The 2013 Banker would've probably offered something derisory like £6,000 - £7,000.
£8,000 was above the FD and we know the 2013 Banker hardly did that.

I thought that was a fair 5-box offer. I'm also getting tired of the "2013 banker" being namedropped after any offer that appears unfair. We're only two days into 2014 and it's already happened.

OK, I admit I went a little bit overboard with 2013 Banker stuff, especially after I plugged in today's 8 and 5 box into Deal-Eye. Apparently today's 5 box offer was in line with the generosity of the 8 box offer, as the combination of the high blues going along with the 2nd highest amount made the board more precarious than I thought at first.

2013 banker...

UM... Kinda - Deal-Eye (as it was a few days ago anyway) was 89% and 99% of the benchmark at 8-box and 5-box respectively... and don't claim you've got a definitive new version sorted, as there's a whole new set of variables to consider with that!

Would it be better if the 2008 banker punched you in the face, or if the 2013 banker kicked you in the crotch?

I generally use the Fair Deal in comparing the generosity of offers, as Deal-Eye over-valuates some configurations (i.e. 3 box games at 8 box, 2 box games at 5 box, and 1 box games at 3 box extra offers). Between the increased generosity Deal-Eye sees and the minimally decreased generosity the Fair Deal shows (103% at 5 box compared to 107% at 8 box), I'd definitely conclude that the 5 box offer was in line with the generosity of the 8 box offer.

Ok, I'll let you off! I thought you were specifically referring to the Deal-Eye benchmark, that's why I flagged it up!

Anyone considered this: You have a trainwreck game and end up with a blue/blue finish, Box 23 is a given. You ask the banker to consider offering you, say, £1,500 to NOT go with box 23. You promise him this. Then, when the question is asked, BLUFF him. He could well consider it if he doesn't want to risk 1/5 chance of you going away with £10k... which is the virtually certain odds if he doesn't attempt to buy the box.

Bit of room for "gamesmanship strategy" anyway!

I would love to change the rules of Box 23.. but ONLY SLIGHTLY.

I would not let Box 23 be used if either;

A) The player wins 1p. This will give the banker and player freedom to play around more. A 1p/£5,000 climax. The Banker could offer the swap, or something really low like £250, and the player may accept JUST so they could open Box 23. Also will make membership of the 1p club more feasible.

B) The player Deals in the game, and it turns out in their ORIGINAL BOX was £250,000...

OH I LIKE THAT!

"Kim, I think the £100k's in box 13..."

"Oh, so I haven't got it then?!"

Caught the game from 5-box onwards. Kim's been fun on the wings and it was good to see that in her game as well, plus she went away with a tidy sum. You'd probably have to be lucky to get 5 figures offered on that 5-box so I don't blame her for taking £8k there. As for box 23, it was arguable either way on that sum, and Kim clearly didn't want to risk losing it, so fair play for not letting herself get dragged in after yesterday. I did think the box 23 reveal dragged a bit considering it hadn't been accepted, although perhaps that felt longer following the quick destruction of the board in proveout.

I'm not JUST a hilarious, pretty face