As I said on the thread, if you consider today's game an OPW, it was only the second this year. And the only other one, Kelly, also came via a £10,000 win from Box 23. We haven't had one from pure original gameplay so far this year. But can we anymore?

So, if a player deals their highest offer, profits on their box, but turns down Box 23 and could've doubled or plus tenned it, is that an OPW?

I seem to recall Charlton's and Emma's games from Xmas '11 not being considering true OPWs due to them winning extra money via twists.

Any other views on this?

If you take the highest possible offer and profit from the deal, you have an OPW. Box 23 is something extra that I don't think should factor into whether or not the result can be considered an OPW. If the player goes for it, and doubles or plus-10s their winnings, that's just the icing on the cake.

But if the player craps out, and then plus-10s their "winnings," it sort of takes the whole concept of the OPW and throws it out the window. The player adds money through a bonus, and not by dealing an offer. It's a tough call, but I don't think a plus-10 win after a blue "win" can be considered as an OPW.

I did think when I found out about Box 23, that it was going to muddy the definition of an OPW.

I still can't see how today's game is a spanking. Yes £10,005 was more than any of the offers she got (or the box value) but it could be argued that someone could have taken £6k at 8-box with the tactics of risking that on box 23 and ending up with £16,000.

Exactly. Or if she'd gone at the first offer, then gone for Box 23, it would've been £19,000. So £19,000 could be said to have been the peak, in some ways.

I think Mark has hit the head of the nail with his points as well.

Also, suppose someone who got an OPW then drew HALF from Box 23... would that still count as an OPW? (We were still happy to think of Baz's game as an OPW when he gave some of his money back)

I think you have to differentiate between post-game twists that were one-offs and box 23 which now gives the same opportunity to every player.

Although technically, we could have situations where the player gets the peak of their game for a substantial amount (where 99% of players wouldn't deal box 23), Box 23 contains the double and we would end up with would we would have classed a draw (in that they got half the possibly maximum out of their game).

I think we would probably need to start drawing up a fresh set of definitions and I'm not sure that's worth the effort now.

In my opinion, Kelly and Tash both spanked the Banker, as they won a sum of money greater than any of their offers and their box contents. I personally think Box 23 should only be a factor in determining an OPW if the player actually purchases it, as it would consistent with the treatment of previous post-game twists.

So, would you consider Charlton's and Emma's game to be OPWs as well?

+1

Charlton: Yes in game-play terms, though I do think the twist was completely manufactured, especially as the Banker wanted him to win 1p.

Emma: NO, as the twist was a part of the game. Saying she got an OPW would be like saying someone who won £1,000 prior to their game obtained an OPW for dealing £10,001 when their highest offer was £11,000.

On your day, you're not far off being a valuable member of this place. Some good points, with which I agree. That post is quite a reflection of my own viewpoint - harking back to Iris (sort of), I think if you win the most that you could have done in your game, the 'outright player win' is the only description that we've created which fits it.

However...what if you take box 23 and lose money? You're saying box 23 should only be a factor in determining OPW if purchased, but what of the OBWs, the OPLs and so forth? Are you suggesting...that box 23 be discounted in cases when it doesn't work in the player's favour? This I think would be a flawed way of looking at it...for if box 23 purchased becomes involved in determining one outcome, box 23 purchased - I think - must then be involved in determining any and all other outcomes there can be. Box 23 not purchased is fine, we do nothing about it, fair enough, it's all hypo; but box 23 purchased is another matter entirely, and, I feel, should apply to whatever the outcome is (rather than simply the outright win). If that makes sense.

I don't really see how today's game can be considered an OPW.

£50, £750, and £3000 were the figures at the end.

Assuming she would box 23 all of them she actually won the lowest amount.

But then the for a traditional OPW she'd have had to deal the opening £9,000 where it is arguably not correct to box 23 it which means winning less than she did.

At the end of the day the objective of the main game is to win as much money as possible. Box 23 doesn't change that. So for that reason I think that box 23's contents and whether it was dealt or not should be ignored.

Tash no dealt until the end of her game and won the lowest amount possible. It's an OBW.

I quite like the idea of calling it a "Ilusionary Win/Loss/Draw" if box 23 has been taken to affect the equation. If nothing else, at least that gives a point of reference to refer back to... In fact, you could even classify Tash's game in 2 ways - OBW, That was a "Illusionary Technical Player win" (£10,005/£19,005)...

today was another illusionary technical player win

I'll call that a win. Win's a win and winning is winning.

So, a player takes the highest sum out of their pure game, but could've had more from Box 23, so it's not an OPW, yet someone who wins a blue, then wins £10,000 from Box 23, and it is an OPW.