Following on from wakey's discussion about early deals, I thought I'd raise something I've been thinking about.

Supposing a player who hadn't already dealt was left with the dream scenario of £100k / £250k. At this point, the banker would make an offer of, say, £150k. However, a lot of people would (sensibly) deal at the offer to avoid losing the £50k, in this case.

However, would the banker be within his rights to force the player to go on to the end by not giving an offer, or perhaps offering a swap without a monetary offer? This way the player would not feel any regrets about whether they should or shouldn't have dealt on the last offer, and it would also vastly increase the chances of there being a £250k winner. On the other hand, it'd be unfair if they lost out on the opportunity of dealing at £150k... what do you all think?

if i was offered 150k then i lost 50k of it i wouldnt regret because i know if i got to 100k/250k scenario i would definately go for it. if i swapped and lost i would regret though

Apparently that's what sometimes happens in the French version...personally I'd hate to see them start doing that, but that doesn't mean they won't.

I'd have thought most people who got as far as £100K and £250K and still in the game would go for glory and no deal the last offer, safe in the knowledge that they are guaranteed £100K no matter what. I would be happy to no deal a last-two scenario of £50K and £250K without too much trouble, though truth be told I'd have been well on the way out of the door before that situation ever arose.

I'd be more wary about no dealing a low red or a blue with a last box of £250K, but hell, I suppose someone might no deal 50p and £250K right at the death one day! They'd have to be really brave and/or stupid though. There is a fine line between bravery and stupidity in this game.

I would never swap for a box though. If I never had it on the table with me then fair enough, but if I'd given it away I could never live with myself. I'd drown my sorrows with a drink or two, but the £100K/£250K gamble is definately worth taking on at that point as are a few other all high-red combinations.

Well it all depends on the offer. If you had 50p and £250,000 and were offered 51p you would obviously no-deal it! Where is the cutoff point for it not being a crazy thing to do? The Banker may attempt to find that point at some time in the future.

Too right...that's the perfect final two!

That's quite an interesting question really. What would the final offer be if you had a low blue and the highest red after the last round?

You'd hope that the banker would be fair and offer something maybe up near the middle value close to £100K, but there is no reason why he should apart from the British sense of playing fair, and I suspect that it may well be lower than this, possibly £90K, £80K or even £70K, the point being that he would probably know that a player is more than likely going to deal here no matter what.

The real question is how low could the banker make his 50p/£250K last deal in order to give away as little money as possible which is basically his job. A £60K or £50K deal would seem really mean considering the £250K was there, but could he go any lower and still force a player to deal? £40K, £30K, £20K ??? I'd be really insulted to be offered that much based on the two numbers mentioned above, but honestly? I'd probably still have to take it, albiet reluctantly. It would be really interesting some day to see him offer a really mean deal like 51p and force a player to carry on. It doesn't seem really fair though, does it?

We've had a hypothetical £60,000 with 1p and £250k as the last two. In active play I think virtually anyone would deal that, but halve it and I'm not so sure.

Well, if someone was left with £10p, £5k, £20k, £50k and £250k, and was offered £30k, no dealed, was left with £10p and £250k, the banker's offer should be about £60k or more. I think it would be perhaps cruel at this point to not offer money, as the player would be forced to go on and could win 10p, an amount which is consdierably lower than the maximum offer during the game.

However, if the banker offers a non-monetary offer when the minimum the player could win is larger than any offers they have had up to that point, it could be in the player's benefit, as they know they will leave with the maximum they could have got our of their game, no matter what.