Tim's 'blind ambition' remark is perhaps the best comment on Corinne this thread.

A quick note on Tim's larger point re: overall risk-aversion levels on our show. Firstly, it's 2009, not 2006, and attitudes to risk have been adjusted accordingly. Secondly, British attitudes to risk are not American attitudes to risk, we tend to be more cautious this side of the Atlantic. (I'm not sure about Europe; it's difficult to draw conclusions from the multi-million-euro games of Miljoenenjacht to UK stakes, and I've not seen enough of other versions to comment.)

The suggestion that this is a by-product of wing time is interesting, and the only limited evidence I can throw up (comparing the UK-esque daytime Dutch show to Miljoenenjacht) supports that conjecture, for the daytime contestants are probably the most risk-averse group I've ever seen. On the other hand I seem to recall French and Italian contestants being very aggressive players of the game, but with the Banker always knowing where the money is and the contestants skewing young for the purpose of shallow viewers, these shows are atypical.

You'll notice I've run out of things to say about Corinne - what is there left to say about a one-track player? Other than to go back to Tim again with his critique of some safe Deals, and to say I wish they had half her courage.

And that Corinne just kept the other half...

I'm just going by what someone (I believe h2005) said the last time I went on my rants, about how many players spend so much time on the show, away from their family, jobs and whatnot, that it amplifies whatever "anything but a blue" sentiment they had to begin with. I think there's also the fact that being in the studio that long means you watch 20-25 other people play, and if there's a long run of blue wins when your name comes up, you're going to do whatever you can to end the streak - even if it means making a suboptimal deal.



My final word on the topic:

It's not as if I expect (or want) to see everyone to go in, guns blazing, No Dealing every offer and essentially defeating the entire point of the show's first 43 minutes, especially in this version where you're expected to eliminate 60% of the remaining board at the game's climax. It's understandable in today's economic climate that people are not going to want to allow thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands of pounds to slip through their fingers. At the same time, you shouldn't go on a game show needing the money, or feeling any obligation to do anything other than have fun. The biggest gamblers, I've noticed, are the ones who say "I've had a great time, I've met a lot of new friends, etc." before their box gets opened.

I'd known about it for a while (which was a shame really), but it still was quite tense to watch. I knew about the £88,000 offer but didn't realise she would have turned down an absolutely amazing 5-box offer for her board.

Part of me says good for her for going for it. However, the other part is not so kind..

ABsolutely spot on how she played that.. plenty defend those who technically lose in excess of £100,000 by dealing, yet seemingly the same group of people give people sh*t for going for the top prize. For the same reasons people give when dealers squander 100k+, i will say the same for Corinne.. its her game and whilst the decision wasnt what some would do, she did it and with all due respect the woman could have won £250,000, x3 more deserving of it than the other QM winners.

Sadly, like history has shown in the past, it may take months before someone breaks the cautious mood.. once all 21 other players witness this, it will take 21 more shows until there are 22 contestants, none of which witnessed this game.

Pretty sad how they have to fix QM wins but when someone does go for it legit they dont have the right box infront of them

I wouldn't say they fixed the QM wins - Laura and Alice could both well have had the lower amount on the table.

The correct statement is "nobody with no strategy beyond blindly chasing the jackpot has ever bought it to the table".

As a result, it took a producer deux ex machina or two to produce the jackpot wins, but that's not the same as a fix. Similar interventions have backfired (PJ's game).

Incidentally the players since Corinne have been more aggressive than average (see today's game for a perfect example - Gaz was almost as blindly ambitious as Corinne). Your point is categorically disproven by that alone, thundercat.

Well, that was some game that I missed.

Not that I have watched the show to prove your point otherwise, the natural trend is for people to be much more cautious when players are more aware of the 'losses' associated with so called gambling. If this isn't the case it might prove a positive thing, a strange one at that but nonetheless positive, for players to understand that a negative outcome is not always 100% the case, and neither is it more likely to be positive next time, but the odds are 50/50 in such a scenario as Corinne's

Will look at Gaz's game, not watched the show much since i started full time work in june.