Could it be that greed is partly the problem with the recent downturn in excitement on DOND? The joke has always been that DOND contestants are lazy, greedy people and I always thought this was harsh. But lately it seems to be coming true.

It seems that more and more contestants are going onto the show because they see it as an easy way to make a quick buck - hence the early deals by many.

People like Dennis went on "for the Deal Or No Deal experience". They contributed so much - a fun personality, a great game.

Nowadays, it is just a production line of boring, greedy people.

Look at the guy who was trying to sell a memento from the show for £350. Look at Doug still claiming benefit after he'd won £75k tax-free. Look at people not caring that they destroy the drama of the show when they deal pathetically early. It is greed, is it not?

The show used to be a real rollercoaster of human emotion. It used to be full of characters who kept you gripped. It currently seems to be full of charisma-free-zones who turn up, inanely chant "Blue blue blue" and then try and make a quick buck and run.

It is up to the programme makers to screen contestants like these out!

I'm quite confused as to what it is that makes a contestant "greedy". Di was called greedy by some people after turning down a big offer to try for the £250k...but then you're calling other contestants greedy for dealing too early and not going for it. If they're greedy if they deal and greedy if they gamble then they can't really win either way!

I've never really liked the word "greed" used about contestants on this show, anyway. The entire game is based on desire to get the maximum money possible, and simply going along with that doesn't make someone greedy, in my opinion. You could argue that every single contestant who's ever played has been greedy, as they all spent a few days opening boxes in a studio and getting drunk in a hotel, then were offered thousands of pounds just for doing that...and turned it down!

I don't really mind if contestants are there to make a quick buck, to play the game, to risk everything for the big money or anything else in between...as long as there's a mix of different attitudes to the game (which I think there is at the moment - compare Kelsie's game with Di's) then it doesn't really bother me how people play it.

NO, greed isn't ruining the show

I didn't call Di greedy for doing that. You are comparing what other people said with what I said and saying contestants "can't really win either way". Which is a bit silly.

Well, OK, in the context of the whole forum/audience of the show, they can't really win...there's always going to be someone who criticises a player's actions based on their own personal attitude to the game. You'd call Beryl greedy and Dennis a great player, whereas someone else would say the opposite. Which is why I think it's best to just accept that everyone plays it differently and not get worked up about decisions which you personally wouldn't make.

i think one difference that has a bit to do with greed is that if people get for example £5 vs £10,000 at the end and get offered £3,000. at the beginning of dond they may have taken it. nowadays they go for it to keep the audience happy. so you could say it was the audience that have made it like this.

When I first saw this thread, I thought it'd be about people like Di who no deal cast-iron deals - I don't really see how dealing at an early offer is greedy - I'd call it cautious!

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the "I went on for the experience stuff" - surely they went on for some money, which may involve dealing at an early stage - and hang on, in the example you used - Dennis - couldn't he be called greedy for turning down an above mean third offer in the hope to go on and get more money?!



I think people selling stuff from their time on DOND is very odd actually - surely the memories of being on the show should come before trying to get some money for "unofficial merchandise"? I don't really understand that stuff about Doug - it seems a bit odd to me, but I sort of see where you're coming from with that one.



I don't think that is greed - and would it not be a bit boring if everyone went to the end and said "I came for the experience"? Early deals make the show have a bit of variety, and the proveout rounds can be very interesting, and pleasing in the case of Adrian's, and harsh in the case of Steven's - it's also interesting to see the banker tactics / offers after someone has dealt - the evident inflated offers, etc.

I think the contestants these days have become more biased towards no dealing (partly due to Noel probably), and therefore more biased towards being greedy - Kelsie was cautious, dealt early and people sympathised. Di no dealt £44,000 on a very unstable board and she was criticised because it looked like she was being greedy. Surely people are going to want to sympathise with the cautious person rather than the greedy person? Bearing in mind "greed" is not a favourable thing to have in the eyes of society.

I don't think "greed" is ruining the show, I think the "I came for the experience" may actually be having a bit of a no dealing influence and therefore make some of the shows rather similar and boring - although recently there have been more people dealing, so I think if anything is "ruining" the show at the moment, it's the lack of characters on the wings!

But you could say that the fact that he was prepared to take a gamble and possibly lose everything made him less greedy than someone who wouldn't risk it because they were desperate to go home with something. I don't necessarily agree with that but I do understand the point.

Greed makes the show better. Games like Chantelle's are the most exciting, no-dealing to the end and going on a 1p/£35k gamble.

You also have to remember that sometimes the greed pays off. Look at Claudine, she turned down about £44,000 and went on to win £107,031...but then people moan at the likes of Di for doing a similar thing but winning just £8k. Respect to Di because she entertained me.

Players like Paul H, Steven and Adrian - who I suppose could be called 'non-greedy' - deal early, and overall are the ones who give dull games.

Haha, well that's very... interesting logic - and I think if you applied that logic, then you could say everyone is greedy and / or no-one is greedy. But in my opinion, it's only human nature that you will automatically look at people like Di, who turn down a huge amount of money in order to get more, as "greedy". I suppose you could say that as she risked everything, it made her less greedy - but surely she played on in order to get more money, no dealing a huge sum of money on an unstable board, and therefore that is greed.

It's Noel's attitude towards the early deals that are ruining the show, and nothing to do with the players.

But if you want to criticise everyone for dealing early then what would be the point of having offers at all. Everyone might as well just open their own box to start with, and win what's in that, if they are all to go on to the end to give a good game.

Yes...I'd say that no one is greedy! (No one in the context of this game, anyway.)



Di signed up for a game with a top prize of £250,000, then took a gamble in an attempt to win that prize. I really don't see why that makes her greedy. For her, the pain of losing £43,999.90 would (presumably) not have been as bad as the pain of missing out on £206,000. You (and I) would see it differently, because of the way you value money, but that's clearly not the same way Di values it.

Would someone be called greedy for turning down £5.01 a 1p vs £10 board? Probably not...it's an AMO, but the value of the money is negligible to the majority of people. To some people, like it or not, sums such as £44,000 are negligible in comparison to much bigger amounts.

Well yes, exactly - people see money differently - if you showed DOND to someone who lives in The Third World and earns £1 a day - then they would probably call someone greedy for turning down the first offer. If Prince Charles or The Queen watched DOND, they'd probably say "It's all meaningless money, play to the end, old boy!".

In fact, Noel made an interesting comment in Lance's game, when he asked him if he's loaded, as he said there would be plenty of people saying that because of his accent, etc., he isn't focussing on the value of the money as he's already loaded, and Lance explained how he isn't really "loaded".

Anyway, I don't think anyone's saying "Di is a stupid, mad greedy old cow for turning down £44k"... well I'm not saying that... when I say she's greedy, yes of course it is based on my opinion of money, and I'm sure many other people share the same opinion - that turning down £44,000 on such an unstable board is greedy... even if it may not be for her. I think once you start going past the £20k mark and such values get no dealt on risky boards, then that is when most people say the contestant has gone into greed territory, as £20k is around about the average GDP per capita (salary) in the UK.

Totally agree with the above, this is what I was trying to express earlier in Kelsie's thread - people are using the show as a lazy way of getting money, to either fulfill their targets the easy way, or possibly get some / a lot of time off work!

If Di wants the big money we should be egging her on for it!

I'm not sure its greed in particular - lets face it the whole premise of the game is based on greed and people enter hoping to win big amounts of money. But I certainly agree that lately people are dealing early rather than later, playing safe and settling for a lot less money than they could have if they'd been braver. People are desperate to leave with something rather than risk leaving with peanuts.

Perhaps March was an exceptional month. It had, with a few bright exceptions like Doug, Di and Chantelle, a pretty forgettable set of contestants and two of the most memorable 'spineless deals with golden boards' we are ever likely to see.

It's the risk takers, gamblers, courageous players and those there for the experience and not just for money that make the show exciting and tense right to the end. Inflated offers and timid early deals ruin the excitement and is a recipe for decline in the shows ratings if you ask me.

I don't think people can be pigeon-holed as greedy for early deals, and I do think there are times when contestants can't really win. However, I do think that it is fair game to comment on individual games and call people greedy/reckless or whatever. Certainly people value money differently, but that can't (and shouldn't) have an impact on casting, as the different ways in which people value money, and thus the different deals/no-deals are important for a show based on luck and judgment.

Nevertheless, as a viewer I reserve the right to pass judgment on the way I think people have played games, and there are times when I think greed has come into it, and the value of the money on offer has been forgotten. Ironically, perhaps the most 'greedy' reaction came when someone dealt early (the game where that spoilt brat girl whose name escapes me blamed her fiance for 'making' her deal too early). Of course, I understand disappointment, but in this game, regardless of the outcome, you have to live and die by the decisions you make. Thats why I would never say someone like Morris was greedy - he wanted a punt at the £250k, and although disappointed, did not regret the decision he made.

In that case why bother having offers? It's meant to be 'Deal or no deal' - not 'No deal I'm just going to have whatever's in my box'.

I never at all suggested that the player should go to the end and win whatever is in the box, I am suggesting that too many people are bailing out on good boards for inferior sums.



That last sentence sums up my thoughts in one.