After Bex had said No Deal to £12,230, how would you have described her decision?

I would say questionable myself.

Definitely reasonable. She wanted to go another round hoping for a big offer if the £250,000 stayed, and the odds of that were slightly in her favor (62.5%). She was basically in the same position as Tommy, only it didn't work out for her. Anyone who voted for Tommy as March Show of the Month should not call this a reckless gamble.

It was AWESOME!!!!!!!!!

Then why didn't you vote for it being Reasonable?

But I did, Coupon-head!

I see it as questionable. Bordering, actually, on reckless; there weren't many scenarios resulting from a No Deal in which £12,230 would be realistically attainable, especially if she lost the £250,000.

Not fully reckless. But not all that reasonable either IMO.

I'd say questionable because quick calculations say that the EV of the 5-box offer isn't likely to be more than the offer she no dealt.

Questionable. Far too far from the mean to be reckless - but I can't help but think that if she hadn't seen Ratan's game a couple of hours beforehand, she wouldn't have done that.

My system considers it reasonable (wanting £11,900...something), I wouldn't say I'd 'question' it as such - it's a brave decision certainly and had it worked out, I think the banker would've rewarded her with an offer approaching the governor.

These are tough situations to play for sure, as £12,230, whilst being a chunky sum of course, tends to reside in that 'middling' range on a lot of player's utility curves in a way £20k doesn't. So some players seem more inclined to strive for a bit more to reach their target, rather than take perhaps the more prudent option on a sum they don't necessary have specific plans for.

In fact, as I'm mentioning 'middling' amounts, it occurs to me that's around the overall 'median'/middle win!

Equal parts questionable and reckless. I think that offer would've stopped some people, but others would've continued on. It would've probably stopped me, I can tell you that.

I don't examine things like the mean, the average, and so on because I'm useless with numbers. As a journalist, I'm more accustomed to working with words.

I used to be the biggest targetist ever, but I scrapped that method. I'm now the kind of person who would be more likely to undersell a high-valued box because of my terrible fear of winning a blue.

In other words, I'm cautious to a fault. That can sometimes be good, but on the other hand, it can sometimes result in missed opportunities. And then the hindsighters give people like me hell about it. Yeah, I used to be one of them, but I tossed that aside during my downtime.

Deal or No Deal is simply a big game of chicken with the Banker, and I'm the type of person who would chicken out. And that's that.

Very much this. ...well, the part where it's a game of chicken with the Banker. I can't make judgement on your style of gameplay!

To counteract your uselessness with numbers, I'm studying toward a Ph.D. in mathematics but even I am cautious to a fault. The main issue I have is that you're "only here once". If you're given, say, twenty chances to play this game and your net winnings is the average of your wins, then going all the way to the end is advantageous. But you're given only a single chance to play your game; a single bad round can and has been enough to completely zero out your winnings. That's why I pretty much chicken out on one-box and sometimes two-box games, no matter what the statistics are of a round going in your favor; to me, a guaranteed ten grand or so trumps a six-figure win, especially when the journey to that six-figure win involves taking the chance of winning a blue.

I can't believe so many think Bex's decision is Questionable.

And American Coupon Boy's unnecessary war against Hawker5ive (who bears little resemblance to Mad Mark, honestly) continues.

It is getting tiresome. And I don't even see anything here which I think Hawker's said that's that bad!!

I hope he starts a war with me next, I could do with a bit of fun on here. Haven't had much to get my teeth into lately!

I don't even know why ACB started this "war" with me in the first place. What is he trying to accomplish by doing this? He, like the rest of you, is now privy to the fact that I retired my Mad Mark persona because it was getting old, and it caused nothing but trouble. And no one liked it. I even got tired of it. That's why I scrapped the acting and decided to let my true colours show.

ACB, please tell us what you're trying to accomplish here. I'm not sure I ever did anything to you. If I did, then I apologize, but seriously, dude, this is getting a bit out of hand. If you're trying to re-create the mayhem brought about by Mad Mark, then may I recommend that you stop because it doesn't do you any favours.

Are you trying to play mind games here, errr? If so, then I think you're the only one playing. In fact, it's almost like one hand clapping. Just cut it out before you press your luck too far, like I did. If you don't, then prepare to be made an example of, which was my fate.

Rant over. Now, back to serious stuff.
--
Saperogo, I'm so cautious, I'd probably bail out even if it were a three- or four-box game. If I have several large amounts stacked up against a whole bunch of blues, that scares the living hell out of me. When I'm made an offer, regardless of how the last round went, I'm gone. £15,000 on a board with the 1p still in play? See ya. £30,000 on a strong board with the £250,000 still remaining, creating a situation where most people would play on? Yep, I'd take that, too.

I would much rather have guaranteed money that I can do something with than a useless blue. At that point, I'm happier to have real, guaranteed money than base all of my next moves strictly on potential. That kind of thinking sometimes leads people to oblivion, and I'm not just taking about this game. I'm taking about various real-life situations as well. The business world is full of these kinds of stories - I'm a business writer, focused on real estate investing - and don't get me started about the people who literally gamble everything they have away at the casino. Losing it all sucks hard. I don't want to have that kind of feeling.

When I accept an offer, what's inside my box automatically becomes irrelevant, as do anything relating to numbers or stats. Could it be more than what I just won? Possibly. Could it be less? Same answer. But it matters not. I wouldn't feel an ounce of shame either way. By simply uttering one four-letter word, I have instantly put myself in a better financial situation in a matter of seconds. And I think most of us can agree that that's a good situation to be in.

One more thing: I both detest and reject the concept of being an OHO. Sure, it's made some players into rich people, but it's turned others into big losers. Do you want to be a big loser and forever live with your terrible, reckless decision? No. No one ever does. But the problem is that some people are so fixated on playing to the end and potentially - there's that word again - winning big money, they lose sight of everything. Is Bex guilty of that? Perhaps. Are others guilty of the same thing? Without question. But these unfortunate situations can be avoided.

And thus endeth my manifesto on why I am a cautious player. This is Hawker5ive reminding you to help control the Wakeyist population, accept an offer before you live to regret it. Thank you for your time.

(P.S., I'm the only person who voted for "Reckless." If you read what I've written, you will know why I picked that option.)

OK "Hawker5ive". Just explain why you, just after you got your username changed, would've declined £31,000 in Roy's game then. Don't tell me otherwise, as you claimed on the "What Would You Have Done Today?" thread that you would have gone on to Deal £100,000 in his game. Give me a good reason not based on hindsight and I might stop viewing you as a hindsight machine.

Me first.

Hey American Coupon Boy. You smell.

Whatever you say, Wakey Duck.

Man you're no fun at all, couponhead.