3 Responses

1. David Howell

   1

   April 29th, 2007 at 10:55 am

   Note the relative neutrality of Andrew compared to Noel, despite the former operating in a country with a much greater tradition of gambling.

   Two very interesting games though!

2. TheKid965

   2

   April 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

   I definitely would have dealt in the UK situation. £70,000 (or roughly $145,000) is no small amount of money, and even given the way it played out I wouldn’t feel too bad about ending up with that as opposed to the £100,000 he actually had in his box. I like to think of myself as a bit of a gambler, but that’s one gamble I wouldn’t have taken.

   The Aussie situation, however, I would definitely have gone on for at least one more round before dealing. It was still a pretty good-looking board (with three of the green dollar figures still in play, including the two biggies), and AU$18,900 (roughly $16,000) isn’t enough to tempt me out of playing on in that setup. Still, as with any gambling game, it’s all up to what you feel in your gut is about to happen.

   And these clips reinforce my opinion that the UK Deal or No Deal is probably the best overall. Noel is unbelievable in the way he plays up the drama of the moment, and the subdued direction of the show helps the atmosphere tremendously. As good as Howie Mandel is, he wishes he could be Noel Edmonds, I’m sure…

3. CarShark

   3

   April 30th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

   I agree with you, Kid. I think that the UK situation is a good demonstration of how much harder the late game decisions are when you have to open THREE cases at once instead of one at a time. If Gaz had hit a big one, he doesn’t have the luxury of taking a smaller offer. He has to take the risk that it will snowball and he’ll open the other big one.

   The Aussie game ended too soon, I think, but the way Andrew made it look, it sounds like $18,900 is a common offer on the Aussie show, the turning point, if you will. I still would have gone on, though.