The banker has in the past guaranteed that a swap will be offered, and he has also promised that the offer would be 1p (presumably as a joke), such as in £70,000.01 Gaz's game in April, I think.

But for the first time today, he made a guarantee of what the next offer would be, assuming the right final two was brought about.

I wouldn't mind seeing it being used more often (but not too often). It could be used to encourage dealing by saying what the maximum next offer would be if the player has a nightmare round.

Obviously it'd have maximum effect if the banker said what the next offer could be before the player's said deal or no deal to the previous offer....

I think the banker saying (or possibly guaranteeing) what the minimum / maximum offer will be after a nightmare / best round isn't really that different from the player doing the analysis themselves... and if it encourages a bit of board analysis, then it could be a good thing... or could it?

I don't think it's a bad thing at all. It will encourage people to take that extra gamble, sometimes it'll pay off, sometimes it won't. It may make the game more interesting, if it's used sparingly.

I'm not sure, generosity on hypothetical blue vs power 5 situations would influence my decision making + give me knowledge but it might take away the surprise element of the show.

Really I'd like to see more calculated risk takers and analysts on the wings and the banker to respond with sensible offers anyway to give good games.

It was after the offer though so it was just an emotional mind game.

Agreed and agreed.

Surprise element of the show point: We want to be able to second guess what the Banker's going to do, and like any good stock market analyst, speculate as to the result of any given configuration. Putting an artificial floor or ceiling on prospective offers takes away this element of intrigue.

Analysts on the wings point: At the end of the day, the decisions live and die with the contestant. Sure they can get help from the wings, but the decision is theirs. If the Banker is directing them in this way, the decision, although not being taken out of their hands, is being diluted.

I feel strongly that, for the sake of the game, this sort of play by the Banker should not be repeated, however comforting it is for the player involved.

I don't think it should be used again in the future for the same reasons that alexandercbrown and Maltus gave.

Hopefully not. £20k wasn't that generous with that board anyway. Mad Paul got offered £32,000 with a board which had £1 and £75,000!

Absolutely not. I like the unpredictability of it. Plus if you hit the red in the last box of the round, thinking you were one box away from £x,000 will just make it more painful.

Imagine 1p Trevor's game: "If you have an all-blue round, you'll be offered £99,000"! BOOM!

I agree that it would take away the unpredictability to a certain extent, as you can predict what the banker will offer. But would it? Yesterday, the £25k final offer came as a huge shock to everyone as people expected £20,000 or £20,000.01.

Also, I think it added a certain element of extra tension to the final round knowing what the banker will offer...

Same here

I can't understand why everyone was so shocked by it. The Banker said the minimum would be £20,000, not the offer would be £20,000, so it didn't come as a shock to me, I thought it would be £20,000 and a bit more, which it was.

With the amount of crap final offers recently I think it could have occasional use in encouraging someone to go on at five-box. Not sure what the point of it after the contestant said no deal was though...

Was it in active play or proveout? I missed that game.

active play.

Shaz's offer wasn't really inflated - just seemed odd going from mean to fair.

I think if used sparingly it's ok. Most people though have an idea what their offer would be depending on what happens in the round.

But what could be interesting and cruel is if the Banker said what the maximum he could offer next round would be and then he offered half what he said.