We've seen a number of contestants recently who've missed out on the big money because they
dealt early. What type of contestants would you like to see on the show? All gamblers, a blend of cautious and gamblers?
Vote in the poll now!

As people have said recently, it's not always a question of cautious people or gamblers...what's needed is just people who can read the board well and then make a decisions based on how good the offer is. Not people who turn down massively generous offers (January 2007) or deal ones that are rubbish for the board (now)...

I agree - just a few more decisions to be made - the low offers seem to lead to damp squib games.

May/Oct 07 variety without twists is fine but I'd like to see a few 'misguided reckless no deals' to balance out the ridiculous caution of recently so i voted mostly gamblers with a few catutious players for now.

Overall, I'd like a balance of gamblers and cautious players. I think "board readers" can be put in a category of their own as sometimes they appear cautious and sometimes they appear perhaps even reckless.

As alexandercbrown said - right now, it'd be nice to have some gamblers to balance out the large number of cautious players.

All Wilsonists will agree on the Mostly Gamblers, Some Cautious option, so then it's always exciting when people gamble, and it's surprising.

All gamblers/Wakeyist no dealers...

It's all about the variety for me. We should be seeing maybe one Marysia and one Mavis in every 22, with diversity in between. Above all, more people who Deal good offers and No Deal bad ones, regardless of their raw magnitude...

I think there has to be a balance of the two. There shouldn't be a group where there are more of one side than the other, so not too many cautious players, but not too many gamblers either.

January 2007 is the only period of DOND I remember that a good majority of the players were gamblers and got the outcome they deserved.

I do wish we could have that period again. Sorry if I sound like a wakeyist (whatever that is) but all gamblers please.

Well a balance would be nice, however I think at the moment we could do with a few more gamblers.

The majority of the players recently don't seem to read the board or consider the generosity of the offers against the board, they just look at the offer and think it's a nice sum of money regardless of it's generosity (or rather lack of) against the board.

Maybe that's why we see the Banker calling up a lot now to tell people what their next offer will be if they take out certain amounts, to give the player in the chair a guide as to what the next offer could be, even if you don't have the round predicted by the Banker. In a sense the Banker is reading the board on behalf of the player.

That is actually a very interesting way of putting it, mike!

A balance. I don't want to see a large amount of gamblers due to the chances that they gamble and win low amounts..which generally produces worse games.

Good point Tom.

I'd prefer a mixture. Gamblers' games are exciting if it goes well, but I also like to see how cautious players' proveouts go. If we got a gambler on every day, it would quickly get boring, same if there was a cautious player on every day.

January 2007 was only enjoyable because those chances never seemed to happen. If we'd had three blue wins a week (average luck if everyone Wakeys it, remember!) it'd have been dire - but would it have carried on? Or would we have seen the 'post-Laura' offer patterns - not to mention the post-Laura Noel - end in a hurry? I'm reckoning on the latter...