Close enough...

But on this finish, I'd go for it regardless.

Noel says that's respect. Iain asks his friend in the audience who says he'd deal under Ian's circumstances, and his daughter says he deserves more than £5,000. Dom says it's pretty much a coinflip now, and Iain says it's not an exact coinflip as he can gain more than he'll lose.

Iain says

NO DEAL

Yeah!!!

Iain wins £1,000 from his box 17.

Box 10 with Yvonne contains the £10,000

Iain says he feels unlucky!

Oops... oh dear...

How come the swap wasn't offered, though?

I like how the statistician has gambled all the way to the end.

His justification of losing 4/winning 5 is correct, but it's not that simple. At the end of the day though I think for most people it's an acceptable gamble considering the comparatively low amounts of money involved. Obviously he'd have dealt £50k on a £10k/£100k finish.

Still, at least I got my wish - a relatively quiet game with no outlandishly generous offers and no unbelievably crazy decisions...

I didn't get how he said the odds were in his favour at the end, just because he could either lose 4k or gain 5k, since once he says "No deal", the 5k offer is out the window and it's a straight 50/50 gamble.

Look at it the other way round. Once you've been offered the money it is yours. By no dealing you are choosing to gamble it.

Keep £5000 - Gain/lose nothing
Gamble and get £1000 - Lose £4000
Gamble and get £10000 - Win £5000

I like your thinking, cfd

I don't think being a statistician means you are more or less likely to gamble - It just means you are better informed about the odds. Peoples reasons to deal/no deal are complex and depend a lot on their circumstances.

Not Iain's fault. He just didn't have the luck. And when you don't have the luck, things can (and will) go wrong.

Exactly. Statisticians just make those decisions with their eyes open. One could typically expect that would mean they will generally make moderate decisions, and perhaps take generous early offers which others might turn down on the grounds of "it's too early to Deal". (Daniel's third-offer OPW was a textbook example of the latter.) However, there is a lot of variation within personal circumstances - there is more variation within the group of statistical players than there is between themselves and those who play the game on instinct.

An unlucky game, but much calmer than yesterday. Think under different circumstances with a better board Iain might have given the Banker a run for his money (again). Statisticians certainly present an interesting challenge though personally I am glad that they tend to be the exception rather than the norm. The game could become clinical and dry if everyone played like that, there's much more emotional investment for me when the player goes with their heart.

It would be helpful though if every 22 included one statistician to offer advice from the wings where needed

The odds were in his favour because he was getting a better return on his gamble than the % of it succeeding. For example, if you ignore the 0 on a roulette wheel, if you put 1 chip on red or black then you get 2 chips back if you win because the odds are 50/50. If a casino offered you more 2.5 chips back on the same gamble, a statisitcian would take it because in the long run, you would make a profit.

If we go way back in the history of deal to another sports statisician, Aaron, who got an insanely good 2nd offer but felt he couldn't take it because he wanted to "play the game", I don't have a problem with Iain doing so as well.

Shame he didn't have the £1k today but in a low money game (excluding the first 2 offers), there's no criticism in taking gambles.

Can't remember a game where 9 of the first 11 boxes have been from either the player's or the banker's power 5's.

Nice link-up! Yep, Aaron had a huge second offer of £30k (Deal-Eye figure: £22,500), after the only damage on the right side being £10k - close to 75% of the mean, which of course he acknowledged, but going back to an earlier point being a stats person just helps better to inform the decision rather than enforce a decision just because it is in favour of the odds. He took a calculated gamble that he was likely to achieve a similar offer later and was comfortable with potentially having to accept a small loss from peak in exchange for 'playing the game' further, but importantly it was not the result of studio pressure which may have been present in other games of this era, but his own choice based on sound statistical analysis.

I remember at the time arguing that this idea of playing on for that reason was irrational and buying into the pressure, but it probably wasn't - and he did take that similar offer at eight-box after all, and apparently surprised the pilgrims who evidently presumed he would go to the end. Of course, he avoided a crash to 50p as a result of his deal...

I would still have taken £30k because the concept of the thrill of the chase would not even have entered my personal calculations.