OK, here's a question: how do you make your decision on what you would have done on the player's game?

Most people make statistical decisions based on how good the offer is, while not really thinking about what the money would have done for them. It's very rare for a player to make a decision like that.

So, basically, how do you decide what you would have done? Choose an above option, or specify another.

I usually decide on whether or not it'd actually be much worth going on at that point, or whether or not I fancied a risk

All of the above, plus also the way I got to that particular point would be taken into account (ie I don't think the £17k offer today was enough of an improvement from the £10k given the intervening round), and for instance if I'd no-dealt a large amount on a great board at 8-box then had a bad round to 5-box I may feel more need than usual to cut and run to prvenet a total collapse.

I look at how precarious the board is and make a decision on how good the offer is there.

Need an "all of the above" option.

Definitely the first two and sometimes when the offer gets over £30k on a board with a 30% chance of disaster, then the utility curve will set in if it's not a really obvious statistical no deal.

I chose "how precarious the board is" but really its a mixture of all 3.

I'd tend to be more gung-ho with the £250k still in play also which is another factor. Otherwise it's a case of asking myself, "Would I be prepared to accept the worst case scenario", "How gutted would I be to miss out on the money currently being offered to me" and "Is the current maximum prize worth chasing compared to the offer".

I think it's an equal mix of all three for me.

Has to be option 1 for me, I will always think how the offer can be compared to the strength of the board.

Generally speaking, I take a good look at the board and see if the offer is decent for that board. If I really Can't decide, then I toss a coin.

Option 1 first and foremost. You then have to put it into context, which is where the other two come in, but they are secondary, and inexorably tied to "how good the offer is". For instance, I'm still thinking in terms of generosity regardless of the stability of the board, but my definition of "generous" (relative to the mean) is dependent upon stability, so Gordon's £13k was more generous in my eyes than Lorraine's £13k at the same stage on a board with less money on it, because his board was a perilous one-box game, while Lorraine had a three-box game.

And the very reason why generosity matters is because, like almost everyone else, I have a non-linear utility function... if I didn't, I'd just turn down anything short of an AMO!

Same.