Great quote. One of the few good things about debates like this are that it tends to produce the most memorable quotes on this forum... from all sides concerned!



Absolutely. I would argue that this is where Noel becomes irresponsible, taking that viewer desire for gambling-driven excitement and using it to frame risk-taking in a positive light and safe play in a negative light through clearly loaded vocabulary - when the whole point of the game is... decision-making and how different people make those decisions. There is a place for Wakeyism, ultra-caution and various shades of everything in between (target-driven, stats-driven, spiritualism-driven...), and this spectrum needs to be represented in full amongst the wings. It wasn't in January and February when hardly a word of caution was sounded; it wasn't in May when there weren't many gamblers; it arguably hasn't been for months when there's been nary an analyst about. Endemol should audition amongst maths and economics students at Bristol University and pick one that can make good TV to go on the show...

It's worth pointing out that a lot of the gambles I thought were rather rash in January and February involved offers that, while over 80% of the mean, were below £20,000...

And I think what we need is a few more analysts. Someone who'll turn down over £20,000 when the board's worth much more, while also being prepared to settle for something in four figures if the board is weak enough to warrant that.

This is what is interesting... Power5 set up a thread in June 2007, that details the three types of DOND player - target driven, situation (based on the board) driven and gambler - the thread can be seen here - http://www.dond.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=299385 - KP is undoubtedly mostly a situation driven player, meaning, as he indicates in the above quote, offers that were below £20,000 but above 80% of the mean would be very dealable to him... whereas perhaps a £50,000 offer that was 40% of the mean on a strong board would be a no deal... whereas for someone like me, more of a target-driven player, most offers below £20,000 wouldn't be dealable, whereas most above £20,000 would be.

The position driven part of me comes out though when I am faced with extra weak boards or extra strong boards, in which case I would be prepared to deal for less than £20,000 and possibly no deal amounts more than £20,000. I would find it very difficult to turn down an offer higher than £30,000, but that is just how I value money. Pretty much any offer at 8-box that is below £10,000, I would try to no deal, but if a similar offer is made at 5-box on a very weak board, I'd most likely deal.

There are very few boards where I have NO idea what I'd do... one of the main problems that I have is what I would do on a 5-box stage board of three blues, £100k and £250k - or maybe 2 blues, one of the Power5 and £100k and £250k... as the banker could make an offer of £26,000 and I would be very tempted to deal... but the position driven part of me would be yelling "It's a crap offer! No deal!" and the target driven part of me would be yelling "It's near enough £30,000 and well above £20,000... deal!" - I think in this situation, anything above £35,000 would be a deal and anything below £20,000 would be a no deal... anything in-between would give me a real dilemma.

It is very interesting seeing how people would react to different situations and this is what I LOVE about the show - I have always liked mathematics and weighing things up and trying to make calculated decisions - and this is why I would hate the show to become an endless string of no dealers, or indeed, an endless string of dealers.

I found January 2007 rather boring in this respect - because most people were no dealing - luckily the show had some great characters back then which kept the interest for me, but the variety in gameplay just wasn't there... especially when most of the no deals were ending up in high wins (although that is undoubtedly better than things going wrong and ending up with a string of blue wins!).

As happened not so long ago!

But yes, I'm a situation-driven player. But with the caveat that everyone needs to put the money in context otherwise it's just playing for points and you may as well turn down anything short of an AMO... I just have my own context, and I'd play it in a broadly mathematical manner. But if £25,000 may as well be £250,000 to you, and you're offered £25,000, of course you should Deal!

Yes I broadly agree what you are saying KP. I wouldn't quite go so far as to call it 'gambling' even though there is risk involved, I think we need another word for that but I certainly agree with the way Noel has been framing the way people make their decisions. e.g. 'Making the most of your time in the crazy chair'.

I try to be a situation driven player myself and I don't think my real taget driven approach kicks in til 50K regardless of the board. There's certain calculated risks I'll take and some I won't take.

I suppose 'gambling' is a somewhat loaded word in practice, even though it is completely fitting here - the difference being that it's with house money, which to some people makes the losses non-existent. The difference is that, by making it entirely luck-based, it more clearly feels like gambling, whereas risk/reward decisions with a skill element - a staple of game shows from Millionaire to Bullseye to surely a long way further back than that - feel totally different.

For comparison:

GAMBLE A: £26,000 on a coinflip with £15,000 guaranteed and an additional £34,000 if it lands the right way.
GAMBLE B: £32,000 on a coinflip with £32,000 guaranteed and an additional £61,000 if it lands the right way.

A is Sam's final two from last year: B is the gamble faced by a contestant on £64k on Old Millionaire having used a 50:50 but still having no clue of the answer.

How many people would take A but not B, despite the superior pot odds of B, purely because B is framed within the context of a skill game?

I admit I tend to forget the value of money as I get caught up in the game. Many's the time, with 2 high power 5s left, I've shouted out no-deal before the banker's even made an offer.

I often try to evaluate people's motivation for their attitudes towards the game but I can't even figure out my own unfortunately. In real life I'm very cautious with money and a complete non-gambler but am reckless in many other ways. The fact that I am generally happy with what I've got and am not particularly avaricious in nature plays a part I'm sure.

I'd be perfectly happy to go home with a blue having taken a risk to get a big payout.

I get the feeling that this is your viewpoint, basicasic - and you're entitled to that, and perhaps your only mistake is trying to criticise those who do not share it. It would certainly be the most rational explanation for you being risk-averse in most everyday actions but not in the context of this show.

That, or a utility function that is risk-seeking in the domain of games but clearly risk-averse in the domain of losses. And I believe that isn't as uncommon as you think, it's just that most DoND contestants do frame their decisions with a reference point of the offer, rather than zero as you would.

I guess that pretty much sums it up

Well done Joan! A great character!!