Noel opens Danny's Box 9 and reveals £50

£100 in Box 13.

Not much point in doing this...

Offer: £65
Average: £75
Fair Deal: £72.86
Volatility: 2

£50
£100

Well, good on him for getting out before the game completely fell apart. Just a shame he didn't go one round earlier, or had those two rounds the other way around.

Ooh, err, well, mm, ah, oof, ermm, hmm, arr, ooh....cautious deal vindicated....ho hum, ooh, groan, ahh....should've gone to the end and won £50, should have been a LOT more brave....ohh, ahh....



I'd have taken £3,000 in that instance too. So would, I thoroughly believe, anyone with an ounce of rationality in them.

And yeah, I am putting my neck absolutely on the line with that. Because I'm established enough anyway, one sharp comment won't change anything. And I know that.

Anyone who will complain about this game from this point forward should mail me £3,000.

Great, another stupidly timed Deal. It's Deals like yesterday's and today's that bring out the worst in me (i.e. ridiculously cautious and/or inconsistent ones). If he intended to be THAT cautious, he should've dealt at 8 box.



If that's the way you think, anyone with an once of rationality should Deal the 1st offer as most of them are above 20% of the average.



Sorry, but I don't know your address, and I do not look at PMs containing personal information.

I think what daniel123 is going for with "rationality" is that £3,000 is a massive amount of money to gamble when you have a 60% chance of losing it and at best winning £100. At 11-box boards are usually much more stable that the odds of going away with next to nothing are almost non-existent, but this 5-box is incredibly volatile.

I'm not sure why "inconsistency" bothers you so; must consistency be a necessity when playing this game? And what exactly is a good measure of consistency? Saying "deal" at any point is certainly inconsistent with previous strategy unless it's deal to the first offer. Gambling £16,000 at 8-box is fair when it's a 1.8% chance of disaster, and dealing £3,000 at 5-box is fair when it's a 60% chance of disaster, so where's the inconsistency?

Some people really take DoND too seriously...

It's also worth noting that being inconsistent has won some players such as Bradley and Danni from June 2011 more money than if they'd been consistent.

Besides, Danny didn't know the game was going to crash when he turned down £16,000, otherwise he'd have dealt.

Well, here's my thing: I'm not actually sure I'm being that inconsistent at all.

Sure, in the long term - I mean, going back to this place's heyday - yeah, I'm being inconsistent. First I was hacking to pieces anyone who dealt any offer below 1,000% of the mean, now here's me saying I might even have dealt £16,000 today. Hark at that! What inconsistency!

But when you look at my recent form, I've been saying much the same thing on most occasions, I feel. Nowadays, I'd always have dealt the £3,000 there, without pause. It wasn't a statistically-based decision; like Saperogo says, it was based rather emotionally, and with the fact that £3,000 is a hell of a lot of money in mind.

Not all of my decisions are statistically-based, or even have much of a statistical element to them, because I, like some, know the value of amounts of money others might call 'useless' or 'small'.

I'm not sure I've been guilty of inconsistency at all, really - and anyway, as Hogwild alluded to as well, just how much of a crime is it?

My 'rationality' argument is based emotionally, emotively, primarily, not statistically. Therefore although £3,000 may have been poor statistically, come on - the highest blue remaining was £100, and there were four blues and that £75,000. Chance of hitting that £75,000? Already stated. Chance of keeping it? Minimal, in comparison.

Chance of going home with a blue? High. Chance of going home with £75,000? Dream on. Chance of winning £3,000? Upon uttering one word, absolutely certain.

It's realistic thinking, I believe, and it's realistic thinking which would have got me £3,000 from what turned out to be a perpetually-declining game.

No complaints here on the game, but it could be argued that rationality wouldn't have won the £75k. He could have dodged it until 2box then swapped it in. Ok, I'm playing devils advocate here, but his proveout picks werent selected in stone when he said "deal". Unless players lock in the proveout picks - with either a system we are all aware of or have announced box picks, then I always view the hypothetical "could haves" with caution.

Noel always asks them to play with honesty, but the element of random choice exists. Imagine how history would have viewed Donna if she had found the £100k in the proveout and been offered and taken the hypo-swap. She would have dissappeared into DOND obscurity. Instead she has over 2 million views on youtube.

I've seen plenty of players who did not play fair in the proveout, and Noel is equally guilty of not always offering the dreaded hypo-swap. We've seen it offered plenty of times on peanuts/low reds in live play.

PS A new phrase for the DONDictionary? Valuation contrast: From Danny 19/09/13. When the banker announces the contrast of a future valuation based on the outcome of the contents of the next three boxes. Typically, the contrast would be measured in 10's of thousands or in the worst case for the player just a few 10's of pounds.

2 tough decisions to make today. An 8-box board of high contrasts, stable with 3 big numbers but no back up and the offer was just shy of what I would have wanted to deal - and after being unlucky in the next round, it would have been easy for Danny to have chased the game (and with 40% chance of getting at least 5 times his previous offer, quite a few people would have done so).

I have to say I would have probably dealt at 8 box today, just because those 3 reds were so horribly exposed and there was a fair chance of hitting at least one of them. Only an all blue round could have guaranteed a significantly higher offer.

Having said that, it wasn't a reckless gamble and I would never have expected the game to crash as badly as it then did. Perfectly acceptable to deal the 5 box offer under the circumstances, a four figure sum on an all or peanuts board isn't to be sniffed at

Having seen this game live, I think I got the impression that he took the crash badly and a blue win would've pretty well finished him. Certainly I hadn't seen anyone live thus unhappy with the game.

First substantial "business end" gamble I'd seen live, and it helped me realise why I'd not seen one before in the previous five games.

That insight is very interesting. It didn't come across in the edit. Certainly, I thought he came across a likeable, bubbly character. The foot stomping, and clapping antics portrayed him as a bit cocksure, but nothing wrong with that and Noel lapped it up. Perhaps thats why the reveal of the £250k crushed him to the floor. We only saw that reaction very briefly before the obligatory, off-camera shouts of "come on". It would be great if he came on here and added his thoughts of the game.

He set about creating a noisy atmosphere - well, frankly that's not remotely surprising, and as I seem better at coping with noise when I'm making some myself, I was so loud that Archie tweeted mid-game to say I should shut up! - but after a bit of a think at 8-box, when it went that badly wrong, it hurt him.

Finley's game was after the lunch break, and because Zie's game took no time that was a longer break, but I doubt that helped Finley - long enough to get a real look at Danny's reaction in the green room, not long enough to forget it. No wonder she played that game so anxiously.

Hang on a moment, you're allowed to use mobiles in the audience?

Mid-game meaning during the transmission of the show rather than the filming.