconfident No Deals I've seen). BUT, you don't get £250k winners without trying and he certainly did that.

Personally, I think he should have dealt at £15K but he played in the spirit of the game and you have to commend him for that.

I do sort of agree with you Joey. Although I do think that generally people are just wording it wrongly and it may come across wrong (I'd hope this is true). There is often a lot of "I don't think he wanted to do that" or "she acted out of character there", when the person may mean "it seems like he he wanted to do that", etc, etc. I think David will know even better than me if it was out of character from Dermot, because the really crucial moments to see if someone is showing regret is not whilst in the studio in the instant aftermath, but after about an hour or so and then during the rest of the night. I wasn't there for that, so I would be interested to know how he took it, but during the time I got to know him, I never saw him as the kind of player to let things get him down.

You do need to remember as well that it is impossible to 100% judge someones emotions, reactions and even their tendancy to gamble, because the show is made up of lots of reasoning. Most players usually talk up the pros and cons of each offer, this is often in excess of 10 minutes, during this time, the people on the wings will give a mixture of aggressive and defensive advice. The rest is edited together to fit to the result. A prime example would be Clare-Louises game. Whilst filming the show, She took a deal that was edging on the defensive side, but took a very acceptable offer. The mood in the studio was one of unbelievable support. Everyone knew that the money would be fantastic for Clare and that she wasn't a chaser of the big money. Even the neutral audience were convinced, because they saw he full reasoning.

If clare would have picked the 250k in the next box, the show would have highlighted all of that positivity and the game would have a real feel good factor to it, but it stayed until near the end and the show turns out completely different and we go from the decision being a really happy moment, to one were it looks like she made a mistake, just by the editing. As much as we think we aren't susceptible to being led by the edit, trust me, we are.

I was lucky with the edit, because they made me look pretty good. They even omitted the time when I got the average wrong and carefuly edited around it. That is because they edited me to fit a certain character. If it turned out that I missed out on the 100k in my proveout, I really believe that not just my show would have been edited to show me making a bad decision, but all the shows before it aswell. They also edited out all my emotional shouts and screams, and instead, showed a lot of very deadpan expressions. this again was very careful editing to fit the character they had me pegged as.

This is TV I guess, I don't have any reason to complain, so if it sounds like a rant at the editors, it's not, but it's just a reminder that you rarely ever really know the intentions and thoughts of a player, a lot of it is pushed at you.

I see your point, and agree that David has the best view on Dermot specifically. I probably overstate things sometimes.

On the more general point I have to agree broadly, with a caveat or two. Yes, I don't doubt players are edited to fit a certain storyline, that's what the soap-opera angle of the show is all about and it's what has helped make it a thousand-show, three-and-a-half-year daytime TV hit through thick, thin, big wins, blue wins and a sharp change in the economic situation and an implied shift in the public attitude to financial risk-taking. (Yes, this last one's the one I've focused on the most...) A prime example would be Les, who was edited to look more cautious than he was in order to maximise the shock value of his actual game in which he went all the way, turning down £25k on blue/£100k... to get the blue. The forum heaped hatred on him, even me, because people were Dealing moderate sums on boards worth half as much again or more even to less-than-aggressive players like myself (I have been notorious for so-called cowardice on the forum and I criticised some of these Deals even more fiercely than some of the usual suspects!), and the actual game left us all utterly bewildered.

I would argue, though, that if the editing process leaves players looking less good if they Deal (especially if it goes wrong) - and Clare-Louise is a perfect example - then presumably the counterpoint to that is to make them look better for a No Deal, even if it goes wrong. Well, it seems the logical second half of the equation to me, anyway. So why did they provide an edit that showed Dermot saying he couldn't believe his decision, strongly implying regret when that decision immediately backfired?

I guess the editing is impossible to comprehend sometimes. I feel much more confident in predicting more conservative play for the rest of this week.

Just on this point, I was in the audience for four games where Les was on the wings, so saw what he was like unedited. I remember plenty of occasions during those games when he advised the player to be cautious, but I don't remember him ever encouraging a gamble the like of which he decided to indulge in himself. So I don't think that the editors were twisting things too much there.

I really don't why people say that contestants that go for it and it goes pear-shaped say that they are greedy particularly if they can live with the conquences.
If I had an offer of £20,000 at five box with £250,000 and four blues which knowing me I would certainly no deal but if it goes horribly wrong I can live with the conquences, what are people going think then if they see that I have a facial expression which tells people that I can deal with the outcome and also I am still very positive at the end?
I don't understand why people make a contestant so unpopular if it goes horribly wrong and contestants because popular if it goes right. Surely they should all be treated the same regardless of the outcome which is all pot luck apart from deciding on the offers. Of course if anyone finds that a part of a contestant's personality that annoys them then fair enough (for example someone who always screams with they are excited). The point I am trying to make that people don't know what the contestants are like most of the time. Do you see any the contestants say any negative things about the player of the day if gambles don't pay off, the answer is no.
If someone was playing blackjack and someone already had 15 in their hand and they took the chance that the next card would be six or less, I don't think that suddenly you would make that person unpopular just because they took a chance and it didn't pay off.
If people constantly dealt between £10,000 and £20,000 all the time the show would be boring. In fact more boring in my opinion than if the contestants went for it all the time. The best moments for me is when the contestants decide to be brave and go for it.

I hadn't spoken to Dermot a lot about his gameplay but he didn't strike me as being particularly cautious, but neither did he strike me as being a gambler. I don't think his decision was "out of character" though. I don't think he was even thinking about Claire's game on Sunday or Doreen's game just over a week ago, and I doubt he was thinking about the red streak either.

As I believe is the case with most players, he was focussing on HIS game, looking at HIS board, discussing the options with HIS girlfriend, and isolating everything else whilst making these decisions. Again, I can't comment for sure about this as I don't have his brain to hand. I think it's clear from the show that Nuala (his girlfriend) was hinting at him to deal at the 5th offer, but he no dealt - surely that's further proof that the decision to "no deal" was his own preference, as surely if he'd dealt then he may have been showing a decision based more on Nuala's preferences than his own?! I can't be sure Nuala wanted him to deal, I'm just going by the comments she made at the 5th offer. I think the biggest influence for Dermot was seeing the £250k still on the board, and when he tied that with his "Dorset dream", he decided to give it a go. As he kept saying after the £250k went, it was "HIS decision".

I liked Daniel's description earlier on about "greed" being defined by how regretful the player is after their game, and I don't think Dermot had any regrets at all after his game. Obviously he wasn't particularly swinging from the chandeliers - who would be after winning just £1 - but he wasn't devastated either. In fact, people were buying him scratch cards and he scratched them off in the pub later that evening and won £1 on one of them, and was getting quite excited that he'd doubled his winnings!

So he was a moderate player who had to decide between chasing the £250k or getting out before a very clearly conceivable collapse, with an offer pitched to make either viable, and influences either way (his girlfriend towards the latter, the perception of invincibility from never seeing a bad game towards the former).

And he chose the former, and it went badly wrong, and apparently he coped. Thank goodness for that, we can get on with our lives now.

Ouch, what a way for the Red run to end - and strangely apt that the first blue winner in over a month should win exactly the same amount as Walter, his predescessor

Personally I would have backed out at 5 box, just because the board was too precarious for my liking but Dermot clearly thought it was worth the gamble and did not appear to regret his decision after, so I have to admire his pluck.

To be honest he came across as too laid back to be greedy as well, at least in my eyes.

Trust the day I go to the dream factory to be the day the red streak comes to an end in dramatic fashion. I thought he wouldn't be able to resist the novelty offer and sizeable sum, but equally going on wasn't the wrong decision, just one I wouldn't have taken.

The hesitation indicates he wasn't fully confident with the decision, but importantly he was prepared for the consequences. Too often we have seen players utterly distraught when it goes wrong, as if they hadn't considered that possibility, but Dermot was not one of those players.

Weird to see it on television again having been in the audience so much lately - I was half expecting to see the unedited version!

In short, a player who knew the dangers, had a difficult task deciding whether or not to let them deter him from chasing the big money, decided against it, and it went the other way.

If he'd have taken it worse had he Dealt and kept the £250k to two-box, it was the right decision to play on, and vice versa. But not even he could probably tell you that with total honesty, at the time or in hindsight.