I think the banker is being to cruel not offering craig money! What do you all think about this? Do you think the banker should be allowed to do it?

No it isn't fair it ruins the game, there is no choice to be had, but at least that means the player will beat the banker if he keeps doing it.

after he said no twice, i think it was pretty obvious he didnt want to swap

NO it isn't fair. Although it would of been interesting to see if he would of offered a 2nd swap had he taken the first one.

Whether it's fair or not is open for debate, but it certainly didn't make good TV and left a particularly nasty taste in the mouth considering how the game went. I really hope it doesn't happen again.

Two swaps maybe at the start is just about passable if it is only occasional and for good reason, but not three. At the end of the third round the 100K and 250K were still there, and given the state of the board Craig could have expected a high offer that would merit serious consideration, something in the region of 20K perhaps.

...an offer that Craig would not have taken. So why not play up the Banker's 'being all mean' act?

My answer to the poll would be 'depends on the player', if that were an option. For somebody like Craig who was always going to the end, particularly with the £250k still in play, it was perfectly fair.

I suppose offering a swap is better than making a generous offer, only to see it be rejected by a gambler.

Yes its fair.

The banker can do what he wants, and if contestants are forced to open their box then that is part of the game - they have to accept what is in their box.#

Plus the fact today, Craig had already said he wouldn't go with the £250k still there (if he was lying to fool the banker it backfired) so theres not necessarily much point offering any offers anyway.

Well in a sense it's not fair, however The Banker is also playing his own game with the player (who incidently said he wouldn't go when the £250k is on the board which was fair enough).

While it was obvious after the first no swap The Banker felt inclined too keep that tactic going and wait for the £250k to go and while not exactly fair (and shouldn't happen too often) it was a tactic which in the end helped the The Banker win, it could however have gone the other way for Craig if he did indeed have £250k.

So it's a bit of tough thing to call, while not good for the player it was good for The Banker in his game of trying to save money and after all it's his job to make it a tricky ride for the player.

I agree that it does depend on the player, I doubt Craig would even have been thinking about dealing on a "good for the board" 3rd round offer so why not? No dealing the later offers bears this out. At least if it goes wrong you're not thinking about the big second round offer you turned down.

If he'd saved Box 4 till the end and he'd still offered only a swap on a £250k/£10 finish well then thats something else!

On the strict condition the Banker doesn't know where the money is (and the fact that the three opportunities here were to swap away a £10 box implies he doesn't...) I can just about tolerate it. It was a neat narrative to the show, but I'm glad the £250k didn't make it to the end!

Regardless of the fact whether he would / wouldn't have dealt at the 3rd offer, I still think it was extremely unfair that the banker offered swaps as the first 3 offers. All the other 351 contestants who have played have had monetary offers to work out what the banker thinks of them... and I don't believe that the banker was being like that with Craig because Craig said he would no deal if the £250k was still on the board... I just think it was a "joke" because the banker was in a bad mood after giving away the £250k.

I'd have expected him to phone up, say there's no offer, then phone back, and perhaps give a joke offer of £2.50... and then whack £250 on the following offers... I didn't expect him to offer 3 swaps. I found today's game pointless, and it made it even worse that he went away with £10. Still, I think he did very well not to let the banker's swap offers get to him.

Yes, two swaps is enough one at the start and one at the end is enough because if you get asked the first time to swap and don't swap you are not going to change your mind and then swap later. Pointless.

But Craig had repeatedly said on the wings that he'd never Deal with the quarter-million still on the board! Why is it unfair for the Banker to take him at his word?

It'd be interesting to find out whether Craig thought he'd been treated unfairly. From what was in today's programme, that didn't seem to be the case.

(By the way, you do realise that the Banker doesn't actually have 'moods', and that it's all an act for our entertainment, right?)

See, I didn't find the first half of today's show entertaining at all. Watching someone deliberate over and eventually reject offers is entertaining - it's what the show's all about, and creates tension and builds up the momentum as the show goes on. Seeing:

"Do you want to swap?"
"No."
"Do you want to swap now?"
"No."
"How about now?"
"No."

didn't do that at all for me...it just made the game feel flat and as if it was going nowhere. Yes, the Banker can theoretically do whatever he wants based on what the contestants say, but he should do it in order to help make an entertaining game...several players have said they're going to the end, and he hasn't rung back and said "Right, open your box now then".

Fair enough, Daniel, and I wouldn't want to see it every day. But as a one-off, based on Craig's demeanour and for the sake of playing up an opportunity for the Banker to act all mean following yesterday's events, it seemed very reasonable to me.

Because there have been many other players who said they'd no deal a lot (Jeff King was an example), yet they had a sensible game... ok, they may not have specifically said that they'd go on if the £250k were still there... but either way, irrespective of what Craig did / didn't say, is it not fair that the other 352 contestants had sensible first, second and third offers (except the ones who had the odd swap or joke offer), whereas Craig never even had a sensible monetary first, second or third offer?



Yes, I'd be very interested to hear Craig's opinions on his own game... either way, I think he coped with it very well and kept cool throughout what was effectively a trainwreck game, as well as being very unusual in terms of the first 3 non-monetary offers...



Yes, I do realise that, and I think the "banker's moods" in the past have played a roll in (at least some of) the offers... hence the "slamming down of the phone without an offer business", and also all the joke offers, a few of which have been because he's been upset by what a player has said about him... like John G's joke opening offer of £8, after he insulted the banker in a previous game...

I'd argue that Rachel on Christmas Day didn't get a sensible monetary offer until the 8-box stage either, but I do understand what you're saying.

Yes, people have said in the past that they'd go all the way regardless only to go back on that. Which is a valid tactic and is fair enough, really. But today the Banker showed that he's wising up to those tactics. What's more, he did it in such a way that ultimately had no bearing whatsoever on the final outcome of Craig's game. Craig was clearly quite willing to go to the end no matter what happened. So I cannot see today as being unfair.

All it means is that players will find new and resourceful ways to try and get the psychological upper hand, and the Banker will respond accordingly. It's all part of the ongoing theatre of the series that is Deal or No Deal! Today was just a furtherance of the ongoing storyline.

I thought what happened to Geordie, Rachel and Scottish John was worse than what happened to Craig. They had no option to keep going due to joke offers. At least Craig had an element of choice (ie swap or no swap - if he'd been Wakey's brother and swapped for Box 4 nobody would be complaining ). And all three of the money offers were very good for the board!