Simon F wrote:
Deal was a cautious one but my initial reaction to the £12k was to deal because it was hard to know what the 5 box offer would be if the £250k was in play but I gradually came round to thinking the risk was worth it with the 4 low reds as backup.
Exactly my thoughts with that offer - with all the oranges intact, it deceptively wasn't quite the one-box game I initially thought it was. I was also particularly irritated by the banker quoting the hypo 5-box offer on a less than 2% chance - we needed a Daniel on the wings to point out that out, as it was unecessary hype for such a small occurrence.
Overall, a decent game that suddenly turned precarious, and perhaps the leap from £10 a few offers earlier to £12,000 felt like a monumental recovery that seemed artificially greater through the joke offer.
Anyway, once the relative got involved, there was only one way this decision was going to go, which was a bit of a shame tension wise. Should relatives intervene? Well, it's an interesting question how much influence they should have on a player's game. My view is that it should solely be the player's decision, and the relative should maintain as neutral a stance as possible - which can prove difficult.
But then again, if the player wants the relative involves, that's up to them obviously. I just don't think it's in the spirit of the game for someone else to make your own decisions - inform on them by all means, but don't instruct.