Hopefully, from this, people should realise that previous games don't make your game any worse. And I don't like the idea of people thinking that £20,000 is lifechanging. Well for her anyway, if she thought it was lifechanging, she wouldn't be in tears.

That was, for me, the most painful game I have ever had to watch. I am gutted for Donna, I really am, considering that she was my favourite player and I too would have gone at £21,000.

Nice to see that the new and improved wakey lasted a long time.

Painful game...Deal or No Deal is pretty horrible at the moment, really. I'd have taken the £21k as well, the big stupid idiot that I am....£59k was ridiculous, though. Elizabeth (and Mandy) were offered £40k on a slightly better board, and Jeff only got £5k more when he was one of the biggest gamblers we'd seen. I'd have expected about £35-40k. (Despite Noel's assurances before she Dealt that it would definitely be above £50k...shut up Noel.)

From the mathematical perspective, Donna had a 64% chance of taking out either or both out of the 100K and 250K from the 8 box stage to the 5 box stage. The 21K offer may or may not have gone down even if that had happened because the £10,000 safety net was still there. To deal was probably the best decision, definitely with hindsight, but it only looks a bad decision when the proveout goes wrong, and let's not forget it is down to the luck of the boxes in the end.

I didn't see all of it but I did see the ending. From what I saw, she seemed just like a spoilt brat. I found that the ending just made the drama I know become more of a soap opera. It wasn't even the guy next to her (finance, hubby I don't know) fault, he was only there to give advice. She didn't need to follow it if she didn't want to.

Also the crying, I think she was just a teeny bit over the top with it.



Sorry but that's what I thought of just the end and I do apologise if it was completely different throughout the game.

*ahem* for the attention of Wakey

http://www.dond.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6101

But it IS life changing to some people Wakey, your attitude to money is disgusting, are you rich or something?

I felt very sorry for Donna. I was stunned like the audience when I was watching today's show.

100% agreed. Wakey's attitude is absolutely disgraceful to money, he should respect the fact £20,000 is life changing for some people.

But you would be gutted as well. You wait for this thing to happen, dreaming that it would happen to you, thinking it would be amazing if It was to happen to you, and then it does happen to you, only for you to throw £150,000 down the drain (Assuming £100,000 is in the box) and £229,000 down the drain. (Assuming £250,000 is in the box, which it was)

I don't normally get into an argument, but how the HELL is she a stupid woman from a mathematical perspective. There is no mathematical perspective to base this on, and there was just as much chance as having the best ever final two than a Barbara/Andrew (£1/£10) final two.

If you want to do it based on "chance of being able to get more."

>> At the Deal of 5 it would have gone up if the big two remain.
>> At the Deal of 2 it would have gone up if either of the big two remain.

There was a 54% chance of the offer going down, and this being the best offer all game.

This could easily cover a very extravagent wedding.

To be fair, Donna did say she deserved to be rich at the beginning.

I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for her, but if she didn't have the courage to go on she can't really be too upset. The fact is, a lot have people would have dealt in her position so she's by no means the only one.

Yes an unfortunate game, but after saying how gutted she was at the way Jim's game turned out, she should keep some perspective. Jim's gamble yesterday was for a sum of money less than what Donna actually won.

And if someone declined £30,000 and went on to win 1p, you would be calling that person an idiot. I've seen plenty of comments on this site where gamblers are called idiots, and people agree. Donna pretty much did the same. I sometimes think all of you are biased to dealing. Well, it's only fair that I am biased to no dealing.

To be fair to Wakey, Donna was hinting at the time that £21,000 wasn't life changing, but would be very useful to her. (And however lifechanging it is, £21,000 is insignificant compared to £250000 ). My point is not as drastic as Wakey's, but I would say that she can't have it both ways. You either go for the big money and be prepared to lose (like Khanny did), or you play the percentage game and get out while the goings good (like Lofty). I don't think you can have it both ways. Sure, its fine to be disappointed, I would be gutted in her position too, but I didn't like to see her blaming her fiance. I hope thats a fair and reasoned point.

I don't know what i'm feeling right now:

I'm happy that the dream scenario 2 has popped up again and the buses point is proven correct.

I'm angry that she dealt and could have won 250k.

And i'm really sad to see her crying there

Wakey, would you be gutted if you turned down £21,000 only to walk away with erm....a tenner say for arguments sake... I'm just really interested in how you would feel at that point. What if you played the game your way and it all went wrong and someone then called you stupid..... or wouldn't you care?

I personally wouldn't call that person an idiot. Whether I think that decision is good or not, I think that person can obviously justify the decision to themselves atleast, or else they would not make that decision. I personally think that I would've no dealt, but there is totally understandable idea here, and it was clearly able to go both ways.

It was Donna's fault, although her husband may have swayed her decision.

If they called me stupid for gambling, they would be doing what I am doing. I am calling Donna stupid for dealing too soon. 'This' person would be calling me stupid for gambling. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I've seen plenty of people call gamblers idiots, and get away with it. I call very over-cautious players idiots sometimes, and don't get away with it, which suggests to me that most people on this website are biased to dealing and protect the people who did what they wanted them to do, and cuss the players who gamble because it isn't what they would do. I do the opposite, which is just as fair.