Noel said on Julie's game to play on with honest when having dealt. i.e not picking boxes you wouldn't pick if you no dealt! However, this rule should also apply to the banker because it is simply not fair! As well as this, the banker has done this on several occasions...he makes an offer and once a player deals he calls back and says the offer SHOULD have been substantially larger! He did this on Alex's game and recently on Julie's game....if for example £40,000 was in fact an offer for the board, the banker should have a rule to, that he HAS to offer fairly in terms of the board, because he always tries to gain a victory over a player in some form. Also, he RARELY plays on with honesty e.g Julies game....£40,000 after losing 1/4 million?!? COME ON!
I agree. The banker shouldn't call back after a deal and say the offer really SHOULD have been higher. In that case he should have offered higher - and Noel can't say he plays on with honesty as he patently does not.
Have to agree regarding the flagrant rule breaking committed by the banker nowadays. If you have dealt the "honest" way to play on is to go for the boxes where you suspected the big money was when the game was live. After all who would honestly keep a box with a potential big cash sum if they no longer wanted to keep that sum available?
The banker's habit of "playing" the contestant by offering a lower sum than he technically should is as underhand and dishonest to the game as Jenny and Michael's attempt to bribe the Marrakesh tennis racket makers was in tonight's Apprentice!
Kaled, the players know that they have to play on as if they have NOT dealt. This is so the viewers can see how the game would have panned out if they had not dealt. This makes the 'playing on' after the deal a little more meaningful for the audience. I don't think that asking them to play on in this manner Post - Deal is asking too much.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chobo: Kaled, the players know that they have to play on as if they have NOT dealt. This is so the viewers can see how the game would have panned out if they had not dealt.[QUOTE]
But for the viewers to really see how the game would have panned out then the banker also must play on with total honesty?
Originally posted by chobo: Kaled, the players know that they have to play on as if they have NOT dealt. This is so the viewers can see how the game would have panned out if they had not dealt.
But for the viewers to really see how the game would have panned out then the banker also must play on with total honesty?
I agree Peggy and we all know he doesn't. But if players were not to be honest, they may as well say "Oh you pick the rest of the boxes Noel" after dealing.
Hi chobo - this laptap has a mind of its own! I agree that if the player didn't play on with honesty there would be no suspense at the end, but I wish the banker would offer ludicrously low amounts in play followed by ludicrously high amounts after a deal.
