DanJudge wrote:
I don't think Alice met Michael. I may be wrong, but they seemed too far apart. She was a sensible girl. She wasn't swayed by anyones show, that's a guarantee.
I should have been clearer. Had Michael accepted the gamble and won £100,000, I think Alice would have been less likely to have received the gamble offer. The banker was, in my view, attempting to push how far he could risk a large amount of money, but not have the player accept the opportunity.
Now, it's clear that £17,500 would be an amount that many people would risk, myself included. However, there is a different psychology after already dealing, as your mind is relieved of the pressure of the show, and is starting to think of what can be done with the money.
All that has to be undone to accept the gamble, which is why there have been so few players accepting it, even though they may have gone-on in live play. That's what the banker was exploiting in Michael's game, and after that success, was hoping (maybe naïvely) that Alice would do as well.
DanJudge wrote:
In fact, I can't remember any player saying they changed their tactics based on other shows.
That's an interesting comment. While Alice didn't know about Michael's game, she benefited from his decisions, as the game in turn influenced the banker to make a costly mistake.
To my mind, the banker is the only one who can change the outcome of what happens, everything else being random, and that the players role is to get the banker to make a mistake by offering too much, or accept the random choosings of luck and whims of the banker on a given day.
I thought that watching other games while on the show would influence tactics, as players would work out what strategies other players had tried, and adapt them. Maybe I was wrong?
