The point I'm trying to make is this. Compared to the 'inflated offers era' earlier this year the offers these last couple of days haven't been high. But compared to the mean, bordering on cruel offers of late some have been exceptionally generous and for no other good reason than to attempt to bolster the women's average in a meaningless competition.

I just think it is insulting to those who those who have suffered some really spiteful banker offers to see a 180 degree turn to dishing out money like confetti. I believe everyone should be treated equally. Naturally there will be some variation dependant on a contestants propensity to gamble or deal. But I don't like one person to be treated cruelly one day and another generously the next for no good reason.

It is just not right.

You might have an interesting point if it was based in fact rather than your imagination.

The sad thing is there's a good general point in there - about wild variation in Banker offers - that's lost amongst the specifics.

And actually, insultingly low offers increase the long-run winnings because more people No Deal and that sends the long-run winnings towards the mean, £25,712.12 - well above the actual mean winnings (as you would no doubt happily point out). But because the games have mostly come with blues on the table... I don't know. You're clearly an intelligent person but you seem to slip one completely silly statement into everything you say here.

the banker has made some good non inflated offers on reasonable/strong boards but just hasn't made any attempt to make any on poor boards offering a few hundred/1K instead of a teaser of a couple few thousand.

examples : Claire, Pete, Robin, James, Irene, Kulwant etc.

the majority of offers are pretty much a degree lower than earlier in the year. not really inflated.

I agree with the generosity thing I couldn't see why the banker was fair to jenny/Debbie but mean to Lee. I can understand variations but not always the reason behind them.

There have also been higher 75k/low blue offers in active play too - Mad Paul, Millie, Donna (2) - and there was justification in those due to the fact that they turned down good offers previously and the banker needed to go nearer the mean than for others.

Alexandra's no-deal of the 15k (which was a perfectly fair offer) was another such case - if he'd stuck at 15k then she probably would have no-dealt, and his expected payout becomes..er...£37,500.50.

....

Because it's exciting. How boring would it be if the Banker offered £20k to four blues and £250k all the time? How predictable would it be if every single anything v £250k offer was £100k+?

The show's an entertainment drama, and a sensible Banker offering sensible offers in every single show is not entertainment. An unpredictable Banker is.

Well Done Alexandra!

An Excellent game. Enjoy £26,000

Fantastic Game. Very Well Done!