Imagine you are the contestant.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT ARE IN THE BOXES. If you want, add your own.

1. You are Lindsay (yesterday) and the banker has offered you £12.5k for the second time. Would you deal or no deal? you don't know what is in the boxes.

2. You are Brenda. The banker offers you £57,000. You don't know what is in the boxes. Would you deal or no deal?

3. You are Jennifer. The Banker offers you £120,000. You don't know whether £750 or £250,000 is in your box. Would you deal or no deal? and what would you think was in the box?

Interesting...

1.) I'dprobably actually deal.
2.) I'd almost definitely deal, depending on what money safety nets were left on the board.
3.) I'd definitely deal, absolutely no question about it. I'd probably not care what was in the box..., I'd only care that I'd won £120k! But obviously I'd deal and if I wanted to be positive, I'd think £750 was in my box.

I'd deal in all those situations...what a coward I am!

Just think, if Jennifer had No Dealed, she would be the only person to have won £750.

1) No Deal - With two of the top three still there I don't think I would walk for that amount, though would have turned out to be the wrong decision!

2) No Deal - I don't think I could get away from a once a century (or even millennium!) board like that, I'd probably think my name was on the cheque for £250,000 if the game went that way.

3) Deal - You'd have to be crazy, drunk or very rich to turn down that offer, though I would absolutely expect Noel to open my box and reveal the £250,000!

...And if she swapped, the only person to have won the £250,000. I think if she did win the big one, some of the shows nowadays would be different, ie. Morris' and Kirsty.

I bet she's kicking herself!

1. No deal. Not enough in the context, and just generally too early in the game.

2. No deal. Best. Board. Ever. Nuff said really.

3. Toughie, depends on previous amounts on the table, but most likely a deal. But then again, if we were faced with this situation again, the offer would be roughly £88,000 in which case, i would be more inclined to no deal.

Is that a touch of Mally's Law coming through there, Wakey? Daniel will NOT be pleased!

1. No deal (I'd have more likely taken the £7k with only the £100k and rubbish left for the last five).

2. Didn't see this game as I wasn't watching it then, but with only three higher values (I assume they were all still there), that would probably be enough, job done for me.

3. Deal, wouldn't even have given it a second thought.

What is it with you and Mally's law! Geez!

Perhaps it should be renamed h2005's law. Actually, no, I'm not entirely convinced that Mally's Law works. Although I did read something on here that did give a mathematical reasoning for two events not happening in a row or something like that.

1) I wanted Lindsay to deal at 12.5K. I would have done the same and here's why: with two of the Power 5 left at the 8 box stage she had only a 36% chance that they would remain after opening 3 boxes and unless they did, the offer would most likely decrease.
2) Probably deal, we have seen so many trainwrecks, but might have gone on given such a good board.
3) Definitely deal! I wouldn't want to live with having turned down £120,000 to go home with peanuts! Would you?

Thats the problem with people these days. Too focused on the trainwreck games, rather then the sucessful games, therefore resulting in very very cowardly players. If people started thinking about what has happened to Gaz, Jennifer, Brenda, Jenni, Hilary, Morris, Kirsty, Nick (4) etc. etc, we will see less of the one-deal-too-soon, because people are going a bit further. Only 2 of the 9 Offer3dealers have been correct in bailing out at that point.

The thing is, wakey, most people would probably rather go away with something than nothing. I'd far rather be in, say, Jenni's position than Simone's. While there will always be people willing to gamble for the really big money, most players will probably be happy with lower (but still good) amounts, which they can do a lot with - I doubt "what they could have won" bothers them too much after the show in most cases.

1. Deal. A very risky situation there would be enough to make me leave with that offer.

2. No Deal and I would put my trust in my lucky number 11 plus it was an amazing board.

3. Deal. You'd have to be mad to No Deal that. I'd go for it if there was a decent back up, but £750 isn't a decent back up.

Whilst people are there for the money, it is on TV for entertainment value.

I am not saying people should go on regardless, but people should be less cautious because of past games.

You dont agree with Mally's law right? Then you must disagree with the fact that games have memories. Just because a previous game was a trainwreck it doesn't mean yours is going to be.

Well, no...but it doesn't stop your game being a trainwreck anyway! And the entertainment value isn't the players' concern - I'd hate to think people were going on and losing huge amounts of money because they were worried about providing entertainment.

Exactly - but most people think that because there have been trainwreck ganes recently, it is going to happen to them! How incorrect!

(Some sly editing going on there Daniel )

I don't think they think it's going to happen; it just makes them more aware that of the fact that it can happen, and of the possible effects of it.