With frustration at the show at an all-time high due to unprecedented cowardice (the equally unbridled gambling era of early 2007 at least worked out remarkably often and produced high drama, so people liked it even if it was intoxicating and practically an advert for gambling at times, especially with Noel at that point), there've been some question marks as to whether the players deserve any money. Indeed, I think some casual viewers may have thought this at the start anyway.

The UK DoND was the first to use 'no questions except one' - almost every new version since has done this, although mostly through copying the US version. The format originated as the endgame to a quiz-based lottery show in the Netherlands, and was exported - quiz and all - to Australia and Mexico (amongst others) before Italy took the format and turned it into something more like our show, with players on the wings (representing a region of the country). Even they, however, had a qualifying question, although everyone did get to play (I'd imagine really thick contestants might have done Lucy-esque wing runs, but I think the questions were very easy and just an afterthought). The French made the best of this bad compromise, making one box value dependent on how many on the wings correctly answered the qualifying question. Both of these versions have since removed this and gone to no-questions-except-one (thanks for pointing this out, Travis!).

So here is the question. Should contestants have to face some kind of skill test to 'earn' the right to play for the life-changing money? And if so, should it be an on-air quiz as per the format's roots, or some other way?

No... surprisingly enough, it should be left as it is. I do think that the Scrooge/Santa like twist should apply. It makes them think more of the game. Any sort of twist revolving around the game should be permantly implemented.

I don't really like the idea of a quiz, but I think they should just put on a lot more contestants who are capable of reading a board.

In every 22, I think there should be a couple of Wakeyists, a couple of Berylists, a few (maybe 5?) targetists, and the rest being those who'd play a board (a couple of total analysts, a few gambling board-readers, and a few cautious board-readers.)

At auditions, perhaps ask a few basic stats questions for a few boards (ie. What are the chances a deal would work out here?), and ask the players what they'd do with a board and offer.

I'm not sure about a quiz. I like the fact that it is a show where the ordinary, less well educated person does have a chance to win a substantial sum as a prize instead of the stereotypical middle class university educated quiz show contestant..

That said, as I stated in today's thread I do think there should be some sort of intelligence test to at least ascertain if a potential contestant is capable of reading a board. Todays display of ineptitude presents a compelling case for this I suggest.

I don't think they should add a quiz element to it. The "no questions except one" makes it unique, there's a million and one quiz shows on TV and very few of them stand out. With DOND the basic concept means that you don't need general knowledge or any other skill to win big, just luck, courage and perhaps a bit of good judgement of the situation (all of which have seemingly been in very short supply this year, hence why nobody has won big money!)

They seem to be picking a lot of the wrong people, and the culture of "deal anything reasonable" seems to be passed on between generations of contestants. Maybe it's time for a clean break this summer, don't bring back the waiting 21 and return with a fresh set of players with no "baggage" in terms of knowing everyone and having witnessed games go wrong etc. Just something to perhaps break that cycle - the ones who didn't get to play can always be asked back individually at a later date.

On the other hand maybe it will just take another Laura moment, a Banker misjudgement that goes in a contestant's favour in a big way, to turn things round?

To apply for the show they should be qualified in GCSE Mathematics.

There shouldn't be a quiz in my opinion as the show is about luck and the skill is knowing when to deal (if at all).



I agree. That way, they can ensure that each 22 has some who have no clue about stats and could produce a big money game, some who have a vague idea, and some who only play the odds. It'd mean the 22 is a bit manufactured but isn't it manufactured already, by the way in which we always seem to have a balance in the ages of contestants and the sex of contestants? Why not have a balance in the approaches people have to the game, and the approaches people have could be ascertained through the audition by perhaps giving some example boards and offers and asking people being auditioned what they'd do etc.

also, if the game contained a quiz element in it, even in the application process in the form of a multiple choice test (choosing so many of A makes you a 'wakeyist' and so many of B makes you a 'berylist' etc..) a lot of the contestants would be cheating in that to get a wakeyist status in endemols eyes, when they are just simply there to nab a grand or two.

but they can't lie about a basic qualification in GCSE Mathematics

The short answer is - no.

The long answer is -









Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

I don't think it should either - I can understand why people are 15-25K targetists even if I disagree and I like to see analysts/gamblers but players like yesterday need to be weeded out, I don't know how!

Leave it as it is.