Please don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the show but the more that I watch it (and I'm sure that I'm not alone) the more I can see how the cogs work and how the producers of the show manage to avoid giving away more money than they want to/can afford to.

As a general principle it definitely makes sense to deal at the first decent offer because despite Noel's emphasis on the contestant choosing his/her box at random there are more than enough clues to point to the producers deliberately selecting that day's player based on them having a low value box. If that isn't the case then why isn't every player given an opportunity to swap their box at the start of the show? It would only take a minute to do so and then the game would be truly random.

The key is obviously the recording of 3 shows per day. The producers (and Noel) know which 3 players are selected for each day's recording (hence the players' relatives/friends always being present on that particular day). What is not pre-determined however is the order that they'll play in so I believe that the role of the (so-called) independent ajudicator is to ensure that the players with the high-value reds are not being brought to the 'crazy chair' too often by manipulating the order of play. How else can you explain that we once went on a run of 151 consecutive games without the £250K being brought to the table? We also once went 15 or so consecutive games with players bringing 'blues' to the table. The odds for these being random events are incredibly high. Just try tossing a coin in the air until it comes down on the same side 15 times in a row!

Also the intensive auditions to get on the show must help the producers to find out who the potential dealers/non-dealers are. Surely its riskier to allow the committed gambler to bring the high value red to the table than the student who is just looking for £5K-10K to pay off their debt?

And since the show was forced to abandon its daily phone-in competition (the proceeds of which perhaps helped to supplement the prize fund) the amounts being won appear (to me at least) to have fallen sharply. Noel's role has also changed because now whenever a contestant chooses to deal before the end he perceptibly turns against them - 'Have you just made the biggest mistake of your life?' etc. Yet I have never heard him castigate a player for getting carried away/greedy when their games went on to crash and burn after they had turned down a good offer. Naturally he wants to maintain the suspense for us, the viewers for as long as possible but I also suspect that he's been asked to cajole those players who for a long time now have been witnessing a lot more failed than successful games into carrying on to the end. And does anyone really believe that the banker plays on 'with honesty' revealing grossly inflated offers that he would have made had the contestant not already dealt?

Of course its still all good entertainment but its very disingenuous when Noel repeatedly refers to 'the box you chose at random' and then (once the player's box has been opened) the remaining person in the wings is asked to open the final box as if to prove that everything has been conducted scrupulously fairly. In my opinion it patently hasn't.

Anyway as I say, just my point of view.

You're entitled to your point of view and there are bits of it I agree with - Noel's castigation of people who don't deal at the optimum point.

However, the show wouldn't have been still going after 6 years if anyone other than the Independent Adjudicator knew what was in the boxes (and I'm pretty sure that once the producers decide what order the players will play on that day's filming, they wouldn't change it in the short time in the studio between the player's picking their boxes and the name of the player being revealed).

Also, random events sometimes do produce low-chance sequences. They wouldn't be random events if they didn't.

I don't blame you for much of what you said, but there's inconsistencies within that suggest either no conspiracy or one so incompetent as to not matter. If saving money was the goal, why would Noel goad players on (and guilt trip those who don't) when players going to the end will cost the show more in the long run?

In the first series, there were non-trivially more blues than reds on the table, and £250k did not appear as often as expected. I don't think that's been the case since. The reason less money has usually been won in games since the end of the phone lottery is simple; that roughly coincides with the end of the economic boom, since when there have been more contestants in financial trouble and possibly more of a stigma against gambling.

A few comments having played the game.

1) Most friends and family are through out a persons stay .

2) Some people played even when I was there without their family as they hadn't arrived.

3) Yes the producers know who will play that day but the boxes are filled before the game and chosen just before the recording.

4) In most cases the team do not the numbers to be chosen by the players.

5) I don't think they would have let so many nice people go away with small amounts if it was rigged.

6) Each game and player is different.

7) Recording 3 shows a days day 5 days a week produces a very intense atmosphere which you can only appreciate if you have played the game.

Just my responses and opinions. It's an amazing game and the best experience of my life.

Sorry for typos in my post above hope it makes sense.