I wouldn't have bothered, only for £5,000...£15,000 would have been low enough for me to accept a Banker's Gamble though

And there we go, she's lowered to £12,000!

Random fact: Justin has had the £10 for four games running

Oooh...

Laura loses £2,500 and the Banker is laughing down the phone!

Banker's offer would've been:

£60,000

£60,000 would have possibly encouraged me to No Deal...it's respectful but not overwhelmingly generous...

Noel says that Laura has another decision as she would have been offered the SWAP, but Laura says she wouldn't have swapped.

Noel opens box 7 and reveals £50

Matthew with box 21 contains the £250,000

Laura goes home with £12,500

A positive note to end the game!

The girl still came off well. Obvious she didn't have the £250K in her box, because they gave the game away. Supposed to be Dawn (£100K) but presumably they didn't want that amount in play at this time, so chose Laura instead.

A close one for her and she could've been Season 5's highest winner by taking £60k, when is the day ever gonna come?

Do you think the game is fixed then ???

Love it when there is a twist..... don't think I would've taken the gamble for 5,000.

An entertaining game today. I'd have done the same as Laura today most likely. Incidentally, losing out on the gamble means that she's the lowest-winning contestant on the show (otherwise she'd have been tied-lowest). The gamble seemed a bit gimmicky for my tastes, but oh well...

Was annoyed at the longest runner having a really big number AGAIN, though. Dawn had better not win a blue when she plays...

Actually I can see it too...not in a fixed way like, but as if saying it's definitely in one of the two boxes in the wings, as of course if it was on the table it was a lose-lose situation!

I wouldn't say 'fixed'. But all programs like this must have some sort of control. Boxes are picked at random, but at any one time, there must be three or four 'candidates'. I just envisage some sort of nod or wink to the adjudicator as to whether or not we are happy with a high or low number etc. Hey Presto, an appropriate candidate will then be chosen. I have no special knowledge. This is just my own cynical instinct!

Why would you ever doubt me...?

(The accent was covered up by her hair in Ben's game yesterday.)

The adjudictor can't have any say as to what is in the chosen contestants box because the players choose a box at random by picking balls from a bag on the set just before the filming starts and after the boxes have been filled and sealed.



That's making a big assumption that the banker would be told the box contents before the game is over, which given the presence of the banker's gamble (which wouldn't have been used today), can't be an assumption you can make without allegations of the show trying to manufacture a QM win when the £250k is present with at 2-box.

Lowest-winning contestant on the show? Loads of players have won far less than £12,500. Unless you mean the lowest win for a contestant called Laura.

Thinking in hindsight, the banker's special gamble was equivalent to going into a casino, winning £15k and then putting £2.5k on the roulette wheel and picking either one of the 3 columns or 1-12,13-24,25-36 and getting 2 to 1 odds on a 1 in 3 chance (assuming that the roulette wheel didn't have a zero on it) so it actually wasn't a bad decision but I'd have wanted the reward to outway the odds of the riisk.

As you say, we couldn't see it because of her hair yesterday...none of us would ever doubt you!

Oops. Yes, I meant the lowest winning contestant named Laura...

And I don't think that the show is fixed in the way that some people here are implying. I mean, the show's been running for four years now. If there was some element of cheating in the program, I'm 99% sure they'd have discovered it by now...

The show is not fixed in any way.

Well done Laura - but (for me) it was another spoiled game. Too much reliance on mum & friend in audience made her look a little dim (imho). Still 12.5k was ok