c4countdown

Corby wrote:Another thing that pisses me off is the contestants give it all the "I love you so much, you and your partner are such wonderful people" yet the next second they're urging them to spunk off a £15k offer for a tiny chance of getting something bigger, based on their "feeling" and "how much they believe it's in that box", just because they don't want the game to end.

Twats

No way is every single person out of the 21 people, going to want you to win big. There's got to be at least 1 person in every game, who would love it, just love it, if the contestant went home with 1p or took a risk and failed.

I thought that today's contestant did a really good deal to take away £18k. He can't possibly know that he's going to have the three biggest sums left at the end of the game, then take out all three and have 50p and £50 left as the last two boxes. Another system would just to be to look at the average contestants winnings - mean or median, you decide! When in the same week you've seen a player get £5 and £1, I'd be delighted with £18k.

Although I didn't feel that the banker played on with honesty - with the boxes 50p, £5, £75k, £100k and £250k would he really offer 70k if he were still in the game? I don't think so, it seems quite high. And £41k for the previous offer also seemed very generous for the board, when there were low blues and low reds left.

Martin

Nobody has ever taken the first offer on that show, in America or elsewhere.

Martin Gardner wrote:Although I didn't feel that the banker played on with honesty - with the boxes 50p, £5, £75k, £100k and £250k would he really offer 70k if he were still in the game? I don't think so, it seems quite high.

I think in this situation, the banker was probably worried that if the contestant carried on then they might've picked the 50p and £5 box, therefore leaving 3 of the power 5 and the offer then would have to been higher than £70k. £250k is roughly 3.5 times as much as £70k, so it doesn't sound too high IMO.

Just watching the start of the today's show whilst waiting for 4+1 Countdown to note the challenger's full name & bio. I recommend it to anyone, particularly the quote from some short fat woman before opening the 7th box.

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:Just watching the start of the today's show whilst waiting for 4+1 Countdown to note the challenger's full name & bio. I recommend it to anyone, particularly the quote from some short fat woman before opening the 7th box.

Please tell us what she said as I can't be bothered to load up 4oD to watch one sentence.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:Just watching the start of the today's show whilst waiting for 4+1 Countdown to note the challenger's full name & bio. I recommend it to anyone, particularly the quote from some short fat woman before opening the 7th box.

Please tell us what she said as I can't be bothered to load up 4oD to watch one sentence.

After the contestant had taken out the four highest amounts (the 250K, 100K, 75K and 50K) in successive boxes, the woman said something like, "This is absolutely, definitely, positively a blue" - and opened the box to reveal the 35K.

Indeed, the first 6 boxes out were something like 10p, £15k, £50k, £75k, £100k, £250k - and as soon as the silly moose uttered those words I was willing that £35k to show up. I watched a little longer, and a few boxes later only £3k and £20k were left in red, with all the blues bar two still there. The banker offered £-150 as well.

I was tempted to stick with it to see just how badly it ended - but switched to Are You An Egghead? instead.

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:I was tempted to stick with it to see just how badly it ended - but switched to Are You An Egghead? instead.

I tuned back in for the end. With 5 boxes left, she still had the £20K in play and an offer of £3K. While she was deliberating, the Banker phoned again and said that, if she chose to go on, he promised that the next offer would be the average of the remaining boxes (as opposed to the normal offer of some random amount below the average). She dealt for the £3K, then played on - and ended up with £20K and £500 left in play, so the offer would have been £10,250. She has to have been one of the unluckiest players ever, although she only had £500 in her box so technically it was still a victory over the Banker.

Jason Larsen wrote:Nobody has ever taken the first offer on that show, in America or elsewhere.

just to elaborate, no one in the UK show has dealt before the 3rd offer, ie. no deals at offer 1 or offer 2.

on to my main point, concerning my biggest and most painful gripe with the show...

Phil Reynolds wrote:She dealt for the £3K, then played on - and ended up with £20K and £500 left in play [...] although she only had £500 in her box so technically it was still a victory over the Banker.

Sorry to pick on you Phil, but this is what I hate. Although having said that, I'm more than happy to forgive you for your vital use of "technically" as opposed to "actually" which is what the show would have you believe. Anyway, let me explain...

Let's say the five remaining boxes are:

• £250,000
  £20,000
  £5,000
  £500
  50p

and the contestant chooses to take the deal for say, £22,000.

They play on with the game to see what happens and open three more boxes - £20,000, £500, and 50p - leaving just £250,000 and £5,000.
Obviously the offer is going to go up massively, to somewhere around £110,000 probably.
Rightly, there's all the oohing and aahing and sad faces that go hand-in-hand with a 'bad deal' and stacks of money missed.

No problem so far.
It's then that Noel opens the contestant's box to reveal £5,000 and I get SO ANNOYED by the rapturous applause, the whooping and the cheering, and all the 'beating the banker' bullshit.

What is in the final two boxes is entirely insignificant, as if the contestant had reached that stage then they would have to be a multi-millionaire to be able to justify not taking the £110k deal - essentially a coin flip worth well over £100,000 that no one in their right mind would go for. In my opinion, it makes no difference what is in the contestant's box as no one would ever "no deal" to find out, whereas the choice to deal or not at the 5-box stage is a genuine decision, that many people would decide to risk and continue (and have done so).
The contestant has not beaten the banker for £17,000 (£22,000 deal minus £5,000 box value), they have still actually lost out to the banker by £88,000 (£22,000 deal they took as opposed to the £110,000 deal that they very realistically could have gone on to claim).

For simplicity, I started this situation at the 5-box stage, but you see this sort of thing happening regularly, and even more clearly, when the contestant deals at 8 boxes, where the risk of no dealing is less than at 5 boxes, often ending up getting two far better deals than the one they took before this very phantom 'beating' of the banker.

So yes, a very long-winded way of explaining my fury perhaps, but it really really gets to me. And I do appreciate that it's gotta be positive-feeling TV blah blah, it's gotta keep up the Deal Or No Deal 'spirit' yadda yadda... but... grr.

There have been some chickens here, but not many. There have been many more snakes in the grass.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:She dealt for the £3K, then played on - and ended up with £20K and £500 left in play [...] although she only had £500 in her box so technically it was still a victory over the Banker.

Sorry to pick on you Phil, but this is what I hate. Although having said that, I'm more than happy to forgive you for your vital use of "technically" as opposed to "actually" which is what the show would have you believe.

The rest of your post covers stuff that I'm only too well aware of. My use of the word 'technically' was shorthand for 'in the language of the programme, which no one really believes, but that's not the subject of my post so I won't bore you all with it.'

Phil Reynolds wrote:The rest of your post covers stuff that I'm only too well aware of. My use of the word 'technically' was shorthand for 'in the language of the programme, which no one really believes, but that's not the subject of my post so I won't bore you all with it.'

for sure, I knew I wasn't saying anything ground-breaking, really just a case of getting it off my chest as the falsity/mathematical and theoretical intelligence/poor memories of the contestants really irks me!

Hmm... seems like I've been getting so much off my chest today that there's not much left on it.

I think the basic conclusion of this is it's impossible to enjoy Deal Or No Deal unless you disconnect all of your upper cognitive apparatus.

Charlie Reams wrote:I think the basic conclusion of this is it's impossible to enjoy Deal Or No Deal unless you disconnect all of your upper cognitive apparatus.

...or unless you're a contestant. I imagine the community spirit in the DOND hotel is probably quite warm and sticky in a cheesy but pleasant way, and if you manage to get on it's certainly one of the easier ways to win money on TV.

Matt Morrison wrote:I imagine the community spirit in the DOND hotel is probably quite warm and sticky in a cheesy but pleasant way

I'm absolutely sure of that. After just one day in the company of nine other contestants on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, I felt I had grown absurdly close to some of them - especially by about 3am when I was possibly drunker than at any other time in the last decade. The emotions were of course largely artificial and transient, an inevitable by-product of the intense communal experience we'd all shared, but they seemed very real at the time.

Charlie Reams wrote:I think the basic conclusion of this is it's impossible to enjoy Deal Or No Deal unless you disconnect all of your upper cognitive apparatus.

I quite enjoy trying to work out the probabilities/expectations on the fly.

That, and laughing at idiots losing thousands of pounds for being stupid.

Something you would find interesting is that people here tend to enjoy the UK version of Deal or No Deal, while all of you absolutely detest it!

Here's why.

What would you rather watch? Overhyper people screaming at the top of their lungs, or genuine people with genuine emotions.

That's right. On our primetime version of Deal or No Deal, we have overhyper contestants screaming at the top of their lungs. The people who apply to be on Deal or No Deal in Britain are genuine contestants with genuine emotions, so some American people say. Our primetime version of Deal or No Deal is in danger of being canceled. Deal or No Deal is a show where the contestants are the stars, not Noel Edmonds.

Also, I'm sorry to stray off topic here, but believe it or not there are Americans who actually like The Colour of Money, but most of you detest that too!

What do you think of that?

Jason Larsen wrote:
Also, I'm sorry to stray off topic here, but believe it or not there are Americans who actually like The Colour of Money, but most of you detest that too!

What do you think of that?

That Americans are very different people to Brits. We have differing tastes and differing lifestyles. Easy.

Thank you, Kirk.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Brits

Racist!!!

What?

Jason Larsen wrote:What?

One day, when people ask, "When did Jason Larsen jump the shark?", aficionados of his art will reply as one, "It was post #2113".

No, I didn't!

You still like me, Charlie, don't you?

Jason Larsen wrote:What?

Jason, the first time I spoke to you, I thought that I would have a little joke. I wrote- it's nice to hear from someone from the Colonies. Then I thought of the possibility of a second war of independence, angry exchanges between Brown and Bush, Questions in Parliament. Then I remembered reading Bill Bryant's book describing the different senses of humour seperating our two Countries, deleted everything quick, mopped my brow and just said; "hello Jason". Phew.

You mean Barack Obama, don't you, George?

Jason Larsen wrote:You mean Barack Obama, don't you, George?

It might have been Jason, but time passes so quickly when you get a bit ancient. I get confused by the speed that Presidents and Prime Ministers come an go, so I hazarded a guess.

I've changed my mind about old people knowing more than young people. Young people must know more than us, because they keep telling me when I'm wrong. Especiqally that young Charlie.

I'll accept that, George.

George Jenkins wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:You mean Barack Obama, don't you, George?

It might have been Jason, but time passes so quickly when you get a bit ancient. I get confused by the speed that Presidents and Prime Ministers come an go, so I hazarded a guess.

I've changed my mind about old people knowing more than young people. Young people must know more than us, because they keep telling me when I'm wrong. Especiqally that young Charlie.

As a massive generalisation, the older you get the more you know, but the less able you are to put it into practise. Plus I think young people learn quicker and can adapt quicker.

Martin Gardner wrote:

George Jenkins wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:You mean Barack Obama, don't you, George?

It might have been Jason, but time passes so quickly when you get a bit ancient. I get confused by the speed that Presidents and Prime Ministers come an go, so I hazarded a guess.

I've changed my mind about old people knowing more than young people. Young people must know more than us, because they keep telling me when I'm wrong. Especiqally that young Charlie.

As a massive generalisation, the older you get the more you know, but the less able you are to put it into practise. Plus I think young people learn quicker and can adapt quicker.

Absolutely right Martin, and a lot of what we know (and still remember) is out dated and useless anyway. Apart from old bones and weariness, the will power to do things starts to fade. As an example, right behind me is my easel with an almost finished painting of a locomotive roaring along at full speed. (my own engine, and not a copy of someone elses painting)I know it's good and I heard two old engine drivers talking about it while I was in the kitchen making them tea. I heard remarks like "that's bloody good, I can almost hear the noise". But I find that it gets harder to work at, because the the details must be accurate. I just don't want to think and worry any more. I would much rather sit downstairs with my Wife Olive, chatting and very often, dozing. Also, I get more pleasure listening to you blokes and girls on this Forum, so if I drop dead before I finish my picture, I will blame you.

George Jenkins wrote:Absolutely right Martin, and a lot of what we know (and still remember) is out dated and useless anyway. Apart from old bones and weariness, the will power to do things starts to fade. As an example, right behind me is my easel with an almost finished painting of a locomotive roaring along at full speed. (my own engine, and not a copy of someone elses painting)I know it's good and I heard two old engine drivers talking about it while I was in the kitchen making them tea. I heard remarks like "that's bloody good, I can almost hear the noise". But I find that it gets harder to work at, because the the details must be accurate. I just don't want to think and worry any more. I would much rather sit downstairs with my Wife Olive, chatting and very often, dozing. Also, I get more pleasure listening to you blokes and girls on this Forum, so if I drop dead before I finish my picture, I will blame you.

George was on the trains, but his wife Olive, she was on the buses.


(That was worth waiting for wasn't it!)

I know Classic Deal or No Deal is on right now.

Jason Larsen wrote:I know Classic Deal or No Deal is on right now.

Where's the oxymorons thread when you need it?

That's only to say Old Deal or No Deal, Gavin!

Jason Larsen wrote:That's only to say Old Deal or No Deal, Gavin!

I'll go with old deal.

Is that an old deal, Gavin?

Kevin Thurlow wrote:Good point - a friend of mine suggested that the best way to foul up the game was to take the first offer!

Noel hasn't killed any contestants yet, but that might do the trick.

Noel hasn't killed any contestants on THIS show.......

He wouldn't do it anyway!

Jason Larsen wrote:He wouldn't do it anyway!

You might not know this, Jason - in fact why should you....but someone did die on a show hosted by Noel. On the 'Late Late Breakfast show' in the late 80's, I guess, a bloke was volunteered by his girlfriend to do a bungee jump. During rehersals for the live show that evening, someone failed to secure the rope properly and the bloke was killed. The show was pulled immediately and it seemed to be the start of Noel's career going downhill. It didn't plummet (unlike the dead bloke) as the appalling Noel's House Party ran afterwards for a few years, but the British public hasn't forgotten that Noel has blood on his hands - metephorically speaking. My apologies if that's something you already knew. And my apologies too if you didn't know and are saddened, - but Noel has bounced back (I for one love DOND!)

I knew that, but why would we ever hold that against him?

Jason Larsen wrote:I knew that, but why would we ever hold that against him?

Well he's Noel Edmunds, not Michael Jackson - so he's in the same club as Michael Barrymore (but not Angus Deayton)

Why would you say that?

(Also, a poll based on these last few posts is coming.)

Goodness!

The 'Did Noel Edmonds Kill a Man' poll????....I'm excited!

No

Sue Sanders wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:He wouldn't do it anyway!

You might not know this, Jason - in fact why should you....but someone did die on a show hosted by Noel. On the 'Late Late Breakfast show' in the late 80's, I guess, a bloke was volunteered by his girlfriend to do a bungee jump. During rehersals for the live show that evening, someone failed to secure the rope properly and the bloke was killed. The show was pulled immediately and it seemed to be the start of Noel's career going downhill. It didn't plummet (unlike the dead bloke) as the appalling Noel's House Party ran afterwards for a few years, but the British public hasn't forgotten that Noel has blood on his hands - metephorically speaking. My apologies if that's something you already knew. And my apologies too if you didn't know and are saddened, - but Noel has bounced back (I for one love DOND!)

The bit you forgot to mention (which is what makes it incriminating rather than just an accident that has nothing to do with Noel) is that the show had been criticised many times before for its before poor health & safety record, and they continued to do the stunts without adequate consideration.

I hate the BBC.

I prefer the RBC.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:He wouldn't do it anyway!

You might not know this, Jason - in fact why should you....but someone did die on a show hosted by Noel. On the 'Late Late Breakfast show' in the late 80's, I guess, a bloke was volunteered by his girlfriend to do a bungee jump. During rehersals for the live show that evening, someone failed to secure the rope properly and the bloke was killed. The show was pulled immediately and it seemed to be the start of Noel's career going downhill. It didn't plummet (unlike the dead bloke) as the appalling Noel's House Party ran afterwards for a few years, but the British public hasn't forgotten that Noel has blood on his hands - metephorically speaking. My apologies if that's something you already knew. And my apologies too if you didn't know and are saddened, - but Noel has bounced back (I for one love DOND!)

Indeed, it happened on Redcar racecourse - god only knows why they were filming it there. I remember there were some very funny vox pops on the local news about it at the time - stuff about Edmonds being a murderer, an insane power-mad dwarf who bites the faces off puppies, and so on (I may have misremembered the exact wording of the last one). Anyway, it proves that it's only a matter of time before he murders someone on Deal Or No Deal, he's just biding his time for a moment when he can make it look like an "accident".

Jim, you should be glad Drew Carey doesn't know that. If he did, he would think Redcar doesn't rock.

I have very good news for all of you.

This has not been confirmed yet, but I am getting word that in 2011 Noel Edmonds' contract with Channel 4 will expire, and he will not return as host of Deal or No Deal. Also, Channel 4 is apparently dropping the show, so it will be on a new network and have a new host.

Your source for all this information? The Daily Mail.

That just goes to show you that we don't know if it's true.

If Countdown leads into a different show, you'll all be jumping for joy, won't you?

Yes.

How about one where fifteen contestants start off with three lives and try not to lose them?

Derek Hazell wrote:Yes.

How about one where fifteen contestants start off with three lives and try not to lose them?

That could catch on

Jason Larsen wrote:If Countdown leads into a different show, you'll all be jumping for joy, won't you?

Yeah, we 'ALL' like exactly the same things .

William G. Stewart may be getting old.

Who could we get for Fifteen to One? Maybe, Stephen Fry?

Jason Larsen wrote:William G. Stewart may be getting old.

Who could we get for Fifteen to One? Maybe, Stephen Fry?

I don't know, he's 74, but he still seemed sharp on the National Lottery game a couple of years back. In addition, it's worth considering that Regent Productions is Stewart's company so he'd have to have some sort of input either way.

That's an interesting question.

Hmm. Ronny's game. You could feel the hate.

Jason Larsen wrote:Something you would find interesting is that people here tend to enjoy the UK version of Deal or No Deal, while all of you absolutely detest it!

Here's why.

What would you rather watch? Overhyper people screaming at the top of their lungs, or genuine people with genuine emotions.

That's right. On our primetime version of Deal or No Deal, we have overhyper contestants screaming at the top of their lungs. The people who apply to be on Deal or No Deal in Britain are genuine contestants with genuine emotions, so some American people say. Our primetime version of Deal or No Deal is in danger of being canceled. Deal or No Deal is a show where the contestants are the stars, not Noel Edmonds.

Also, I'm sorry to stray off topic here, but believe it or not there are Americans who actually like The Colour of Money, but most of you detest that too!

What do you think of that?

I actually saw some of the American DOND on NBC when I was on holiday in America-one edition featured this woman who was getting over excitable when the lower amounts were eliminated.

Ironically, Howie Mandel, who presents DOND in the US, starred in the Boston-set St Elsewhere, which has now replaced Countdown in the mornings on C4.