People have always said that going all the way is the greediest thing, but this year, I reconsidered my idea... What do you think>

I'd personally class greedy as no dealing an amount of money you'd be happy with, or just going on the show for the money, if you don't need it.

I'd go on the show for the experience.

I think each one is as "greedy" as each other.

There are elements of greed both ways.

People no-deal (I personally think) to try and get more money than what they've just been offered, either by their box contents or getting an improved offer the next round. At least that's what I hope they do it for, and not to try to "prove a point" or "chase the glory".

Dealing has elements of greed because people are attracted by the amount offered to them, and are worried that by going on, they'll lose it. Well maybe that's not the right way to say it, maybe "not get another chance to take that amount, or a comparable amount at a later stage of the game" is a more accurate description.

They're all greedy in different ways I suppose.

"Dealing mid-£20k's with a lot more money left" and "Taking the first offer after a good round." could be seen as just dealing whenever the offer hits a high value and therefore just wanting the money and not bothering with the game.

"No Dealing £90,000 on a £250k/blue board" could be seen as very reckless and therefore greedy by most people.

"Turning down an offer 2% more than the average" would be seen as greedy by the stats people - e.g. Dennis wasn't seen as a hugely greedy player, but the stats people here think of him as being reckless etc as he turned down an "above the mean" offer, even though it was "only" £14,999 (or whatever it was), and not above most people's target (which seems to be about £20,000).

In my opinion, the most reckless one here is "No Dealing £90,000 on a £250k/blue board" and therefore is the most greedy, as there is a risk of winning nothing when you could say "deal" and win a HUGE sum of money.

I think taking the a the first good offer after a round and no dealing £90k on a blue/£250k finish are the most greedy. Taking the first good offer isn't really playing the game, it's just grabbing the cash. No dealing £90k on a blue/£250k finish is also greed, but it could be seen as seizing the moment, depending on how you see it.

I don't think no dealing the average is greedy. I'm sure that in the pressurised environment of the game, most people wouldn't really be thinking of it in terms of averages. I don't have a problem with people dealing at £20,000ish when there's loads of money left. If someone's got a target, I don't really care. Just makes the banker's tactics a lot more interesting.

Assuming the third option isn't £130k on a £250k/blue board (2% above the average...) or other similarly volatile situation, I'd have to say the £90k on all-or-peanuts.

Surely No Dealing by definition is greedy in that you're wanting more?

One dictionary I've checked online defines 'greedy' as 'immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth' and another as 'excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves'.

I don't see how a Deal for 'only' £25,000 on a board that could reasonably be valued at double that can count as greed. Quite the opposite.

Dealing mid-£20k's with a lot more money left - That's being cautious
No Dealing £90,000 on a £250k/blue board - That's being greedy
Turning down an offer 2% more than the average - Depends, no much point if you're left with £1 and £5.
Taking the first offer after a good round. - That can either be greedy or not greedy.

What do you mean by this? Like if you're already rich?

Anyway I'd go on the show half for the experience and half for the money.

I guess greedy/selfish could be defined as not respecting the experience because the aim of the game is to get as much as possible after all.

hard to define 'greed' anyway.

maybe the 90K no deal but hardly anyone would do that .

People who deal are greedy. They are so greedy and selfish they don't want to lose what they already have in case by gambling they end up with less.

People who no-deal are greedy. They keep chasing for more and more money.

The show is morally bankrupt feeding off greedy contestants and viewers. I would love to know what percentage of winners actually donate anything to charity. Bet most of them keep the lot.

Personally I would donate all my winnings to charity. The lot. All £250k of it.

I would have had a great experience, played the game my way, gone home with no less than I came with and with the satisfaction that my winnings have helped good causes.

Between #1 and #4, but I would classify those on #4 as the people who are dealing for a laugh.

So #1.

No Dealing £90k on a blue/£250,000 finish.

Money doesn't obviously mean that much to someone if they are willing to risk around £90k and potentially end up with a blue.

DOND is money for old rope. Almost everyone goes on there with a £20K target figure and is happy enough to deal if and when they get a decent offer, boxes permitting. I can't blame them for that. There's no skill involved, save for counting from 1 to 22 and picking three boxes, and a surprising amount of contestants can't even manage that simple task. I wish someone would give me £20K for picking a bunch of numbers. I don't bother with it anymore. Even Goldenballs isn't much better - a lot of that show is luck rather than skill. I prefer game shows where you actually have to have some kind of knowledge or skill to win. I prefer to reward intelligence rather than blind luck.

What winds me up even more is the amount of serial game show applicants on the show. It's like some kind of club. It seems that if you get on one show you then get invites to dozens of others. Multiple game show contestants are who I find most greedy, especially if they've already won a decent prize on one show, then try to win another. If I won £20K I'd be quite happy to have had my fifteen minutes of fame, sit back and let other people have a go to change their life rather than keep applying for other shows - that's either egotism or greed - probably a bit of both. Daphne on Eggheads was one of the worst people for this. Some people seem to want to make a career out of it. At least she earnt her winnings though. But why did they ever let her on so many shows in the first place? Are they that desperate for applicants to keep re-using the same faces over and over again? It really irritates me. Almost every time I see a new quiz show on the box there's a face from DOND staring back at me. It drives me nuts!

Thta's true it's the way the game falls - but there are too many 20Kish cautious deals even though people have bad circumstances.
It is always 'easier' for a lot of folk to take a substantial 20K than gamble especially if folk are poor/have debts and thats a game flaw.

and yeah, mickey people like Nev do seem a bit 'greedy' IMO but on the on the other hand, there's no rules against it i guess.

No dealing £90,000 on a 250K/blue board would only be sensible if you're already a millionaire!

[quote="basicasic"]

Personally I would donate all my winnings to charity. The lot. All £250k of it.
quote]

Ah, no wonder basicasic is so much of a gambler! It's not his money! He doesn't understand that the people on the show would lose money for THEMSELVES, but he' not getting any money anyway, so he doesn't care!

What are you talking about hun. Of course its my money! And I aim to win as much of it as I possibly can.

What I choose to do with it after I've won it is entirely up to me. If I want to spend it on a car and a boat I will and if I want to give it to charity I will. But its my money I'm gambling the same as everybody else.

yes, you'd only have to be cautious if you promised a charity or someone else something beforehand, if you didn't you can gamble as much as you
want and give whatever you win even a low amount to charity like savvas.