I have heard suggestions (and seen evidence) on another website, familiar to many of us I'm sure, that the values of each box are locked into a particular sequence each show, and so if one maps out the sequence, each box's value can be predicted, after just a couple of boxes have been opened by the player.

If this is the case (and it surely can't be a coincidence) the suggestion would be that the Banker knows of the sequences himself. Surely though, this would destroy the integrity of the show, and my better nature would like to think that, though the sequences exist, the banker does not tune himself into them, so as not to give himself an unfair advantage. The only time I think he would be inclined to look at the remaining values is if the players box is in play at the last 2, as then the Banker would know whether to offer a box swap or not (depending on whether the producers wanted to give the player a chance of winning the bigger amount of money that day, or to eliminate the possibility of them losing it).

I am inclined to believe, that if there does happen to be a set sequence in place for every given show, the Banker, for the sake of honesty, should never use it, and moreover should not even have it in front of him. However, his offers on some of the shows suggest it is, at times, a point of reference for him. Equally though, the sequence grid may be used by the producers and not the banker, so that they can direct the Banker to make good/bad offers when necessary (with the main consideration being a better show at the end of the day).

Of course it may be that the sequences, though put in place, are never taken into account by the Banker or the production team. This is what I hope is the case.

Any other views on the matter?

The thing about numbers is that you can twist them to say anything you want them to, no matter how far-fetched and ridiculous. If you want to start looking for such a pattern, I'm sure one exists and you can mathematically prove that the winner of the 110th show will win 'x' amount of money, but even if they didn't win 'x', you could still prove that your figures were right and that the 'y' amount of money fits into your plan too. Conspiracy? Some people just have far too much time on their hands looking for such things where they don't exist!!

the boxes are sealed by an independent adj - a rep from a law firm in bristol. the sequence is no more than that for heads or tails

probability is a very mathematical equation as is odds

the integrity of the show is not in question and nor should it be. what you see is what you get

If the sequences are there to the extent described, then they are definitely not coincidence.

To my mind, it would suggest a very lazy independent adjudicator who didn't possess a sufficiently random "random number generator".

By the way, Noel told me on my show that the independent adjudicator did use some sort of "random number generator" - I asked because some of us had got it into our heads that there could be some human psychology involved e.g. £5 in box 5, £20,000 in box 20 both seemed to happen a fair few times.

I've heard this theory and I know MisterAl has done some research on the topic, hopefully he will be along later and will share his findings with us.

I think if there is a known set of sequences used, it is only known (up to now) to the independant adjudicators and is possibly a little bit of laziness/attempt to save time each day by them.

It appears at the moment that someone has worked out a set of 5/6 sequences that fit all the games for February bar about 3/4. As MentalMickey says, if you look hard enough at numbers you can make patterns fit nearly every time. Although to find that set of patterns is intriguing and it will be interesting to see further proof of such other sequences.

Apparently the sequences found only worked for February's games, so could indicate that they are changed every month or also that it is just coincidence.

I certainly hope that if more sequences are found for other months that it turns out to be just known to the independant adjudicators and not to the banker as that would ruin the show.

kestral you are just twaddling away

what about the lottery - any sequences there

no wonder somebody wins - they know the sequence ?

The evidence to support the sequences is UNDISPUTABLE !! there are only a few players this series whose games do not fit in with a sequence (so far) the probability of this occurring naturally is so small its almost negative !! The evidence is posted on all the other sites so I won't bore you with it but I have checked a few random ones myself ( to check that I'm not just believing the hype) and its there - we can't argue with it.

What I would like to know is if the production staff knew it was working this way or do we just have a stupidly lazy independant adjudicator ?

or - if you like conspiracy theories ....... they have done this for the first part of the series and leaked it to us so we continue watching for the rest of the series and mash our heads trying to figure out the sequence when its not actually there any more ?

No matter what - these numbers can NOT, I repeat NOT be written off as a coincidence. One sequence randomly repeated could be brushed off as this - however 7 or 8 different sequences repeated 3 or more times ???? Don't make me laugh !!

KUDOS for whoever figured this out !!

going with the bush theory - box 18 would have 1.8p, £180, £1800, £18,000, and £180,000

and box 25 would always have the 250k

I've noticed a pattern with some of the sums of money, but not all of them.

Like when I won the 250K guess, I knew which one it was in.
Two days before it was in box 7, then 14, then 21!

Hello.

First of all, I cannot take any credit for discovering these sequences -- but when I heard about them I did do some research into it. So far I've just looked at games played in the second production run (starting with Terry, broadcast on 18 January 2006). It is not true that these sequences are in use just for February games -- plenty of the latter January games have used them too. I have taken a very quick look at a couple of games from 'series 1' but I've not found anything suspicious there (yet!). As others have said, the details of the sequences are already posted elsewhere on the web but here's a brief summary.

Out of the 35 broadcast 'series 2' games so far, only four have seen a unique sequence of values. Seeing as though there are over 51 billion-billion sequences available, this is highly suspicious. One particular sequence has appeared in no less than ten separate games. Another has appeared in eight games and a third sequence has appeared in seven games. The chances of this happening randomly are so small as to be utterly ridiculous (imagine the chance of winning the lottery every week for a few billion years and you're still not close). The sequences are definitely not coincidence.

So the interesting question is why are the sequences there? Are they there by accident, or have they been put there deliberately? Here are one or two, admittely speculative, possibilities.

1. The sequences are there to enable The Banker to know exactly where each value is. This suggests that the independent adjudicator is actually in cahoots with the producers and is therefore no more 'independent' than the Endemol accountant. In other words, both Endemol and the adjudicators know about the sequences and the whole thing is a fix.

2. The sequences are there because the lawyers who act as the independent adjudicators are being deliberately lazy in the way they allocate amounts to boxes. They've just got a few sequences which look, on a casual glance, entirely random and they're picking between those each day. They know about the sequences, and they just don't care. It's precisely because the adjudicators are independent that the producers aren't aware of the sequences; the producers have no control over how amounts are allocated and have to trust the adjudicators.

3. The sequences are an accident and nobody knew they were there. If the adjudicators use a computer program to generate the 'random' box number for each amount, then the program is faulty, or stuck, or just rubbish. But because the sequences appear to be random, nobody, not even the adjudicators, has spotted them and they've slipped through.

(Just an observation here, and I'm not having a go at anyone in particular, but I find it very strange that people are doubting the significance of these sequences -- some people are keen to shout 'FIX' when we see the 1 in 22 chance of the quarter-million being in the player's box for Show 100, yet think that the 1 in more-than-fifty-billion-billion chance of the same sequence appearing more than once is mere 'coincidence'...)

Thanks MisterAl for clarifying. Of course the so-called 'unique' games may be sequences in their own right which have been used less frequently...!

One other point - I wonder if any of the contestants have cottoned on to this? Ironically, the person with the most extraordinary luck throughout much of her game was Brenda, and yet I don't think her 'sequence' had revealed itself before her game (correct me if I'm wrong), so there was no way of her knowing about her 'sequence' (not that I would suggest any of the contestants had this information beforehand - far be it from me to suggest foul play on their part).

Finally, is this exclusively a Series 2 phenomenon, or is there evidence of further, if differing sequences in Series 1? If the sequences appear to change every month, it would show there is an element of conscious thought about it on the part of the 'independent adjudicator'.

We haven't investigated the opening 66 shows yet, but if there are sequences involved there it wouldn't surprise me much.

This definitely isn't codswallop. It isn't just coincidence, no question about it. But is it a fix? I'm reluctantly leaning towards the human laziness option. I just hope it's changed, because otherwise someone will crack it.

There's precedent for this on another big-money daytime show (for its era, at least); the 1980s US game show Press Your Luck. Now, for those who haven't come across this, the format is simple: three players are asked four simple toss-up questions to earn 'spins' at a big board with 18 squares, all of which are slide projectors that change their display every second or thereabouts, with lights surrounding each. The light moves between these squares about three times a second. The player presses a buzzer (usually accompanied by a cry of 'STOP') and whatever is on the lit square at the time is won by the player. It's usually cash, a prize, or cash plus an additional spin, but nine of the 54 slides are 'Whammies' which cause you to lose everything (and four Whammies mean instant elimination). At any time, the player can choose to pass their spins to the leader (or, if they're leading, the player in second); a player must take all passed spins immediately (unless they Whammy, in which case unused passed spins become 'earned').

Why is all this relevant? There were, you guessed it, set sequences that the light moved in. A contestant called Michael Larson figured these out, and was able to hit squares containing cash and a spin with disturbing regularity, allowing him to win over $110,000 (several times what any other contestant had ever, or would ever, manage to win). He went on when no sane person ever would given the (theoretical) one-in-six chance of losing everything. Surely, surely, we couldn't get someone doing the same on DoND?

(Incidentally, the producers of Press Your Luck did respond to the Larson episode... by adding large numbers of new sequences!)

Can someone please post a link to one of these sites so I can judge this "evidence" for myself. I still find the whole idea rather far-fetched, though I have an open mind on the subject.

contestants could not work out the sequences - they have no pen or paper- they film 3 shows a day and they film at least 30 days in advance

they have no access to statistics and a sequence would have to rely on up to date information for each subsequent show and they do not know when it will be their turn - the best they can hope for is a window of between 3 and 6 shows ie one or two days filming.

people have brought in systems to use - all have failed miserably

that is a really interesting theory, MisterAl...sounds very iffy to me, but i'd like to think that it's just a coincidence...

Here's just part of the evidence. It lists the box numbers that contained each amount for ten games broadcast between 23 January and 23 February 2006.



See the sequences now? Compare the games of Aileen, Glen, Peter, Helen, Donna, Paul and Anna and you'll see they all used the same sequence as each other too. And the games of Terry, Miguel, Jessica, Geordie, Linda, Chris, Russell, Beryl all used the same sequence as each other as well.

Like I said before, the chance of a sequence being repeated once is a 50-billion-billion to one shot. These sequences have not appeared by pure chance alone!

Edit: small correction made to the table

maybe there is a sort of sequence

it is amazing

i apologise

i am confinced

That's quite an interesting table MisterAl. The sequence is a bit more scrambled than your nice neat 1-22 lines imply, but as you quite rightly point out, the odds of the exact same numbers appearing in the same box on more than one occasion are extremely unlikely - there is probably more chance of a UFO piloted by Elvis Presley crash-landing on top of the Loch Ness Monster. It is a very spooky coincidence indeed.

It is pretty convincing, though my opinion lies with an earlier post from KP, who cites human laziness as an issue with the independant adjudiactor not really doing his job properly. At least I hope that's the reason. Can I chance my vote please? You've convinced me - we definately need an answer on this one from someone on the production team. Has anyone tried asking them for a statement?

i have taped some deal or no deal and im going to have a look if it matches