Just a shame the £15k wasn't found instead of the £10, then probably it would have been a Bankers Gamble...

She has only got herself to blame for not believing in herself.

Well... now I think you might be getting a bit on the harsh side there...

For goodness sake. Could you seriously gamble £63k on THAT board?!
It wasn't about believing in herself. She could see that the offer was really too much to gamble.

I bet this game will not come close to being game of the month if someone wins more than £63,000

I wouldn't - honestly.

And I am amazed that, as things turned out, she actually should have kept going...

I should point out that I don't wholeheartedly agree with Mark - in fact, I'm quite reluctant in doing so...

Ask that to Corrine and she'll tell you No Deal

But seriously, I would just to prove a point BUT, I would not have won the jackpot cause the offer was the mean and I'd always deal at around 90%-100% of the mean

But that's the point. As things turned out, she SHOULDN'T have gone on. It's called being results oriented. And it's one of the worst possible things a gambler can do. All you can ever do is make the correct decision in the first place. And as long as this decision was correct (which it indeed was in this case) the end result does not matter. If I was playing the game i'd completely switch off after I dealt. Couldn't care less what happens.

You know what, I've been thinking again, and I think that while our attitudes to risk are varied, in general the majority of the viewing public will have their views within a certain range.

Warning, this post gets slightly geeky.

This has been modelled with regard to political opinions, with an area of "reasonable" views - known as the "Overton Window". (I haven't found a description link that is neither Wikipedia nor steeped in US political bias, but this image should suffice for now.) Basically, the model proposes that those holding views outside the Overton Window seek to persuade the public so that the window expands or moves to encompass those views, and those holding views inside the window seek to oppose this. It is sometimes proposed that ideas well outside the window are floated as a means of allowing currently fringe views to be considered acceptable (so a right-wing think tank might float the idea of privatising the NHS, it gets fiercely opposed, but the idea of allowing GPs to control budgets might now not be; the Overton Window is shifted to encompass this idea for the first time, for it is politically acceptable even if many oppose it).

Now let's assume that the Overton Window applies to attitudes to risk, with each end representing more or less risk-aversion (as opposed to "freedom"). The Overton Window for attitudes to risk in summer 2005 was placed further towards "less risk-aversion" in this country than in, say, the United States. That's cultural difference for you. The producers may well have decided that the show would be less exciting with the Overton Window where it was, because that would lead to relatively more players Dealing early. If that was what they thought, they could shift the window towards "less risk-aversion" by painting risk-taking in a positive light, and risk-aversion in a negative light - exactly the same type of persuasive methodology used in politics. And in my opinion, in episodes taped in 2006 that is exactly what they did, and it succeeded. More risky gambles were made, and there were essentially no viewer complaints.

However, the economic crisis shunted the Overton Window dramatically towards "more risk-aversion". How could it not, when a major recession had been caused as a not-particularly-indirect result of risk-taking gone wrong? The show did recognise that, we don't get the quasi-ideological Noel of 2006-7 anymore because that would be clearly enough outside the Overton Window to provoke significant viewer disquiet. That doesn't mean there aren't people who think that way, heaven knows a skim-read of this forum proves as much, but it's no longer in the mainstream of popular discourse.

Where the game gets interesting is that there are players whose risk attitudes are outside the Overton Window. There needs to be, as they tend to create heart-in-mouth moments, and Debs today was one of them - you could have halved all of her offers today and you'd have had a majority of the audience agonising at both eight- and five-box, but as it was she turned down the former and wasn't quick to take the latter. Praising players who fall outside of the window, and implicitly (or even explicitly) encouraging others to adopt those attitudes, is one form of persuasion that is likely to meet some pretty stiff resistance... but perhaps the show isn't trying to shift the attitudes of the 22 players in Bristol, but a viewing audience several orders of magnitude greater. The fact the show has a gambling website as a sponsor, flirting with the regulations on gambling advertisement I am sure, is entirely consistent with that.

Wait, what? I can't agree with that. Not the sort of thing that should be encouraged? These contestants aren't role models. They don't have to perform actions on the show that have to be considered for the audience at home. As far as the money is concerned, they can do what they want. If people are "encouraged" to gamble because a contestant on a gameshow decided they wanted to take a massive risk, then that contestant should not at all be held responsible.

Can't agree with Mark either. Of course she should have been more brave if she wanted to get the OPW, but how much do you think she regrets her decision against somebody who has taken the gamble and won a blue? It's ridiculous to label her stupid (that's the opinion I'm feeling from the choice of words) because she decided to take a hefty cash sum where the statistics were heavily in her favour. Statiscally, a decision can be wrong or right. But as an overall decision, there is no wrong or right. To say no one should turn down the £63,000 is in my opinion lunacy.

I'm stunned at some of the reaction on here. She won SIXTY-THREE grand for crying out loud. Who gives a hoot what's in the box when someone wins that much?

Not even Corinne got that obvious a deal at 5-box!!!

Holy crap, I just realised even Break-a-leg Jeff was only offer £1000 more than Debs was on a similar board, but he had the £100k to her £50k, and also £1k and £250 instead of the two pocket change sums - AND he was a professional gambler AND it was in the Wakey Winter!!!

But she would still want £200,000 to buy a Bentley so £63,000 would be turned down by her

Wow. One of the rare occasions that I had to watch the end of the show on C4+1 when I got home rather than waiting to watch the whole thing later (due mainly to mentions of Alice on Twitter). Turned it on to see the 5-box board and hear Noel asking her the question at £63k and wondered how the heck she got the average (and immediatley thought of Doreen's game, although I couldn't remember her name).

Following on to KP's question about £50k and above winners after Anthony's game , I think Debs now becomes the 70th member of that club (although I welcome to be corrected).

Myself, I'd have been out of there at £15k, although when you get offers like that, there is the incentive to go on because you know that with luck on your side, the banker will have to give you offers that are pretty much certainties to deal.

Superb game. Much like the Banker i was absolutely convinced that Debs was going to the end but to be offered 100% of the average at five box is unprecidented (or at least very very rare) and i cannot blame her for taking it.

Fact is the Banker did his job brilliantly, if he hadn't recognised the threat Debs posed to his money he would have lost out big time. It's just a shame that it turned out in the end he had a good reason to be afraid... if she'd only had Sophie's perfect proveout, it would have been the icing on the cake

Wow. Just wow.

Part of me has to admire the way she initially approached the game with a steely determination and attitude that unsettled the banker from the outset. I'm sure most players would like to think they could play the game in a somewhat intelligent and skilful manner displaying the tactical nouse required to extract huge offers from the bank on strong boards. But in reality, the banker often sees through the plans as false bravado and is subsequently proven correct in his read... today he was simply powerless.

Now, I'm a fan of an aggressive strategy to a point, the moral of today (which of course will not be highlighted by Noel tomorrow due to the enormity of the win) is know your limits - it's a common gambling mantra, but an important sentiment to take away from any game of DOND, but particularly today's. She didn't play the perfect game, not because she didn't go to the end and win £250k as Noel will say she should've done, but because having extracted an exceedingly generous offer from the bank at 8-box (and arguably at 11-box but...), she failed to take it. Now, of course she's entitled to, but it's at that point that my praise for her strategy evaporates...

Yes, I hear arguments saying generosity will continue, but at what point should common sense prevail? Sooner rather than later if your aggressive approach to the game is really going to be a clever strategy rather than one reliant on a kamikaze lottery...

She followed the pro-gambling script the show provides every contestant and viewer, but delivered it with sincerity, because she actually believed more than a bit of it.



Whereas most players don't, even if they do choose to be dishonest and "strategic" enough to quote it. The Banker's job, fundamentally, is to determine whether the players genuinely intend to follow the script (and, perhaps, whether he actually quite fancies that happening for televisual purposes).



Which she belatedly did at 5-box. Do you think, had there been no statistician to point out the offer was bang on the mean, she would have played on to the end? I wouldn't rule it out, because that strikes me as a possible moment when reason finally trumped blind faith in her plan.



Yes, turning down the 8-box offer wasn't as clearly reckless as turning down the 5-box offer would have been, but the best way to maximise your chances of a £20k+ payout (and that is probably the most common metric for success that a player takes to this game) is to draw high offers and then take one. She drew high offers, and only took one when she was reminded from the wings just how blindingly obvious it was to do so.



Indeed; even if one assumes a near-mean offer at five-box, it would take a pretty linear utility function to make that eight-box decision a positive-expectation gamble from a utility point of view...

Well, hang on a second! A strategy of playing aggressively to get good offers and then taking one of those offers is perfectly reasonable, but why does that accepted offer have to be at 8-box? Turning down a generous 8-box offer could well induce an even more generous 5-box offer unless, of course, the board collapses in the meantime. Looking at the statistics though, a player is more likely to achieve an OPW at 5-box than 8-box.

Also, contrary to the belief of one or two forum members, many players don't have a clue why the mean of the remaining box amounts is mathematically significant, and couldn't give a stuff about whether an offer was 65% of the mean, or 100% of the mean, or even if it's above the mean, when they're making their decisions anyway. They make decisions based on whatever factors are important to them, and they have every right to do so.

You are correct that many - most? - players don't see the mean as significant. "More fool them", I would say, but that's not the point. I bought this up in this context because her Deal came at the point where a player on the wings explicitly mentioned the offer in that context. Maybe he did at eight-box and it was edited out. Maybe not.

You are of course correct that playing on to chase even higher generosity levels is not invalid; this was understood, and StatsMan made it explicit:



Today, certainly no later than five-box, given that this offer was the mean, so gambling from there implies complete risk neutrality or even risk loving, neither of which are particularly plausible at these stakes; you make a reasonable case for suggesting only then, because there was additional generosity to be extracted at five-box relative to the eight-box offer. However, very few would have considered it worthwhile even then, and so to most that particular No Deal starts to look more cavalier than calculated.

Of course, that is in itself a value judgment, and you do an excellent job of taking such value judgments out of the equation. (Pun unintended, I think.)

Just watched this game. I'm not surprised Debs looked disappointed when the £250k was revealed in her box - in the heat of the moment, most contestants in that position do. And if they don't, well, didn't a contestant post here once that he was made to re-film his box being opened, and was told to look more disappointed that he'd undersold it?

Secondly, while it's a shame Debs didn't beat the banker, she took significant risks to get there and the offer she took was about as generous as could be offered. I don't get why some glory-hunting types are being so hard on her when the same people last month were praising Sophie to the hills for dealing when she did. Neither Sophie nor Debs knew what was in their box. Debs had a less stable 5-box than Sophie, a higher offer, and while Sophie was guaranteed at least a few grand, Debs, for all she knew, could still have ended up with an all-blue finish.

Oh wait, I do get why... they're glory-hunters. I'm sorry but it's true (and I'm not saying everyone criticising the deal is one, but there's definitely a few there and, like the rest of us, they should know who they are). We're all disappointed the £250k hasn't been won more often, but what these people and Noel should realise is that the main reason all these contestants who brought the £250k box to the table "didn't want it" is because they don't have x-ray vision and didn't know they had it.

Debs was a real hero - I'll never forget how she took charge of the medical emergency in Sarah's game. Her military training and cool temprement really showed in her game too.
The banker had every reason to be frightened of her. That wasn't a 5 box board to gamble on. A Quarter Millionnaire has got to have not only the QM in their box but strong fall back and probably a poor offer to push them on.