Monday 8th: Josh
Winnings: £8,000
Dealt at: 14-box!
Highest offer: £41,000 (5-box)
Box value: £15,000
Yep, the first ever 14-box deal!
And who’d have thought it’d be for a sum as low as £8,000?
I admire Josh for having the
commitment to do the deal, but this wasn’t really the right situation to do it.
He should really have done it on a strong 14-box board like Ben from a couple
of weeks back.
The usual suspects may scoff, but
it has been worked out that, when he dealt, there was an 11% chance of him keeping
the top two in play all the way to 5-box, so he was unlucky in that respect.
The fact that this unusual deal
backfired will mean less are likely to follow suite, at least not in a
situation like this. Some may take the second offer on a strong board with a
strong offer, and that I’d have no trouble with. But, for the time being, I’d
like Josh to have a club all to his own.
Tuesday 9th: Gill
Winnings: £24,000
Dealt at: 8-box
Highest offer: £164,000 (2-box)
Box value: £250,000
After Josh’s historic game, we had
a pretty tense game with Gill, playing on her 27th show. The top
three were exposed early on, and, under the circumstances, she was brave to
reach 8-box, and get the decent bailout of £24,000. Unfortunately, having made
a reasonable decision, the proveout was really mean to her, leaving her with
the top three in play at 3-box (something which has only happened once before,
to Kirsty Hardle way back in April 2006!).
Wednesday 10th: John
Winnings: £4,00
Dealt at: 3-box extra offer
Highest offer: £8,500 (14-box)
Box value: £20,000
Another game dogged by bad luck,
and, under the circumstances, John’s decision to deal wasn’t a bad one. Just a
shame that, after leaving £20,000 exposed and vulnerable, it was in his box all
along.
It’s a shame Josh didn’t play John’s
board, and take the second offer there. But then, I suppose it would have been
really annoying for the first 14-box dealer to be denied a Banker spanking only
at the box opening. That would’ve been much more annoying than what actually
happened.
Thursday 11th: Alice
Winnings: £12,500
Dealt at: 8-box
Highest offer: £17,000 (11-box)
Box value: 10p
The one time this week that the
player did not make a loss on their box! And even then, Alice’s deal was still
cautious. She later admitted that, if her husband hadn’t cautioned her prior to
her making her decision, she’d have gambled. After countless players who missed
out on more due to relatives influencing them, it was good to see something
like this pay off for a change.
Friday 12th: Robbie
Winnings: £19,000
Dealt at: 5-box
Highest offer: £74,000 (2-box)
Box value: £100,000
Another case of a perfectly
reasonable deal being made to look bad by an against-the-odds proveout. Robbie
admitted that he was after the £250,000, and, when it went in the fifth round,
he was rattled, and took the sensible decision. Terribly cruel that, if he’d
turned his attention to chasing the £100,000, he’d have won it.
Sunday 14th: Sue
Winnings: £17,500
Dealt at: 8-box
Highest offer: £70,000 (2-box)
Box value: £250,000
In a week of cautious deals gone
wrong, this was probably the most cautious deal of the lot (more cautious even
than Josh’s, by a long way). Sue had made it clear early on that she was not a
risk taker, meaning the Banker was always going to go low when there were still
low sums there.
The problem that has been
highlighted on the forums a lot is that the wingers, when they advise the
player, bring up the 1 in 56 chance of disaster at 8-box way too much, and
phrase it as if there’s a good chance of it happened (when there really isn’t).
Richie and Gavin have been the best advisors of recent times; their games
should be interesting (Gavin is on the radar for next week; Richie should be
playing around Halloween-ish short of time).
So, after a week of five
undersellings, what next? One forum member has predicted next week’s players
will be braver, only to crash and win a low sum, which is a typical response to
a run like this. Again, only time will tell, and we can only hope for better
things to come.
The thing which always annoys me about this show is that whole "You're playing a very shrewd game" thing that Noel says sometimes. No I'm not! I'm jut picking random boxes.
ReplyDeleteDespite all that, the chance element of any show retains a certain attraction. And you can get drawn in easily by pity for someone who has a run of bad luck, or schadenfreude whenever a guy gambles far too much and loses everything. But I just wish he'd stop pretending that there's any skill in it.
Yes, James, I do agree that DoND is largely a game of luck, but that's largely part of its appeal. You want to see if the decisions the player makes turn out to be correct. It's randomness has been a key to it surviving as long as it has.
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, for all that I criticise Noel, every time I watch this I get drawn in. So yeah, it does have its appeal. Some contestants are just nice people and you want to see them do well, for example. And of course a run of good luck can be exciting, or a run of bad luck painful to watch! So yes, it's a surprisingly good show.
ReplyDelete