Another five box deal with one high box left for barely over 40% of the average.
Not much more to be said,really.
Yes - not the most entertaining of games but I am pleased that a young lad serving his apprenticeship did reasonably well out of it. He dealt at the right time too. Jimmy's manners were impeccable throughout his game today. If only all teenagers were as polite.
The post deal celebration music was really pointless with him not risking his £8,000 on box 23 and it turned out he could have won more.
I wouldn't have risked box 23 today myself, David. Certainly wouldn't have risked it if I was a teenager on an apprentice's salary supplementing my wage working in a baguette shop at the weekend.
Box 23 is just a gimmick. It shouldn't count towards a Banker spanking.
I would question whether any deal at barely more than 40% of the average should count as a "spanking" at all. No doubt some people might think I'm unduly harsh.
If he was going to deal at eight grand at five boxes when he's still got the £75K and the £20K there,he'd have been as well dealing at the first round when he got offered ten thousand.
Let's face it,if all you cared about was spanking the Banker,you should probably deal at the first round if you get offered anything half decent. If he offers £8,000 at the first round,and you deal,you are about a two to one favourite to have "spanked" the Banker,since at the start of the game,14 of the boxes are lower than that amount and only eight are higher.
I would question whether any deal at barely more than 40% of the average should count as a "spanking" at all. No doubt some people might think I'm unduly harsh.
If he was going to deal at eight grand at five boxes when he's still got the £75K and the £20K there,he'd have been as well dealing at the first round when he got offered ten thousand.
Let's face it,if all you cared about was spanking the Banker,you should probably deal at the first round if you get offered anything half decent. If he offers £8,000 at the first round,and you deal,you are about a two to one favourite to have "spanked" the Banker,since at the start of the game,14 of the boxes are lower than that amount and only eight are higher.
1. Jimmy did NOT spank the Banker today. He just beat him as he sold his box for a profit.
2. Without hindsight, Jimmy was quite right not to Deal the 1st offer, as odds were he was going to get a significantly larger offer at some point in the game (like Winston and Warren last month), plus even if things started going wrong, he could still bail out with a few grand, as we saw today.
3. Jimmy's first offer was less than one third (33%) of the average whereas his 5 box offer as 40% of the average on a far more volatile board, so there was no statistical inconsistency on his part in dealing when he did and not at the first offer.
Box 23 is just a gimmick. It shouldn't count towards a Banker spanking.
If Noel suggests that £50,000 or £35,000 that the player chose at random before game began and then there's half or Nothing in box 23 that he or she's beaten the banker because the player dealt on a higher offer than the half or Nothing, then that would be completly wrong.
Rich Tea is indeed correct about when almost nothing suddenly turns into additional £10,000 (£20,000 last week) winnings. But you can also say exactly the same about a far too soon a deal suddenly being greater than one of the power 5 the player brought to table being cut by the contents of box 23 when Noel credits them for beating the banker.
Which is why I picked it - I thought the law of averages etc it's bound to pick up soon. No such luck ! >:(
The law of averages does not exist. Probabilties do not even up in the short run. As the number of trials increases,once you get into the long run,the number of succesful trials will converge on the true probability,but this has no effect on the short run. See the wikipedia article on the Gambler's Fallacy,or the mistaken doctrine of the maturity of chances.
1. Jimmy did NOT spank the Banker today. He just beat him as he sold his box for a profit.
2. Without hindsight, Jimmy was quite right not to Deal the 1st offer, as odds were he was going to get a significantly larger offer at some point in the game (like Winston and Warren last month), plus even if things started going wrong, he could still bail out with a few grand, as we saw today.
3. Jimmy's first offer was less than one third (33%) of the average whereas his 5 box offer as 40% of the average on a far more volatile board, so there was no statistical inconsistency on his part in dealing when he did and not at the first offer.
Yes,fair point,I am unsure what a Banker "spanking" actually is. I thought it just meant you sold your box for more than what was in it. Presumably it means something else,then. You sold your box at the highest offer you got and it was more than what was in the box,is that it?
Yes,fair point,I am unsure what a Banker "spanking" actually is. I thought it just meant you sold your box for more than what was in it. Presumably it means something else,then. You sold your box at the highest offer you got and it was more than what was in the box,is that it?
These distinctions are somewhat academic anyway.
Technically a banker spanking is the highest offer of the day dealt on before the game crashed completely.
Before the introduction of box 23 such result as yesterday would have been celebrated in the studio as though it was effectively a spanking (though not an actual spanking) as it was the highest banker offer from the 3rd one on, before the game crashed completley. And nobody ever deals on the 1st 2 offers. Well, apart from Josh.
Is it an unofficial players rule that nobody is to deal in the first 2 offers. Did Josh break that rule when he dealt on the 2nd offer?
Noel the following day called one of the previous games last year a banker spanking when it was not.
Noel constantly about "It's all about timing, dealing at precisely he right time"
And Noel so often says "As long as you've made just one mistake you will go away from the dream factory with no regrets."
It's Noel who goes on about the "importance" of spanking the banker. The skill (if you even get the opportunity on such a game of chance/luck) of going away with the highest value of the game I would have thought was more important than whether or not you've got one over on the banker.
Too many players go to the middle and say they're gunning to spank the banker, ignoring how to play the game and in the end most of them come nowhere near spanking banker despite all the earlier bravado and one upmanship as when the offer reaches x amount they can't stomach a battle of wills with banker as the pressure intensifies and can't afford to lose or risk their high 4 figure sum of money, £12,000, £14,000 they were offered
Comments
Hmm... £8,000 is OK
Box 10 - Steve - £10,000
Box 5 - Sharelle - £15,000
5th offer - £8,000
DEAL
But £75k!
I assume the offer would have a 23 in it. I'd offer him £323.
Not much more to be said,really.
Box 9 - Craig (newbie) - 1p
Box 22 - Jono - £75,000
Box 20 - Lynne - £20,000
Jimmy does a slow lap of honour
£10 and £750 left in the game
Closing offer would have been £230
Box 23 - NO DEAL
Contents - DOUBLE
Yes - not the most entertaining of games but I am pleased that a young lad serving his apprenticeship did reasonably well out of it. He dealt at the right time too. Jimmy's manners were impeccable throughout his game today. If only all teenagers were as polite.
I wouldn't have risked box 23 today myself, David. Certainly wouldn't have risked it if I was a teenager on an apprentice's salary supplementing my wage working in a baguette shop at the weekend.
I would question whether any deal at barely more than 40% of the average should count as a "spanking" at all. No doubt some people might think I'm unduly harsh.
If he was going to deal at eight grand at five boxes when he's still got the £75K and the £20K there,he'd have been as well dealing at the first round when he got offered ten thousand.
Let's face it,if all you cared about was spanking the Banker,you should probably deal at the first round if you get offered anything half decent. If he offers £8,000 at the first round,and you deal,you are about a two to one favourite to have "spanked" the Banker,since at the start of the game,14 of the boxes are lower than that amount and only eight are higher.
1. Jimmy did NOT spank the Banker today. He just beat him as he sold his box for a profit.
2. Without hindsight, Jimmy was quite right not to Deal the 1st offer, as odds were he was going to get a significantly larger offer at some point in the game (like Winston and Warren last month), plus even if things started going wrong, he could still bail out with a few grand, as we saw today.
3. Jimmy's first offer was less than one third (33%) of the average whereas his 5 box offer as 40% of the average on a far more volatile board, so there was no statistical inconsistency on his part in dealing when he did and not at the first offer.
If Noel suggests that £50,000 or £35,000 that the player chose at random before game began and then there's half or Nothing in box 23 that he or she's beaten the banker because the player dealt on a higher offer than the half or Nothing, then that would be completly wrong.
Rich Tea is indeed correct about when almost nothing suddenly turns into additional £10,000 (£20,000 last week) winnings. But you can also say exactly the same about a far too soon a deal suddenly being greater than one of the power 5 the player brought to table being cut by the contents of box 23 when Noel credits them for beating the banker.
Not as cr*p as last week Ramraider, when it gave me the wooden spoon with distinction.
Oh phew, you edited it! I did chose box six!
Which is why I picked it - I thought the law of averages etc it's bound to pick up soon. No such luck ! >:(
The law of averages does not exist. Probabilties do not even up in the short run. As the number of trials increases,once you get into the long run,the number of succesful trials will converge on the true probability,but this has no effect on the short run. See the wikipedia article on the Gambler's Fallacy,or the mistaken doctrine of the maturity of chances.
Yes,fair point,I am unsure what a Banker "spanking" actually is. I thought it just meant you sold your box for more than what was in it. Presumably it means something else,then. You sold your box at the highest offer you got and it was more than what was in the box,is that it?
These distinctions are somewhat academic anyway.
Technically a banker spanking is the highest offer of the day dealt on before the game crashed completely.
Before the introduction of box 23 such result as yesterday would have been celebrated in the studio as though it was effectively a spanking (though not an actual spanking) as it was the highest banker offer from the 3rd one on, before the game crashed completley. And nobody ever deals on the 1st 2 offers. Well, apart from Josh.
Is it an unofficial players rule that nobody is to deal in the first 2 offers. Did Josh break that rule when he dealt on the 2nd offer?
Noel the following day called one of the previous games last year a banker spanking when it was not.
Noel constantly about "It's all about timing, dealing at precisely he right time"
And Noel so often says "As long as you've made just one mistake you will go away from the dream factory with no regrets."
It's Noel who goes on about the "importance" of spanking the banker. The skill (if you even get the opportunity on such a game of chance/luck) of going away with the highest value of the game I would have thought was more important than whether or not you've got one over on the banker.
Too many players go to the middle and say they're gunning to spank the banker, ignoring how to play the game and in the end most of them come nowhere near spanking banker despite all the earlier bravado and one upmanship as when the offer reaches x amount they can't stomach a battle of wills with banker as the pressure intensifies and can't afford to lose or risk their high 4 figure sum of money, £12,000, £14,000 they were offered