It is rare to have the perfect game.

However as we all know, Noel loves a no-dealer. Di's game hopefully will put a stop to his constant criticism of players who go too early.

But are you more sympathetic to players who wrongly deal too early (Kelsie being an obvious case in point), or those who deal too late (as with Di's remarkable rejection of £44,000 on an ordinary looking board)?

Even though I would have no-dealt in her situation, I have more respect for Kelsie taking decent money out of her game. Early deals may be frustrating, but foolhardy no-deals on precarious boards just plain annoy me. Any thoughts?

Why are you calling late deals stupid and early deals OK? A bit baised aren't you?

I feel more sorry for people who decline the big offer and deal later - or go to the end. At least they tried to get more money out of it. It was possible! Di might have thought that her next offer would be just as inflated as the last, that justifies everything she did. I'm still not quite sure why she took the £8,000 - maybe she didn't want the inevitable OBW from going to the end (Both values at the end were under the peak offer, so that would count as an OBW even if she won £20,000.)

Dealing too early, although I have more sympathy for late deals or playing to the end on games that don't get going (Geordie, Ken, Emi).

People who turn down offers on risky boards (Geoff, Di, Madie, Jaye) have to be prepared for the consequences.

!early deals are Worse!

I take your point but the only friend you have in this game is judgment based on probability. If you sensibly no-deal and it crashes, I have a lot of sympathy. Equally if you are getting bad offers and are going for the big money, I am sympathetic. Its just sometimes the offer should be too good to turn down, and I don't think £44,000 should have been no-dealt. But equally, I do admit that if she was simply in it for the £250k, then fair enough, go for it. But if you are in a position to do that and it doesn't work out, all I am saying is I'm less sympathetic. Which I don't think is an unreasonable opinion to hold.

Late deals. Ive only seen 2 in mind. Vaughan and Di. I think "you no dlat £44k, why deal at 8?"

Dealing to early is better, cos it's obviously a good offer and nice some of money. I still remember, James (with beard) he dealt at the second offer and was never offered anything higher cos he destroyed the board.

Didn't he deal at the 3rd offer

Dealing early is better as anything could happen after, good or bad.

Anyone who knows my history here knows my answer.

Can';t really give a definitive answer - the best way I can sum it up is "Depends on the scale of it" - for instance if 1p Trevor had been offered £44,000 with his 5-box offer and turned it down, instead of £9,900, then I'd have had a lot less sympathy for him.

THat said, I do love it both when unexpected gambles (such as Bunney's) pay off handsomely,but also early deals such as Melanie and Harry, or an unexpected "poor deal for the baord" like J.T.'s too!

I tend to base my sympathy more on the personality of the player than the decisions they make...I was delighted when John G's big gamble went wrong, but gutted when the same happened to Julian.

But I'd agree that the ones with whom I sympathise the most are people like Ken, Sue (2), Sharron etc. who just never really had a chance at decent money.

Early deals that don't work out are always frustrating to watch, because it seems that the player has squandered the chance of a huge amount of money and one of those fantastic, but very rare, moments where Noel lifts the seal on one of the biggest amounts of money after a player goes all the way.

But the most upsetting to watch are those where a player goes against their own convictions - EITHER way - and then sees it go wrong. So when a player who is there for a shot at the really big money, loses their nerve and then finds they could have had that life-changing amount if they had continued. Or someone who is offered a more modest sum that would clearly make a massive difference to them, but they are blinded by the six-figure amounts sat up there on the board and gamble it away to leave with small change.

If players stay true to their aims/targets then I don't think we can criticise, however the game plays out.

I agree, such as Steven! "Yes, I am going to go on regardless of the offer if there are at least 3 of the power 5 left!"

What a load of bull *beep*.

Who cares, it's still early.

Ok.I agree that game was great,he proved nearly everyone wrong who thought he should of gone on.

I suppose technically its better to have dealt too early with a decent amount of money (ie Steven and Kelsie) than late with a small amount (Di).

But despite this, squandering great boards with an early deal makes me so mad !!!!!!!! Especially Steven who said several times he would carry on with 3 of the power 5 on the board then dealt and Kelsie who kept on throughout her game about 'think big - win big' and 'never mind the money I want the confetti' and then dealt. No respect from me.

I don't have much sympathy for the foolhardy late dealer either. But at least in Di's case today she was chasing the £250,000 which, despite the odds, was her once in a lifetime chance to win a life changing sum of money. And whatever the rights and wrongs of it I admire people with courage and go for it when they have their one chance in the chair.

I totally agree - I sympathise much more with those who deal too early than those who no deal good offers and win low. You are right when you say the only friend you have in this game is judgement based on probability - it annoys me when some players say that they'd always carry on if the £250k was still on the board - what if they turned down a substantial offer, then knocked out the £250k and ended up winning peanuts? I think Di today was an example of this - albeit she ended up winning substantially more than peanuts - but she very nearly did win a tiny amount.

I do also sympathise with players who seemingly get low offers for no reason and sensibly no deal (Kelsie is an example of someone who received low offers - as her £29,000 offer was so stupidly low, although that was probably because the banker recognised she could deal early - had she no dealt and her game had fallen apart and she'd gone home with peanuts, I'd have definitely had sympathy - but not if she'd turned down a good offer for the board), and of course I do sympathise with the players who have totally bad luck and receive no meaningful offers all game, and no deal and win a small amount.

However, like you said Maltus, there are some offers which I think "That HAS to be dealt!"... and then when it gets no dealt, I can't say I have much sympathy when it goes wrong, like it did today!

I agree too. With Di's £44k offer I was screaming deal at the TV. It was such an obvious deal. I also don't have much sympathy for those who deal at a nice sum and have a temper tantrum Donna style when it turns out they've made a mistake. I have most sympathy for those who have complete trainwrecks, and don't get attractive offers.

Think I've come up with a better answer - I feel very sorry for the people who are:

1) Forced to the end throught terrible offers and end up winning a blue (i.e. Geordie, 1p Trevor, £1 Mike, Sharron)

2) People who deal on a terrible board who choose to be sensible and not chase the money in a one or two box game, but would have been rewarded by gambling (i.e Dot, Debbie 1 and 3, Sarah B, Xmas Rachel). Sometimes that can seem more painful than having a complete trainwreck!