What, exactly, makes a player "deserving" of a good payout?

Alternatively, what makes them "not deserving" (for, surely, if some are more deserving, others must be less)?

Is somebody who is going to buy a Porsche and a Range Rover and waste the rest on food and rent less deserving than someone who is going to support a charity?

Does a sob story make you more deserving? Does somebody else's sob story make you even more deserving?

Do you deserve a better payout because you're more entertaining, and less deserving if you just stand there and open boxes like an automaton?

Discuss!

That's a difficult one!

I'd like to think that every player deserves to win as much money as possible. There are certain players I'd like to see win a life-changing amount more than some other players, or some that I feel take very risky and ill-advised gambles, but I don't think that makes them less deserving!

For instance, when Buddy won his £50,000, I didn't like him as much as the players who won 1p either side of his game, Sally and Connell, and thought he took some risks to get there, but was still very happy for him when he won it!

Mmm, I do wonder a bit when people (including myself!) say things like "Aw, he really deserved to win a load of money" - do any of them really deserve it, considering they haven't done anything to earn it? In a way, none of them deserve anything.

But, yes, I probably do judge the players based on how entertaining they were - like James, I didn't like Buddy anywhere near as much as the 4583489 people who won 1p in the games around his, but unlike James, I wasn't really happy for him...I was quite pissed off that he got such generous offers and such a big win when he hadn't really done anything to "earn" it in my eyes.

Similarly, although the "sob stories" shouldn't really mean that certain players deserve more than others, I can't help feeling that way...when Kirsty said she wanted the money for a boob job, I thought "Well, I couldn't care less what you go away with, then, if that's the most important thing you want money for" (which is kind of ironic considering how her game went!), whereas when Frank said he was looking for £20k to pay for his daughter to have an operation, I was really desperate for him to do well, and terrified that he wouldn't.

So I guess that while in theory no player deserves more than any other, it's just human nature that we're going to think that way during their games.

You really can't know get to know someone that well from a game
that you know exactly how deserving or undeserving they are to win a lot
of money, but I think it's nice to see people able to visit their families
abroad who otherwise wouldn't be able to, people who support charities,
but also people who have entertained us. Let's not forget, Deal Or No Deal is there primarily to entertain, it's not a charity, and the banker is not Santa Claus either!

Interesting comments thus far.

For myself, I think that it's a fantasy game - there to allow the lucky few to have a free punt at making their dreams come (to some extent) true. To that end, I really couldn't care less what they want the money for - indeed, I have, I think, a little more respect for those honest enough to admit to wanting to simply blow their winnings on toys.

I do, however, cringe somewhat when the sob stories come rolling out, and often think "look, dear, if you want to help the starving in outer mongolia or wherever, sign up for VSO!"

That said, I've never begrudged anyone their winnings, nor cried with anyone when they've come away with coppers.

I sort of agree with you.

What I would say with regards to a gameshow such as Deal or No Deal is that no one player deserves to win money more than any other. Of course everyone would like to win money, but for me there is no moral issue at play here. If they win a lot, well done, and if they don't, hard luck. I don't think any of them can claim to deserve it more than the next person though.

That said, of course I support some players more than others, purely because I warm to them more, but not because they are morally more deserving of a big money win. By the same token, I do invariably go through a range of emotions during games, but thats purely the thrill of the game and an innate hope for them to do well.

Essentially, they have have all been presented with a great opportunity by getting onto the show, and they should take that chance with both hands (which, as an aside, is why I objected to the disrespectful start to Helen's show, yesterday). But to say they deserve to win a lot of money, well, I wouldn't go that far, personally.

Not exactly a 'deserve or not deserve' but I do find myself thinking that some people need the money more than others. You get a managing director, someone that owns a few businesses or some such person and they get offered the big bucks to go - as the banker knows they won't take just any offer. Then you get a pensioner or care worker or something who has a much better board than so-n-so yesterday and they get offered half as much. That does stink a bit.

ok, I'll get off my soapbox now

I don't really think "need" comes into it. In fact, I don't think a game show is the right place for someone who "needs" to win a set amount - whatever that amount is.

For me, the bottom line is it's a gamble with all of the financial risk taken out. If you come with nothing, and go with 1p, you're in profit.

No - it's this "deserve" thing that's got me wondering. I see the word used here a lot, and used a lot by Noel and others on the show. "You didn't deserve to win just £4.25p".

Why? or why not?

Personally, I think someone deserves a good payout when they play their cards right and take a risk.

I think a PERFECT example of this would be Gaz. His game was falling apart, but he won £100k. I thought he totally deserved what he got!

What about Andy K?

Wasn't he from ages back?

Yeah, he was, and he gave the banker a right beating. Did he deserve to win a lot because of his attitude towards the banker?

I suppose the best thing you have to do is show the banker you have the right attitude when it comes to facing him, although I'm sure the banker may be feeling different emotions or feelings every day. For example, say the wrong words when you've got a good board and he may take it personally, meaning you've got a lower offer. If you're not doing so well but just keep a level head and remain confident without being cocky, then you're more than likely going to be on his side.

Soon enough, that probably wont make sense and I'll wonder why I wrote that.

Agreed.

I think that you only deserve to win big if you are good looking. I'm so predictable...

Although, if you are a woman, and you are prettier than me (Which is very hard) then I don't think you deserve to win much. So, to sum things up, only handsome men deserve big wins. Ugly people are lazy people in my opinion, because they don't take the time and effort to grrom themselves, so therefore they shouldn't have any money.

P.S I don't know if I should post this or not, because it makes me sound like a real bitch, but I'll post it anyway.

P.P.S That *beep* wasn't as bad as you think

Yeah...erm, about this wedding...

How much do I deserve, then?

Haha, sorry Dan, I take it back! Although you have no reason to worry, you're obviously gorgeous because I wouldn't marry you if you weren't

And H, you deserve the £250k of course!