You know, I was just coming on here to ask that very thing! I'm not saying she's particularly old, but that's some sibling age difference.

I think it was Patsy Ann Noble who sang 'Accidents will happen'

They would probably get a negative lower offer if there was already money in the pot.

I saw an episode recently, may have been on Challenge, when the first contestant's low offer was a minus offer. He didn't take it, but if he had, and noone else got through, what would happen, because you'd have the ludicrous situation of a contestant playing for a minus offer, and having to pay the chaser if he won?

Paul tried to get the first one banned from the English language in one edition of 'Bad Language' recently.

They're really all just catchphrases - they're there to be used frequently.

"It's a one question shoot-out!"

"Don't take the minus, that's an insult."

I've never really understood how it's an insult. The Chaser is just playing the game, it's not a reflection on how good or bad the player is. If there is a reasonable prize fund after the first two have played, then the Chaser more or less has to give players three and four a minus offer, otherwise it's too easy for them to take the low offer. But it's not an insult.

I actually remember the first time the Chaser made a minus offer. Jaws dropped all round. It must have been a long time ago, but I don't remember when.

Yes. Obviously common now though. There are some some pretty big shortcomings in the game, not just when taking a minus offer early. No doubt this has been mentioned before but, for instance, if a lone player gets through to the final chase with a low offer of less than £1000, they would have been better off not getting through as they're given the equivalent of £1000 each in the final chase for losing anyway. This whole business about a team of losers being allowed back is rather problematic, simply for time filling.

It was definitely a good idea to introduce minus offers. It makes the game much more interesting.

If there were no minus offers then the low offer would be just about an automatic play for player 4 nearly every time, unless it was a low prize fund and they'd got about five or more right, then maybe it would be worth risking the middle offer to boost it up a bit. Similarly if player 1 or 2 has brought the high offer back, then the low offer would nearly always be the correct play for player 3 as well, no matter how many they'd got right.

Also if there were no minus offers then Twitter people wouldn't be able to get mad about it:

"OMG SOME1 JUST TK MINUS £5K ON #THECHASE HOW SELFISH CAN U GET HOPE SHE LOSES GRRRRR #SOMADITHREWMYTVOUTTHEWINDOW"

I'm sure I remember one from a while back when player 1 got knocked out and player 2 didn't do very well in their Cashbuider, got about two or three or something. The low offer was a pound, and they took it and got back.

It would have been hilarious if the other two had got knocked out - then player two would have been playing for a total prize fund of a pound.

Unfortunately one of the other two remaining players spoiled it by getting through.

Very funny and would have caused a real headache for the show probably resulting in a rule change. Who knows, maybe there has already been behind the scenes manipulation of events at times to avoid such a scenario.

In a similar context, not that I watched the rubbish more than a handful of times, but I wondered what would have happened if contestants had started taking The Banker's first offer on Deal Or No Deal. Obviously would have made an already mind-numbingly tedious show totally unwatchable. I seem to recall reading on the long defunct Channel 4 Forums years ago that contestants were told if they took the first offer their show wouldn't be broadcast. Certainly an effective way to get a wannabe to step into line.

The obvious rule change would be to say that the prize fund must always be at least a thousand pounds. If the above scenario actually happened, they would make the prize fund up to a thousand.

There may even be such a rule in place but it's never had to be used since it is so unlikely it would actually happen.

Why can't they give a prize of £1. It's more than the nothing that most people leave with.

Deal Or No Deal has prize values Of £1, 50p, 10p and 1p.

It's only a problem if the jackpot stands at a negative amount and they're never going to let that happen.

If a player with a minus offer was the sole player to get back then It wouldn't really be fair on the other three if he then got given a £1000 prize fund.


They could I suppose turn his minus prize fund into points so for example someone who has their minus 2000 prize fund turned into a 1000 prize fund would get three points taken off their score in the final chase.

They are never going to make a negative offer to anyone if there is no money in the prize fund. They will only make a negaive offer if there is cash in the kitty to take money away from.

Deal or No Deal has small prize amounts, yes, but they're effectively booby prizes. Nobody wants to win one of them.

But a Final Chase where the prize fund was only a pound would border on the farcical.

"Congratulations, you have not been caught! What do you plan to do with the money?"

"Buy a lottery ticket?"

"You can't, they cost two pounds now."

Squeaky voiced teen off the Simpsons in seat 4 today.

Shaun today

Deleted

Brad's face there., he knows she is wrong. Pretty obvious it was Sao Paolo

I think Shaun's my favourite Chaser, he's delightfully bonkers

He certainly is pretty nutty today as opposed to sometimes when he can seem so miserable. Reckon he'll win easily today.

he looks very geeky.

Well done Jacob, at last a student with good general knowledge

How much do you think the Chasers get paid?