I never ever on this show want to see money treated as some flippant, take-it-or-leave-it commodity.
(Noel Edmonds, Deal or No Deal episode 27, transmitted November 30 2005)

This is a simple game to play, and all you have to do is say No Deal six times and you could walk away with £250,000.
(Noel Edmonds, Deal or No Deal episode 797, transmitted July 9 2008)

A lot of research has stated that in certain types of framing of questions you are going to make a risk-averse or a risk-seeking decision.
(Sara Luedekke, research psychologist, University of Southampton)

Concern from some quarters that Noel influences contestants at the point of decision - and causes viewers to frame the show differently as a result - has waxed and waned in the history of this show. But nobody has ever produced a comprehensive analysis of the evidence for and against the notion that he unfairly favours risk-taking.

This is that analysis.

I will provide a breakdown of each game from 995 (and may watch a few previous games) focusing not on the boxes and so on, but on Noel's comments, noting which ones favour risk-taking, which ones favour conservatism and which ones fall on neither side of the fence. Where relevant - and it regularly will be - I will also note the comments of other contestants (including, this week, those in the audience). The aim is not to be judgmental - in fact it is the opposite, namely to determine the validity of the judgment calls we have been making.

Comments are welcome, particularly from those in the Dream Factory at the time if they have any comments on what was left out of the 45-minute show.

But surely any analysis has to be offset against the attitude of the player in the chair at the time? As far as I see it, Noel's role (for the purposes of entertainment) is to play devil's advocat - to remind the player who is determined to go all the way to the end and open their box that an offer of £xx,000 is 'real money' and, similarly, to make the contestant who is going to jump ship at the first sniff of their target, regardless of the board, that there could be so much more money available to them in the game. Without Noel's counter-balancing, either scenario has the potential to lead to a seriously dull game, as has been discussed on here many a time!

I guess you might be able to provide analysis of his comments where the contestant is in a genuine quandary about which decision to make but, even then, I think that underestimates the inherent character of the person playing the game. For instance, we all knew that H wasn't going to do anything daft the other day, even if the board had panned out slightly better for him. He just showed his daftness in a few other ways!!

Those are the sort of patterns I hope and to an extent expect to see. It's why it needs a long-term analysis rather than a short-term one.

You have perfectly outlined what Noel's job should be as he defined it very early in the show's history. NoelWatch will check whether he's still doing the same job.

Derrick's game will be analysed when it's on Catchup, as that is what I rely on to watch the show at present.

NoelWatch, episode 995

* Introduction: next to non-existent. No issue whatsoever.
* Chat with contestant: purely focuses on the player's quirks, as he should. Why did I stop watching this show again?
* Reveal of gold box: no problem
* Treats middle red as more disposable because of £30,000, but this isn't even inaccurate. If anything he overstates the damage done
* Talks up £30,000 as being more influential than it is
* Targetist check... 'we're after substantial money... I don't suppose it's walking money for you'
* Incredible! He shows statistical knowledge (1p/£250k appearances being nearly the same, implied Law of Large Numbers)
* Noel admits he's talking up the game to talk up the offers. Dangerous. Great banter though.
* 'There's a lot of life in this game Derrick'. Second offer again treated as speedbump, not that he'd have taken it. May count as Devil's Advocacy as he admitted considering £11,500 were the £1,000 present.
* Blimey, I didn't realise from the recap how good this board was.
* 'He has a power 5' still. No he doesn't, unless £20,000 is Power 5 today?
* I sense he might be a targetist from that reaction. Derrick uses Noel's description and admits shock at a No Deal. Noel still thanks him for it.
* Eight-box, and Noel plays a straight bat. Crowd cheers at the signalled-in-advance No Deal. Over the applause: 'play for the game'?
* Possibly underplaying board strength at six-box?
* 'Very interesting five-box'.
* The offer's seen as 'really clever'. 'You can do whatever you want'. Serious discussion looked on quietly by Noel; wingers are Fakeyist; Noel doesn't intervene one bit here and that makes it so much more interesting.
* And so it's no surprise whatsoever that he dealt. Noel saw it coming and quite, quite rightly didn't intervene (in the edit anyway).
* Even the proveout introduction is neutral.
* Oh, but the 'courage' rant comes in after just one box and one clap.
* Noel's now very serious and very angry.
* Suggests proveout offer on all-or-peanuts 'uncomfortable', clearly to ensure it is higher, then corrects himself and emphasises importance.
* Derrick philosophical, and Noel recognises this and stops any attempt at a guilt trip. Oh, then he starts one.
* And then he's denied one by the big reveal.
* Feels to me like Noel's guilt trip was going through the motions, lurching between keywords and catchphrases ('squander', 'regret', etc.) and from without and not within. He eased off when Derrick spoke philosophically, then reverted to type. Noel, you are not an automaton of Endemol, please do not pretend you are.

Not sure there's too much harm in dismissing offer 1... OK the stats show a few players could have got an OPW from it, but unlike the second offer I think there's no realistic chance of anyone ever dealing it. (Apart from a swap of course. Is the opening swap offer a thing of the past by the way, don't remember seeing one for ages?)

Surely this is NoelWatch?

How on earth was that very angry?!

NoelWatch for episode 995 complete. Nice post, H.

On the positive side today was his non-intervention at five-box and his reaction to Derrick's philosophical remarks. On the negative side was his proveout guilt trip, which felt like it was on autopilot, and the possibly-excessive talking-up of the £30,000 (although by five-box, you could hardly talk it up enough!).

Conclusion is that Noel played broadly a straight bat, but lapsed into what felt like a scripted guilt trip intermittently. Signs here that the whole 'courage' lark is not of his own doing, but after three years and more of the show he feels as though he's expected to do it.

Tom; come to think of it, it wasn't really anger.

How exactly do you define "Fakeyist" anyway?

I do think he is just trying to build up the tension by being over dramatic.

Fakeyist = talking themselves up to be gamblers in order to curry favour with the Banker. Of course, this isn't unsound strategy.

And yes, he is being overdramatic in building up tension Tom, and he doesn't need to be. The game speaks for itself.

Yes true but that is part of the show and it isnt really that much of an issue is it?

I think him being overdramatic somewhat enhances it in a way, builds the tension, which for me is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Blimey, you don't half over-analyse some things somtimes KP!

I must admit I'm quite a fan of these analogies; I often over-analyse things myself, and if anything I like to read this sort of thing. They all remind me of what I like to call "shorthand essays" as that's practically what they are - in fact, I could well write an essay on Derrick's game based on KP's analysis. Only, I prefer analogies as they are the same but with the pointless waffling removed. Anyway. Why am I giving a lecture on essays and analogies.

On topic, I say welldone and I am looking forward to the next in this series of shorthand essays, very nice reading actually. Welldone David mate

I suppose they are!

Wow, this is surreal... biggest praise for this concept coming from daniel123... Anna's game analysed tonight!

Ha ha...you're seeing the less stupid side of me KP, I'm a changed man now from what I was....14 is a ripe old age you know (or, it is in Manchester and Liverpool at least.....), no more time for messing about with minxes or anything like that.

But either way, I'm very fond of the concept. I may consider a foray into it myself at some point in the future, but in the meantime am looking forward to today's shorthand essay. An entertaining game from what I've heard, though I wasn't even paying much attention to the commentary.......

I must ask, what are you trying to acheive from your extended analysis and if so what are you going to do about it if you are so sure he is persuading contestants to play to the end regardless?

As I've still got people who speak to me about the show who have been watching it since 2005 and not one person has come to me having concerns about Noel's presenting and yes some do have kids. The ratings have still proved that the majority couldn't care less about how he presents and are more focused on the contestants.



He is right as saying No Deal six times could be the only way to win £250,000. This was eight months before the old man wheeled The Banker's Gamble for Alice. Also winning big, contestants have to take risks, you are going to find it near impossible to win big if you have a strong board as the odds to producing this are very high.

If you are so obsessed about his presenting style, you have to see the show live and not see how the edit plays out.

Duly noted, duly considered over-analytical, duly abandoned.

I think Noel has just been pointing out the opportunity of big money recently because with the exception of Claire, Alice and Doreen there haven't been many spectacular games and Noel is just pointing out the potential for huge money.

I'd like to see more reckless gambling and be 'stunned' a bit more TBH.