I'm going to do a number of monthly polls around the middle of each month from now on, to get a gauge of the forum's opinion on different elements of the show. Each one will ask you to select one statement to agree with, from a choice of several on the same topic.

This month's poll is on the risk attitudes of the contestants. Are there too many cautious players? Maybe you think there aren't enough? Or do you think the balance is about right?

Poll closes at 10am on September 14.

I chose there's not enough risk takers.

I mean, yeah, the £250k and £100k were won recently, but that was with quite generous back up.

I don't want the show to be flooded with them, but more gung ho players like Kerry-Anne and Corinne would shake things up a bit and be a lot more exciting.

I voted that it's about right. We have quite a few cautious deals for the big money which I'm fine with. Then we have players turning down above mean offers on a 250k finish.

I think the balance is about right. I'd prefer it if there wasn't an obvious preference for aggressive gameplay, but that's faded since its peak in 2007. The problem is probably more that some of the big gamblers don't get a chance to demonstrate the full extent of their risky attitudes because they get weak boards, which in turn means that you have to cast a disproportionate number of them to get enough of the dramatic big-money finishes a lot of viewers are desperate for - and if you do that you get quite a few "wasted" games.

No prizes for guessing what I voted for......

The top one.

It's about right. Mathetically, I'd prefer more sensible deals but as a viewer, it would be a boring show if you didn't get the odd rational gamble every so often.

I put the top option becuase if that happened it would shut some people up on here.

The forum must be getting to you, James!