Exactly, it's been a terrible week.

I mean watching Lance's, Louise's and Carol's shows I felt sick at seeing all that lovely money being greedily cremated.

Absolutely awful. Clive and Betty were the best. No more.

We've got another contender!

To be honest, I don't think Marysia's was that bad. It wasn't good, but I'd say Charles' deal was worse!

The board was certainly worth over double though.

Totally disagreed - Charles's board was only worth about £5k more if that. Marysia's was worth at least £10k more.

I agree. In more in the Michael/Hayley category than the Lance/Louise/Richard/Colleen category as I can't see how £6,600 is life-changing.

I don't think Marysia's deal was too bad due to the 3 blues / 2 reds split, but it's certainly one of the worst 5-box deals.

I thought it was utterly horrendous, as was her decision not to take the Banker's Gamble (although it was inevitable in the context of her having accepted the previous offer). They're both up there with the worst for me.

To me £6,600 wouldn't be enough to change my life, but it would certainly make my life a lot easier for a while. To someone else, however, £6,600 may be enough to change their life. I'm not sure what to make of Marysia's deal. I was relieved when she dealt, as I looked at the clock just before and it was ten to five. Thinking about it, she only really needed to keep one of the reds in to get a better offer, so I'd have given it a shot.

*what daniel said* - a bit strange to go that far and then bail out for a moderate amount with 2 large sums in play -probably just very bad board reading - the board just suddenly looked bad because there were 3 blues there but she ignored offer generosity.?

I think we have a new contender today with William! The rejection of the Banker's Gamble was certainly even worse than Marysia's...

Yep, not sure whether or not it's a worse rejection of the Banker's Gamble than Ann's!

I think Ann's rejection of the gamble was slightly worse, but William's original deal was far worse. Ann was having a terrible game, and only had the £10k left above the figure she dealt at. William was having average luck in his game, and had two of the power 5 left when he dealt.

Yeah I wouldn't put Ann's original deal in this category at all, it was just turning down the gamble that was ridiculous...I think I might agree that William's was worse though. Although I suppose he had the fact that the Banker knew what was in the box to make it a more difficult decision.

Both Ann and William turning down the Gamble were bad, as I'd have taken both Gambles, and both were well worth the risk, given the potential gain over the potential loss. Mind you, in William's case, I wouldn't have taken the £4,000.01, it was an abysmal offer, and IMO, one of the worst ever deals.

I do believe if there was a smaller gap between £100,000 and £250,000, then I think more people would be encouraged to gamble due to the fact that the board is more stable. (Richard and Colleen - NO CHANCE)

If you think about it, look at the difference:

£500,000
£300,000
£150,000 etc

or

£750,000
£200,000
£150,000 etc.

The board is more solid and some serious bad luck would be needed to destroy amounts that are closer together, rather than a 1 box game before it's even begun.

There is a difference between squandering more money, and blowing it big time, and in EPIC style!

For that only, I say Richard and Michael share the worst deal ever - nobody else comes close.

I'm sure Michael would have gone on if he'd been offered £999.

When are you posting your next gameshow? I'm waiting!
Yes, Mike's deal was pretty awful, but not near as bad as Lance's and Louise's deal.