It was really a foolish decision to deal on £1K at 8-box. I was genuinely gobsmacked when he said it. The proveout was clearly upsetting and I felt very sorry for him and his wife.

I would have dealt at £30K though because the risk of ending up with £250 was too great. I think that would've been the right point to bottle it.

The money obviously meant a great deal to Michael and his wife, so I wasn't entirely shocked when he dealt. In fact, I was half expecting him to do the unthinkable and deal at the 3rd offer!

I think I might have been a little harsh earlier - what I try and do if someone makes what I think is a really bad decision (which can be a no-deal as well as a deal), is try and think of reasons behind it. I did manage to find justification for Kelsie's deal for example, that 29k is a heck of a lot of money to risk with a chance, even if it's only 10%, of an all-blue last pair, so was defending her against all the no-dealers who were lambasting her!

The only reason I can think of for Michael's deal was that on Friday, Maria was only offered 2k on a final five with 100k and 4 blues. So if Michael had had that fresh in his head, he could have been thinking a all-blue round would have only seen the offer doubled, so probably not worth the risk. Though we need Edie back to tell them how awful some of the offers are!

Though having lost about 90% of the highest offer, it would still have been a huge TBW even if he'd hit the 100k in the next 3 boxes, so I'd have much preferred to see him go on and win a blue than what actually did happen....

At least Kelsie took her highest offer at that point of the game....

I criticise a lot of people for the way they play the game, misreading the board, playing it on unreliable instinct. In many cases, probably most, this relates to taking big uncalculated risks.

To quote Buzz Lightyear - 'Not today Zerg!'

That was so unbelievably strange that... er... I'd have guilt-tripped him if I was the host. It was THAT bad.

I was quite shocked when he dealt, mainly because it was of clearly a forcing offer by the banker to lure him into carrying on and winning a blue. The banker probably couldn't believe his luck when he dealt essentially a 'joke' offer.

To take £1,000 in that situation is cautious to say the least, even the most cautious of gamblers should struggle to justify that deal. I would've gone one more round, I think. Although it is easy to think that your bad luck will continue, there's no scientific basis for it, and I'd always play the odds. Don't think many people they have had on in the previous 585-odd shows would've taken that offer, even in that one-box situation (Beryl would've gone earlier) - it was just too low. Losing £1,000 would be crying over spilt milk, especially as you might win a high blue anyway.

I thought the banker may have offered around £5,000 and I'd have more tempted to take it. If he'd had £100,000 in the box, it would've been a bit like Barbara's game a while back, where she effectively lost £99,000 through the swap. Barbara's game would still have been worse, though, because she practically had the money in the palm of her hands. Also, the "serves you right" factor is less. The horror of that episode still haunts me...

What made it stupider if he was supposedly a gambler with those odds ANY gambler would have had a punt.

Well I've had time to chew things over and I have to say I think that is the worst deal I've ever seen.

Kelsie, Steven, Bullsh*t Phil, Blubbing Donna - move over. All is forgiven.

Nothings worse than March Stevens that was unforgivable 4 power 5 in play and runs LAME.

This is bad though its up there...

At least they all took large sums of 20k+ on a board where things could easily have gone wrong (indeed Phil's game did slightly belatedly), and I say that after Charly's golden board went pear-shaped in no time - but a measly grand?

Beryl must be relieved anyway - we'll all stop referring to her in instances we'd say "Even Beryl would have won a blue" - now we can replace Beryl in every sentence with Michael!

id put Michael after Steven for dealing stupidity lol hes up in 2nd!!

Surely 7% of the mean is the lowest anyone's dealt for, don't need the stats to know that! What's worse is that he allowed the banker to get away with such an unbelievably, well *beep* offer, so now if someone else ends up in a similar situation (although that kind of board is a relatively rare occurrence), the banker might as well try that offer because it's worked once before! He always uses these tricks - think of the £26,000 offer!

On another subject, it really annoyed me at the end when Noel was trying to claim that selling the £50 for £1,000 would be 'quite a cool deal' and that he had 'beat the banker'. No, he didn't, he did a damn awful deal and lost £29k. By that token, when he dealt, he had an 87.5% chance of 'beating the banker'. The banker stood no chance. If he went with that aim, he truly succeeded. If you're going to use that term, Noel, at least make sure the player has beaten the banker psychologically and monetarily (if that is a word). Because this was a banker stampede, so don't try to put a positive spin on it.

Also, stop hypothetically swapping boxes.

Totally agree on Hypo swaps at the end STOP DOING THEM NOEL it makes the game inconclusive!

Steven, Phil etc. were guilty of nothing worse than implying they were less risk-averse than they actually were. This in turn was almost certainly tactical. Many of those Deals were also entirely rational, and I'd have taken some (though not all) of them.

This Deal was just plain unbelievable.

I always seem to end up commentating the controversial / unusual games... Are Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays traditionally controversial days for DOND?!

Anyway, that game was so strange... I've already commented on it but wanted to add something StatsMan has just raised, and that is that the banker could now offer even MORE of these "joke" offers now that Michael dealt that £1,000 offer, hoping they'll work again.

And SrWilson actually has a point about Michael being a gambler... he said so at the beginning. Very odd deal. Before this, I think the strangest deal for me (one of them, anyway) was Jack's £10,015 at the third offer... but Michael's is possibly the worst I've ever seen. At least with Beryl you expected her to deal early.

And with most of those who have dealt too soon, they normally get a good amount out of it (at least £10k, normally above £20k). But with Michael... he said he was a gambler and he had a high chance of going away with at least something in the hundreds... and he deals £1,000 with £100k on the board. As James said, it's difficult to justify this one, especially as Michael had turned down significantly more than £1,000 on a not-much-stronger board...

Steven's was stupid 4 of the power 5 and he deals gimme a break!!

Michael really did look a complete fool today though and as horrible as it sounds deservidly so!!

At least Steven dealt for £27,500...

And actually, look at Charly's game for proof of how a game can collapse, so Steven's deal wasn't anywhere near as non-justifiable as Michael's!

What I'd like someone to tell me is how can someone decline 9K on a dodgy board and then accept 1 on a strangely slightly better odds one in the context of the offer.
lol I thought his wife might cost him money but she was far braver than him I wish she had been playing!


I just detested Steven for giving up with 4 of the power 5 in!!

Michaels deal was pure stupidity no doubt! And I am impressed H you share the sentiment it was a stupid thing to do.

Well, there was Ron's game which united the forum in a "feel good" feeling, Chris B's game which united the forum in a "Wow that was great" feeling... I think this game unites the forum in a "WTF? " feeling...

Still at least he had manners he apologised for ignoring what everyone else would have done lol.

I don't just deal any low / early offer I see. I do have a target in mind but would be willing to scrap that target if need be. £26,000 would be in my target zone (easily), but I'd have no dealt Charly's offer of £26,000 and indeed no dealt Steven's £27,500. But if they had both been dealt, the decision to deal would be justifiable - the justification being that we probably had pure targetists in the chair.

Had £5,000 or £6,000 been offered on Michael's board at 8-box, I may have considered it. Whilst it's below my target, I'd be wondering how much the banker would go up by at 5-box, and whether it would be worth the risk...