Good point from Mister Al.

None of the gambles were statistically 'stupid' - the one that was closest to that was the one that nearly all of us would have taken on anyway, namely the £7,500 No Deal! - but at least one of them (the eight-box decision) was highly questionable, valid only if we make the assumption of a very unusual utility function.

Still, it's clear he was prepared to lose... and that's precisely what he did.

I agree! It is not like he gambled £200,000 on 1p/£250,000. He took a bit of a gamble and it didn't pay off. Think of all the people who have took a decent gamble and have won big. I think it was a good game and he was a a nice character. And the 66% chance at the end was a decent gamble. Just a big shame it didn't pay off. If he had won the £100,000 you would have been very happy for him and think it is a great game. It is all pot luck at the end of the day!

Seconded.

How would you feel if you went on the show, took a gamble that was statistically bad, and people wanting you to have a crappy finish?

Not very well.

It's all down to luck.

To be honest, I do find it quite irratating when people want someone to crash.

I don't have any issues with how Daimon played the game. If he wanted to gamble then he should. I just didn't particularly like his personality traits, that's all, and that is a very subjective thing. I thought Joe took some questionable risks I personally wouldn't have, but since I thought he was such a legend was thrilled it paid off for him. Matty last year I thought was a prat the moment he got the gifts for the banker out and I laughed myself silly when he won 1p AND took it like a spoilt child when he'd been bigging himself up at the start of the game. That's sort of where I'm coming from. Daimon didn't even approach being as bad as Matty, except I don't think he respected the offers and the banker enough.

Anyway, Daimon said he wanted to play the game and he did. £5,000 was the result of that as he no-dealt to the end and that was in his box. The gamble at the end wasn't the game, it was some stupid gimmick tacked on to the end that made the actual game pointless.

I wonder if he'd said no-deal to the double-or-nothing egg offer, whether they'd have opened the eggs anyway as a proveout.

More clever than stupid as today's double or nothing twist has been borrowed from the Aussie version (the same country they invented "second chance", which we call "The Banker's Gamble"). Unlike a 50/50 shot over there, it's 33/66 here.

I suspect if he rejected the egg gamble we would've seen it to see as a proveout. Given the way they are being used, we will see them being opened one way or another for Sunday and Monday.



Some people I speak to at my workplace only mentions that players are being too greedy on the basis on their opinion they should've taken the offer but when the game crashes after the No Deal. Then they blames on the player for being too greedy and not accepting the offer, but they are happy to applaud them if the risk pays offs.

Those eggs are really making a difference to how a player wins or loses, aren't they?

The next batch of Easter games must get better surely?

Well, it was a fascinating game today in all kinds of aspects. Perhaps Daimon wasn't the most endearing of characters, and his attitude to the game was somewhat cavalier to say the least, and a lot of the later decisions were questionable from these quarters (not to be confused with 'stupid' or 'statistically bad' - I agree that there is no need for those comments). But it was fascinating.

As a piece of entertainment, it was top notch, as a game of Deal or No Deal it was ultimately rendered pointless (although the end gamble was mildly acceptable for a rare occasion). But it is the most important game of the season for the repercussions that are sure to be felt. The banker played a highly manipulative game as was required in the face of a high-octane gambler such as Daimon. He tied the player in knots, as is his role.

But in the end, Diamon earnt his right to be on the show and to make whatever decisions he likes. Us agreeing with them is of no consequence to him (or it shouldn't be). All I'll say is if he was prepared for the worst outcome, then good luck to him.

My apologies. Reading your comments, I think I over-reacted to today's game. I still maintain that personally I think the 8 box offer was worth taking but I can also see why he would turn it down and given that he was happy to gamble £5k double or nothing on a 2 in 3 shot, then he was right to do so. The expected value of his win was worth more that what he was gambling but for me personally, it wasn't high enough above £5k to be worth the gamble.

I never actually felt watching the show at the end that I wanted him to lose and perhaps the unlucky outcome of the show influenced my comments.

While I did feel a real sense of antipathy towards Daimon's disregard for the offers, to criticise him in the way I did makes me no better than the nuttier forum members who actively endorse such play.

Well this hasn't been the best of weeks has it?

I don't personally have a problem with the way Daimon played the game and unlike some 'cavalier' players i could mention he did at least seem to be concentrating on the game and not trying to rush through the box openings without waiting for the offers inbetween.
I do think he even gave the middle offers some serious consideration, even if he ultimately decided to reject them

Asking for £15k at 5 box was a serious misjudgement, but i think it was done more out of cockiness than actual greed, I doubt he seriously expected to get anything like that amount. It was a joke that backfired. Without the eggs the Banker would have probably just laughed it off and offered him something more reasonable. Having said that i probably would have tempted to deal that despite the risk with the eggs.

The No deal at the final offer was valid but so was a deal, to my mind the 3 figures involved weren't that far away and if a player can live with the worst case scenario then what's the harm?

The eggs twist was a different matter, though i wonder if the Banker would have thought of it if he hadn't set the precedent yesterday. Don't know if i would have taken that, and if i had i would definately not have chosen box 3, because statistically it was unlikely the Good egg would be in the same place twice on the trot

I make it just £19,250 in winnings so far this week but then there hasn't really been a huge money game this week.

The other thing we've all missed.

Given the egg twist in particular, could he be forgiven for being totally unable to recognise just how generous the offers he had really were? Plus with two blues, it's easier to slip into auto-No-Deal mode. That board looked far stronger than it was!

Probably. Plus the fact that unlike the Trick or Teat / Santa or Scrooge gameplay variation where the twist is generally defined, the eggs give the banker free reign to do whatever he wants, making decisions harder to make based on future banker behaviour (although that would also be an argument for Daimon having dealt a quite generous offer at 8 box because the banker could have used the eggs to make him take an all or nothing gamble even if the £100k was kept in play)

Such a shame, IMO a bit foolish no deal at 5 box, i knew the £20k would appear in the first box!

Sad outcome but fair play to him - he played the game.

When I first arrived in Bristol with George and Alice, the driver who picked us up from the station said that an old black cab parked in the Endemol West car park belonged to Noel! We didn't believe him and when we asked some others, they thought the driver was pulling our leg. Looks like it's true though judging from what Noel said at the start of Daimon's game about his "own cab"...

Slightly surprised at some of the negative comments on here - in my book, a player who is fully aware of the risks he is taking (as I'm pretty sure Daimon was) but takes them anyway is exactly what the show needs every once in a while. Put it this way, I've never yet met a poor taxi driver so maybe his circumstances dictated that it was a gamble he could justify taking on! As far as I'm concerned, playing the game for the 'thrill' of it is just as valid as a strategy which relies on statistical probability as long as you are prepared for the consequences of such an approach.

When me and my friend were heading home after a recording last June, a cab was following us from the parking area (my friend is disabled so we always get to park onsite), and out of nowhere it overtook us at a considerable speed...though I never saw who was driving it, my friend did, and actually reckoned it was Noel...

There seemed to be quite a few cabs coming and going though so it'd be difficult to spot Noel in his.

I rarely want people to lose at DOND. Connell and Olga's games gave me great pleasure in seeing a trainwreck cos they were so irritating.

Matty's game was a riot. His and his wife's failure to cope with a trainwreck is one of the best DOND moments ever. Asking Noel for another commercial break was the high point of the episode.

Daimon had me shaking my head at his No Deal to the second offer. This made me want him to lose and I got that in spades.

So you just want them to have a bad game just because they don't play it how you like it?