Agreed! Truely fantastic game! Also, one hell of a way to finish a show and the week! Well done Mike!

The biggest win for nearly three months, followed by some rocking out with AC/DC? Fantastic!

One-post recap. Noel's in sensible mood, we've got a fun-looking player - let's rock on!

Oh, there goes the jackpot. Three blues including the penny follow, though, and good work to remember the whole system! Opening offer is decent for a very decent £100k board.

And it gets better, with two blues to lead into the adbreak... oh, there goes a big one. Still, eight reds and six blues at this point, and the host is talking him up. Could be a lot worse. Offer is nudged up slightly, maybe a tad down in generosity from the opener.

New top prize goes, but although a six-figure win is out a five-figure win is very much on. I'd call this board slightly below average, and the offer - placed in the small gap between the previous two - reflects that. Emma seems to be doing a lot of Noel's dirty work at the moment, talking up the board and encouraging a No Deal. If it stops Noel doing it...

Uh-oh, two five-figure reds and a possible system change. This game's turning badly. But he goes for 22 anyway - and it's a tiddler! Now, how will the Banker react to that... well, after a comedy-meets-psychology interlude... with an inevitable offer drop. Hilarious remark from Mike that will make him popular with the Wakeyists, and it is indeed a No Deal.

And an excellent fifth round! Ten grand isn't bad but not enough for me... oh, we have a sob story... oh for crying out loud. Just as an emotional Deal is indicated, the producer makes one of the most puke-inducing interventions of the season. Yes, I did say producer rather than Banker there, because that was not a Banker play, he had his man for ten grand and then we get a producer intervention to induce Wakeyism.

Well we get the perfect round and I'm very happy for Mike, but that leaves a very sour taste indeed in my mind. Sorry to be the party-pooper after what must have been a fantastic game, but I'm terrified of the implications for future games.

mike deserved every penny after what himself and his family have gone through, and what a night we had, me mike and his friend david drank til the early hours so cant wait to see what i look like tomoro!!! well done Mike yar yar yar!!!!

I thought that was great, and yet the two K's (KP and Killersbee) are still moaning. I don't know what it takes to make some people happy - there's nothing wrong with dealing the mean even when £20k is guaranteed and also the banker has intervened loads of times when the player is telegraphing a deal to attempt to change their mind (such as a promised next offer, giving the player an extra egg in Easter games like Ollie for example....). For once I thought it was fantastic that with someone having been promised an offer on the mean at 2-box gets influenced to chase it then gets the perfect round. I remember John from the summer chased it, ended up crashing and he was absolutely devastated about it!

The ironic thing is with that promise there was never going to be a £75k win - if he'd no-dealt the £10k normally without that promise, he may have been offered less at 2-box (say £40k) and no-dealt!

But I must be just about the only non-contestant here who thought that was great!!

Mike's a great bloke and that was a great outcome. His pals looked a little shocked as no doubt his wife would have been if she had been there when he went on. Well done, mate you deserve every penny of that.

well done Mike.l thought the game was very tense towards the end and l'm so pleased that it actually worked out. enjoy all that dosh Mike you deserve every penny!

In his case, people recklessly gambling.



And I dislike the principle of it at every turn. I only reacted more to this because it was built up by a sob story and I could see it being ugly if he won a blue as a result! Thankfully he didn't!

(My one-post recaps are made by reading through the thread and commenting, so I didn't know what was coming when I made the remark I did!)



Heavily doubt it. For those who are neither obsessive gamblers nor obsessively worried about obsessive gamblers that was a fantastic result - and £37,500 thrown away by the Banker!

KP makes some interesting points except it's not inducing wakeyism just trying to engineer a large deal instead.
There was only a 30% chance of a blue/1K win.
I don't like contrived games either but I can't why anyone would be displeased at the 10% chance being hit in this game.

Well, I have reservations about that show. Mike entirely deserved to win £47,500; He took the chance of leaving with £1,000 or less, and punished the laissez-faire attitude to money from the producers. With 10 possible offers if he declined £10,000:

£425
£550
£875
£10,050
£10,375
£10,500
£37,550
£37,875
£38,000
£47,500

Three consolations, three around the offer, and four on average worth four times the offer, I know what I would do. But, knowing that Mike was gone for £10,000, left me deeply uneasy why the twist was made.

I get the feeling that the only reason the twist was made, knowing that the show would be broadcast on a Sunday, was to manufacture a feelgood ending. With a big win, the show could be moved to a later timeslot, where the advertising timeslot would be more profitable.

That's a deeply cynical view, but if it's worth giving away an average of £10,000 more to them, and it raises the profile of the show, why wouldn't they? And that's horrible, to treat contestants differently showing their games at different times because their games are, or could be made, more entertaining.

The problem is, if games are changed on things such as the days of the week, rather than the merit of the player, then it compromises the thin description of being a gameshow, and turns it into just an entertainment show. There's nothing remotely intellectual in watching a show where the game changes at the whims of the producers, instead of being an uncompromised one-on-one battle.

The above-mean-offers, banker's gambles, offer the average if you play on, it's too much. I know the recession means the producers don't want to see people leave in hardship, but every time they do these twists, they're reducing the lifespan of the show. There's only so much money that can be given away before time is called, and prudence is the word of our time.

The player's word should be respected. If he or she wants to deal and run, or decline and face the consequences, they should do so without intervention or unnecessary pressure. Giving players second chances is fine when used in moderation, but it can't be used as an excuse to make games more interesting. Either the format of the show is fine as it is, or it needs changing, as it can't survive on feelgood twists forever.

I feel as though I've ignored Mike for the most part in this post, as he did fine in his show, and it was enjoyable to watch. Plus, £47,500 is a great sum to win from the experience. I just have to emphasise that these twists can't keep happening, knowing what's happened to other shows that lost prudence and long-term viability.

I do agree with Crazyeddie. They have been going with a lot of gimmicks since July although I've become used to it. I agree that offering large offer guarantees and generous undeals to cautious players all the time has become a bit predicatable but I don't think this game was as controversial as some games this season.

You see, the problem with basing an opinion only on what is written here is that you do actually miss quite a lot of what gets broadcast. Obviously Kestral and H do a great job with their commentaries, but they can't exactly type up a word-for-word transcript in real time. (In addition to that, what gets broadcast is itself an edited version of what actually happened in the studios.) The so-called 'sob story' was relayed by Mike quite a while before the next-offer-will-be-the-mean promise, and I didn't get the feeling that the two things were particularly related.

Frankly, my opinion is that if the Banker chooses to let the player know exactly what the next offer will be for every possible final two, that's only going to help the player to make a more informed decision. Isn't that actually a good thing for the player?


I have no idea what evidence there is to support such an opinion. Forgive me, but what you've written seems like totally unfounded speculation to me. And why would enticing Mike into turning down £10k at a time when there was a 30% chance of losing the top two during the following round be manufacturing a feelgood ending, exactly?

Don't forget that the producers are making the vast majority of these decisions off the cuff, reacting almost instantly to what the game is throwing up. Not that that means they shouldn't be criticised when they get it wrong, but it does suggest to me that your detailed theory is just something that they wouldn't have had the time to come up with, even if they did have the inclination.

just watched mikes game................that'll go down as a classic - surely ))))))))

Just catching up on DOND after a weekend away from the country. Good to see after Mary turned down a statistically generous BG on Friday that Mike took an even more generous twist given to him today.

No problem with the deal at 2 box - if the banker is only going to offer payout odds equal to the odds of the situation, you might as well take the money.

How funny is it that the Banker talked Mike out of Dealing at 5-box - and cost himself an extra £37,500 as a result!

Great game. Love it when there's big money locked in at the end.

Fab game...I really enjoyed it...

I did say it was a deeply cynical view. This isn't one that I personally believe, however it is plausible enough that it came to conscious awareness. Here are the times for the last 12 Sunday shows:

06/09 4:45pm Shaun £10,000
13/09 4:45pm Diane £10,800
20/09 4:45pm Shirley £2,071
27/09 4:45pm Ben £10
04/10 4:45pm James £16,000
11/10 4:45pm Ginette £10,000
18/10 4:45pm Cal £9,000
25/10 4:45pm Aurora 1p
01/11 4:45pm Roli £7,000
08/11 5:45pm Terry £41,000
15/11 4:55pm Shaz £10,000
22/11 5:45pm Mike £47,500

Unless Channel 4 are shifting the shows because of scheduling changes independent of the amounts won, it doesn't appear to be a coincidence that the two largest wins on Sunday were broadcast later than their peers.

This isn't meant as a criticism of the show's producers, or Channel 4's scheduling. The problem is that by moving the timeslot of the show, they're telegraphing that it's a show worth watching, either for entertainment value, or because it produces a large payout.

I haven't thought of this after the show, but had suspicions before, which spoiled the game. To know that there's 15 minutes to go, with a £10,000 deal almost certain, it's predictable that something happens to make the player win more money.

This makes me lose confidence in whether a show shown at 4:45pm can be a large win, or a 5:45pm one a small win. Noel saying at the start about viewers who watch on Sundays may only have time to watch the show on that day, makes me think they're aiming it at a different audience, as though they have to be entertained to make it worthwhile.

I don't personally think the producers would have added the twist for a later timeslot. It's more likely they were attempting to make it more entertaining, and to be fair they achieved it. Channel 4 may have moved the show independently of their wishes. But, it's possible that they had pressure to make things more entertaining. This happened with Laura winning the £250,000 with a very low offer at the time, lower than the £60,000 proveout offer on 1p - £250k that came before it. She still had to have the courage to risk £42,000 on a coinflip, though.

My concerns are about the show's future. Channel 4 are facing serious advertising revenue falls, and the sustainability of its daytime shows is being called into question. Carol Vorderman and Paul O'Grady have faced the chop, Countdown's audience is at a record low of 540,000, and the latter show will be hard to sustain on a lower budget.

Endemol are going to be (or already have been) pressured for the show to perform better, either by raising higher audiences for advertising revenue, or by changing the show in a fundemental way. Constant changing of the format can kill a show; The US version did so constantly to maintain audience figures, while Duel changed its format mid-series after low wins, made too may jackpot wins in succession, and was cancelled.

While I don't want to say what Endemol should do, I would be careful of Channel 4's intentions. When they decided to not renew Big Brother, they effectively spited the show, making it unmarketable to other broadcasters. It wouldn't be beyond them to strip the show of its value, and then remove it altogether.

There are other broadcasters who would love to see the show on their channels. ITV would like the extra revenue and boost their ratings and position, Sky have the budget to keep it sustainable, bring viewers to its daytime schedule (though they might insist on a larger set, which isn't a good idea!), even the BBC in conjunction with the lottery, making a primetime show live with a 22 or 26-box format.

I just don't want to see the format burnout before its time. The producers are welcome to give away as much money as they feel they need to, just hope that they don't compromise too much in the future.

To be fair, I really don't think there's any basis at all to suggest that the later Sunday shows have the bigger wins; I think it's just total coincidence. The 4:45 Sunday slot had been standard for many months, until earlier this month when it started shifting around again, so I think it's down to Channel 4 timetabling issues. I mean, the other week, they had a Robbie Williams programme in DoND's normal timeslot; I really don't think that they decided to place that there just so DoND would be on at a later time! Channel 4's weekend schedules seem to be a lot more variable than their weekday schedules, so it's almost certain that DoND moves around at the weekend due to how they decide to place their other shows in the schedules.

Firstly – no idea what ‘wakeyism’ is - I’d be very grateful if someone more learned could please elucidate? 

Really enjoyed watching my show back again last night – can’t believe how calm I felt and I think that came across. Not sure why the Banker’s intervention has annoyed some people on here, but I for one was so pleased that he did intervene. I really did not want to deal at 10k but felt swayed by my F&F and the West and East wings. As for the probabilities etc after the intervention – my head was completely mangled by that stage and all I understood, all I could grasp, was the real possibility of £47.5K!!

Also I am offended by the ‘sob story’ reference. Not sure if you were a contestant or not but we were told that we had to let everyone know why we needed the money – and that was the genuine truth. My Dad subsequently died in September this year so to hear my talking about him described as a mere ’sob story’ I find insulting to say the least.

The Deal experience was just amazing. The friends I made, and the bonds I formed will far outlast the cash. I would like to say a heartfelt thanks to everyone down in Bristol and looking forward to the big reunion next month.

Bring it on!

Hi Mike

Wakeyism is defined on this thread
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11216
It's basically a term named after a now-banned forum member who always though everyone should go to the end.