Exactly. That's the two sides to this argument really...especially when a lot of people on here would have been singing a completely different tune if he had found the Good Egg...not KP or cfd mind!

but those down under who loses everything on double or nothing still gets a massive cheque with "nothing" written on it. Mainly for comedy and for Walter P Smythe to rub it in as he signs the cheque.

True. But the odds will never be against you (except in extremely rare cases) in this game. In the long term the way to win the most money is to ignore the banker and open your box. But the fact we only get to play the game once is vital, so we must take variance into account and take long term -EV deals.

And for most people £5,000 is a decent amount of money. Ok, it's probbly not the life changing money people are on the show for, but it's not worth casually dismissing and throwing away the way he did so. As such I have no sympathy for him. His sister clearly understood how much £5,000 meant.

Not fair!

I don't think I've seen such a strong reaction of "Anti-Wakeyism" from more than one person on here since gambling Gary who won £1 in about May '06...

Agreed on the final gamble, it'd have tempted me myself (think my tipping point on a £0/£10k/£10k gamble is lower than £5k, but at least £4k). It was the eight-box decision that cfd and I were particularly angry with, higher stakes and a near-zero expected value.

I'll only slightly correct you on your utility curve statement, by rewording it 'plenty of people have a perception of a linear utility curve up to £10,000'. At least, in the context of a show offering 25 times that, and giving away twenty grand about twice in an average week.

On your last post, you are absolutely right. There's been a few examples on the Bar (most notably Theresa in the Wakey Winter of 2007 turning down £21k on a £75k/£100k/peanuts final eight, which amuses me to this day), but not here.

I thought he was rather reckless and didn't give anywhere near enough consideration to the offers from 11-box onwards, and quite frankly, was setting himself up for a fall, and fall he did to absolutely nothing.

Bearing in mind I've viewed this forum a good year before I joined in May 2007, I think I remember reading Gary's thread, and I know I haven't read anything as anti-Wakeyist either!

Many people have used that phrase since the early days but either they're not telling the truth as they face reality while sitting in that chair and decide to deal or are good to their word but their game falls flat on their face. Not many can brag they've used that phrase on the show and won something worthy.

Correct, and diametrically opposed to the language used on the show in which the 'unique opportunity' is seen as a reason to gamble when it is in fact the fundamental rational reason not to!!

Shades of Matty's game there from last year's Easter specials

Player so sure he has big amount in his box then collapses dramatically with tears from the realtions at the end, except Matty had 1p whilst Daimon had nothing

That 15k offer was very clever with the twist added and I would have dealt as the board was looking VERY precarious and IMO Daimon was wrong to negotiate at 5 box and got a bit carried away and it backfired big time

That being said, Happy Easter to everyone and let's hope Sunday brings a better game than today

I doubt it, you could tell he was having lots of fun and he was there for the fun, the experience and wanted to have a stab at the higher sums of money. He did take some risks (admittedly not risks I'd have taken myself) but I'm a little surprised at the negative reaction the show has got so far in this thread. Joe last week made some rather risky no deals yet no-one seemed to criticise his decisions... strange!

Daimon's £15,000 was a very generous offer at 5-box but if he didn't find the good egg at the end, he'd have won 1p, slashing the "value" of that offer due to the risk of winning 1p. I'm not a gambler myself by any means and would rather see players win something rather than going away with nothing, but if the player's prepared to take the risks and can take it on the chin like Daimon did, then I see no problem with it. If we had players like Daimon gambling the whole time it'd get a bit boring though as variety makes the show. This was like the counter-balance to Margaret's rather cautious deal last Friday.

Daimon wanted to provide an entertaining show - and I think he certainly achieved that - so well done Daimon (even though the money side of things wasn't fabulous!).

I criticised the decisions, but I saw Joe's cavalier attitude as something closer to harmless fun.

This was a very important result given its proximity to Joe's game, providing an enormous reality check for the 21 who witnessed it from the wings. Hopefully those on the radar will play their own games having seen this.

There's always one totally unmitigated disaster every Easter isn't there? Fadil, Matty, now Daimon (actually there wasn't really one in 2007 unless you count David Ironmonger dealing nearly the mean on a one-box game but having £100k in his box....).

I think this twist at the end where you gamble your winnings from the game with a 1-in-3 chance of nothing is really stupid. It almost makes openeing the boxes pointless. You miht as well just open the box on the table at the start then open some egss, as the rest of it is more or less pointless.

I did think Daimon was a little bit too cocky for his own good, such as asking for way too much at 5-box, it was obvious the banker would use that against him, and lots of people would be happy with £5,000 so I think to be able to lose the lot but only double your money at best was a little bit silly, but at least he took losing it a bit better than Matty did.

As stated before, it's their game they can do what they like. They know what risks are involved and he accepted them. I was surprised he actually meant that nothing from The Banker will stop him. Given the players had this determination before but he lured them to dealing. No doubt those at my workplace will see me on Tuesday saying "did you see that guy on Friday who was greedy and won nothing".



I don't think today's result will affect the other players as Daimon lost today on the basis on the eggs. Also he said he was a gambler. There are only two games left to feature the egg twist then it's back to normal. I suspect come next week Daimon will become a distant memory and the players will do as they want to do. Don't forget, you cannot guarantee lifechanging money on strong boards that's why some takes the odd risk here and today and today it didn't work.

Either I imagined this but I'm sure Daimon was featured in his local newspaper website last week (the week show 1,000 was airing) and had a photo with his taxi with "as seen on" and the official DoND logo underneath.

You won't surprised to hear I agree with KP's opinion about Joe's game. Once it became a £20k game, I could understand Joe's reasoning.

Statistically Daimon made some awful decisions today. What a shame there wasn't someone like Daniel on the wings today who could have pointed out the expected value of the egg offers.

Kudos for the banker for punishing a player trying to be comedically greedy at 5 box.

I saw that article too, but it's actually Graham and his van.

Yeah... I've just found the article. I don't know how I got mixed up a van for a taxi.

Presumably you'd want that Daniel-type to also have pointed out the expected value of No Dealing those offers as well, yes? Which, in every case, was greater than (or equal to) the expected value of taking them. There's no way that any of Daimon's decisions today can be criticised on 'statistical' grounds.

To be honest, I'm rather surprised and a little bit shocked that so many people are reacting so negatively towards a player who knew his own mind well enough to make his own decisions and play his own game. It's fair enough for people to comment about the downside of playing the game like Daimon did, but when those comments are framed in language such as saying he was "stupid", and that he "deserved" to crash -- well, remarks like that really do leave rather a nasty taste in my mouth.