I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't understand the point of hypothetical swaps. My view is that if you have dealt, your active participation in the game is over - you have sold your box on the table at that point, and now you must live with what it contains. If you were going to swap for a lucky number, you should have done that in active play, the chance to do that is now gone.

Plus, the swap may not be guaranteed and is basically an option attached to the 'no deal' clause, not a deal. And it's easier to say you would go for it when you're not in active play. Above all, it causes havoc to all our spreadsheets!

Anyway, what do you think? (If I get enough 'yes's' I may take up said matter with Mr Edmonds in a couple of weeks )

I can understand why though if it involves the £250,000 like today. ANY OTHER circumstance, I'd say yes it should be banned.

But on the principle that the swap is guaranteed with the £250,000 still in play at the end, I guess it's to an extent only fair that we find out if we would have seen confetti if for even the slightest of chances the player was still in play.

Any other time though, yes it should be banned.

Do what the Americans do and allow a pre-game swap, and remove all other swap offers hypothetical or otherwise. That kills two birds with one stone.

I put yes in the poll, but I'd like it to be conditional and say they should only be allowed if the player deals at 2-box and not any earlier. It's more relevant then becuase then they find out exactly what they would have got if they said no-deal to the final offer. Not when they would have had one or more opportunities to deal in between.

Good point that... you COULD even do it like the French and offer a swap before a final cash offer (if you really want to be like the French, you can do it INSTEAD of a cash offer, but the reaction would probably be hugely negative... not that some of his final offers aren't equivalent...)

That is a well argued point, but it's far easier to say you'd swap rather than actually swap. I suppose it's only a matter of time before the player swaps before deciding whether to deal/ no deal. In fact, maybe that would give more validity to their claim of a swap. Whatever, I'd still argue that the banker is buying the box on the table, and that's what should count.

I'm with StatsMan - The Banker buys the box on the table. If a player swaps their box before they deal, that's fair enough. But if they say they'll swap and deal before they get the chance, they leave live play... right?

Today's game with Martyne was a good example. She dealt at £18,000 (as would I) and had £250,000 in her box all along. As far as I'm concerned, she didn't beat the banker.

I haven't been around here long enough to know whether this is how most people see it but it's how I've always thought it worked...

I think the banker should stop offering so many swaps at the end of the game, because now the player is expecting it and so is noel as he takes extra long to pull the seal.

One of these days i want the banker to phone and say, you cannot get the swap.

He did that in a episode I went to go and see - refused the swap because she was taking so long! It wasn't shown, mainly because the concept of time on the TV doesn't translate from actual time in the live game, clearly because of editing restrictions.

Simply, the swap should only be offered if the player has reached that point. Having all these hypothetical swaps is just making a nonsense of the game, the principle of which is to sell the box in front of you for as much money as possible.

Basically if you hypothetically swap, the outcome is bad whatever, if you swap for the big sum, it means you could have had it.

If you swap for the lower amount and give away the bigger one, it means you didn't beat the banker as he brought the one that was on the table

I don't know if it should be "banned" outright, but it should be used less. 2 shows in a row is a bit much.

I'm not a fan of it I'm afraid. I can sort of understand why it's used when the player deals at 2-box but not otherwise. I liked what they did for much of last season which was open the players' original box, but if they would've swapped, they were looking for the higher amount in the box on the table.

That's the point, I think! It's designed to give the impression that Wakeyism would have won the day, regardless!

Yes, I'd ban it. I can't stand the hypothetical swap...

YES!

Absolutely yes. Once you've dealt, the box should stay on the table.

Imagine how daft it would be if Chris Tarrant decided to show a contestant on Millionaire the hypothetical next questions after they had taken the money.

Surely that analogy means the whole proveout is nonsensical too?

It's just how the game would have gone after they dealt and how much they sold their box for, so I still find it quite relevant.

I don't think the average viewer is going to be too fussed whether they do the hypo swap or not. The small proportion who do follow the show closely (e.g. the forum members here) probably do find it a bit pointless, but the majority of viewers probably don't really even think about it.

If the £250k and/or the 1p are in play, then I think they should do the hypothetical swap, otherwise it's pretty pointless.