Do you think they should get rid of the Banker and instead just offer cash values depending on the amounts left on the board without having anyone call up and offering amounts?

So say £100,000 vs £250,000 would always generate a generic offer of £175,000 or £10,000 vs £20,000 an automatic offer of £15,000

Personally I would say no as I like the Banker's phones calls and do actually find the banter between Noel, Banker & contestant entertaining plus I like to guess the Banker's offer just to see if i'm right and it adds more suspense as well.

No.

Having offers on the mean would be stupid because everyone would deal!

Getting rid of the Banker would be like getting rid of the other contestants and just having a big computer randomly display one of the cash amounts. Or getting rid of Noel and having the player control the entire show on their own, speaking to the Banker and calling breaks...it just wouldn't work. Everything about the show has been carefully done to make it the best gameshow in history, and removing just one part of it would kill it.

No. Not now it's established this way.

Granted, there's appeal to consistency, but not enough to do it. I would instead suggest the compromise of forcing the Banker to make offers within a certain range.

No, I believe the offers can be varied for players but can still be testing.
They can get the balance right if they're sensible.


i think they should be at an average level as they've been low lately but they should not be exactly the same for each player.

That said it is strange how the banker pickes and chooses who he likes. Debbie/Jenny got good offers, Lee got bad offers on identical boards.

However the banker was an idiot in Jon/rossano's games so it balances out the blue wins.

As long as the offers aren't ridiculous like Laura I'm fine with them and if over cautious contestants like kathleen deal poor offers on great boards well it's their own fault.

And, well, the reverse. (John G, Dennis, Fin...)



That's the biggest argument for leaving the Banker free rein.



And that's the counter-argument.

I'd like to see him be more inconsistent and more unpredictable over short periods - i.e. at the moment, more or less everyone is getting poor offers, good board or bad, and people are taking often the first 5-figure offer that comes their way in the fear of an insulting 2-box offer like Norman, Stevie and Ron. I thoguht, for instance that's Ron's 15k would be a reasonable no-deal, but if I'd thought that he'd offer half that on 35k/blue, when in January he'd have stuck, it suddenly becomes more of a dealing option.

In January, everyone was getting great offers, even on a bad board (think Dennis, Spank the Banker Simon, Elton etc) - it's got to the point where I'm predicitng every offer to within 10% or so, and was also correctly doing so then as well!

It depends whether the show is intended to be "fair", however you define that. It could be argued that Endemol don't do "fair"... and they have certainly built up the character of the Banker as someone who will resort to almost anything on occasions, even where these actions will not (on average) be to the financial benefit of the show (e.g. joke/swap offers at the "business end" of the game).

There's no doubt it does provide "negative entertainment" on occasions, where a player is effectively forced into taking what's in their box and it turns out to be blue. Obviously we see the reverse on occasions, people winning big after getting crap offers throughout, and it does seem fairly arbitrary which contestants the banker is generous or otherwise to. We seem to be seeing a lot of these games recently, where the Banker makes little attempt to buy the contestant's box, and they are unsatisfactory to watch.

But at the end of the day they've made the decision to make it largely a psychological game, and the contestants must know that they're guaranteed nothing other than whichever of the 22 amounts happens to be in the box they select at random (or swap it for as the case may be!) Perhaps contestants should be reminded of that fact before they start filming if such tactics are to continue.

Counter-example: Miljoenenjacht, but I suspect the Postcodelotterij force that upon them. (I still consider that to be 'pure' DoND.) Second counter-example: the US show, which uses the Miljoenenjacht offer formula (but with occasional player-specific deviations, some of them for product placement opportunities), and that may well be the best model for the UK.



I'm with you on that. I do think the game is strong enough to hold up without the psychological near-bullying (and that's just from Noel!); I do accept that most people are more interested in psychology than mathematical economics; and I do think there may be a compromise of 'mix it up, don't mess it up' available.

I'm Ok with the offers thing really because it can work both ways, the banker has no control over the luck of the boxes either so he has to get his act together sometimes to stop the player but being a purist as long as there's not stupid gimmicks a la Richard and PJ I'm happy.

And I'm interested in the mathematical economics side of it but the psychology side makes the game. Most players will not analyse the board correctly and have different approaches, that's why it's interesting it's essentially about risk taking and luck whereas odds are merely a useful guide.

as long as the banker doesn't take mind games too far and is just left to make varied offers that's fine although some offers will always be flawed.

No, they shouldn't get rid of Mr Banker. No Mr Banker, no show.

()

No. The show would become boring if the offer could be predicted at every phone call... well, it wouldn't be a phone call.

Now the dust has settled on yesterday's game (James) I'm convinced the banker is necessary and should stay the same as he is now ie mean.

The show basically boils down to a battle between good (the player, Noel, other contestants, the audience and viewers) against evil (the banker). This makes it entertaining and compelling viewing. People love to hate a 'baddie' and its the psychological battle between banker and contestant that makes the show. A sterile pre-calculated offer system would basically wreck it and turn it into Wheel of Fortune.

Contestants do not have a divine right to a big payout and each game should be seen as a challenge to try and extricate as much money out of the banker as they can. But it is a game of luck. For every fantastic board like Daniel's there will be a stinker like James's.

Fortunately most players who have a lousy game take it on the chin or laugh it off. Occassionally a player reacts badly to misfortune, and whilst it is distressing to watch one has to wonder whether they should playing the game in the first place. If you can't take the knocks, don't get in the ring.

Interesting point, I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm sure Endemol encourage some of these vulnerable people to enter the ring in the first place, so make of that what you will.

It depends what you mean 'reacts badly to misfortune' . All players come on the show hoping to win decent money and noone wants to win a blue. It depends where the line would be drawn.
A few players might really need the money but most people would be a bit disappointed because they wanted money for a specific purpose even if they are in an average financial siutuation.
That said james was pretty distraught yesterday but wasn't hysterical.
it depends on what this means.

I agree with Basicasic for a change. I hate it when players get all teary-eyed when it doesn't go their way. They were lucky enough to get on in the first place. We've seen some really ugly stinkers, like Philomena's, Ken's and Claire's and they didn't even have a chance to win anything decent but they didn't burst into tears over it.

Quite.

I think the problem with some players is that they've spent the money before they've won it. It must be hard stood on the wings game after game watching some lucky people go away with a huge payout, others with modest but significant amounts and not dream or spend it mentally.

Then for some it's hard to take when they go away with peanuts. But as Granny Asic says 'Don't spend what you haven't got'.

How many times, THERE IS NO BANKER.

Corr, you people

I think they mean get rid of the person who makes the offers... and have a 'set in stone' offer (i.e on the mean).