With the Dealometer and the other "when would you deal" question I posted recently, I've been thinking about how you might classify the different approaches to playing the game. So I've come up with three types of player:

1) The target-driven player

This player has a particular sum of money in mind, an exit fee, which they are likely to take given almost any opportunity. For a player with an average sort of target, if they have a decent board they are likely to be particularly cautious in the middle part of the game, when the offers get up towards their target and the risk of going on increases. The Banker may be able to buy them cheaply given the state of the board. However, given a bad game which doesn’t get close to their target they may well just go to the end. On this forum, daniel4389 seems to be an example of a particularly target-driven player.

2) The situation-driven player

This type of player will weigh up the offer against the board, and decide whether the offer is generous enough to take, given the risk of going on. This may be statistical (KP and rico7 are among those on the forum who largely go by that approach), or just through taking advice from others or going with a “feel” of how good they believe the offer is and how risky the board. A generous Banker can take them out early on, a mean Banker will more than likely drive them on to the end.

3) The gambler (or “Wakeyist”!)

This player is there to “play the game”, with the emphasis firmly on the second half of the title. They will no-deal almost any offer without too much of a thought, until perhaps they hit a situation late on in the game where there is big money on offer and a significant risk of losing the lot, and they may have to consider it. But in a low-money game they are definitely going to the end, and the Banker is unlikely to get them in any case before the final offer – the only tactics open to him are psychological ones, either through swap or joke offers, or alternatively extremely generous ones! We all know who the Wakeyists are on the forum, basicasic being the prime example at the moment!

In practice of course, a lot of people will have elements of more than one of these in the way they would play the game - I know I've got a bit of all of them in my approach, perhaps leaning more towards 2) than the others.

Notice I haven't put the ultra-cautious player as a category in itself - a very cautious player is likely to be either 1) with a low target, or 2) with a very low appetite for risk.

I think I'm a bit of all three!

I'm probably a bit of 1 and 2, but it depends on how I feel at the time. Sometimes I think I would deal an offer but later think "Why would I have done that?".

For me it would depend entirely on the board!

I'd probably fit more into category 1, with a bit of category 2. I do look at the odds to a certain extent, and take into account how good the offer is for the board, but at the same time, like Daniel, I do have a certain cut-off point and I'd probably begrudgingly deal an offer if it was above a certain limit, even if it was bad for the board.

Anything below 20K with a reasonable board I'd almost definitely say No Deal. Then depending on the strength of the board, and the offers, I'd either stay brave or respect the banker's respect for me (if the offers weregood, I'd take advantage)

I think I'd be more of the situation 2 type of player. I wouldn't come with a specific target in mind, as I would be so disappointed if I didn't reach it. Also, planning ahead is not one of my strong points! I wouldn't carry on regardless either, basically because I'm a student and I can't afford to!

Power5 has quite correctly put me in the statistical sub-division of category 2. There's some category 1 in there though, would you believe - in fact, my approach on Miljoenenjacht would (pending a review of my utility curve) resemble category 1 rather more than category 2, because the point of rapidly diminishing returns - somewhere around £100,000, which is about €200,000 after the 25% tax on Dutch game show prizes - is very much attainable on it and as such would be a realistic 'exit fee' to adopt!

number 2 maybe - it's roughly how the game should be played although I might take a few more gambles than KP. I don't know exact odds either but get the gist of it.
Although I can understand coming with a target, a player should really try to get the most out of their game. it's about calculated risk taking. Often dealing at 5 box. A player should play the board and the offers. This approach often works unless the player has extreme bad luck. Although if I got crap offers, I would go for it most of the time. I don't follow this exactly though and am sometimes seduced by the board to go on and other times might deal because the amount of money on offer is too large to risk.

No. 3 i think is definitely me, i play the game not the money - which, obviously, is either going to turn out really really bad, or really really good for me when the box is opened at the end.

However, you might see a deal of, say, £900 for me and not because of the Lynn factor[hey, its money i not leaving here with zilch" but usually because £900 is a hell of a lot of money, and it fulfills the cost of what i wanted to do anyway. 9 times.

but that is a 1 in 1 quadrillion chance, so you'll probably never see that happen. I'm a full-on, go-to-the-end-regardless wakeyist. An honest wakeyist, by the way.

Kind of 2, but a bit of "My own circumstances" to be honest. Any board with one above the offer (and a reasonable offer too) cannot be turned down

e.g. 1p, £50, £500, £750, £250,000 and an offer of £22,000 would make me deal, but with an offer of £3,000 would make me go on

I've been thinking about this and I definitely think there is a bit of category 2 in me as well as a large amount of category 1 - whilst I would always like to go away with some sort of money, I think I'd probably gamble on a £100 vs £10,000 board if the offer was £3,000, whereas I'd probably deal if the offer was a bit better or if the offer was £3,000 on a £100 vs £5,000 (although that would be above the mean) - actually, I'd probably deal £2,000 on a £100 vs £5,000 board - so whilst I have my targets in mind, I'd definitely read the board and analyse the offers first.

I think £20,000 is my rough tipping point and I'd find it very hard to turn down an offer above this mark, although I would do if I had a strong enough board and could at least recover to £10,000 / £15,000 or more if it went horribly wrong.

Any offer above £30,000 would be an almost definite deal for me, unless I had a board which consisted of all reds or something, and the offer was really, really poor - I tend to look at the worst case scenario after each offer and see what would happen to the offer if the worst happened, and if I can easily recover then I'm more inclined to go on.

I think the only way I'd win the big money is if I had a game like 1p Trevor's, as I'm fairly sure I'd have turned down his £9,900 as the offer was so poor for the board and it wasn't near my tipping point, but of course, the luck would have to be on my side to get to the big money there!

I do think I'm a cross between Daniel 4389 and KP - I'd have dealt the AMO £1,500 in Bearded Chris' game whereas Daniel absolutely wouldn't, and have dealt £51k with the top 3 still in play in £75k Kirsty's game and KP definitely wouldn't - I don't think I could have coped wih the 10% chance of a £500/£3k finish after turning down £51k - I'd be suicidal!

(See also Kelsie's £29k - any other scenario but the 10% best after dealing or the 10% worst after no-dealing would have been OK with me)

Yes I'm definitely in category 1...I basically just would never deal for less than around £5,000, but would never turn down more than about £25,000. (Unless the former were massively over the mean or the latter had no real possibility of disaster.)

Even with an offer of, say, £9,000 on a 1p vs £20,000 board...I'd probably deal, but I would really want to go on and I wouldn't be at all happy about passing up the chance to go for the £20,000. Whereas I'd be perfectly content to deal for £22,000 on a 1p vs £75,000 board, even though that's nowhere near as generous as the first one.

So it probably would be quite easy for the Banker to get rid of me quickly and/or for a lot less than the board deserved, but in most cases I think that if I were leaving with £20k+ then I wouldn't be particularly bothered...

I'm category 2. I would not come with a target, as i would defiently base an offer on "the risk of going on". This probably has something to do with the fact im a student as well!

I'm mostly a one, with a tiny bit of two, which makes me a H2005.

Hmm, I'm trying to think of the game in which I'd have lost the biggest amount of money by going too far, and I can only really think of Sexy Joan's...I'd probably have turned down her £20k and then gone to the end and ended up winning 10p. But in practically every other game I'd only really have made a big loss by going too soon and having a big amount in my box. I might try to find some more examples after I've done some proper work...

Yes, that is my approach in the main, although I have a bit of an instinct to take risks, and I wouldn't rule out something of the first category either!
You can never be sure what you're going to do actually sat in the crazy chair yourself, regardless of the kind of advice you might give to
other contestants! For example, Lucy (50 shows) often would offer very sound advice to the contestants, sometimes (but not always) airing on the cautious side, but then when she played the game the gambling instinct took over!

Would have to be 3 for me. My philosophy is, once in a lifetime opportunity should be greeted with life-changing money, and until that it is reached, you have to try for it. I wouldn't have been so lucky to be chosen, and waited to play, and have that one day in the chair to to take an amount that would be gone within a year. No way.

Knowing full well instead that the odds are very much that you would instead take an amount that would be gone within a few months, if not days?