For sure in most cases it's not what you say but how you say it that makes something palatable.

With regard to the 'shut up' saga I'll concede that it was, on my part, too blunt. I got carried away by the game and spoke what I thought without thinking about the consequences. It's probably a good job I'm usually unable to watch the game as its broadcast as I would have been banned long ago.

I will say this though, many posts aimed at Wakey are as rude to him as people make out he is to others. They are deliberately inflammatory and amount to crude baiting designed to goad him into an argument. Two wrongs don't make a right!

With regard to the daily game commentary Wakey and myself are just 2 of many that chip-in constantly making the game difficult to follow. Perhaps everyone should save their posts until afterwards.

Poor Savvas, he should have maybe have dealt at £22,500, but well done, enjoyed his game!

Poor Savvas, he should have maybe have dealt at £22,500, but well done, enjoyed his game!

I think that's exactly the point - I've nothing against Wakeyism (or Greenyism for that matter) as a gameplay approach, although my own approach lies somewhere in between the two. If someone says they would no-deal to the end in nearly every game (and even perhaps swap for box 4 on occasions!) that's fair enough.

What I really don't like is people criticising contestants for not playing the game as THEY would have done. And that includes dealing, no dealing, asking for advice, whatever else they choose to do that they believe to be in their best interests! All contestants are different and that's what makes the show. It may be frustrating to watch when it doesn't work out for them but again it would be a pretty dull show if there was a 100% chance of them winning big money and getting the most available in every game!

Of course, but it is also very dull when only a couple of people in a month go to the end of the game and open their box! It was also very boring television watching pretty much most of the games in that dreaded week not too long ago...

Third offer deals always bother me because of how much game has been left behind when they say deal at this point. Half of the boxes aren't even open. As obvious as Paul H's deal may have been, it was still very dissapointing to see him deal when he did, but when people deal the third offer with a golden board infront of them (With so much more potential for a bigger offer) it takes the Michael.

As dissapointing a third offer deal is, one or two every now and again isn't bad. Three in a week is abominable.

I'd class three games in a week where there is a third-offer deal in the same category as a week when there are three games where the people go to the end - because there is a lack of variety!

This week has been very variable - a 5th offer deal that was too soon, a gamble that went wrong, a 5th-offer deal resulting in an OPW, a 4th offer deal resulting in a low-win OPW and a gamble that went wrong... in my opinion, it'd be boring if we had loads of people gambling and going to the end because it shows a lack of variety, and variety is a key part of the show! Variety in the diversity of the contestants, gameplay techniques (i.e. cautious or gambler), etc.

Anyway, having watched Savvas' game, I really liked him I think - he was a bit quiet on the wings and seemed to be a bit hyped up on here simply because he wore a hat... but he seemed to be good in character as well when he played his game!

He could've had more had he dealt earlier though! I think the players need to realise the odds and how much of an effect it could have on their game if they knocked out the £250k - which was very exposed on Savvas' board, with only £50k backup!

Anyway, Savvas - well done for playing the game you wanted, and it's a lovely gesture that the £250 (doubled to £500 by the banker) is going to charity - so well done for that too!

As much as I hate 3rd offer dealers, I have to agree here.

I've no objections to people dealing at the third offer - in fact, I may have taken Savvas's second offer. Even if somebody dealt at the first offer they are still playing the game - because the game is 'deal or no deal' after all, and the question should be seriously considered each time.

I would have dealt at the 4th offer for the fear of doing what James or Kirsty did. However I don't think he should be criticised for going on. New year Frank no dealt £18,063 on the same board and the gamble paid off.

While he wasn't a "loud" character on the wings he did come out with some great comments in his time there, the one in Aaron's signature for example!

Anyone who turns down something with £63 in it should be criticised.

Shame the gamble didnt pay off but it was nice of Savvas to donate the money to charity (and the Banker doubling it). Welldone Savvas.

Now, I usually respect players' decisions. Sometimes they make a decision I agree with, and then it turns out they could have had a lot more money. Sometimes they decide to soldier on, when I would have dealt, and the board crashes. Either way, I'll try to give them the benefit of the doubt, although there are occasionaly foolish decisions which even I can't understand.

The thing which annoys me, far more than the players' decisions, is the way Noel comments on it. He never says to a player like Savvas, "Why didn't you deal? If only you'd had the sense to deal..." In comparison, he always rubs it in for people who deal and then could have had more money (even if it's only a little more) by saying "If only you'd had the courage to open three more boxes. You're going to have a big regret." Couldn't it be a bit more balanced?

I bought a hat today!!

I realise that's only very tenuously related to Savvas's game, but I'm quite excited about it and wanted to announce it. I love hats.

I completely agree with Muinimula. Sometimes people Deal earlier than I would (no, really). Sometimes people reject offers I'd take instantly. Sometimes these decisions are calculated, sometimes they're based on a myopic focus on one sum of money (usually either 1p, £250k or the offer). The game is based upon variation in people's valuation of money - that's why it works, that's what I find fascinating about it from my perspective as an economics student, that's what it's all about at its heart. I don't care about people's decisions, though I can find them fascinating - millions of people buy lottery tickets or play fruit machines every week and that's effectively the equivalent of turning down an AMO, yet most people would take £75k on a blue/£250k finish. (I believe this paradox is explained in the economic concept 'prospect theory', but I haven't studied it properly, formally or otherwise.)

Noel has no right to criticise people who Deal when they shouldn't, unless he criticises people who don't Deal when they should with equal ferocity. And as that will never, ever happen, and the Banker usually reacts accordingly with inflated proveout offers (and these days, inflated in-game offers too!). As a result, the show can easily be seen as promoting gambling - and there's a whole lot of social issues with that.

What?

dan has a love for anything related to the number 63

Haha, did anyone else notice when Stephen opens his box in Savvas' game, he says "Savvas, I hope you have the blue"? I think Stephen got his words muddled up!!!

Forgot to comment on this - yes I did notice it sounded deflated - although I think it was because Savvas spoke just after saying "no deal", so they reduced the volume of the sound effect so you could hear what he was saying, which is why the noise sounded deflated!



By the way, Stephen posted in the Savvas fan club on the forum so he obviously just got muddled up!

Did anyone catch what Savvas' surname is and what nationality he is?