Heres a bit of a controversial issue, but does everyone think the banker really plays on with honesty in every game? For instance, in my game, he quite funnily upped the offer by 1 quid so he could get one over on the tax man, so if I had played on, presumably to do the same he would have to have decrease it -the board was flexible enough for either really. At the same time, players who deal too early in light of how their board turns out (especially ones who deal before 5 box) are often punished in a homage to Bullseye's "Here's what you could have won", with offers that seem very generous -even taking into account how the banker sees them, there seems to a bit of a pattern there. What does everyone think?

Every time he offers a Banker's Gamble he's not doing what he would have done if the player hadn't have dealt.

Well even in that there is a degree of not telling the contestant what the offer would have been. Usually higher as a subtantially larger amount is left that what was dealt for.