Has anybody read Richard Herring's blog entry for today? He discusses the current state of Deal or No Deal at some length...

Well, I read this with great interest as a former contestant, and agreed entirely with the argument about probability and chance, and was precisely how I played my game...

Until he changed the subject.

What a pity such a rational sounding person could turn in the last few paragraphs to make such bigoted and racially-charged remarks about Barack Obama. It is frankly an insult to call him "Obama Bin Laden".

And this man wants the rest of us to be sensible? I'll never read his blog again.

Oh and if I meet him "gatecrashing" one of our reunions, as he reports, presumably to bathe in our reflected glory (HA HA, NOT!), I will pity him for thinking this represents such a "highlight of his life". Bloody hell, get a grip, man.

I've only vaguely heard of Richard Herring but that blog article made for an interesting read. There has definitely been a change in the show since it first started just over 3 years ago, and whilst it's been a gradual one in my eyes, it may be more obvious to someone who tunes in having not watched it for a long while.

The show is experiencing (for whatever reason) a greater number of people who are looking for a fixed target of money, meaning that in games like Andrea's, Lee's and Mathew's, the big money was there but it wasn't played for (although I can understand the reasons all 3 had for dealing). The number of "sob stories" or "heart-wrenching stories" (or whatever you choose to call them) has definitely increased in the last 3 years.

I'm not sure maths has ever really been a great part of the show. Only very occasionally do I remember discussion of odds and chances making it to the final edit, although it's true that there hasn't been a "stats man" type contestant to do this for quite a while now. Whilst the stats side of it all may be interesting to some, most viewers are tuning in to see an interesting contestant win some decent money.

Noel Edmonds' attitude has changed over the course of the last 3 years, and I'm sure the show's most avid fans will remember his phase about 18 months ago where he criticised virtually everyone for dealing. Whereas now he tends to base the outcome of the game on the contents of the box, when really he should focus on the board at the time of dealing. A 7 blues vs £100k board and a deal for £1,000 with a blue in the box would probably be praised more than a 4 blues vs £250k board and a deal for £15,000 with the £250k in the box; despite the fact the latter was the more sensible decision. However I think any Noel would be preferable to the early-2007-Noel who was literally reducing contestants who had dealt for £50,000 to tears with his comments.

And whilst it's true that in the early days of the show people didn't mention dead relatives' boxes etc., they did get a bit silly about the "psychic" stuff even back then. Even in the first show Noel was (albeit slightly mockingly) asking players if they had feelings for their boxes!

I thought it was a really interesting read too, with some great turns of phrase. (I particularly enjoyed his remark about Noel "using hindsight as a weapon to bludgeon the contestants".)

I do generally agree that the focus of the games nowadays is too much on superstition and fate and all of that irrational stuff, and the mathematical side of the game is being downplayed. It's been ages since we've had a proper statistician play the game (or maybe it's just that it's been ages since many mathematically based remarks have made the final edit). Whilst I appreciate that most people don't want to turn on the TV to watch a maths lesson, I do think that the producers are underestimating the fact that viewers probably would engage in some of the simpler maths behind the game if it was presented in an interesting way. The numbers game is still a popular part of Countdown, so the afternoon Channel 4 audience can obviously cope with a bit of arithmetic and enjoy it!

Maybe they could have a couple of weeks of games similar to the 'Battle of the Sexes' they did in 2007, except this time have 'Spiritualists vs. Statisticians' or something...



I'm trying to work out whether you're oblivious to sarcastic comments, or whether you're actually indulging in them yourself there. (Also, I have an idea of which contestant you are. Although the statistical likelihood is that my guess is wrong...)

It was a good read and I agree with it all (up until the Obama bit at the end ). I'm not a fan of any of the spiritual nonsense at all and thats peobably one of the reasons I've sort of been drifting out of watching it over the past few weeks...



I think that would be a really good idea and I'd be interested in the results... obviously hoping the statisticians would come out on top hopefully knowing where and when to stop.

You do realise the meaning of the word 'irony', right...?

I don't think he does Al boy.. can you explain it for him????

I do agree with many of this guys points about DOND as of late, I too see it as not real gambling and personally if I was on the show I'd go to the end regardless I think since I am not too bothered and my circumstances are fine for me to do that.

I do have to say I have noticed a fair bit though they do seem to tend to get people on who are broke or need money badly and then get them really cheaply, I cannot help but wonder if this is deliberate by Endemol especially after they were fined over the phone in and want to save money?