KP wrote:
The probability of the jackpot failing to make it to the first phone call in three consecutive games is just over 1 in 85. The probability of two consecutive games in which a six-figure win is already impossible at the first commercial break is... (does fiddly calculations...) precisely 1 in 121, if I've got the maths right. Suffice to say, that's a sign of some pretty rubbish starts this week.
Wow, that's pretty atrocious in terms of misfortune... Still, all three of them got a good sum of money out of the game, and at the end of the day that's what matters most.
KP wrote:
These games aren't half picking up momentum in the middle rounds lately - even £15,000 is suddenly no more than a minor hit again as the £75,000 has two higher backups for company. Wouldn't care to say the board is skewed towards the Banker now, certainly no more than a tiny bit; the offer isn't bad, but not as good as the last one, and kudos to Nat for turning it down more quickly than the last one, proof that she's not one of those 'the game starts at eight-box' types, the single worst type of cautious contestant.
The cautious people who turn down a statistically generous offer, only to later accept a statistically derisory offer that's lower in absolute terms are worse IMO *cough1kMichaelcough*.
KP wrote:
One-box game... borderline joke offer, the producer wants another gambling frenzy. Oh she's been spooked a bit by the volatility, so the producer goads her on with the old trick, four- and three-box offers from nowhere. Just make it a permanent part of the format and get over it.
Making one box at a time after 5 box a permanent change would be quite interesting, actually. Maybe if this version ever gets cancelled and another one appears later on...
KP wrote:
Anyway, we obviously go on... blue... half the mean on a high-volatility board, I'd want a producer guarantee to turn that down, Nat is out of here before we can get one, and the OPW streak is broken thanks to the revision at 11-box. And only by said revision! Surely the closest we've ever come to four OPWs on the spin, and the very low target confirms that we had a cautious, low-income player today. Would she have got the 11-box OPW had she played yesterday instead? No; even if she'd taken the £8,000, and I wouldn't have blamed her in her circumstances, the four-box offer would have been in five figures.
Well spotted! There must have been 4 OPWs in a row at some point though, surely? This game also breaks the run of four consecutive reds on the table.