"Right" people are those that make good TV. Having said that I think they do have certain people they don't really like or care for and just let the game run its course and not really try to make sure they get a decent amount. I've worked out that ones they don't like are those that poo poo an offer; those that bring a present for the banker (smacks too much as bribery); those that bleat on too much about how much they need the money.
Unfortunately, I rarely watch the show "live" but get it on catchup about an hour later, if I do watch it "live" then my PC is usually being used by the kids, so it will be difficult to take up the challenge Simon. But, for me there are too many times when lovely "no brainer" offers have been made when the player has a blue for a someone they want to see have a nice feel good ending or "banking spanking" as they like to call it.
One interesting thing I also notice is that Noel is quite keen to know if the player has a "system" and what boxes might be left towards the end ...
Interesting what KP writes, what made you change you mind I wonder

Not convinced:
1) Well Noel still regularly encourages players to dismiss offers, or at least to reject them...
2) They liked George, didn't they? He got big offers (and if we go with your theory, the fact he had £100k suggests they liked him too).
3) That, at least, is consistent, but it isn't even to do with disliking the player. It's at least as consistent with the idea that the Banker senses an opportunity to buy the box for less than the statisticians would even consider.

I think that if this show was genuinely unfair we would probably have seen the smoking gun by now. Having said that, the show plays so fast and loose with whatever rules it had that if we did see a smoking gun, I would be disappointingly unsurprised. I don't see a show that is "fixed"; I do, however, see a show that is manipulated to the point of farce on occasion. Which is a shame because the format doesn't need it.

Not quite sure I understand your 1st and 3rd points KP. Re the 2nd point, George won 60k I think, they probably thought that was enough for a young lad, they do sometimes appear to be ageist and certainly sexist, females appear to get lower offers than males.
I'm not actually saying it is "fixed" or "unfair" as I do think the players do pick a box at random which genuinely could have any of the 22 amounts in it and they are not "told" to Deal or No deal (although Noel is sometimes quite forceful here). I just believe that the Banker knows what's in all the boxes and they use this sometimes (and I stress only sometimes) to attempt to manipulate the game. As you say KP the format doesn't need this, so can anyone tell me why they are not more open about how the boxes are allocated and do it in a way that nobody needs to know where the money is - as I said earlier it would be quite simple to do this

Point 1: the players who "poo poo" offers are actually following the No Deal course of action that Noel sometimes aggressively encourages. So I disagree.
Point 2: George got a very generous two-box offer, right on the mean, dunno if they saw it quite like that but it didn't look wrong anyway in light of what had been declined earlier.
Point 3: Basically, I was offering another reason why players who go on about "needing the money" might be punished for that by the Banker, purely in terms of gameplay.

I wonder if any gender gap in offers could be testable. I suspect you'd see the reverse trend to what you describe in the later rounds because the producers want a man to get the jackpot now that they've had three female winners. If Kerry-Anne's board had gone to a bloke, the offers would have been clear No Deals.

Rest assured i understood perfect what you were saying. However you seemed to be implying that players like Ade and Sam only won as much as they did because the producers/Banker chose to let them do so. God forbid they might get there by sheer will power and good fortune.

Now obviously the Banker sometimes pitches his offers well below or even above the statistical value of the box but that doesn't mean he knows what's in the box. It's based upon an assessment of the player and what he thinks it will take to get them out of the chair (or in some cases to keep them there).

However if you really insist in believing that he knows then who am i to stop you? And on a related note, I've got a very nice bridge i'm trying to sell. You wouldn't be interested by any chance?

The players still need the good fortune to have either a good amount in their box or a good offer to deal at and trust their instincts and or logic as to when to deal or go to the end.
Your bridge "joke" I think relates to people who can be sold "anything", I think it is me not doing the "buying". There is a an old proverb that says: "A closed mind is like a closed book - just a block of wood"