Sorry if I seem "cold" about this game....but £1 will just about buy a packet of loo roll for the new bathroom they wanted. £15k could have bought that new bathroom. I just feel that there are some who are too ready to risk a decent amount on a dream, forgetting that their offer is real money.

If he has took it well, and he seemed to be the kind of person who would take it on the chin, then he's not wrong for making the decision, no matter what the offer is. If someone makes a decision and can stand by the consequences, I have no problem with it.

Massive shame though, because Dermot is genuinely a great guy. I would have very reluctantly dealt at 5 box, but it was certainly not a greedy no deal, he was just given an undervalued offer and tried to stick it to the banker. Seeing as though 40% of the time, he will be looking at an offer at least 4 times as big (maybe eve £76,543?). I think the no deal is a fine tactic, even if it isn't the same as mine.

I was correct in saying, then, that the red run would not exceed 27. In fact, it hasn't exceeded 25.

But I wasn't expecting the run to end in such a dramatic fashion - I had about £100 or £250 in mind but not so low as £1. Very good to hear he rejected the novelty offer though, shows he's here to play the game. Welldone Dermot on £1.

This was what I thought could end the red win streak. That said, I think Dermot might have gone on to the end
because of the dream he had talked about with Noel opening his box to reveal 250K.

A 40% chance to improve £15,141.30 to about 70-80K or 20% to £250,000 is worth a gamble if you can live with your decision.

Dermot was a great contestant, he was obviously nervous during the show but again you can't blame him for that
either, who wouldn't be?

Perhaps we'll see another long streak of moderate red wins now. I'd be quite happy to trade in the Power 5 win of yesterday and today's show for two 10-20K moderate red wins!

£1 comes to the table for the 60th time, more than any other amount in DOND history, and 5 more than its nearest rival:

http://www.dond.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=6553&p=229187#p229187

Well done for being so brave Dermot, sorry it didn't work out for you.

I felt sorry for dermot today. Not a single offer was dealable in my opinion.

I was suprised by the no dealing of the last offer. Although I wouldn't have thought twice about it you could tell he didn't want to gamble £15k. I think the banker pitched that too low. The mean is £50k, offer about half that and he'd be gone in a hearbeat.

That was a great shame. He did deserve bettter, and I also don't think he was being greedy. He thought long and hard about that decision, and in the end played the game to it's conclusion. like a lot of people before him.

I wonder where you decide the difference between someone who's there to play the game and make the most of their one opportunity, and someone who's being greedy?

I agree, less than 30% of the average was a shocking offer, and that's one of the things that annoys me about the banker, I've seen far better offers to players who, in my opinion, would have walked for far less than they were offered.

It's how they handle the consequences.

I think £15,141.30 was a decent sum of money that was dealable given the likelihood of taking out 250K.

I'm not sure that answers my question!!

I feel that the fact dermot turned it down shows that it was undealable. I got the impression that a lot of his no deals were reluctant, and with the way he said the first offer was good, low offers were expected.

However, he has a 40% chance of turning £15,000 into you'd think about 4 times that.

I think if the banker offers £25,000 then he deals that. The banker gets his long term winning deal, and we get a happier end to the show.

I don't think it was a misguided no deal. I mean 15K odd is excellent but it isn't lifechanging. he had a 40% chance of around 70K and the 5K back up. Very unlucky to hit the 10% chance even though it was odds on to take out the QM.

The red run was always going to end with a decision against the player's true preferences, and it did. No sympathy here even though I would've played on myself if there was enough of a two-box guarantee and perhaps even without one.

It was an arguable-either-way offer (although on a board like that there's a massive range of arguable-either-way offers) and I'd have few complaints about the decision if Dermot were actually an aggressive player with relatively low risk-aversion. But he wasn't, the Deal was demonstrably right for his utility curve, he admitted afterwards he couldn't believe he did it, and he instantly paid the price for not being true to himself (sorry, Noel, but he wasn't).

A long-overdue reality check for the players, and as such a very important game in the context of future games, almost certainly enough to cancel out Claire's game (although I'm sure Noel will try and channel memories of that one). In many ways it was rather a nice twist of fate that Claire (who had her utility curve misjudged early on, and played the game the way she intended) won big, and Dermot (who clearly deviated from his gameplan under the influence of Claire's game) didn't. I'm sure that if Claire had won £3k Dermot would have taken the five-box OPW.

Oh boy. What a horrendous failure of a game. Looks like we have to start the red run all over again now. And here I was thinking it would have lasted forever (it really should have, IMO).

Let's hope whomever plays tomorrow fares better. Another Power 5 win - or virtually any decent 5-figure win - would be much better.

This post gets misinterpreted, which results in more negative PR for me in 3... 2... 1...

I think yesterday's game and the fact that there was nobody there who had seen a blue win definitely had an impact. The 5-box offer wasn't great considering we saw a £50k offer on £250k and rubbish not so long ago - but it was still much better than the likes of 1p Trevor and a few others got in the early days and I think he no-dealt it more through the feeling of being invincible due to the red winning streak and the big box win in the previous game than anything else.

I always knew it was going to go wrong when he went on, shame he hit the 10% chance and didn't even have the consolation of £5k or a low four-figure deal on offer.

I bet he thought the 5-box offer was really poor becuase the last person to get a board like that was Doreen! It was even slightly stronger due to £5k.

I was actually really wanting him to deal becuase I was desperate for the streak to continue, and also I knew the time was quite late and there wasn't time left for the £250k to stay until 2-box, indeed once he said no-deal I knew it was going first or second box becuase if he'd kept it to the 3rd box it would have got a much bigger build-up. Dermot actually seemed to take it Ok but the others looked a bit shell-shocked, especially Lisa, and she's lovely so i felt really sorry for her. None of them will have seen a game like that, even if some of them had been watching Walter's game from the green room or audience, that was a completely different sort of blue win.

I can't really tell what his true decision was - he seemed to need to go home with some money, but had a dream about winning the £250k, and it usually takes a risk like that to win it.

I still hate these "he deserved it" comments - nobody is going to win life-changing money without taking at least one big risk (unless the banker plays a really terrible game!), if nobody ever took risks there wouldn't be a game!!!

I still prefer a blue win like this when it's a proper gamble gone wrong rather than being forced on with joke offers though.

I don't think the offers deserve ALL the flack...I think his determination to win the £250,000 (or at least keep it to the end two) simply got the better of him...his partner told him to deal, almost everyone else was certainly inclining him to.

Just bear in mind on another day he could easily have kept it to the end, so it was simply bad luck.

What I mean is that if a player is truly "there to play the game and make the most of their one opportunity", then they will be able to take it on the chin if it goes wrong, but "someone who's being greedy" would likely be riddled in regret over the decision. So the way they handle themselves after their game is what shows whether a person has been greedy and has regrets over his/her decision or someone who took the decision and was comfortable with the consequences.

I was lucky enough to see very few blue wins while I was in the show, although it is clear that there are two types of blue wins. Those who are a bit gutted that things went bad, but don't regret their decisions (making the most of their opportunity) and those who realize they were blinded by the big money and are devastated and full of regret (greedy).

So the way to differentiate whether someone was greedy lies in the player and how they handle the outcome.

From what I know of Dermot, I think he is firmly in the "making the most of it" category. I never ever ever thought Dermot to be greedy, he just took a punt that didn't pay off.

An unlucky game today. In a way I wanted Dermot to deal at £15,141.30 to keep the red streak going, but at the same time I thought it was worth a risk. Though it did seem like he struggled to decide what to do on the previous offer and it's a shame it didn't work out. As soon as the £250,000 went I was hoping that at least the £5,000 would stay. But it wasn't to be.

And ironically Dermot ended the red streak by winning a £1 - the same as what Walter won just before the red streak.

Right, because you know what is going through a player's mind, do you?

Although I don't post here much, I do read the forums most days and I am getting increasingly frustrated about how you almost seem to take delight in a player's misfortune just because they don't play the game in a manner you approve of. It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

And then there are your presumptions that a player must be behaving differently to what they really want to do. This is insulting to the majority of contestants, as you are basically saying they don't know their own mind and are unable to make a decision for themselves. Just today you said that Dermot wasn't playing the game the way he wanted to, which flies in the face of what Dan (who knows Dermot infinitely better than you do) said that he believed that Dermot is someone who could live with the consequences of a gamble that doesn't pay off.

A lot of the time, it seems that you have an agenda against Deal Or No Deal and will use any stick you can to beat it with.