Well, today's game of Deal or No Deal has certainly split opinion, so here goes...
Lee Oldfield was today's player; a very pleasant young man from South Wales. Now, the Banker hates South Wales, as females from that region have a tendency to do well (the first two £250,000 winners having come from the same town in South Wales).
Hints about today's game had been posted from the Banker, and from audience regular John, who said it showed how close the contestants were to each other. I have to agree with that.
Anyway, yesterday, Candice Cranstoon won £5, and Lee was visibly upset at the outcome of her game.
Lee reached 8-box with £100,000, £35,000 and £20,000 still in play, along with £10,000, £1,000 and various blue sums. The Banker initially offered him £9,250, but then called back and added on an extra £1,000 for Candice.
Many were not happy with this on the forum. Some in the studio looked displeased too. After Lee remarked that he'd dreamt he'd won £10,000, the Banker called and told him there were now two offers: the original £9,250 + £1,000 for Candice, or a straight offer of £10,000.
After an early break, Lee dealt the £9,250 + £1,000 for Candice, leading to much annoyance on the forums. Pleasingly, however, Lee went on to destroy the game, finding the £100,000 in the next round, and £20,000 and £35,000 went in the final round. £1,000 was in his box.
To conclude the game, Noel chatted to Lee, while Candice snuck into the studio and hid behind him. Lee was unaware until Noel alerted him (after deliberately chatting for a bit). A heartwarming end to a pleasant game.
But many were unhappy at the game, with some saying the Banker had reached a new low with the mind games. Some even said it was worse than Emma's swap and reswap last week.
This is not the first time a player has been offered extra money for a player who won a blue in the previous game. Back in 2007, contestant Richard Irons was offered £25,000 + £5,000 for fellow contestant Andrew James, who had won £10 the previous day. Mr Irons turned this down and went on to deal £30,000 later in the game.
Many have branded all the mind games over the years unfair.
A common mind game involves the player's relatives. The Banker tries to get some players, mainly men, to deal by impersonating their children being upset about not getting money.
The most famous example of this was with contestant Geoff Hughes. After his wife let slip that their son had instructed his father to deal as soon as he was offered £15,000, the Banker offered it three times in a row. The third time it was offered, at 8-box, the Banker threw in an X-Box (or some kind of games console) for Geoff's son! After yet more pressuring mind games from the Banker, Geoff dealt. There was much uproar online, which worsened when Noel revealed £250,000 in Geoff's box! Geoff's game still stands as one of the most controversial of all time. It was described on the forums last week as containing 'the most pressurised deal ever'.
On some occasions, the 'relatives' mind game has been exploited to the full, with the Banker secretly offering the player's relatives a chance to get the player extra money, should they be able to convince them to deal without letting on.
This happened with contestant Lucie Turner in early 2011, and again more recently with contestant Robbie McLennan in February this year. Lucie was persuaded to deal, and thus had her winnings increased to £25,000. But Robbie played on, only to crash; he did recover later on though to deal at £12,000.
Other indirect forms of mind games include the Banker making extra offers during the final round, either announcing them before hand, or surprising the player by making them on the dot. These have a mixed rate of working, and not working.
Mind games have, and always will, be a key part of DOND. Some have been popular, others have been derided. But then, the good thing about DOND is its randomness, and that, if anything, has been a key to it lasting as long as it has.
Keep checking back for a review of Peter Andre's game from Sunday, and an article comparing the support for gambling to that for dealing.
Can't disagree with you there, Jack - DOND's randomness has indeed been a key to it lasting as long as it has.
ReplyDeleteCompare that with WWTBAM, which as far as I'm concerned is now a dead horse being flogged by the celeb-obsessed ITV - and which also is much less random, even after two major format changes and a switch to being broadcast live.