A random games will sometimes have sequences where big money doesn't come to the table.

Saying that - that was a Beryl-esque cautious deal today. There was a point to deal in the game today but it certainly wasn't at 11-box.

Another defeatist deal with a strong board in little more than a week and I'm happy that even those of you on team-player acknowledges that fact . Its games like this that surely give you an understanding of how I feel when the proveout goes the other way. It would have been up there with some of the greats.

I wouldn't say it was defeatist...

With you on that one - this would have been a much more worthy recipient of the show's distinction of "worst Deal ever" than Rob's and so I was hoping £250k would be on the table today.

*ahem*

I hate to be like this, but...

Look at my last comment... I would not consider this deal defeatist.

To me, a deal that is defeatist occurs after a round where the biggest value on the board goes, or after at least two consecutive bad rounds.

Neither of those things happened before this particular deal...

All the ones who can't magically see into the future, probably.

Rob's doesn't even deserve that distinction at all, IMO, as he didn't technically sell the 250k. He swapped for it.

Someone should point out to the Banker and the production team that, in the YT video, the box Rob brings to the table, and the one which is opened to reveal the 250k, have different numbers on the front. They'll probably just ignore it, though.

I believe Simon tried to point something like that out to the Banker, and it was indeed ignored.

I think I'm beginning to actually (especially as you said lots of "good" stuff about James' game)and I admit I'm one of your biggest "critics" on here! Is it something, like, say, I recently saw an edition of Pointless where there was an elderly lady when asked to name a Hugh Grant film she said "THREE Weddings and a Funeral" and I was in stitches for ages? And there was another old lady who said that "Twickenham" was a first-class county cricket team!

But you do the same sometimes about deals that most of the rest of us think are perfectly reasonable that go against the player, wrong decisions on an effective coin-toss, and more-or-less unavoidable blue wins too.

I wasn't ignored - I had quite an interesting discussion with the Banker about it but we agreed to disagree in the end.

Well the deal caught me by surprise, though yes, with hindsight she was a bit of a ditherer. I'd be curious as to why Margaret dealt when she did, most likely explanation is that she was shaken by the two big hits she took in the 3rd round, but maybe she was always going to go at the third offer

So yes, a bit of a damp squib after the past three days but I'd still rather see a cautious deal than a reckless gamble

Actually thats a very fair comment and I'm 100% in agreement with you and perhaps it would have superceded only the previous game as potentially the *best of 2012*.

Sure Rob lost the £250k to an 8k deal on a hyposwap but it was fair as he called the swap and we do get them playing with honesty (sometimes).

Hmm you missed out something after actually on the first sentence. Maybe I shouldnt ask! No its just players like this who get my heckles up and ironically it seems other fans who are on the players side have the same view, *nods to KP*. Im also willing to say fairs-fair on some games and admit when they've played brave and won - I admire that as much as honesty. Noel says there "is no rate card", perhaps my criticism of players has no rate card either. But your comment about 3 weddings and a funeral did make me Lol too

And also I guess a massive disaster (such as Donna in your sig or 1p Matty) can be far more entertaining and interesting to watch than a middling £10k-ish win that isn't a big spanking or a big squander!

I think that both Donna and Matty rubbed quite a few people the wrong way - personally I always try to judge on the decisions, so I laid into Margaret here but defended Donna after her arguable-either-way decision went spectacularly against her.

Also, I agree that Rob strictly wasn't a £250k sale - Tolleck still holds the record for that in my book, but both his Deal and Rob's weren't even worth discussing without hindsight when compared to this, which is why I wanted £250k to be on the table for this game so that the official "worst Deal ever" would actually have been one of the worst decisions ever, because right now (whether you accept Rob or Tolleck as the record-holder) it isn't!

Remember Fran's game (Mar '11)? - I do particularly as I saw the game live, she dealt at an obscure £10,021 and had £250k, and I remember the Deal-Eye benchmark at the time was over £10k more than this, so I'd personally say that was the worst deal ever. Both Melanie (Sep '08) and Elaine (Nov '11) sold the top prize for £10k, but were they worse than this?

I still think Meena's £3,500 at 11-box was the worst I've ever seen.
I was glad I was watching that on Sky+!

It will probably go down as the WORST ever third deal of ALL time!

Having looked Fran's game up again, it's almost certainly the worst sale of the £250k, although you said at the time that Sherilyn's was even worse (except of course that wasn't a sale of the £250k).

My take on that at the time: "Not often I criticise a player's decisions, but it's hard not to criticise that one. Glad to see that a bad proveout came after a genuinely questionable Deal, I hate it when they come after very sensible Deals..."

The board wasn't as good as it looked, but it was still a £20k board.

Worst third-offer Deal ever? Meena's, I think, though there's a case for Beryl's (yes it was a one-box game but you could absolutely rely on high generosity at the end of the game on even the most volatile boards back then).

Richard, anyone?