If you check most games barring this week since my return, I congratulated most contestant's with a 'Have fun with the money' or 'Well done' comment, even if I didn't agree with the decision.

Check my comments in Barry's game actually, you'll find I am not as bad as you make out.

Yes, this week was techincally better than most, but I just didn't like any game this week to be honest. I'm not going to lie and say I loved it.

Well done Kath Excellent decision, and great game - Enjoy the money!

Yes, and since everyone worked out you were "wakey" then you've gone right back into your old ways...


Barry no-dealed to the end, so that says it all!


You don't have to say you loved it, just cut out the personal abuse like "chicken", "coward" etc. Is it any surprise there are less contestants on here at the moment?

You will find when I was wakey, I never congratulated anyone. I've congratulated most players since I came back. With the exception of David and Charlie, because I was out, and a few others because I just didn't get around to it, I congratulated most players.

Re: above comments,

I used to think it was silly for players to no deal amounts like £8,888, then deal when the board improves. Then I realised that not everyone knows when the best time to deal is, as they're less attuned to odds and timing.

So I still watch, but more for the entertainment. I respect that when a player is ready to deal, they're doing it for the right reasons, regardless of whether it's logically correct or expected of them to play differently.

The great thing about this game is that everyone's an individual. If everyone played how the public wanted them to play, including by peer pressure and expectations, then the game would become very one-dimensional and flat. Courage, as it were, would become an everyday occurrence.

I enjoy watching the game as a mirror of life; having a good time while making friends, and making some mistakes along the way.

..

Wouldn't fancy Kath as the mother-in-law but at least she went further into the game before dealing (much to my surprise). I knew she'd deal at £10K though as she always piped up on the wings with words of caution to any player vaguely contemplating a risk.

But with 5 reds to choose from I thought it was well worth a punt at the £50K and would have gone on. 4 players on the east wing thought no-deal as well.

So overall not too disappointing for us 'no-dealers' and happiness allround for the 'dealers'.

The thing is - everybody's opinions are so predictable. Not just jmas's. The same old people spout the same old 'well dealt' and 'enjoy the money' stuff day in day out. We all know where everybody is coming from whether you are a 'dealer' or 'no-dealer'.

If you suggest he shuts up because he has the same opinion each day then all of us (including you) should shut up because we all stick to our opinions on how a game should be played and state them every day. You may as well shut down the forum.

Stating ones opinion is exactly what a forum is for. jmas is perfectly entitled to give his opinion each day just as much as you.

There's been too much of a safe cozy 'dealer' slant to the forum in the past and its refreshing to see someone with some backbone who would take a risk during a game.

There's a big difference between saying "I wouldn't have dealt that" and saying the player is a "coward"/"chicken"/"idiot" for dealing when they did.

I wouldn't have even considered the offer Anne-Marie took, for example, but she had every right to take it, even if it did make it a disappointing game for the viewer. Why should we expect contestants to play it the way we would play it ourselves? Everyone has a different need for the money or definition of what a life-changing sum would be, after all.

If, as a result of game, a player is called a coward or chicken then that is legitimate criticism because it is a direct result of the game that was played. Its as much valid as saying someone is brave.

It is not acceptable to call someone fat, ugly, smelly, four-eyes etc because they are personal attributes that have no bearing on the way the game is played.

Well, I'll leave that up to Kestral to decide, as it's his site after all. But if he wants to keep contestants posting on here then I'm not sure he will stand for the way it's been going recently.

I don't think we do, though. "jmas" has one opinion - contestants should No Deal. If they do that, he posts about how great they are; if they Deal then he insults them and/or goes on about what a rubbish decision it was. It's just boring to read. I don't think anyone else is that repetitive - even KP, who is frequently used as the example of the "Dealer", varies his opinion based on the board and the offers. I wouldn't even be able to class the majority of posters as "Dealers" or "No Dealers"...I'm not even sure what I am myself!

I thought it was no deal and swap for box 4 if given the chance.

I would actually argue the complete opposite. I couldn't give a *beep* how anyone plays the game but often really like/dislike certain contestants based on their personalities. I can understand comments like "I don't like her, she's really irritating" far more than I can things like "I don't like her, she's a spineless coward/reckless gambler". I think it depends on how you view the show as a whole - if you watch it purely for the gameplay you're obviously more likely to take the latter approach.



Good point!

On another note, imagine if Kath hadn't have changed her system. She would've been in a 1p/10p/£5/£10/£1,000 final 5 situation. That's the scary thing hear. The system change was perfectly timed.

Yeah, and when she said she was changing it, I ranted for ages about what a bloody stupid idea that was...shows what I know.

I like/dislike people based on their personalities for sure. Its part of what makes the show what it is. We get to know the contestants, like some, loathe some. I didn't particularly like Kerry for example who I thought was a drama queen who's screeching drove me nuts and I think I commented on it at the time. I loved Rita. I wasn't all that keen on Phil based on his personality either but somebody dissed him based on his size and shape which was totally out of order.

About dealers/no-dealers, I think I have a pretty balanced view of this, and recently, I've thought that I would deal early based on the offers and what's left on the board. There's even been some 2nd round offers that I would find attractive and very hard to turn down. This time last year however, I would have gone to end a lot more often, as the offers were a lot less generous.

But I think of all the 1p games, the only ones I definitely wouldn't have won 1p on were Connell's (becuase I wouldn't have swapped - but I probably would have swapped in Nick's game, being left with 2 blues), and Tony's I would have been out of there early. Maybe I would have dealt the £1.50 in Dave E's game!

I'm probably about 75% no-dealer in how I would play the game myself (where KP is 0% and Wakey 100%), but will happily defend "dealers" in most cases as it's their money not mine! Of course having too many early dealers isn't good for the show, but it's all about pitching the offers right to avoid that.

Are you sure about that?