Bleurgh I despise Deal or No Deal, Renee was an absolute *beep* legend and I wanted her to win loads more. I seem to be making posts of that nature remarkably often recently...

Missed today's show!

Urgh, that's the second rubbish ending in a row. I really liked Renee, but the game just didn't work out.

Noel was in full-on Wakey mode at the end. I don't really understand why he thinks that it's better to go to the end and win something small, rather than to deal too early.

Because the producers are in his ear with "give us some exciting games or the ratings will really slump" perhaps?

You could be right there!

Because it is better. It's more exciting and every box opening is tense. The minute a deal is made, no matter how wonderful, the show is over.

I know for the purists and the statisticians on the forum the proveouts are fascinating but for the millions of Joe Public the game's over!

Endemol know this and somebody needs to chivvy this cautious lot to take a risk or two. Noel is ideally placed and if he has to pester, cajole or embarass them into it I'm all for it.

While I may agree that going to the end can be better than dealing too early, it's certainly not better than dealing at the right time. Some people see "playing the game" as going all the way to the end, in an attempt to get the most money possible. Other people think it's better to judge each Banker's offer and accept a deal when they think the time is right and the board's about to collapse. I certainly don't think the game's over as soon as a player deals - part of the fun in watching is to see whether the player has made a good or bad decision.

I generally want to see players get the most money out of the game (my view of "playing the game"), which is done with a balance of early deals, later deals, or opening your box at the end. Of course, the bad results help you appreciate the good results when they come around, but I certainly don't think everyone should be encouraged to go all the way to the end on Endemol's say-so, in the same way that they shouldn't encourage people to deal early with inflated offers.

I always thought that "playing the game" was weighing up the board and deciding when was the best time to deal. I thought that the aim of the game was to do the right deal at the right time.

Anyway, I loved Renee. She was so sweet and lovely. I was so disappointed that she only got £1,000. That's three of my favourite players from the last month (Lynn, Karen and now Renee) who have won £1,000.

Except if the game is set up so that nobody ever ever Deals, there is no game. It's merely 'you are NOT going to win... <opens box> £5,000... you are NOT going to win... <opens box> £10...' - not much of a game, merely 45 minutes of a very drawn-out reveal.



It's not so much the effect on them, it's the fact that two and a half million people are watching this show every day and being fed the message that gambling is good. Try telling that to the thousands who have had their lives severely affected by gambling addiction. Is Noel acting irresponsibly in that context? It wouldn't be the first Endemol/Channel 4 show to have a huge social-responsibility issue, of course...

This is the main thing that bugs me about Noel's Wakeyness...

I also agree with what CrazyChair and Muinimula have been saying in this thread that playing the game is about doing the right deal at the right time, not going to the end.

The show dipped severely at the end of March due to a high number of banker wins, a 22 that didn't contain many characters (possibly due to poor editing or low morale due to the banker wins), then picked up in April and reached a peak in early May, but at the moment the show seems to be sliding back into an end of March stage. My favourites on the wings are playing and I can't say I've really warmed to any of the newbies of late, so I hope some characters are developed soon.

The run of appalling bad luck is getting stupid now - I've always said this show is all about variety, and after so many low wins of late, it's getting boring now... no-one's won more than £10,000 since Craig last Monday.

Renee's game was yet another horrible one - I loved her and it's such a shame she never got to the high money but luck just wasn't on her side... but she did well to keep a good face on over it all - well done to her for that and enjoy the £1,000, Renee!

I've never advocated that everybody should no-deal to the end every game. I would actually like everybody to make the most of their boards. Recently people have been far too cautious to take even small risks and end up dealing early with plenty of potential still available. Its reached plague proportions and it is dull and frustrating to watch. A run of bad luck with the boxes and some naturally cautious players have exacerbated this effect. Everybody no-dealing to the end would be dull too. Variety is the key to the show's success.



Spare me your patronising lecture on the perils of gambling please. Nobody loses on this show. Everybody goes away with more than they arrrived with. The general public are not so stupid as to think the players are gambling with their own money.

A bit of gentle cajoling by Noel to people who have actively applied to get on the show to win a large sum of money by taking risks in a no-lose situation is hardly going to cause a rush at Gamblers Anonymous.

not true my fellow wakeyist.For instance, Andy k as a prime example probably had won £1000's on other shows and then decided to come on DoND and win some more. No wait, that wasnt a good example. Nick Bain, the 1p winner, probably had more than a penny in his coppers jar at home, let alone his bank account

but for the next sentence i agree. The rest? the rest of that post has nothing to do with me, i have no idea what was going on, so i'll keep out of it for the time being.

The thing is recently we haven't been able to judge particularly who is cautious and who is a gambler!

I don't think anyone since Craig's game on Monday could be labelled as cautious / gambling as such as most people go beyond the third offer anyway, and the fourth and fifth offers - the "business end" of the game - have been so low recently due to poor boards that I think most people would play on... I know I'd have no dealt to the end in recent games (as would Daniel4389 and others) and we're reasonably cautious compared to some people on this forum! Only the really cautious players would've dealt early in the games we've had recently.



The thing is though, as has been mentioned before - is that when the banker's offer is made, it's as good as instantly having the money in your pocket as it is virtually your money - it is given to you and you have to decide whether you want to deal it and grab the money, or decline it and go on in the hope to get a higher offer... so whilst it's not technically the player's money when the offer comes through, it might as well be as the player is one word (and a couple of weeks whilst the money is being transferred to their back account ) away from having it as their money!