There's also the psychological dilemma that if we do get another QM winner and the confetti cannons go off, would someone then risk losing that after all the celebration. It might happen but it would take an extreme gambler to do so (because you're effectively gambling £250k for an EV amount of £227,000). I'm not sure even those people who gambled for the £250k on above average offers would have taken that on.

It's sort of like that Final Drop question in Million Pound Drop. You wouldn't risk £1 million or £100k+ for double or nothing.

If they want someone to gamble £250,000 they essentially need to make it

DOUBLE, MONEY BACK, HALF

and leave out the other options.

Given who few win £250,000 in the first place it could still take quite a while to get the £500,000 winner.

I think my cutoff to gamble on Box 23 would be about £12k.

I've been thinking about when I'd deal box 23 and to be honest, I think the only time I'd deal would be if I won a blue amount or a red amount in the low thousands.

I know there's no way I'd have dealt box 23 if it had been around when I actually did deal £6,500 on the show. When I dealt that sum, I felt pleased to have won something meaningful out of a game which hadn't had the best luck. I wouldn't have wanted to risk the 40% chance of losing or halving the money just for the 40% chance of increasing it to £13,000 or £16,500.

In general, I think I'd probably be a bit more willing to take a risk these days as I'm earning money in a stable job; whereas when I played the game five years ago, I was a student who didn't have a regular income. I think I'd still deal the £6,500 I dealt at - because it was a good offer for the board - but I'd be more willing these days to decline higher sums if they were mathematically poor offers.

Having said that, I think my attitude to box 23 would be the same five years ago as it is today - and I think it's probably due to the psychological effect of 'giving back' the money you've already won. I know that may appear cowardly, but - and I don't want to appear pompous by saying this - you do invest time and effort in being on the show and I know I wouldn't want to risk going home with nothing just because I tried to increase what I'd already won!

Another side-effect of box 23 is that it should help players who have bad games feel a bit more upbeat and therefore enjoy the experience more. Battling on through a trainwreck game will be a lot more pleasant knowing that at least you have a 20% chance of increasing your (inevitably low) win by £10,000, rather than relying on the tiny chance that the banker may offer you some sort of extra gamble to help you win more.

I had a slightly evil hypothetical thought today.

Imagine a player who:

Deals for say £8,000
Has the QM in their box
Decides to no deal box 23
Box 23 has "DOUBLE" in.

Technically, they would be beating the worst deal record that currently stands at 2% of the maximum amount available in the game.

(Luckily, the odds of that happening are 1 in 110 so will happen less than 3 times a year on average)

Presumably when calculating OPWs and OBWs Box 23 will be factored in now? So technically an OPW could turn into an OBW an example being:

Player deals at £12,000 their highest offer in the game. They have £10,000 in their box, but reject Box 23 which had either the double or the added £10,000 meaning they could have won £24,000 or £22,000

True. Might cause some confusion in the next couple of weeks.

I've noticed that when Noel introduces box 23 at the end of the game, he says we'll find out what options box 23 could have "today".

Does that imply that the possible options of box 23 will change on certain occasions?

I think it does because despite the great way it started on January 1st, if too many players are cautious in rejecting it then it might need to be made more appealing. For example the red options could include offering triple or an added £15,000. Special shows need to be considered too. Will Box 23 offer different twists then?

From what I remember, someone asked that in the studio and from what I remember, they hinted that the options aren't set in stone..

I wouldn't be surprised if for some special game in the future , the double became a treble or the +£10k option changed value (this is all conjecture BTW, I have no idea whether it will or not)

Hmm... I imagine the possible options for box 23 could change for themed shows and also milestone shows (and show 2,500 is just a few months away).

If the options do get changed occasionally, hopefully it'll only be for specific shows rather than the banker changing them on a whim for certain players.

2,500 filmed today, in fact!

So the new changes have come in since Glenn Hugill has left as Executive Producer.
Has anyone picked up on the difference in the relationship between Noel and the "New" Banker as well?

Normal show?

It's unlike the 2,000th

Now that we've had Box 23 going for over a week, I'm not sure I'm as keen on it as I was last week. It's definitely added something extra to the dynamic, that's for certain. But I think I'd be more comfortable with it if they turned it into KP's suggestion, and had five small boxes similar to those pesky miniature gamble boxes from three years ago.

So, get those boxes if they're still around, paint them red (or maybe liven it up a bit by making them all different), lable them 23 - 27, and fill them with the five options at random. That'd work, would it not?

In fact, I might try this when I guest host WWYRDT.

The twist has been positive for the show, making outcomes and decisions more interesting. I like the combination of multipliers and +£10,000, which makes box 23 relevant even with low wins, compared with normal double or nothing twists. It's a twist that I have some reservations on, as it feels like they need to fill extra time to make it an hour long show, but will need to watch more to decide if that's the case.

There are four things I would change. The first problem is that the value of the box diminishes the closer you get to winning £20,000 in the game, and in fact has a negative average value beyond that. This may be intentional, but adds extra complexity compared with having expected winnings go up by a fixed amount.

To change this, there should be an extra option to Add Half. This would make the first 5 options neutralise each other in value, so that a decision to gamble is based on the player's perceived value of +£10,000 relative to what they have (or could deal). The chances of winning an extra £10,000 would be 1/6, or the same as rolling a die for a single number, which is still significant, and makes the twist playable (in principle) with every outcome, not just below £20,000. Expected winnings would always be +£1,667.

The second problem is that there is only one box for 5 possible outcomes, which is inconsistent with having 22 boxes for 22 outcomes in the game. This is a problem as players have no choice, and therefore no ability to influence their fate with box 23. This leads to irrational behaviour. Sarah openly speculated and based her decision to an extent on the box's 'history', even though it had only been opened 3 times before. Worse, hogwild94 has suggested that Joey, the first player to have the decision on box 23, may have bought it because he expected there to be a deliberately good outcome inside, which from here, is impossible to disprove.

There should be more boxes, so that all options are available to the player, reflecting the game itself. With Add Half included, you could have 6 boxes, 3 on each wing nearest to the board, numbered 23-28, that appear after the game has been completed. This would give the twist full prominence on the stage. The Banker could add a further twist, suggesting that the player could buy more than one box, or open one and then suggest they can open another, to make an outcome more likely.

Two more things: Money Back is coloured red, despite its value to the player being neutral in every circumstance. Having the appearance of 3 reds and 2 blues associated with the twist, when only 2 reds increase your winnings, is misleading. Changing it to a colour like green, magenta, grey, black or white, would make more sense. And, when the twist options appear on the board, they should have next to them their monetary value. It should be fully clear to a player what they're risking by taking the gamble.

On the whole I like the twist, though in its present form, think it needs tweaking. The twist has definitely livened up the show, and I would like to see more twists, while ensuring that they don't detract from the game itself. Just my 1 1/2p.

Well, IIRC, he said something to the extent of "they wouldn't put half or nothing in the box on it's first show, would they?", which was met with a mix of laughs, oohs and applause.

Another thought that's just crossed my mind: the box was first brought on set in John's game, and so the +£10,000 that was in it for Joey had actually been randomly selected at the start of the filming season! (Unless it was taken away between games)

BTW, Ian Weaver has published his views on Box 23 in the latest Weaver's Week: http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/Weaver% ... 2014-01-12

When did Glen Hugill leave and was there any reason why he left?