I'm not totally convinced about the conspiracy theory, but I don't think that argument makes much sense - it would make for a pretty dull show if the contestant had 1p and every offer were 2p! I don't think they really care about whether or not "the banker" saves money - I think the only reason they'd fix it would be for more exciting games. 1p Trevor, Matt, and Gaz spring to mind - they all got pretty low offers, forcing them on to exciting conclusions.

I don't mean like offers of 2p, but not like £30,000 for a 50p box if he knew the contents.

I thought Mark would have gone away with a lot more. Really unlucky how the game turned out. But 5000 is still a good sum of money.

I'm just worried about this show. The way the Banker seemingly signalled the downturn was the significant bit.

I'll have to see an Italian episode someday (the fact I don't understand the language shouldn't matter for a game like this, all pictures and numbers really). There, they openly admit the Banker knows what's in the boxes. I presume the game then changes from a game of mathematical judgement (even if only Aaron and his ilk are consciously playing it as such, almost everyone does so unconsciously I think) into a game of double-bluff.

The Banker's tactics have become plainly bizarre of late here. Some of the decisions that make no sense in terms of saving money can be explained by a conspiracy theory, but I'll admit there's others that can't. But it looks bad, and it is not enough for this show to be fair - it must be seen to be fair. I'm not sure this show has done enough to be seen as fair, even though I assume it is. But then again, keeping it fair might mean more static offers, which might be less entertaining.

The banker is out to save as much money as he can, so hence the offers he makes seem to be getting lower. On the one hand that encourages more people to carry on but more often than not that leads to picking a big box and losing any chance of getting another decent offer. Fairness doesn't come into it imho. If he decides to offer one person less than another in a similar situation that's entirely up to him. No one is forced to take a low offer but if you turn it down and go on to win a lower final amount then that vindicates the banker's ungenerous offer in the first place. Has anyone got statistics to show say the average amount won each month? Are people winning less now than they were when the show started?

It may seem like the banker knows what's going to happen, again it's all down to probability.

With the top three still in play with eight boxes, you can expect to keep them all in the next round 18% of the time.

The chances of losing only one of them is 54%. If we assume that the 50k or 75k can go, then 36% of the time this will be considered a good round.

This gives a 54% chance of having a good round, and the other 46% would normally be considered a setback, even if the average went up.

KP, about the banker's offers, if he were to make them fair or in any way too predictable, then it can be used against him, as players would then know what offer they could expect if they play on.

The only power the banker has over the player is the uncertainty of knowing what he will offer next, so if it can be predicted, then the banker would only be able to make tempting offers, as he won't be able to stop anyone otherwise, which would lose more money in the long run and be less entertaining.

Of course, from the player's point of view, the money is probably more important to them overall than having an entertaining game, hence why the banker makes his offers varied, and often bizarre.

Only just quickly worked these out, so I've probably made a mistake somewhere, but...

Average amount won in:
November - £20,050
December - £16,858
January - £12,821
February - £16,055
March - £19,449
April - £16,084
May (so far) - £14,997

Shows that May's been a pretty dreadful month, anyway - even with Gaz's £100,000 win it's got the second lowest average.

I really enjoyed Mark's game such a shame he didn't get more. £5000 isn't all that bad really!

x

Has anybody noticed that since Gaz and Morris won 20,000 and 100,000 there has been bad-luck throu-out?

With the exception of June's and Rich's games, there has been a bad round (be it prove-out or active) in every game. Some have been unluckier than others though.

People keep talking about it being "bad luck" to hit the big numbers but it isn't. It's to be expected that you take out at least some of the power 5 during any given game. It's not bad luck to hit them - it's good luck to avoid them! You might as well say it's "bad luck" not to win the lottery.

Has anyone cracked the system Mark was using? The Banker cracked it after the eighth number.

22, 1, 10, 16, 2, 15, 9, 14 (at which point the Banker predicted the next number correctly) 8, 13, 7, 12, 3, 17, 4, 18, 5, 6, 11, 19. Mark was left with 20 and 21 and selected his own box, number 20.

Mark said it was based on the points awarded in blackjack starting with the lowest. This explains why he started with 22 (ie the score at which a black jack hand is bust) and I understand him keeping 19, 20 and 21 until the end. I can't see the logical sequence of the numbers in between, but the banker clearly did.

And if Mark had kept to his system, he would have accepted the swap and opened box 21 which contained £15,000.