Deal or No Deal Fansite and Forum: Welcome to DOND, the home of Deal or No Deal fans.


   [ 141 posts ] 
Author Message
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:16 
John's game today.

Noel says we are going to try and make more dreams come true today, and talks about how contestants are now trying to use tactics to play their game... He recalls how Gaz from earlier in the show bluffed the banker with his target, and how he has noticed more and more are now using different things..


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:17 
Kind of not good it's his game today as yesterday he had £100,000.

Hope he does well, and he would have done well yesterday.


Last edited by Mark on Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:19, edited 1 time in total.

  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:18 
I feel depressed already. :cry:


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:19 
Mark wrote:
Kind of not good it's his game today as yesterday he had £100,000.


How did I know you'd say that?

1/11 chance he'll have that or more, good luck John.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:19 
Nice to know Noel hasn't forgotten about past players... :D

What a story though!!!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:20 
Ahhh It's Mister "Basically".. He seems to say that a lot..


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:20 
John has box 22 today... This is Noel's favourite number box :P John says his life is totally focused on his wife, Angie, and tells us how she suffers from a disease that has totally affected her life, and he wants to win enough to turn the ground floor of their house into a more usable area for her... He tells us how he met her at a karaoke, and when he saw her he said she was the woman for him... He has a card from his wife and it has a red box with 9 on the front, and Noel talks about John leaving box 9 until the end and swapping for it to win £250,000...


Here we go...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:20 
I dunno why they just don't write him a cheque for £20k and put on a gambler instead.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:21 
Exactly the same as yesterday, £250,000 first box.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:23 
Round 1

3 - £250,000 :shock: :( Viv - 2 days in row it goes in the first box!!!

Noel says he has sussed John's tactic and he is trying to frighten the boxes! :P

6 - 10p Ben

7 - £15,000 Dot

17 - 50p Newbie Shaz

4 - £250 Katherine

Banker time


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:23 
Jeeeeeeeeeezus.. TWO DAYS RUNNING!!! 250k... that's incredible. That's a 1 in 484 chance of that happening.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:25 
Well the £250,000 has gone, and there is the tiniest chance he is going to take a good gamble and possibly win £100,000.

So i've turned off already


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:26 
(And Semi is looking bewildered as he is not 50 for another 2 months or so.. lol.. but they have to pretend it's January don't they!)


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:26 
John wonders if the banker has a heart, and then says that everyone knows he doesn't actually.... The banker says he does have a heart, but he keeps it in a jar :P The banker reveals that Semi is 50 today :P He says it's a Semi Demi Century :-D The banker says he pick-pocketed Nic and took her mobile phone and found some very interesting pictures of John on it!! :-D There is one of John on the bus in the morning and he is trying to climb onto the parcel shelf!!

John tells a story of how he plays a practical joke of pretending to be kidnapped when travelling in the passenger seat of a car :P

Banker time

£6,500


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:26 
Ouch!

Stats after Round 1
Offer: £6,500
Mean: £17,671.53
Offer (%): 36.78%
Fair Deal: £7,503.86
Volatility: 0.50
Redometer: 6

Board
1p


£1
£5
£10
£50
£100

£500
£750

£1,000
£3,000
£5,000
£10,000

£20,000
£35,000
£50,000
£75,000
£100,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:26 
John says

NO DEAL


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:28 
Next round

1 - £500 Rachel

2 - £50 Richie

John asks Noel if he has 1 more box, and Noel replies he does, and we will find out what 1 after the break...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:30 
lathebault wrote:
Well the £250,000 has gone, and there is the tiniest chance he is going to take a good gamble and possibly win £100,000.


Haha. That's the funniest thing I've read in ages.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:33 
We're back
Last box before the banker

5 - £1 Reg

Banker time


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:34 
Take a gamble for the 100k?? ......Not a shot in hell just write him a cheque for 15k now. And get a real palyer on!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:35 
Looking strong...but that is just pants what he found in the first box!

With one huge exception, not many people have recovered from a £250,000 first box find!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:35 
SrWilson wrote:
Take a gamble for the 100k?? ......Not a shot in hell just write him a cheque for 15k now. And get a real palyer on!

Yeah, I agree.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:36 
Stats after Round 2
Offer: £10,000
Mean: £21,418.93
Offer (%): 46.69%
Fair Deal: £10,611.80
Volatility: 0.50
Redometer: 21 (↑15)

Board
1p



£5
£10

£100


£750

£1,000
£3,000
£5,000
£10,000

£20,000
£35,000
£50,000
£75,000
£100,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:36 
Noel asks John why he wants to go flounder fishing, and John tells him it is something that both he and his wife can do together, and Noel asks him if he eats what he catches, and John replies LOOK AT ME :P The banker calls and says no fish jokes in this plaice :-D

Noel asks Woodsy what the score is and she gets a little confused at first before giving Noel the right score....

The banker thinks back to £100,000 Gaz, and how he took out the £250,000 first round but went on to win £100,000

Banker offers

£10,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:36 
John says

NO DEAL


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:36 
Oh don't ya love the feeble attempts that people go to to ingraciate everyone (including the banker) to make people feel sorry for them. Ok, I am sure he is an honest and kind and loving man.. but all the "Ohh, I am filling up.." stuff and the heavy sighs during his story telling..

..It don't work. I do feel for him though, and I wish his poor wife luck and a long life.

Oh and PS. Woodsy is soooooooo cute and beautiful.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:37 
Next round

11 - £50,000 Nic

10 - £1,000 Barry

18 - £5,000 Jill


Banker time


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:38 
Too many remarks to Gaz...I sense the £100,000 has come to the table... :?


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:38 
Yeah can someone explain this scoring thing? Yesterday, when I was watching the show she was saying like 3-4 when there was 5 blues gone and 3 reds or something... makes no sense....


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:38 
The banker talks about the all red round....

Banker offers

£10,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:38 
Stats after Round 3
Offer: £10,000
Mean: £22,169.55
Offer (%): 45.11%
Fair Deal: £10,297.64
Volatility: 0.70
Redometer: 9 (↓12)

Board
1p



£5
£10

£100


£750


£3,000

£10,000

£20,000
£35,000

£75,000
£100,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:39 
John goes to Semi, and he says he would go another round, Ben says the offer is very good, but again there is another round in the game...


John says

No Deal


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:40 
The scoring is a little.. errmm.. off the cuff sorta 'general gamey kinda score' depending on the rough amounts of blues and reds remaining.. i.e. who is in the strongest position..

I think.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:41 
Ah well, there goes what he had yesterday.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:41 
£100,000 gone...so much for Gaz's game!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:42 
russboys747 wrote:
The scoring is a little.. errmm.. off the cuff sorta 'general gamey kinda score' depending on the rough amounts of blues and reds remaining.. i.e. who is in the strongest position..

I think.


It's the number of power 5 amounts left from each side.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:42 
SrWilson wrote:
And get a real palyer on!


John is.

I suppose you don't like him because he looks like he'll deal?


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:42 
Next Round

12 - £10,000 Bing

8 - £100,000 Woodsy


John picks box 15 with Martin next, but Noel calls a break first...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:43 
Woodsy is the new young femme fatale..

And she took his breath away twice! :lol:


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:44 
basicasic wrote:
lathebault wrote:
Well the £250,000 has gone, and there is the tiniest chance he is going to take a good gamble and possibly win £100,000.


Haha. That's the funniest thing I've read in ages.


lol ;)


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:45 
Tom22 wrote:
russboys747 wrote:
The scoring is a little.. errmm.. off the cuff sorta 'general gamey kinda score' depending on the rough amounts of blues and reds remaining.. i.e. who is in the strongest position..

I think.


It's the number of power 5 amounts left from each side.


Cheers Tom.. I guess I weren't paying attention when that scoring first started.. ;)


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:46 
russboys747 wrote:
Tom22 wrote:
russboys747 wrote:
The scoring is a little.. errmm.. off the cuff sorta 'general gamey kinda score' depending on the rough amounts of blues and reds remaining.. i.e. who is in the strongest position..

I think.


It's the number of power 5 amounts left from each side.


Cheers Tom.. I guess I weren't paying attention when that scoring first started.. ;)


Yeah same


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:47 
We're back
Last box before the banker

We must find a blue now says Noel

15 - £10 Martin

Banker time


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:48 
I wish he would stop all this *sighing* and heavy breathing through his nose...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:48 
We needed that last one!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:48 
Noel says the banker is trying to unsettle John now, and John replies that he is floundering :P The banker calls back and says Oh it's like that now, and he's baiting him :P

Banker offers

£8,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:48 
Stats after Round 4
Offer: £8,000
Mean: £16,731.88
Offer (%): 47.81%
Fair Deal: £7,587.72
Volatility: 1.27
Redometer: 1 (↓8)

Board
1p



£5


£100


£750


£3,000



£20,000
£35,000

£75,000



  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:49 
£8k - easy no-deal.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:49 
At least another round there!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:49 
I smell a deal coming .......


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:50 
Grrrr.. his blowing and thinking noises are doing my head in now..


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:50 
John goes for a mini sweep.... He also wanders up to Semi's wife who is in the audience, and she whispers DEAL to him...


John says

DEAL


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:50 
Blatant ND there. A deal here would be IMO, stupid.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:50 
What a farce... I'm glad i'm not watching :evil:

How many days since we had a good game?


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:51 
Basicasic... your powers of intuition are spot on. I dealt early though.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:51 
Oh for goodness sake another poor deal!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:52 
Ohh... 75k went.. maybe I didn't deal early... hmm..


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:52 
You've made this very tricky for us now says Noel....

Proveout Round

16 - £75,000 :D Ferno

19 - 1p Simon

21 - £5 Chris

Banker time


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:52 
Far too many cautious players on the show all of a sudden...we're losing the thrill-seeking show fans but £8,000 is certainly not to be sniffed at!

Round Five: HAHAHA!!!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:52 
You would have been in recovery mode now says Noel

Banker would have offered

£5,500


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:53 
Stats after Round 5
Offer: £5,500
Mean: £11,770.00
Offer (%): 46.73%
Fair Deal: £7,078.28
Volatility: 1.47
Redometer: 10 (↑9)

Board
£100
£750

£3,000
£20,000
£35,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:53 
SrWilson wrote:
just write him a cheque for 15k now. And get a real palyer on!


lathebault wrote:
SrWilson wrote:
Take a gamble for the 100k?? ......Not a shot in hell just write him a cheque for 15k now. And get a real palyer on!

Yeah, I agree.


Try to understand it from John's point of view, for goodness sake.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:54 
Next proveout round

13 - £3,000 Debbie

14 - £20,000 Audrey

20 - £100 Adie

Banker time with £750 and £35,000 remaining


Last edited by kestral on Thu Jan 31, 2008 18:33, edited 1 time in total.

  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:54 
Lucky escape but a *beep* deal on the basis of it. Still one round to go....

With £750 and £35,000 the offer HAS to be higher...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:54 
Banker would have offered

£12,500


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:54 
Stats after Round 6
Offer: £12,500
Mean: £17,875.00
Offer (%): 69.93%
Fair Deal: £11,499.24
Volatility: 46.67
Redometer: 6 (↓4)

Board
£750

£35,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:55 
John says he would have taken that...


Noel opens box 22 and reveals £750 :D

Box 9 - Semi contains the £35,000


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:56 
Ohh well.. he could have had 12.5k... it was never gonna be a big money game.. and I am chuffed for him and his wife to get 8k towards the building work at their home..


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:56 
So even a bad blow at the £75,000 and £20,000 would have resulted in a higher offer. Tells you how bad the deal was......


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:57 
It's great we see some people on here coming on to win a bit of bob, but the fact remains, we're not getting anymore game-players...and until that happens, we're not going to get the really big wins.

I hate to spoil things but when I went to see Reg's game, I overheard a couple of show producers saying that there had been certain things wrong with the game for a fair few months.

If they were on about these average wins, then it looks like it hasn't gone unnoticed!!!

Read the thread I'm about to make in the spoilers thread for what was exactly said.

Back to today's game, it was a decent win, but I would definitely played on to the end!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:00 
What a depressing show from start to finish. Sob story, player tears, nose blowing, winger tears, dull game, lousy cop-out deal followed by a better offer and pathetic celebrations when he opened up the £750.

Absolutely ghastly.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:00 
Cheers for the heads-up Big Davey.. I will read your thread..

You said you would have played on to the end.. but would you have swapped? You would have got £750 otherwise..


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:01 
basicasic wrote:
What a depressing show from start to finish. Sob story, player tears, nose blowing, winger tears, dull game, lousy cop-out deal followed by a better offer and pathetic celebrations when he opened up the £750.

Absolutely ghastly.


Sums evertying up in one post :lol:


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:01 
basicasic wrote:
What a depressing show from start to finish. Sob story, player tears, nose blowing, winger tears, dull game, lousy cop-out deal followed by a better offer and pathetic celebrations when he opened up the £750.

Absolutely ghastly.


Agreed it just was hidious!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:02 
Divvy, for as long as we don't get the big money coming to the table, we're not going to get any really big wins. Sylvia was the last player to bring a power 5 amount to the table.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:04 
Have to say I found that a very dull game from start to finish. Too many games like this would be the death knell for this show.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:04 
screw night nurse for trouble sleeping - recent eps of deal do the job nicely!


Last edited by SrWilson on Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:05, edited 1 time in total.

  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:05 
Well, i actually enjoyed that game (well i enjoy all of them) and i really wanted John to go away with a big amount of money. I was happy he dealt as i was having a feeling if he played on the board would collapse but when he said Deal i was relieved. And again was very happy to see the £750 in his box and he didnt have £35,000!

Well Done John, enjoy £8,000!!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:07 
Greeny, you're totally right!

And as you will read in the 'What would you have done today thread', you will see that I would have indeed won £750 today!!! :P :oops:


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:08 
Well, I didn't watch today's game, but from reading this thread I think I would really enjoy it. No over-inflated offers, apparently Noel didn't guilt-trip, a TPW and a nice win.

Who gives a *beep* if he dealt (and apparently ruined the day for SrWilson and latheboult)? Well done John, enjoy the £8,000.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:11 
I quite enjoyed that game, it was a sob story but he was a happy enough chap. The boxes weren't really with him and the deal was understandable as was so nearly seen in the proveout...

Lathebault, Basic and Sr. why do you bother watching? You know there are always going to be players like this and games like this, it's part of the show.. and if it upsets you as much as it seems, spend 45 minutes doing something fun! Go for a jog, see a film, do a crossword... You cant just complain every time there is a rough patch in the show and someone deals, it's worse than people saying 'Well done xxxxxx' after every show...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:12 
SrWilson wrote:
basicasic wrote:
What a depressing show from start to finish. Sob story, player tears, nose blowing, winger tears, dull game, lousy cop-out deal followed by a better offer and pathetic celebrations when he opened up the £750.

Absolutely ghastly.


Agreed it just was hidious!


Well now seeing as Divvy has said there are only average wins up till atleast Reg's game, then why don't you srwilson, Lathebault? and Basicasic give the show a break if dealing annoys you? We can sure we have no big wins coming up and you three in particular are obviously annoyed when people deal. It also brings lots of negativity into the 'Today's Show' section.

No need to reply back to this. Everything that needs to be said has been said.


Last edited by cookie_monster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:16, edited 1 time in total.

  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:14 
Tom22 wrote:
I quite enjoyed that game, it was a sob story but he was a happy enough chap. The boxes weren't really with him and the deal was understandable as was so nearly seen in the proveout...

Lathebault, Basic and Sr. why do you bother watching? You know there are always going to be players like this and games like this, it's part of the show.. and if it upsets you as much as it seems, spend 45 minutes doing something fun! Go for a jog, see a film, do a crossword... You cant just complain every time there is a rough patch in the show and someone deals, it's worse than people saying 'Well done xxxxxx' after every show...


I am not watching any more. I turned off after the £250,000 went and I didnt miss much

So maybe one day when someone is delving deep into the game on a good board I might turn on and watch the potential tension.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:15 
Tom22 wrote:
You know there are always going to be players like this and games like this, it's part of the show..


There may be players like this occasionally and that would be fine.. but not all the bleedin time for nearly EVERY show


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:16 
Tom22 wrote:
I quite enjoyed that game, it was a sob story but he was a happy enough chap. The boxes weren't really with him and the deal was understandable as was so nearly seen in the proveout...

Lathebault, Basic and Sr. why do you bother watching? You know there are always going to be players like this and games like this, it's part of the show.. and if it upsets you as much as it seems, spend 45 minutes doing something fun! Go for a jog, see a film, do a crossword... You cant just complain every time there is a rough patch in the show and someone deals, it's worse than people saying 'Well done xxxxxx' after every show...


Im in shock.... the Gingemeister has actually posted something worth reading... who would have thought it.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:20 
Well done John on 8K. All the best to you and your wife.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:24 
lathebault wrote:
Tom22 wrote:
You know there are always going to be players like this and games like this, it's part of the show..


There may be players like this occasionally and that would be fine.. but not all the bleedin time for nearly EVERY show


Yeah you cant deny we're in quite a run, but why don't you just turn the telly off do something else instead? Whats the point turning it off and then still complaining about it off what you read off here, it's not a nice thing to see shows and contestants being called what they have been, I know if I felt like you seemingly do I wouldnt watch. Read for the good shows and watch them on 4od when they happen and we'll all be a lot happier.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:26 
Completely agree with Cookie - every now and then you get dark moments in the show, I mean I can just mention September 2007 and you shudder! And yet we're all still watching the show!!!

So my opinion of it all is that we will bounce back again and by March we'll be back to you average games still but also a few game-players! :D


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:36 
Big-Davey wrote:
Completely agree with Cookie - every now and then you get dark moments in the show, I mean I can just mention September 2007 and you shudder! And yet we're all still watching the show!!!

So my opinion of it all is that we will bounce back again and by March we'll be back to you average games still but also a few game-players! :D


And I liked September. (Not people winning blues) because it was a stepping stone of the show. I like how the show can be so different each month also!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:48 
Sob-story free me would have carried on at 8K. Was glad to see John go away with a reasonable sum though. Shame he didnt do as Noel suggested at the beginning, that would have given John a 35K win.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:52 
Tom22 wrote:
Lathebault, Basic and Sr. why do you bother watching? You know there are always going to be players like this and games like this, it's part of the show.. and if it upsets you as much as it seems, spend 45 minutes doing something fun! Go for a jog, see a film, do a crossword... You cant just complain every time there is a rough patch in the show and someone deals, it's worse than people saying 'Well done xxxxxx' after every show...


Firstly, I pay my TV licence fee and am entitled to watch what I want when I want. Secondly I am entitled to post my opinion of the show, good or bad on this forum. If you don't like it don't read it. Thirdly, I can complain every time and I will.

However the main reason I continue watching is because the show at its best is brilliant. There have been eras of good and bad before but nothing quite so prolonged as this. It is plain tedious. The sob stories (attempting to make a gambling show appear worthy) are sickening and gloomy and the constant flow of cautious players seems never ending.

I keep watching hoping to see an entertaining game with excitement and tension with perhaps a big win. On the rare occassion we get one its brilliant. But its all too rare these days.I've tried to stay loyal in the hope that things will improve. But I am very near the point of switching off permanently.

Incidentally If I'd have known the show was going to be that bad I would have done my 4 mile run at 4 o'clock instead of 3.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 19:03 
basicasic wrote:
...attempting to make a gambling show appear worthy...


Is Deal or No Deal primarily a gambling show? Sure, that's a big feature but at its heart isn't it a show about ordinary people, their stories and their emotions? If a potential viewer doesn't recognise that fact then they're setting themselves up for continual disappointment and irritation by watching it every day.

Why would any sensible person willingly subject themselves to continual disappointment and irritation? Why would they then make a point of logging on to a web site every single day and moaning about their continual disappointment and irritation? I genuinely don't see the appeal of doing that.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 19:04 
I don't like these average games :(


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 19:08 
jiveclive wrote:
I don't like these average games :(


I like variety, however it is better than everyone winning blues and crying instead of average amounts. I think I would have to rename it 'The Dark show" then :P


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 20:22 
Whilst I agree we have had more cautious players of late even if half of these people had gambled they were never going to go away with much more money and in some cases they would of lost more than they would of gained.

I'll admit that at times I think that a particular deal is unwise and that the player should just risk going another round because the amount on offer isn't that much. But then I try and think it of it from the perspective of the player and what the money means to them in the real world. Sure some people might deal early at "small" amounts such as £10,000 - £20,000 and annoyingly they might of had the opportunity to win double or even triple what they dealt at, but at the end of the day after the cameras stop rolling and these people go home to the "real world" they have to live with whatever choice they made. Perhaps they regret not going one more round or maybe they regret not taking that earlier deal or just maybe they're happy at getting just a few grand out of the game even if they had the opportunity of a lot more money.

Ultimately as viewers we all watch the show to be entertained, but for the player sitting in the crazy chair I bet the last thought on their mind is whether we the viewers will agree with their choice.

Yes I find the show more exciting when someone decides to no deal and perhaps people should take more risks but then we're not the ones being offered potentially life changing money even if it is "only" £20,000. Perhaps Endemol is to blame then for choosing people that obviously aren't gamblers or perhaps that's what Endemol want? Maybe they don't won't to risk having to pay out more than they have to?


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 20:26 
I understand the sob stories, but, he wanted to change his downstairs for his wife. No offence, but how much of a big change can he do?


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 20:31 
MisterAl wrote:
Is Deal or No Deal primarily a gambling show?


It is as much of a gambling show as the production decisions allow it to be. Compare our version with some of the 26-case international variants.

Quote:
at its heart isn't it a show about ordinary people, their stories and their emotions?


Again, that's certainly how it always was presented, and there's that part of it still trying to break out (and we're in a patch where it's succeeding). That's being drowned out in the rush for the 'excitement' of people who disregard money.

Quote:
If a potential viewer doesn't recognise that fact then they're setting themselves up for continual disappointment and irritation by watching it every day.

Why would any sensible person willingly subject themselves to continual disappointment and irritation? Why would they then make a point of logging on to a web site every single day and moaning about their continual disappointment and irritation? I genuinely don't see the appeal of doing that.


Same. Which is why I don't watch the show now, albeit for the precise opposite reason.

I will say that this is one of the few deals where I think they had a point. I think that was one of the easiest OPWs in a while - I'd have won £12,500 and I'd like to think most considered players would have too. But £8,000 sure beats £750.

This is perhaps a time when we need a Wakeyist. On the other hand, we needed a few people like the current lot this time last year... any pattern of play loses excitement after a while. Just like one or two hot days can be wonderful but a heatwave dreadfully horrible, or a day or two of snow can be wonderful but a cold snap dreadfully horrible, so it is with the gambling instinct running hot and cold on this show.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 21:07 
KP wrote:
I will say that this is one of the few deals where I think they had a point. I think that was one of the easiest OPWs in a while - I'd have won £12,500 and I'd like to think most considered players would have too.

True, although I don't think that getting the OPW was completely without risk. Watching the actual programme today and seeing how emotional John was when he received that £8k offer caused me to start willing him to take the money and run. It would have been truly heartbreaking to see things crash after that had he not dealt.

I'm not sure that you'd get that impression if you only followed the game via this thread...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 21:11 
basicasic wrote:
What a depressing show from start to finish. Sob story, player tears, nose blowing, winger tears, dull game, lousy cop-out deal followed by a better offer and pathetic celebrations when he opened up the £750.

Absolutely ghastly.
i don,t know why you watch the show you hav,nt a good thing to say about anyone or anything, i suppose the only show you enjoyed was the one when the £250.000 went. for god sake cheer up and try to make your miserable life happy.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 21:17 
Well I missed this and I'm quite relieved I didn;t miss a classic (but if it had been the last Wenesday in January LAST year, I'd have really kicked myself...).

Players who signal their intentions similar to John seemingly did at the start always fill me with dread, as one of two things always seems to happen - a complete disaster of a game with no meaningful offers, a win of next-to-nothing, and being really deflated, or a really overcautous deal and loads more missed out on. This looks like the latter, he took an offer which I wouldn't have even started to consider (and I'm far from a Wakeyist), and was actually fortunate only to miss out on a few thousand more, and not a Power 5.

Which I don't mind cautious players at all, and seem to find myself defending them all the time against all the complaints, at least I do really enjoy them when they're fun, light-hearted occasions like Geoff's and Laura's games...

The Wakeyists have a point - this month there have only really been TWO big box-reveals at the end where the difference between the two sums involved was very large - Kenny and Shaun.

If tomorrow's player doesn't win more than 41k, it will match January 06 as the second lowest peak win, and also if there's not a Power 5 value at the table tomorrow, there'll have been a whole month of shows without one there! :)


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 21:24 
MisterAl wrote:
basicasic wrote:
...attempting to make a gambling show appear worthy...


Is Deal or No Deal primarily a gambling show? Sure, that's a big feature but at its heart isn't it a show about ordinary people, their stories and their emotions? If a potential viewer doesn't recognise that fact then they're setting themselves up for continual disappointment and irritation by watching it every day.

Why would any sensible person willingly subject themselves to continual disappointment and irritation? Why would they then make a point of logging on to a web site every single day and moaning about their continual disappointment and irritation? I genuinely don't see the appeal of doing that.


And that's the best post I've read on here in ages...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 21:40 
I would like to say certain things to certain members of this forum but i fear that if i do so i will get banned so i'll keep it to a minimum.

If you simply find the shows ghastly, don't watch. Better yet, don't complain every single game about the same sort of thing...

Anyway, i liked John. A really nice guy who had a decent reason for needing the money. I hope £8,000 has helped to some extent in what he wants to do.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 21:45 
Those people who criticise people like John for dealing today should be thankful that they aren't in the situation he is in. If you needed money for something that was vital for someone you loved, would you risk it?

I like an exciting game as much as anyone on here (and there is part of me that enjoys watching people take reckless gambles for big money even if I don't agree with the gambles).


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:18 
I thought that was a really good show. You've got to remember that the contestants are actually real people living in a real world in real-life situations (I've been a carer for a family member for many years myself.)
Do certain members of the forum want robots playing the game instead, who will all go all the way to the end regardless? That would be a turn-off for me!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:24 
taff wrote:
I thought that was a really good show. You've got to remember that the contestants are actually real people living in a real world in real-life situations (I've been a carer for a family member for many years myself.)
Do certain members of the forum want robots playing the game instead, who will all go all the way to the end regardless of board strength? That would be a turn-off for me!


Do certain members of the forum want robot like players playing the game instead, who will all usually deal any poor offer regardless of board strength? That has been a turn off for me and still is...


Last edited by lathebault on Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:27, edited 1 time in total.

  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:27 
I think you need a balance of players - gamblers like Ed and Rodney as well as more cautious players.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:28 
lathebault wrote:
taff wrote:
I thought that was a really good show. You've got to remember that the contestants are actually real people living in a real world in real-life situations (I've been a carer for a family member for many years myself.)
Do certain members of the forum want robots playing the game instead, who will all go all the way to the end regardless of board strength? That would be a turn-off for me!


Do certain members of the forum want robot like players playing the game instead, who will all usually deal any poor offer regardless? That has been a turn off for me and still is...


The fact of the matter is with the current contestants lately no one has any Cajones, as soon as the offer gets 15K upwards its almost a cast iron deal from them regardless of the board. Its Horrible tv and I am sure most viewers just curl their toes at such a oppotunity wasted to win serious money.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:29 
taff wrote:
I think you need a balance of players - gamblers like Ed and Rodney as well as more cautious players.


Absolutely. And we are getting far to many cautious players and not enough gamblers. Which means this balance of players is far too unbalanced to the side of cautious players and we need more gamblers to tip that balance. That has been my point ...


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:40 
The constant pessimistic views of a few regulars in the Today's Shows thread are annoying to the majority here, as the contestant's decisions are to these pessimistic regulars who watch and comment on the show!

To the pessimistic few, imagine how you feel when a contestant doesn't do the deal you would/want to happen, and that's how the rest of the members here feel your contestant barrage of doom and gloom...

Now to throw something totally wild and wacky into the discussion... Looking at things from another angle with the latest run of low wins/deals and the like, and the displeasure to some of how the current batch of contestants are playing the game, isn't this ultimately down to the production crew behind the show, and their selection process for the mix of players that they put on the show? Many here have seen the pages of questions that are asked in the application process to actually get onto the show, and surely this would allow them to fill the wings with a great mix of gamblers/cautious/target driven players?

Are they filling the wings with more cautious players or target driven players in order to keep the shows payout rate low? Just occasionally throwing in the odd wild card gambler to mix things up a little now and again and provide the thrill of the chase for a possible big win.

Last year the show lost it's income from the daily viewer competition, and recently it appears to have lost it's sponsorship from BT. Both of these would have really helped boost the funds available for the prize pot, and now they have disappeared that pot will not be as plentiful. There have been many conspiracy theories in the past about contestant selection and knowing where the money is in the boxes, so how about a new conspiracy of Endemol looking to save money by picking a run contestants that they know will 99.99% of the time be very cautious or target driven and produce lower wins that won't hurt the accounts as much.

The above is totally wacky, but in a way possible, and was really written out to show that you can't lay all the blame at the contestant on the day, and the way the play their game, everyone will play it their own way with their own targets or ambitions, why should they think about entertaining a few select people at home when they have a chance to fulfill these dreams?

If there is anyone to blame for this recent run, surely it lays with Endemol and the selection process of deciding the mix of contestants on the wings?

Enough of ramblings, I expect most have given up and not reached this far in my post :P


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:53 
kestral wrote:
Are they filling the wings with more cautious players or target driven players in order to keep the shows payout rate low? Just occasionally throwing in the odd wild card gambler to mix things up a little now and again and provide the thrill of the chase for a possible big win.

Last year the show lost it's income from the daily viewer competition, and recently it appears to have lost it's sponsorship from BT. Both of these would have really helped boost the funds available for the prize pot, and now they have disappeared that pot will not be as plentiful. There have been many conspiracy theories in the past about contestant selection and knowing where the money is in the boxes, so how about a new conspiracy of Endemol looking to save money by picking a run contestants that they know will 99.99% of the time be very cautious or target driven and produce lower wins that won't hurt the accounts as much.


Oooh that's a horrible thought. If that's the case, surely they are spelling the shows death? I thought they want it to survive to 2011?



Good post Kestral


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 22:59 
MisterAl wrote:
basicasic wrote:
...attempting to make a gambling show appear worthy...


Is Deal or No Deal primarily a gambling show? Sure, that's a big feature but at its heart isn't it a show about ordinary people, their stories and their emotions? If a potential viewer doesn't recognise that fact then they're setting themselves up for continual disappointment and irritation by watching it every day.

Why would any sensible person willingly subject themselves to continual disappointment and irritation? Why would they then make a point of logging on to a web site every single day and moaning about their continual disappointment and irritation? I genuinely don't see the appeal of doing that.



Hear hear MisterAl. As with your previous comment on Pat's game I totally wholeheartedly agree.

MisterAl wrote:
If somebody makes a decision that is different from the one I'd have made, I don't think 'that's not what I'd have done therefore that player is a fool'. Instead I think 'that's not what I'd have done -- that's interesting, I wonder what their reasons were'.


Which is why (probably like yourself) I see the show from a neutral point of view and whoever is playing can do what they like. It's not like pointing a gun to their head and forcing them to thake their box contents. If they think dealing for a small amount is life changing to their lives, then fair play to them. Same with those who want to play to the end (however, I have questioned a few decisions by the contestants in the past).

I haven't mentioned this but I would like to applaud Pat for coming on here and defending herself and the other contestants on the show. You don't have to come on here, it's your choice to express your views. While it's a fact not many recent contestants have posted on here in recent weeks. Whether these people have got private or being put off from some comments on here. Who knows?


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:03 
Well said Kes. I'm not surprised if they are selecting contestants who would like a few thousand to be life changing to them. As I stated recently it all plays into the producers/researchers hands so it produces a low payout rate.

This has happened in recent years on Millionaire where the question difficulty has increased. Producing low wins and also dragging out the editing process so only one or two come from Fastest Finger on each show. The series this time last year produced the lowest winnings average for a contestant. Only a handful were reaching £32,000 and above. However, unlike DoND, this is a weekly show.

Also it's down to budget at the end of the day. As they produce nearly 300 shows to be shown across 12 months. At the moment, it's totally unreal since other game shows don't produce that many for transmission. Weakest Link is on all year but they only produce 100 new episodes per year and use repeats to fill the gaps. Even the American daytime game show don't produce 300 odd, it's usually around 200-250 per season. Jeopardy! usually produces 230 for each season.


Last edited by travis P on Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:08, edited 1 time in total.

  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:07 
kestral wrote:
If there is anyone to blame for this recent run, surely it lays with Endemol and the selection process of deciding the mix of contestants on the wings?


This is of course the most likely scenario! However, it may not even be Endemol's fault at the end of the day. If people say on their application forms that they are gamblers, then maybe they are bluffing? It's become quite clear that Endemol were choosing gamblers to go on the show, so maybe that has backfired on them, and now people are pretending to be gamblers when they apply? I'd imagine you'd get away with it if you lied about the gambling part of the form - you'd only be in trouble if you lied about vital parts, such as whether or not you've had any criminal convictions.

Or it could just be that Endemol have mis-read the way certain people will play the game, and have accidentally chosen a group of cautious people at once. They're hardly going to chuck someone off the show if they hear them say in the bar one night "I need to win money for my wife" or something.

I think it's interesting that Big-Davey mentioned how he overheard a production team member saying that there had been something wrong with the game for a while now (presumably due to all the low wins), which presumably highlights how it is Endemol's fault for choosing the wrong players. As more and more people apply, selecting the lucky few who get to be on the show will be a tough job, especially due to increased applications to become a contestant on the show.

The point Kestral made about Endemol not gaining money any more due to the loss of the LTL is an interesting one. Whilst they generated huge amounts of money from that and surely have a lot left over, they may be feeling more pressure now that they no longer have this substantial (and it was EXTREMELY substantial) income. Interestingly, I would imagine that the people who are on the show now probably applied about this time a year ago, maybe had their auditions last spring, and were possibly chosen to be on the show in the summer. Right at the point where it looked as though the LTL would be dropped and Endemol would lose that source of income. Coincidence that this has now produced a run of possibly obvious dealers and / or targetists? I'm not sure.

Anyway, as for the game today, I didn't watch it live and read about it on here to start with. The blubbing at the start of John's show wasn't too bad simply because we've had a lot less of that lately (in fact I can't remember the last time a contestant got emotional like that before John today).

I was expecting a dreadful show from reading a lot of the comments on here, but it was a good show and the deal he made was obviously very important for him. As Kes said, you can't blame John - blame Endemol if anyone. Some of the comments made on here are aimed too much at the contestant. Although basicasic has actually stated he isn't criticising the player as such, which is good.

I can also see the point of view of the gamblers on here getting irritated by the current run of shows. But I'm not sure that the viewing public will all be getting irritated. I'm sure there will be many people (even gamblers) who enjoyed seeing Laura win £15,000 after saying she had never had as much as £4,000 in her life; and I'm sure a great amount of people liked seeing John today winning £8,000 as it was clearly going to help him so much.

It comes down to a question of what DOND is. Is it a money-making show, an entertainment show, a gambling show or just a simple gameshow? I think it's a mixture of all of those, but one thing is for sure and that's that we do have a lot of targetists at the moment. I'm not so sure this is going to have the negative effect on the viewing figures though, as a lot of these shows have had the feel-good factor about them, such as Lloyd, Pat, Sue, Glenis, John and Laura to name a few this month.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:11 
You know I never even noticed the end of the BT sponsorship, that's a very interesting point - maybe they can't afford to have to give away the 100k or the 250k, or every other player will have to be forced to win a blue! At least this way everyone comes out with something half-decent :)

I wasn't getting at John in my earlier post BTW - I guess anyone in his position would be naturally cautious. I just find games like that not enjoyable at all.

I remember 10p Steve from June last year wanting to win some money to look after his ill wife - the fact that he had a complete disaster made it one of the most deflating games I;ve ever seen, whereas others in better positions who have trainwrecks similar to that have made them into fun enjoyable games (Emi, Siobhan, Tingly John etc).

And on the other side of the coin, David ironmonger who's just lost his job and was going to get his house re-possessed unless he won a large amount played, that so SO stressful - I was SO relieved for him to keep the 100k to 5-box and that he dealt what was a REALLY generous 20k offer, only to feel deflated again when he had 100k in his box!

But I do have a good feeling about tomorrow - it's a years anniversary since Bunney after all!!


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:18 
h2005 wrote:
I'm not so sure this is going to have the negative effect on the viewing figures though, as a lot of these shows have had the feel-good factor about them, such as Lloyd, Pat, Sue, Glenis, John and Laura to name a few this month.


At the moment, nope. Latest ratings show that the weekday shows (excluding Saturday) are still appearing in Channel 4's top 30 shows. While in the last fortnight, all five shows are appearing in the top 12. For a daytime show to do that for the channel is excellent.

Regarding sponsorship. Given my knowledge on Millionaire, there have been a few series where they didn't have a sponsor at all. I remember back in 2001 it had taken the show six months to have a new sponsor. Also it's worth mentioning that it had taken six months since DoND started to have a proper sponsor. BT started sponsoring the show from May 2006.


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:41 
travis P wrote:
Which is why (probably like yourself) I see the show from a neutral point of view and whoever is playing can do what they like. It's not like pointing a gun to their head and forcing them to thake their box contents. If they think dealing for a small amount is life changing to their lives, then fair play to them. Same with those who want to play to the end (however, I have questioned a few decisions by the contestants in the past)


I totally agree. Sometimes players make decisions where I think "What the hell are they doing?", but ultimately I respect them, as it's their game, not mine, and they should be able to make their own decisions without being insulted/criticised (although I have said in the past "I feel they made a bad deal for the board", I feel that's perfectly fine against "waaah :cry: they dealt :cry: i feel insulted i hope they lose now lol :cry: "). If people on here get on the show, they should be able to make their own decisions without people wishing bad luck on them.

I have nothing to do with their game, their money or their life, and most likely neither do the people who start whining because they played the game differently to them. Why on Earth should they change their financial decisions to please a few people they've probably never met?


  
 
 
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:49 
First of all, thanks to the people who have complimented my posts on this thread! As Tom22 might say, I'm here all week!

It's worth noting that the current shows were recorded in October, and the players were probably selected a long time before that. Obviously I have no insider info on this, but reports seem to suggest that the audition process back then consisted of a five-minute interview in front of a camera and a four-page application form. Is it possible to determine from that exactly how somebody is going to behave during their game? I doubt it. My guess is that players were chosen purely on how confident they appeared when somebody stuck a camera in front of them.

So from that point of view, the mix of attitudes towards gambling by the current 22 are going to be as random as the distribution of the luck of the players. There'll naturally be periods with lots of risk-taking, and periods with lots of caution. But let's not forget also that the players are holed up together in the hotel for quite a few days at a time -- they're bound to influence each other's attitudes and behaviour. So we'll see trends.

As Travis rightly said, I do largely view the game from a neutral point of view. I find these trends in attitude fascinating in themselves, regardless of how much the players actually win.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 00:12 
MisterAl wrote:
First of all, thanks to the people who have complimented my posts on this thread! As Tom22 might say, I'm here all week!

It's worth noting that the current shows were recorded in October, and the players were probably selected a long time before that. Obviously I have no insider info on this, but reports seem to suggest that the audition process back then consisted of a five-minute interview in front of a camera and a four-page application form. Is it possible to determine from that exactly how somebody is going to behave during their game? I doubt it. My guess is that players were chosen purely on how confident they appeared when somebody stuck a camera in front of them.

So from that point of view, the mix of attitudes towards gambling by the current 22 are going to be as random as the distribution of the luck of the players. There'll naturally be periods with lots of risk-taking, and periods with lots of caution. But let's not forget also that the players are holed up together in the hotel for quite a few days at a time -- they're bound to influence each other's attitudes and behaviour. So we'll see trends.

As Travis rightly said, I do largely view the game from a neutral point of view. I find these trends in attitude fascinating in themselves, regardless of how much the players actually win.


That's another great post. Don't let this adulation go to your head.

I have some facts to add here...

I can tell you that there is no sponsor on the show right now because production companies lose some property rights with a sponsorship deals and Endemol are considering turning down the latest offers.

You see, the show makes millions. It's ridiculous to think they might be trying to save money. They could give the £250,000 away every month and still make a massive profit. Trust me, I've seen the figures. Don’t be distracted by the LTL, the profit from that used to go to Channel 4 not Endemol. Deal or No Deal is now Endemol's most profitable show. It outstrips Big Brother.

Simply, the show is random. Low amounts have been coming to the table; what are they supposed to do about it? And why should they anyway?... The majority of the most watched episodes of Deal of all time, weren't "big" wins or gambles all the way. Every real quote I've ever seen from the actual producers confirms that the ratings aren't affected by the timing of the deal.

I'm sure they'd love some big money to come to the table because variety at the moment would be more interesting; but there is nothing they can do. Are you really suggesting they should "influence" the game in some way? Bravo to them that they don't.

And as some sensible post have said; it's impossible to cast "gamblers"? They have to pick a spread of ages, types, locations with good personalities or stories to tell who are comfortable on camera. The rest is up to the player. You can't tell whether someone will deal early in an interview. And as H suggests no doubt everyone says exactly the same thing on that subject anyway. They have to cast people on who they definitely are and what they have definitely have done, not on feeble guesses of what they might do.

The reason they cast people with what the emotionally immature (IMHO) call "sob stories" or with interesting personalities or histories is not because they are more "deserving" or they want “blubbing” but because if the boxes don't open in a particularly dramatic order the episode will still have a story to tell. It’s a safety net when you don’t have any control over what might happen.

There's no-one to blame. The average amount of money's around £20,000. If you roll two dice over and over it's no-one's fault if you roll seven a few times in a row. The producers do a great job of giving each show the best chance to be fun and entertaining without knowing what might then happen in gameplay. If the game itself is not great then they've done all they can. Periods like this prove the honesty of the show. And to be fair this plan has made Deal one of the most successful shows in British TV history.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 00:18 
I quite enjoyed John's game today. I was absolutely convinced that he was going to deal at the second offer. I was kind of hoping that he would, just to read the reaction on here!


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 00:19 
croftrock wrote:
You see, the show makes millions. It's ridiculous to think they might be trying to save money. They could give the £250,000 away every month and still make a massive profit. Trust me, I've seen the figures. Don’t be distracted by the LTL, the profit from that used to go to Channel 4 not Endemol. Deal or No Deal is now Endemol's most profitable show. It outstrips Big Brother.


That so true as you have to look into the merchandising (DVD's, books, chocolates etc...) DoND provide. Also there are the "other" sponsorships which is connected with the show. I'm talking about the JackpotJoy online game and the interactive game on Sky Digital. Don't forget the deals with manufactures to produce fruit machines and pub quiz machines.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 00:31 
huh


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 00:55 
There has been a run of overcatious dealing lately and I want a power 5 win, still it's not like big money has come to the table anyway.

As for today the deal was too overcautious - he should have gone to 2 box and dealt there given the offers vs board - would have been more tension then.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 00:58 
Someone dealing at offer 2 would be disgraceful and for a worrying moment I thought he was going to as well.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 01:01 
but overall I guess the show can't do much - unless the try and fix the games somehow.

The only standout win recently was Mark E's 30K win and MJ. The rest have been 4/5 box 6.5-20K wins.

I like to see runs of decent wins but the games have become TOO similar - luckily it's not like power 5 boxes have been 'squandered' while on the table though.

(That said Laura's game yesterday was decent but the rest all have had conservative deals on stable boards).


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 02:56 
taff wrote:
I think you need a balance of players - gamblers like Ed and Rodney as well as more cautious players.


Absolutely, you cant please all the viewers all the time. DOND would be boring if nearly every player was a gambler who went all the way to the final box, the first 30 mins of the show would then become almost pointless. Just as it would be boring if nobody ever took a risk.

Basicasic's views might wind a few people up here, but he is just as entitled to an opinion as everybody else, I am glad he stands his ground. Mathmaticly he is correct, players do deals when if they were prepared to carry on they stand to win significantly more than they stand to lose. But I think we can all see, such as in Johns case, that its not quite as simple as that to a lot of players, and only people who have been contestants will know how the pressure of being in the spotlight affects the way you play.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:24 
kestral wrote:
The banker reveals that Semi is 50 today :P He says it's a Semi Demi Century :-D


I was watching this (for once) and was really irritated that Noel has the bald-faced cheek to lie like this. We all know this was filmed ages ago! He's not the Queen FFS. Let's have some realism! How can he pretend it's someones birthday when it isn't? :-D Does he get two lots of cards and presents while at Endemol? ;)

Have any contestants actually filmed on their real birthday for a show that airs on a normal day months later, or pretended it was their birthday when filming as they knew it would be for a show that aired several months later on their real birthday? Do the shows producers actually take this into account. eg. "we'll let "X" play today because it's their birthday" or "we'll let "Y" play today because it will be their birthday when the show airs" ? :ponder:


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:11 
Mental Mickey wrote:
kestral wrote:
The banker reveals that Semi is 50 today :P He says it's a Semi Demi Century :-D


I was watching this (for once) and was really irritated that Noel has the bald-faced cheek to lie like this. We all know this was filmed ages ago! He's not the Queen FFS. Let's have some realism! How can he pretend it's someones birthday when it isn't? :-D Does he get two lots of cards and presents while at Endemol? ;)

Have any contestants actually filmed on their real birthday for a show that airs on a normal day months later, or pretended it was their birthday when filming as they knew it would be for a show that aired several months later on their real birthday? Do the shows producers actually take this into account. eg. "we'll let "X" play today because it's their birthday" or "we'll let "Y" play today because it will be their birthday when the show airs" ? :ponder:


I agree wholeheartedly. The pretence that it is filmed 'live' on the day is treating the public like idiots. I can't believe there is anybody watching who actually thinks it's live. I think most people are unaware just how far in advance the shows are filmed but they all know its recorded.

They should forget any references to the day its broadcast on the show and give up the pretence. It would also mean they could relax the schedule: ie miss or change days and it wouldn't matter. They could also just not broadcast particularly awful shows and it would not upset the schedule.

And before you say everyone would notice missing shows I would add (a) So What (b) that most people I speak too really don't have much clue about who's on the wings and watch the show as a standalone game. They might have a favorite or two but generally have no idea. Its only the keenest enthusiasts here that seem to know all the players. So a missing show or two would go unnoticed by most watchers.

If nothing else it would stop treating viewers as idiots.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:22 
---------------------------.


Last edited by alexandercbrown on Fri Feb 08, 2008 13:22, edited 1 time in total.

  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:11 
croftrock wrote:
MisterAl wrote:
First of all, thanks to the people who have complimented my posts on this thread! As Tom22 might say, I'm here all week!

It's worth noting that the current shows were recorded in October, and the players were probably selected a long time before that. Obviously I have no insider info on this, but reports seem to suggest that the audition process back then consisted of a five-minute interview in front of a camera and a four-page application form. Is it possible to determine from that exactly how somebody is going to behave during their game? I doubt it. My guess is that players were chosen purely on how confident they appeared when somebody stuck a camera in front of them.

So from that point of view, the mix of attitudes towards gambling by the current 22 are going to be as random as the distribution of the luck of the players. There'll naturally be periods with lots of risk-taking, and periods with lots of caution. But let's not forget also that the players are holed up together in the hotel for quite a few days at a time -- they're bound to influence each other's attitudes and behaviour. So we'll see trends.

As Travis rightly said, I do largely view the game from a neutral point of view. I find these trends in attitude fascinating in themselves, regardless of how much the players actually win.


That's another great post. Don't let this adulation go to your head.

I have some facts to add here...

I can tell you that there is no sponsor on the show right now because production companies lose some property rights with a sponsorship deals and Endemol are considering turning down the latest offers.

You see, the show makes millions. It's ridiculous to think they might be trying to save money. They could give the £250,000 away every month and still make a massive profit. Trust me, I've seen the figures. Don’t be distracted by the LTL, the profit from that used to go to Channel 4 not Endemol. Deal or No Deal is now Endemol's most profitable show. It outstrips Big Brother.

Simply, the show is random. Low amounts have been coming to the table; what are they supposed to do about it? And why should they anyway?... The majority of the most watched episodes of Deal of all time, weren't "big" wins or gambles all the way. Every real quote I've ever seen from the actual producers confirms that the ratings aren't affected by the timing of the deal.

I'm sure they'd love some big money to come to the table because variety at the moment would be more interesting; but there is nothing they can do. Are you really suggesting they should "influence" the game in some way? Bravo to them that they don't.

And as some sensible post have said; it's impossible to cast "gamblers"? They have to pick a spread of ages, types, locations with good personalities or stories to tell who are comfortable on camera. The rest is up to the player. You can't tell whether someone will deal early in an interview. And as H suggests no doubt everyone says exactly the same thing on that subject anyway. They have to cast people on who they definitely are and what they have definitely have done, not on feeble guesses of what they might do.

The reason they cast people with what the emotionally immature (IMHO) call "sob stories" or with interesting personalities or histories is not because they are more "deserving" or they want “blubbing” but because if the boxes don't open in a particularly dramatic order the episode will still have a story to tell. It’s a safety net when you don’t have any control over what might happen.

There's no-one to blame. The average amount of money's around £20,000. If you roll two dice over and over it's no-one's fault if you roll seven a few times in a row. The producers do a great job of giving each show the best chance to be fun and entertaining without knowing what might then happen in gameplay. If the game itself is not great then they've done all they can. Periods like this prove the honesty of the show. And to be fair this plan has made Deal one of the most successful shows in British TV history.
my dear croftrock,i could,nt agree more,its nice to know there are some satisfied dond viewers,i am tired of listening to people moaning and groaning about the show and don,t have a good word to say about it. i sometimes wonder why they bother watching it at all,i enjoy watching every show because everyone in the chair is an individual and whatever amount they decide to deal at is their choice.One thing i would like to see a little more of is the banter that Noel has with the contestants behind the boxes it,s brilliant.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:26 
I've personally had enough of the contestants being abused and jeered at whenever they deal when they want to.
Yeah, they're really going to go on, when they don't want to, and win 1p just to please you lot aren't they?
Saying No Deal can win you £250,000 or £100,000. It can also get you 1p or 10p.
Get a grip for christ sake, and you know who you are.
You're entitled to an opinion, but when it included calling players pathetic or disgracful just because they didn't do what you wanted them to do, then the line should be drawn.
And for christs sake, if you don't wanna watch it, then don't! As said above, the viewing figures won't miss you!


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:27 
basicasic wrote:
Mental Mickey wrote:
kestral wrote:
The banker reveals that Semi is 50 today :P He says it's a Semi Demi Century :-D


I was watching this (for once) and was really irritated that Noel has the bald-faced cheek to lie like this. We all know this was filmed ages ago! He's not the Queen FFS. Let's have some realism! How can he pretend it's someones birthday when it isn't? :-D Does he get two lots of cards and presents while at Endemol? ;)

Have any contestants actually filmed on their real birthday for a show that airs on a normal day months later, or pretended it was their birthday when filming as they knew it would be for a show that aired several months later on their real birthday? Do the shows producers actually take this into account. eg. "we'll let "X" play today because it's their birthday" or "we'll let "Y" play today because it will be their birthday when the show airs" ? :ponder:


I agree wholeheartedly. The pretence that it is filmed 'live' on the day is treating the public like idiots. I can't believe there is anybody watching who actually thinks it's live. I think most people are unaware just how far in advance the shows are filmed but they all know its recorded.

They should forget any references to the day its broadcast on the show and give up the pretence. It would also mean they could relax the schedule: ie miss or change days and it wouldn't matter. They could also just not broadcast particularly awful shows and it would not upset the schedule.

And before you say everyone would notice missing shows I would add (a) So What (b) that most people I speak too really don't have much clue about who's on the wings and watch the show as a standalone game. They might have a favorite or two but generally have no idea. Its only the keenest enthusiasts here that seem to know all the players. So a missing show or two would go unnoticed by most watchers.

If nothing else it would stop treating viewers as idiots.
I watch the show for what it is and it is about individual people all with different personalities,i don,t just look at the sums of money each time the boxes open i look at the people behind them and they become more familiar to me each day, this is what makes the show interesting I wonder how you would feel if they suddenly took you of the forum.Why don,t you start taking a little more interest in the contestants you may enjoy it and feel less of an idiot.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 13:39 
knocking the 250K in the first pick is like a loss of a player's confidence.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 14:30 
pat_east_wing wrote:
croftrock wrote:
MisterAl wrote:
First of all, thanks to the people who have complimented my posts on this thread! As Tom22 might say, I'm here all week!

It's worth noting that the current shows were recorded in October, and the players were probably selected a long time before that. Obviously I have no insider info on this, but reports seem to suggest that the audition process back then consisted of a five-minute interview in front of a camera and a four-page application form. Is it possible to determine from that exactly how somebody is going to behave during their game? I doubt it. My guess is that players were chosen purely on how confident they appeared when somebody stuck a camera in front of them.

So from that point of view, the mix of attitudes towards gambling by the current 22 are going to be as random as the distribution of the luck of the players. There'll naturally be periods with lots of risk-taking, and periods with lots of caution. But let's not forget also that the players are holed up together in the hotel for quite a few days at a time -- they're bound to influence each other's attitudes and behaviour. So we'll see trends.

As Travis rightly said, I do largely view the game from a neutral point of view. I find these trends in attitude fascinating in themselves, regardless of how much the players actually win.


That's another great post. Don't let this adulation go to your head.

I have some facts to add here...

I can tell you that there is no sponsor on the show right now because production companies lose some property rights with a sponsorship deals and Endemol are considering turning down the latest offers.

You see, the show makes millions. It's ridiculous to think they might be trying to save money. They could give the £250,000 away every month and still make a massive profit. Trust me, I've seen the figures. Don’t be distracted by the LTL, the profit from that used to go to Channel 4 not Endemol. Deal or No Deal is now Endemol's most profitable show. It outstrips Big Brother.

Simply, the show is random. Low amounts have been coming to the table; what are they supposed to do about it? And why should they anyway?... The majority of the most watched episodes of Deal of all time, weren't "big" wins or gambles all the way. Every real quote I've ever seen from the actual producers confirms that the ratings aren't affected by the timing of the deal.

I'm sure they'd love some big money to come to the table because variety at the moment would be more interesting; but there is nothing they can do. Are you really suggesting they should "influence" the game in some way? Bravo to them that they don't.

And as some sensible post have said; it's impossible to cast "gamblers"? They have to pick a spread of ages, types, locations with good personalities or stories to tell who are comfortable on camera. The rest is up to the player. You can't tell whether someone will deal early in an interview. And as H suggests no doubt everyone says exactly the same thing on that subject anyway. They have to cast people on who they definitely are and what they have definitely have done, not on feeble guesses of what they might do.

The reason they cast people with what the emotionally immature (IMHO) call "sob stories" or with interesting personalities or histories is not because they are more "deserving" or they want “blubbing” but because if the boxes don't open in a particularly dramatic order the episode will still have a story to tell. It’s a safety net when you don’t have any control over what might happen.

There's no-one to blame. The average amount of money's around £20,000. If you roll two dice over and over it's no-one's fault if you roll seven a few times in a row. The producers do a great job of giving each show the best chance to be fun and entertaining without knowing what might then happen in gameplay. If the game itself is not great then they've done all they can. Periods like this prove the honesty of the show. And to be fair this plan has made Deal one of the most successful shows in British TV history.
my dear croftrock,i could,nt agree more,its nice to know there are some satisfied dond viewers,i am tired of listening to people moaning and groaning about the show and don,t have a good word to say about it. i sometimes wonder why they bother watching it at all,i enjoy watching every show because everyone in the chair is an individual and whatever amount they decide to deal at is their choice.One thing i would like to see a little more of is the banter that Noel has with the contestants behind the boxes it,s brilliant.


a lot of sense (finally) spoken by some people on the forum. my dvd recorder's broken down so i've been relying on this site for updates on what's going on. and what do i usually find the day after? up to 7 pages of ranting and the game somewhere in between...surely THIS is getting beyond beyond as opposed to the games/show faltering in any way. anyways, i've got 4oD for now, so at least i've got that.....i had to come on and say SOMETHING about the way this forum is going :(


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 16:26 
Mental Mickey wrote:
kestral wrote:
The banker reveals that Semi is 50 today :P He says it's a Semi Demi Century :-D


I was watching this (for once) and was really irritated that Noel has the bald-faced cheek to lie like this. We all know this was filmed ages ago! He's not the Queen FFS. Let's have some realism! How can he pretend it's someones birthday when it isn't? :-D Does he get two lots of cards and presents while at Endemol? ;)

Have any contestants actually filmed on their real birthday for a show that airs on a normal day months later, or pretended it was their birthday when filming as they knew it would be for a show that aired several months later on their real birthday? Do the shows producers actually take this into account. eg. "we'll let "X" play today because it's their birthday" or "we'll let "Y" play today because it will be their birthday when the show airs" ? :ponder:


When Julie played on January 19th 2006 there were a lot of references to it being her birthday...


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 16:31 
Julie and Tan had their shows aired on their birthday, and I believe 100k Gaz filmed his show on his birthday.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 16:57 
And Good call Croftrock & MisterAl.

I guess the show is always going to get a lot of target-driven players - it's a show aimed at the mainstream, rather than a gambling niche. I imagine a lot of the players who have been on recently, applied around late 2006/early 2007 when the show was being talked about more than it is now, when perhaps it was still very much a revelation for a daytime game show to have such a high top prize (maybe it still is?). A lot of the contestants who applied probably knew exactly what they'd do with that much money if they won it - even contestants on shows like Weakest Link say they want to win so they can do this&that, and that show's top prize is a lot less!

I'm not trying to defend target-driven players, this is just the way I see it. Although with nothing higher than £20,000 coming to the table in the last month, perhaps a shortage of 'gamblers' right now hasn't been entirely a bad thing, for players' morale at least! Next time a power 5 amount comes to the table, whether it's won or not, maybe it'll remind some players that big money games aren't just things you see when you're watching at home!


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 17:16 
Rob wrote:
I've personally had enough of the contestants being abused and jeered at whenever they deal when they want to.


It might sound harsh, but what the viewers think is more important than what the players think. If they want to deal, they should expect critisism of the wide variety of people on the internet. If they no deal they should expect critisism of the wide variety of people on the internet. People have different opinions, and however harsh they sound there would be no point of an internet forum if everyone said the same 'Well done enjoy the money' comment and every post was positive. If you can't take it and have had enough of it, don't read it. If you feel emotinal for the contestant then something is wrong with you. They are an image on TV. You don't actually know them personally....

Rob wrote:
Yeah, they're really going to go on, when they don't want to, and win 1p just to please you lot aren't they?


That's as pessemistic as it gets, isn't it? Why on earth should the player be saying to themselves that going on is going to guarantee 1p? It isn't! The chances are you are going to win anything BUT the 1p and if you are left with it in the final there is one final offer you can deal... at least that offers us tension and that's what it is all about.

Rob wrote:
Saying No Deal can win you £250,000 or £100,000. It can also get you 1p or 10p.


Yep it can. But gambling doesn't always involve opening the box. Gambling is mainly to do with people taking that extra risk on strong boards and not dealing the fourth offer for a low sum compared to the boards average, for example. Therefore, gambling usually results in a higher offer. Say for example there is a strong 8 box board. The offer is low. The chance of a higher offer is good. The chance of a lower offer is bad. That means that gambling should result in a higher offer. There is no point looking at the possibility of losing on money if the odds are low.

Rob wrote:
Get a grip for christ sake, and you know who you are.


I think you mean me as well. Why should I? It's my opinion and I have a firm grip on my sofa.

Rob wrote:
You're entitled to an opinion, but when it included calling players pathetic or disgracful just because they didn't do what you wanted them to do, then the line should be drawn.


Half the time the decisions of the players are called pathetic, disgraceful etc. Not the actual player. Not by me anyway...

Rob wrote:
And for christs sake, if you don't wanna watch it, then don't! As said above, the viewing figures won't miss you!


I won't watch it, but I want a reason to start watching. I hear the comments on this forum are read by the Endemol team.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 17:30 
Brick wrote:
I guess the show is always going to get a lot of target-driven players - it's a show aimed at the mainstream, rather than a gambling niche.


While all too often acting as though it isn't, in my opinion, but yes.

Quote:
I imagine a lot of the players who have been on recently, applied around late 2006/early 2007...


An idle question; how many of those were people shouting at the screen when Noel went off on one in most proveouts, crying 'BUT THEY'VE GOT £xx,000!!' like Toni's sister? People often apply for game shows, at least quiz shows, thinking 'I could do better than that!' - who's to say DoND, for all that it is a luck-based show, doesn't have the same?

Quote:
A lot of the contestants who applied probably knew exactly what they'd do with that much money if they won it - even contestants on shows like Weakest Link say they want to win so they can do this&that, and that show's top prize is a lot less!


It's probably the simplest way of playing. Something with a money ladder like Millionaire defines the targets for you. DoND, despite its own prize tree and the frequently recurring motif of £26,000, doesn't so much. And besides, I suspect people apply for game shows thinking 'I want to get money for x, y and z'. Straight off the top of my head, I can think of new cars, weddings and repaying debt as obvious sources of targets in the teens of thousands!

Quote:
...with nothing higher than £20,000 coming to the table in the last month, perhaps a shortage of 'gamblers' right now hasn't been entirely a bad thing, for players' morale at least! Next time a power 5 amount comes to the table, whether it's won or not, maybe it'll remind some players that big money games aren't just things you see when you're watching at home!


That's probably a very good point! We're back in May 2007, where risk did not lead to reward, but risks were rarely taken. Compare with January 2007, where risk almost always led to reward, and risks usually were taken...


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 17:48 
Look, don't get me wrong, I get as frustrated as anybody when the player deals at £15k and has the big one in their box, but like you so beautifully just said to me, "They're images on a TV." Maybe some of the agressive No Dealers on this forum should remember that too.
As for the fact that the players should expect abuse on the internet whatever they do on the show...
WHAT?

They shouldn't EXPECT it at all, if they come to expect it after seeing some of the comments on here, then that's entirely different.

Anyway - back on topic?


  
 
 
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 16:54 
Rob wrote:
Look, don't get me wrong, I get as frustrated as anybody when the player deals at £15k and has the big one in their box, but like you so beautifully just said to me, "They're images on a TV." Maybe some of the agressive No Dealers on this forum should remember that too.
As for the fact that the players should expect abuse on the internet whatever they do on the show...
WHAT?

They shouldn't EXPECT it at all, if they come to expect it after seeing some of the comments on here, then that's entirely different.

Anyway - back on topic?


Perhaps I used expect in the wrong context. They shouldn't expect 100% positive comments.

I hope that's worded better.


  
 
 
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 23:28 
Brick wrote:
Mental Mickey wrote:
kestral wrote:
The banker reveals that Semi is 50 today :P He says it's a Semi Demi Century :-D


I was watching this (for once) and was really irritated that Noel has the bald-faced cheek to lie like this. We all know this was filmed ages ago! He's not the Queen FFS. Let's have some realism! How can he pretend it's someones birthday when it isn't? :-D Does he get two lots of cards and presents while at Endemol? ;)

Have any contestants actually filmed on their real birthday for a show that airs on a normal day months later, or pretended it was their birthday when filming as they knew it would be for a show that aired several months later on their real birthday? Do the shows producers actually take this into account. eg. "we'll let "X" play today because it's their birthday" or "we'll let "Y" play today because it will be their birthday when the show airs" ? :ponder:


When Julie played on January 19th 2006 there were a lot of references to it being her birthday...
so the show is recorded two months in advance and it happens to be someones birthday on the day their show goes on the box does it matter that much to you, after all they try to make the show as interesting as possible and as long as contestants have done a certain amount of shows why not choose them to go in the chair,i would have liked my show to have gone out on my birthday even though it was announced a few months in advance.


  
 
 [ 141 posts ] 



cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group