Hasn't there been more bad luck and less money being won since the phone competition ended?

It does seem that way doesn't it, but then I too am cynical.

The future of the viewer's competition was on the rocks in the spring / summer of '07, and it does seem a bit odd that the bad luck and poor offers seemed to start in the games of September '07 - games which were recorded around about the same time all the "phone scam" stuff started to be picked up on by the press.

They obviously can't control bad luck but they can control the banker's offers - and they have mostly been rather low for the last year or so. But with so many people there for a relatively low set target, and willing to settle for a few grand if things start to look a bit dodgy, why should the banker make high offers if he knows he can get the players out cheaply?

If luck had been on the players' sides then the banker would've paid dearly for his less-than-generous offers. Betty's, Mavis' and Tim's games are just 3 examples - if their final offers had been more generous they'd probably have dealt for sums in the high £20ks (possibly just under £10k on Tim's final 2). All 3 could've won a combined total of £220,000 as they no dealt fairly poor offers, but as it turned out only Betty got the good luck and the other 2 didn't. So whilst the last year has saved them money by forcing people to the end with poor offers, it could've resulted in several big wins. Then maybe the banker would've changed his ways and made more generous offers to prevent that happening!

One other possibility is that Endemol are saving money by choosing contestants who are clearly in need of the money and will deal at whatever figure the banker waves at them. Also Noel's attitude has changed too - he has been advising players that even very poor offers are "good" when they're definitely not, although he seems to have gone back to his old gambling ways recently (apart from yesterday where he said £3,500 was a dealable offer with £250k still on the board! ).

Some good points there H, but I have to disagree with you about Endemol choosing people who need money. At no time during the application process were there any questions about how much you need the money etc (I for one, would have lied anyway). There were questions about what you see as a life changing amount of money but that was it. From what I can remember, I was never asked about my financial situation and I certainly never mentioned it to anyone, even the other contestants. On the other hand they do ask if you like to gamble. But I know that there were gamblers while I was on the show and some people who were a lot more cautious, and from watching their shows, you wouldn't be able to guess which was which.
Obviously if you apply for the show, you are after winning some money, I'm sure we all went with the intention of winning the £250,000. But when it gets to serious money offers (of which we really haven't seen a lot of recently) only the player can decide what's right for them and their situation.

It may well be that the economic conditions are 90% of the reason for the change in attitude. Don't forget that the big change in offer patterns really kicked in in episodes filmed after the summer 2007 break - during which time Northern Rock collapsed and concern over the economy began in earnest.

Stop being so cynical!

It would be easy to turn it around and say the offers are low because the producers are trying to encourage contestants to go all the way and win the contents of their box. After all, if every player only said 'no deal' the £250K would be won once a month on average, so would each of the other power 5 boxes. I can assure you that the studio crew are desperate for a big win, nobody gets more dismayed at a feeble early deal.

Saying that though, there is undoubtedly though a drought of genuine gamblers making it on to the show, but far too many sob stories and targetists. I would expect loads of gamblers apply to go on, but they must all get weeded out. Perhaps at the application/audition stage the best approach gamblers can take is to try and bluff their way on to the show by pretending to be cautious players and hide their real intentions.

Gary, they want gamblers. There are more gamblers than you think at the moment, remember you only get to see of the player what is shown on tv. Gamblers make the games more interesting which is what Endemol want.
Just because you've seen one player 'go too early' don't assume everyone is the same.

Maybe thats so Wendy, but its not really the impression the viewers get.

I don't know who chooses the contestants, but I am sure a psychological profile of each applicant is looked at very carefully, after so many shows they are easily going to be able to work out who are the type of people with the bottle to go all the way, and who will crumble and deal under pressure, whether they think they are a gambler or not.

As a regular Pilgrim I am 100% certain that DOND is not rigged in any sort of way in The Dream Factory, but I cannot be certain that the contestants who make it on the show are a fair representation of those who apply.

I'll tell you when I reckon the real downturn started - it was Michael's terrible £1,000 deal - just before it we'd had brave people like Ron, Chris B and Charly really take the banker on, but I reckon that deal signalled to the banker he could get away with offering rubbish on an unstable board - look at what happened with the offers in Shaz's and Judy's games just after (Shaz got lucky, Judy didn't).

Then the demise of the LTL would have compounded it even more....

Endemol seem to want it both ways. They want to seemingly promote gambling or at least present it as 'exciting' in this context (my critiques of that are well-known here), but they also know that if everyone takes their box it'll cause average winnings of £25,000+ per show and there'd be a monthly £250k win which would not be so fun.

So either they're manipulatively putting blues on the table or they're getting very lucky with that, they're forcing players to the end with offers that almost anyone would turn down, and then it really doesn't matter who makes it to the table as almost nobody will deal. The only two Deals above £4k this season have come from players who've forced the Banker into making better offers. That says it all.

I doubt they're manipulatively putting blues on the table. I don't think there's any funny business going on in that respect, it'd cause too much of a scandal, as it would be seen as cheating. I think you're right when you say he's been making ridiculously low offers, Stuart's game today was a prime example. £6k on a blue/£35k board was terrible. They were lucky that he only had a tenner in his box, if they're trying to keep the winnings down. I think the show needs a big win now, to keep people's interest.

I have just watched your game Wendy, and I have to say that you certainly weren't the sort of player I described above!

A few more like you and it wouldn't be long before that £250K went again.

To clear any doubts whether something up is going on. We've had 15 shows since the fourth season returned and had 9 blue amounts on the table against 6 reds. If you dig back to 2005, there was a period where 15 consecutive shows had only 1 red the table and that was £250,000. The shows I'm referring to were episodes 13 to 27.

the offers are appalling

especially lately at 5 box with 250k still there

why so low?

Either to encourage crazy gambling or to keep the total winnings low.

it's reasonable to assume, that because of the end of the phone poll, the Banker has reduced the amounts of his offers.
It stands to reason that if the show has less money coming in , then less money should go out.
So bring back the phone polls!!!
It is safe to assume that if the phone polls were regulated and scrutinised more carefully and professionally , then there is no reason for them not to return.
But to most of the fans here, the offers and their relative amounts should be ignored. Every contestant is there to play the game right.... which means refusing 6 offers with a "no deal" and going all the way right?

The former, with the hope for the latter. If Endemol really really want to ensure both they can put blues on the table, but I'd hope they'd be found out if they tried that...

Excellent reminder of 2005 from Travis. For a pretty long period, the number of blues on the table was statistically significant. This gained a lot of attention on the Bar, and I wouldn't be surprised if Endemol noticed that.

It's clear that Endemol are crying out for big finishes - I don't even say 'big wins' as such, people remember Swappy Barbara after all! - and they know that in the current economic climate, contestants are (quite reasonably) being less willing to gamble with guaranteed five-figure sums. The means of getting the big finish then becomes really, really low offers. So far, this has been accompanied with modest sums on the table for the most part, so Endemol have saved a bucketload of money...

It's the latter. It might be a daytime show but it's a daytime show with a primetime budget and if they gave away massive amounts per show it's going to cause a massive headache on the production budget. Unlike shows with similar jackpots that are aired weekly, this show is offering a £250,000 jackpot 6 days a week, 48 weeks a year. By offering lower offers, the player can either deal if they really need tne cash or go to the end but that plays into the formats hands since it's 6/22 for someone to win £20,000 or more if the amount is on the table. At the moment, they have been lucky but I suspect it will bite them in the bum soon.

No show since October 2005 in terms to broadcasting dates has yet to match DoND's £5 Million a year.