when a person ,such as Trevor today, gets an offer that is excellent but they decide to play on. What do you believe it to be? i think it depends on the circumstances. some can be courageous, but on the flip-side i beleive some contestants are partly greedy

I don't think it's greed.

I think I would do the same most of the time...but only because of the "I came with nothing" strategy.

i think it was greed today. £9,900 against a 4/5 in going home with next to nothing...and he said he wanted around 10k...

but still, gave us a great game :wink:

It's a fine line between them. just like being c-o-c-k-y or Confident.

I do believe that Fin and John G, were greedy. They were offered alot but got greedy and lost out.
Today Trevor said he needed 10K, but with 9K it was a coin toss, and he just lost.

I think it depends on the offers.

GOT TO BE GREED. as you saw trevor today, he wanted to get a business class to australia, dubai and hawaii, and give some money to his family. this would cost about £25K?

If i said courage it would be that they REALLY believe the big money is in fromt of them. as you saw Okiem No Deal at £2,200 (was it ) and dealt at £17,000 (not sure)

And finally if i said it depends on the circumstances it would depend about how the person is. if he wasnt interested in the offer...
Heres a situation

50p
£10
£100 OFFER OF £3,100
£500
£75,000


He would NO DEAL of course


BUT

And if he was interested in the offer
another situation...

£10
£50
£250 OFFER OF £18,500
£3,000
£100,000

If he was to NO DEAL this is more likely to be greed.


I THINK more that its greed because today it was ALL or NOTHING. i mean i'd have to deal at £9,900 i wouldnt risk over 249K and i think the majority of people would deal there aswell

After todays game definately courage.....most people stop and say thats decent offer and look a there needs. Otherwise we be talking about Daz and Anna as jackpot winners.....they both deserved to be

What's "greed" or "courage" depends on your own circumstances. If a player gets offered £5k or £10k or even more and they wouldn't be too bothered about losing it then they may as well play on and go for the big one. After all, unlike actual gambling they can't lose anything they had before the show.

And those who criticise the "greedy" contestants, the gamblers make the show what it is - it would be a bit of a crap show if nearly everyone walked for a few thousand on the third offer.

Its all down to how people play the game, greed does not come into it...if people saw Teevors game I would not call that greed..

It may have been a risk - but if it had come off he would have come away with a life changing amount of money in the region of £100k. the £9,900 offer was a good offer but not life changing. I have to say I'd have done the same thing as Trevor.

It's a bit of a difficult one to call, but I suppose it just depends on the circumstances. If you need the money badly and the board's looking iffy like it was with Trevor today, then the £9,900 would be tempting and I for one would have took it, BUT, if you don't go for it then no-one will win the top prize. I know if Anna and Daz had gone for it they'd have won the BIG prize, but you don't know where the top prize is and if you need the money it's too much of a risk to take. I'd be looking at what there is to lose instead of what could possibly be won.

Sometimes it's greed and others it's courage, with the belief that the big money's in your own box or that you can avoid hitting it so you can get a bigger offer from the Banker.

Not a solid answer to the question, I know, but as others have said, there's a fine line between courage and greed.

Thats a good quote and like it has been said you dont know where it is..I would have gambled and then taken the £99 and had a night out...everyone plays it different. Its all about game plans and then being in the chair.

It was a brave, but foolish decision not to deal at the 9kish offer.
Simply on a mathematical basis, he was likely to take out the £250,000 in the final round.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud his bravery, and he was just one wrong decision away from a 100kish offer. I feel so sorry for him, but it was gripping TV.

Also, I thought that Noel was a bit more pushy towards the player today, certainly alot more than usual. Did anyone else notice this?

Fin and John G were greedy (and/or silly and unable to work out the maths).

As for Trevor:

'Simply on a mathematical basis, he was likely to take out the £250,000 in the final round.'

60% chance, yes. But that's a 40% chance of an offer that would have been at least £80,000 and possibly in six figures, and I'd fancy that gamble. Assuming a fair game, but that assumption is being debated elsewhere.

I agree, even though the odds are slightly against, for the amount of money offered compared to the amount of money potentially on offer, I would take that gamble too.
Like I said, it was a brave decision, but one that he must have accepted would result in failure more times than success.

It was a calculated risk by Trevor, if you ask me, and fully justifiable to my mind. Hopefully there'll be a 'Loser's Special' (or should I call them 'Lowest Winners' to avoid creating offence?!) so that the likes of Raj, Nick, Trevor, James, Geordie, Irene and John can have another go at winning big. Strangely, all the people who have won the least money seem to have been the best/most enduring characters on the show. (not saying that many of the others weren't great, too!) But I for one would love them all to get another go - as long as the minimum potential winnings was above £1000!! :wink:

trevor always said he would go all the way

that is guts in anybodys language

an outstanding personality, very human as well.

analyse as much as you like, you have to be there to understand the tension, atmosphere. and the fact that contestants are sometimes in a daze and on auto pilot, a bit like the call to - go over the top.( world war 1 trenches for those too young )

Totally agree with you about our lack of understanding of the tension in the studio, that is why it is great to have ex-contestants on the forum to give us some idea of the set-up and running of the show.

However, I think comparing DoND (where the worst you can do is to be exactly were you were before, with the bonus of meeting alot of other people) to being a soldier in WW1, where there was a huge amount of conscripts who had no wish to fight, is taking the piss out of the memory of those who died to preserve our freedom.

The best they could do was come out alive, and many people were mentally scarred, or shell-shocked as it was called then (It's most recently been known in the courts as Gulf War syndrome)

The people that fought in the WW1 trenches had two choices. Go over the top and the overwhelming odds are that the German army will shoot you. Refuse to and the Germans won't have to bother because your own army would court marshall you and do it for them.
Players on DoND generally have two choicesas well, get free money or get more free money.

Given a choice of playing DoND, or spending years in a sodden trench being constantly shelled and then running into a hail of machine gun-fire, or getting shot by your own army, I would chose the gameshow.

These events are simply not comparable. To do so is an insult to those that died.

I second Bork's comments. DoND is a great show with plenty of tension and drama, but lets keep some perspective please. Comparisons to a WWI trench are, with all due respect, insulting to those who fought on our behalf, and are inappropriate in this context. It is simply not a parallel that can or should be made.

ww1 was meant to be tongue in cheek

no comparison on situation or consequence

but tension is tension, and there is - agonising - which box etc

sure contestants are lucky to be on the show

many take unpaid leave from jobs, and with little or no winnings are out of pocket.

as you say nobody would miss that opportunity given the chance, although a contestant was taken ill and did not wish to return.

many are called and few are chosen

but all the contestants are very ordinary people just like yourselves, and the fascination everytime is - what other people would do under the same set of circumstances.

when you do pass comments - nothing wrong with that, head above the parapet and all that - remember it could have been you