OK, here's something that I've been thinking about for a while. Is there a game where what happens justifies why another player made a questionable decision on a similar board?

I've come up with two examples: Rosie from today, and 24k Michael.

Rosie dealt a defeatist offer on an all-or-nothing board, despite being allowed on one at a time. There have been other occasions where a player has an all-or-nothing board, has been allowed on one at a time, and the red has gone in the first box: Laurence, 63p Dan, Vera and (to a lesser extent) Jonny are ones that I can think of.

Michael's very questionable deal is justified (in my opinion) by Kiran's game from last October, where he too got an all-red 5-box (only his was weeker), he went on and proceeded to destroy the board, leaving him with the two lowest values that had been there.

Those are two I can think of; any more thoughts will be welcome!

How would two games separated by 7 months affect each other? Most DOND players don't remember what happens in every game unfortunately (though... it's a possibility!)

OK, maybe I wasn't clear.

Basically, a player makes a decision many consider questionable. But there's another game where another player was in a similar situation, took the gamble and it went wrong, thus justifying the actions of the questionable deal player.

The big difference between Michael and Kiran's games was that Michael only had to open 1 box before getting another offer, while Kiran had to open 3.

I can see what you're getting at though. Lamin from May 2009 had a similar 8-box board to £1k Michael, turned down the offer and lost the £100k in the next round, leading to an all-blue 5-box.

Victoria's game is a good example.