Who claimed that happened?

A contestant from the show - I was told not to reveal the name...

haha lol I bet one or two tried to run second offer too and they forced em on if thats true lol.

is Donna 3 that blonde disgusting arrogant essex bird with the dopey bf ( who the banker loves for telling her to deal) If so thats gold 21k was 21k more than she deserved when she dealt officially lol.

One of the worst contestants, yes

LOl well with her profession id expect no less just wanted to grab some quick money and run I think but they made her carry on a bit more.
I know its a awful thing to say but she was so horrible everyone in my house smiled so much when she was left with 100k/250k and was smiles all round when the 250k was revealed I think 95% of the country smiled at that too.

I wonder if its true but I wouldnt be suprised at all judging by her.

Back in the early days of the show apparently contestants were told that people who dealt at the first two offers wouldn't have their shows aired. Of course, even Beryl wouldn't have taken the first two offers back then...

There are serious question marks over a show that treats £12,000 as somehow insignificant (bearing in mind that it's tax-free, it's a year's salary for quite a lot of people).



Not only is it a 43.6% chance of taking out one, but it's a 5.5% chance of taking out both - leaving only a 50.9% chance of keeping both and sending the offer up!

Does the show have a lot of children watching? Yes. Looking at ratings on channel4sales.com, it seems as though an average of more than 100,000 children watch DoND every Sunday episode. The numbers for weekday shows might be even higher. That's a whole lot of kids being taught a rather dubious message about money.



As do I. I wish everyone did, Noel included.

It's all about each individual's situation though. For most people that's not life-changing money. It's like buying a lottery ticket, you don't buy it for the smaller prizes you may win (as it's clearly a loss-making exercise in that regard), you buy it for the small chance of winning an amount of money that would make an unimaginable difference to you. A lot of DOND contestants clearly have the same approach.

I guess it's also a balance between significance of the amount and the risk of continuing - I'd never consider taking £12,000 at the third offer, but would probably take it on a 1p/£35,000 final pair.

I agree. It's significant without being life-changing for most people, I daresay myself included. It is a sum of money that can quite reasonably be rejected, including in this game - but should be taken more seriously than it is now... the emphasis certainly should be on each individual, and at present I sense they're sometimes marginalised as individual cogs in the whirring machinery of a game built around its enormous top prize. Given the other strengths of the UK approach, that is a sad, sad state of affairs.

All I can say is thank goodness I was away for Anne-Maries's game. I think I would have exploded at another 3rd round cop out I didn't see it and I'm not going to bother to watch it now.


I've said it before, inflated offers and early dealing are ruining the show. People are not going on the show to try and win big money. They see it as an easy way to get a few thousand. I like variety in the game but this constant early dealing with decent boards left is getting ridiculous. The banker should throw in some really low offers every now and then to force people on.

Donna is one of my favourite contestants ever. She was really nice and funny, gave a interetsing game (for the wrong reasons?) and I don't care if she cried at the end. Leanne did and nobody is planning her death!

Leanne's deal was possibly more understandable, even though it was still bad. Leanne didn't have a *beep* of a fiance like Donna ether.

I'd personally see a lower 'base' value for offers, and more reaction to volatile boards, rather than brutally forcing players on.



Is that necessarily wrong if, say, £15,000 means almost as much to them as £51,000? (And that's clearly true of, say, Rita.)

Regarding Power5's analogy with the lottery, I actually think that's not irrelevant as it does suggest an emphasis on the top prize will cause players to be less risk-averse... it encourages people to frame their decisions in terms of the possibility rather than the certainty, and that has to have an effect.

Yes, ideally I think that would be fine. But in these days of inflated offers contestants are expecting big offers for very average boards and dealing with boards left in front of them with massive potential. An occassional low offer to force someone on would keep everyone on their toes and actually make them more money if recent events are anything to go by.

I guess its a matter of balance. There just seems to be too many people dealing early for moderate sums just now and very few willing to gamble, even on good boards, for the life changing sums.

I don't know how anyone could have liked Donna 3 lol her sort are ghastly and her crying WAAAAAAAAH I wanted more it made me sick theres people in the world who are penniless and there she is the ungreatful bitch whining.
It was awful!!!

Back To Anne Marie her deal might have been a bit more reasonable had she only say had 1 significant number higher due to such a bad round but there fact she still had a fair few options in there the deal was just at a stupid time.
But don't get me wrong it was not nearly as cowardly as Philip, Rita was a bit of a coward but she had personal reasons and you could kinda see it coming after what she said for her ambition so it was not shocking but even so there was still so much more money in it and she paid the price game wise.

Steven was the biggest yellow belly of the lot though!! 4 of the power 5 and he wussed out no one can defend that really lol!!

Have you not met h2005?

Not off hand lol? should I have?

I'm thinking of starting a 'b*llsh*tometer.

It goes like this : Players get marks out of 10 for the amount of bull they spout about going to the end and then marks out of 10 measuring the cowardlyness of theitr deal. Total them up to get their bullsh*t to coward score.

eg: Steven : Bull - 10, Cowardly deal - 10 TOTAL - 20
Kelsie : Bull - 10, Cowardly deal - 9 TOTAL - 19
Phil : Bull - 10, Cowardly deal - 8 TOTAL - 18

I may start this up in the statistics section of the forum

Ugh, why are so many of you absolutely oblivious to TACTICS. You actually look like complete morons spouting off *beep* about how "OMG HE SAID HE WAS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE END AND HE DIDN'T HE LIED WAAH IM TELLING MUMMY HE LIED ON MY TV SET WAH WAH WAH".

They're saying they'll go to the end so the banker gives them a higher offer. This is HORRIBLY obvious.

And don't even try to claim that you already know this; from the idiotic stuff you people have posted, it's hideously obvious that you have no clue that some people might be implementing these tactics. -.-

Tactical bluffing is one thing. Bullshïtting is another.

It's the same thing isn't it? All just to allow the player to get the most money out of their game, which is the object of the game of course.

Anyway, at least we will have another game to discuss before long... just imagine if this had been the last one before the summer break, the argument would have run for 5 weeks!