Chalk my opinion up as 'interesting twist, but smacks of desperation when introduced on the hoof'.

I'd definitely have got to two-box - normally the £250k + 1 backup final eight is Deal time, but not with an offer like that - and I've no idea what I'd do at the final offer, probably go for it and swap but I'm not entirely convinced I could bring myself to do it. £15k would certainly have taken me out at two-box, and maybe at eight-box too.

LOL! Desperation for what? They recorded this months ago when they had just agreed a new three year deal with Channel 4!!!

Why can't people enjoy the fact they still care about making the show interesting rather than inventing silly cynicisms?

seemed cr*p IMO. at least PJ was partially responsible for his own mess. This was bizarre! I missed it so don't completely understand it.
What a mess.

Except that 'somebody' was never going to be Phyllis. The only people likely to gamble on a £50k v 1p ending would not have dealt the £10k at 8 box anyway. In fact I doubt if anybody at all other than me would gamble 1p v £50k.

So it was a complete waste of time.

Well I sort of agree Basicasic it was bizarre. Only a pretty cautious person would have dealt the 10K at 8 box anyway as it was a poor offer, so the majority of dealers/moderates would have got to Phyliss's position anyway and it would have been a normal game. Whether people would gamble there or not, some might, the offer was poor.

Still, it didn't affect the game and the end result whatsoever. Which is good and bad.

I do think the window of opportunity to do such a thing is very narrow - the vast majority of players at the moment are at least making it to 5-box, and even a 5-box deal is unlikely to produce a scenario where a similar amount can be offered at 2-box. If Phyllis had left a different box at the end, they'd have been looking for the next possible opportun ity to di it. I don;t think we need worry it will become a long-term thing!

Oh and I would have played to the end and not swapped.

Where did Channel 4 say that? The viewing figures for that episode weren't overly high, and more importantly, the figures for the episodes following weren't huge, either. And actually, I was more referring to how Endemol seemed to have realised they made a mistake when they offered the viewer's prize to PJ - as was said on here by many people at the time - it was like they thought "Oh dear... he's won 1p, maybe we shouldn't have done that, what do we do now? Oh I know, let's offer him the viewer's prize as a consolation"... so it did seem lilke they made a mistake and they knew it. That is what I was referring to - they didn't seem to have learnt that stupid banker tactics don't always work best.



About 90% of this forum didn't like it and I know we don't represent the majority of the viewing public, but I reckon a lot of people didn't like how the banker behaved with PJ. Just look at the reactions of the people in the audience. It was definitely a memorable show though, but not necessarily an enjoyable one for everyone.



Had they? There were rumours flying around in December 2006 that they had... but then those were replaced with rumours that ITV wanted to buy DOND. The only concrete thing we heard about DOND's contract being extended was when Noel mentioned it recently in an interview on The Paul O'Grady Show.

And also, at the time of recording, the show had just come out of a rocky patch on-screen (the rather dull period of March / April 2007 for the show, which not many people seemed to like), so they may have been considering introducing new things for the show, such as today's banker tactics.



Well why can't Endemol do what they have done best with DOND, and find interesting contestants to provide the entertainment? Why take the easy option and introduce gimmicks, props and stupid banker tactics to provide the "entertainment"? Surely if they still cared about making the show interesting, then they would put more effort in to doing so, rather than using easy ways out such as offers to... undeal offers?!

And also... as with PJ's game... they tried these new tactics with the wrong player. PJ wasn't particularly arrogant or anything... why have the banker be really nasty to someone who was obviously a nice bloke? Why offer this weird and ridiculous undeal offer to an emotional old lady who was obviously going to be cautious and not take the opportunity? She dealt at £10,000... she's not going to then undeal especially when she has the chance of winning 1p.

It was like in Craig's game from January 2007 where he was offered three swaps... why? He said "no swap" the first time, why offer it to him two more times? It's just pointless mind games to try and make the contestant feel bad for their actions.

I like to watch the show for entertainment from the player, the other contestants and Noel. I don't want to see some emotional old lady being made to feel bad for dealing when under normal circumstances, we'd have been celebrating the fact she sold a 1p box for £10,000, and at worst we'd be talking about a hypothetical swap. Instead, we have all this stupidity of an undeal offer.

Rant over.

Another one of those "real surprises" that Noel promised us at the start of the season... and I was praying that Phyllis would ignore it!

You could say: that kind of offer would be "wasted" on a brave player, cos they'd be more likely to gamble again, so there'd be less drama & tension over the choice... whereas with a "fragile" player, there's more tension for the viewer, cos of the very slight chance that the Crazy Chair Effect would make the player give back money they've already won...

It's all about the ratings!

They should stop offering joke offers on trainwreck games as well. This my other niggling complaint about the show. Lee should have been given a get out of 1K 2 days ago to be given a proper decision.

I agree that just whenever the show is getting back on track, they mess it up with gimmicks. There have been loads of entertaining shows in the last fortnight. The show provides random entertainment so endemol should leave it to it's own devices.

I agree with alexandercbrown there, dealable offers in bad games might be nice (although having said that other versions see AMOs offered and rejected with great frequency in trainwrecks, something we also saw on Christmas Eve 2006, so maybe they decide it's better to play up an evil gloating Banker instead).

This game used to be built around its simplicity. It seems Endemol are no longer confident in that as a selling point.

The game is and was built around unpredictability, I'd argue. Thus the twist proves Endemol are increasingly confident in unpredictability as a selling point.

Shouldn't we be glad that they still care enough about the show just to churn it out without thought?

According to overnights, this game got the highest ratings for a Season 3 episode so far, possibly even the highest since Eric's! If not, definitely since Asim's!

Wow..that was interesting. Well done Phyllis!

Yes but that can't be put down to the gimmick. There was no prior knowledge of it coming so people wouldn't have switched on especially to see it.

Just coincidence.

Which site do you go to to find out the ratings? i cant find any website

Barb.co.uk has ratings going back to 1998 (so almost every DOND episode is on there), Channel4sales.com for the last week's worth.

Looks like it was a temporary rise as the ones for the show after are back to normal levels.