That can be bad deals,unlucky proveout or Blue wins. I quite liked Derek Brown and his game it was so funny I laughed good job he was the type of person to have a game like that. Chris who was on the wings in H's game and had the 1p he had an all blue 8 box but cruel that he had a box over £50 so no bonus.Anyone who you liked but had bad games?

Pete from September 2007 with only 10p (though I am shallow enough to say that a lot of this was down to how attractive he was)

His game is on YouTube just watched it.

Big characters like Walter who provide excellent comedy and entertainment, but just don't have to luck to go with it

Pete from 2007 was not an attractive man.

I suppose I'm gutted that thingy didn't win much that time. The fact I can't be bothered to remember the sod's name or anything about the game makes this post rather pointless.

Requiem for a good game on Deal:

1. Entertaining player.
2. Exciting game.
3. Decent or sizeable win.

If one of those elements missing, the game is automatically a wash.

Joy was one she had a BTW I was really upset too.

I hate BTW's

I was VERY upset about the (non)game Mike had, as he was quite possibly the first player to give good statistical advice on the wings in YEARS. I really wanted him to have a game like Pam's or Ross' so that he could give the Banker a good tussle.

I liked Richard in 2008. I was shocked at this forum's behaviour and if I was on then, I would of been considered rude and racist to some people and tell people very rude things. I would of had an instant ban if I was on back then. The forum was stupid and if he came to this forum I'm sure a lot more people would of been banned and this forum would of gone for good if it happened. Richard is probably one of the nicest people I have met. He thought it was right for him and I'm agreed. I told him everyone was jealous and it is his money not theirs. I would of stuck up for Richard and defended his pride. What would of Richard done if he came to this forum? Richard was a great guy. DOND forum was shocking that day.

Why didn't you sign up and defend him on that day? To say he could have done with it is understating it dramatically, even some of the so called do-gooders were twisting the knife that afternoon.

I thought Richard was OK. He wasn't quite a Farmer Clive/Pat M character, but i thought he was likeable and you could tell the money meant a lot to him despite it being a statistically bad deal for the board

I think Richard's deal really gained a bad reputation from the proveouts going totally against him, but more frankly the state of this forum at the time (glad i wasn't on here at the time!) with certain members moaning everytime a player said 'deal', and I think the state of the forum at the time of Richard's game was a big part of the reason why some people on here still see his game as the blackest day in DoND history

Hell, Meena's game did a FAR worse deal a few months later, but because the forum had red-carded certain members, her game only attracted mild annoyance in comparison to Richard, on here (!), which is what Richard probably would've gotten at worst if his game aired AFTER you-know-what happened on this forum

Pat M and Geordie spring to mind!

Fortunately for Pat, she still managed to win £1,000 by opening the box. Geordie wasn't so lucky!

Richard's deal was unacceptable - it had no integrity, no reason, and full of complete ignorance. Targetism might seem like the obvious answer but any realistic targetist would also see a margin of potential that the board had to offer, mainly it's strength being THAT good, that even a disaster round (0.6%) would have still put him somewhere near his target!

I think the mans life (or someone elses close to him) was riding on the money. Whether illness, debt, poverty, drugs, who knows! On the flipside - the proveout wouldn't really bother you

The fundamentals behind the anger generated from his game come from a very simple principle - it's a TV show. Despite constestants playing for cash and often the cash is for a purpose, we mustn't forget that it is indeed a TV show, and the contestants have no 'right' to earn any set amount on that show at all. You work 8 hours at £10 an hour, you have the right to earn £80 because it is yours. The money these contestants are playing with is not theirs, until they sign the disclaimers and leave the building!

We must not forget that principle - and understand, that any opinion that is generated on an internet forum, for a TV show, is completely NORMAL!

An unacceptable part of this is the personal insults directed at the player. Perhaps this crosses the line? The acceptable criticize the decision and the player, the unacceptable insult the player?

One of life's unsolved mysteries, Richard Harris.

Well, yeah - I'd say any personal insult thrown at someone who hasn't actually done anything wrong is crossing a line by quite a margin, before sauntering back with the arrogant swagger of a ten-year-old chav and vomiting all over it. I'm quite sure that's not acceptable in any walk of life, be it on an internet forum or anywhere else. Being a nice person costs nothing.

I would say with exception of a few, people on the giving side of the criticism are fundamentaly good people. It's all about that fine line of decision critique against personally insulting