We just can't shake it off. We just can't shake off the bad games from Battle of the Sexes, we've not had a big, long run of good games since the start of the season now, it's just the occasional glimmer of hope with a red win or two and then it brings you straight back to earth with another blue win game. Janet has the 'honour' of being the 100th blue winner in the history of the show.

That's now sixteen blue wins in Season 3 alone, about double as much as what we'd had by this time in Season 2. Today's game just went from great, to bad, to good again, and then just when you think she could actually get an OPW, nope, she doesn't. The mummies really are cursed!

And who do we know becomes the new Mummy???

HELEN!!! Oh I so pray she doesn't have a terrible game!!!

I cant believe im saying this, i totally agree with you Basicasic

That's what I would call a brave game, rather than a reckless game. Some contestants play, and want to no deal to the end, regardless of how the game is going, or reading the board after each round. This time, though, I think Janet knew what she was doing, and I think it was worth turning down that £20k offer given the chance of winning more.

Shame she couldn't have had the £20k in her box at the end.

The show finished five minutes earlier than usual. It was 4.45 at five-box stage and so I thought because of so much time left, they were going to use the time building tension and she was going to win a big amount or they'd be some crazy twist at the end. Unfortunately, I was wrong on both accounts.

Really, really brave for her to turn down £20,000 when she needed it, and I really wanted the gamble to pay off for her, but when the £100,000 and the £50,000 went I knew she had to go to the end and open her box if she wanted to chase the £20,000 and she did just that. Just a shame it was the £100.

Nobody is going to want the role as the mummy after today.

'reckless' games are exciting though and thats all that matters

no one complained about graemes game did they?

Isn't the game more about beating the banker rather than being exciting?

grrr why are the women getting awful offers

i thought her board was so similar to eds and his offers were huge

its how exciting beating the banker is to the viewing public

Wakey up, going to the end isn't the only way to make a game exciting, there's another part to the game aside from No Deal.

Awful luck for Janet today, another day it could have been so much better. I dont think that it was completely reckless to turn down £20,000, but if she hadn't, it would not have made the game any less exciting or enjoyable,for me anyway.

I suggest you watch your tone mate...

i never implyed going to the end was the only way to make a game exciting. Most of the exciting games are ones in which a player goes to the end though.

I mentioned graemes game earlier - that was bloody amazing and he didnt go to the end?

I apologise if that reply came off rude, but I never understand how people think dealing makes the game less exciting. I get just as much entertainment from finding if the Deal was the right one (or not)

Great game. Much better than the one I watched live on the other side....

Dear old KP. Is he still banging on about Noel being "biased". Won't he ever accept that what Noel says is purely for the dramatic purposes and is irrelevant to the player?

How about looking at it like this. Noel must, MUST always tell a big winner they earned/deserved it. Must always tell a very small blue winner how unlucky they were/ didn't deserve it. Must always tell someone who could have won far more that they blew a great opportunity.

That's all he does. Irrespective of gameplay because that's what makes normal viewers feel comfortable. They understand the game in those terms.

Imagine if he told a big winner they didn't deserve it because they took an unreasonable risk or told a blue winner it was their own fault!

There was something about that game that had "crash and burn" written all over it and, even after her amazing start, I just had this strange feeling that Janet was going to leave very disappointed.

In response to the Wakey people (not including Betty who at least puts his points across with a bit of sense) the aim of the show is to entertain but that isn't the aim of the contestant in the chair. The aim of the contestant in the chair is to get money. If it was all about keeping you reckless gamblers happy then it might as well be scripted and Endemol could just hire people to play a pre-determined game. I'm sure Janet wasn't sitting there thinking, oh, I have to play on to keep the public happy. Why can't you just accept that some people want to deal because money means more to some than others?

In response to KP, I also have to agree with Betty here. Noel is nowhere near as bad as he used to be and he does a good job at keeping the masses happy (this is where Endemol do have control over entertaining the public) and he has very little affect on the player in the chair.

I'm not denying reckless games can be exciting, but reckless games can be equally tragic, if a player turns down a nice sum of money only to see the game fall apart. When something like that happens, it's not necessarily an exciting thing to watch.

With due respect to Noel, he did seem to give quite a balanced dilemma argument when Janet was considering the 20k offer, and he is infnitely better than he was 6 - 9 months ago. I still couldn't ever imagine him saying, today for example: "You stupid woman, you could have had 20 grand if only you'd said deal - you've gone and squandered £19,900!!"

But seriously, that game felt horrible. She'd proved she was brave by playing as far as she did, so why not offer a "respecting courage" offer at 2-box like he has for so many others who've had a go and it not quite come off? 8k or so would have been appropriate I feel. Stupid banker.I also thought he deserved to pay dearly for the earlier offers being a load of poo, but he got away with it.

The only thing was, although I certainly would have played on to the end, if I was in Janet's sitauation, I'd have been a bit more cautious than usual and dealt the 20k. I remember in the summer when I'd just lost my job, I remember watching the game and thinking I'd deal offers I wouldn't have dealt in a different situation! I'd have ensured I went away with something good.

But on the other hand, maybe 20k wouldn't have done for her what she needed, and 50k or 100k would have done, so she was totally justified in that respect. But still, it made me feel sick.

And also, games where people deal, when I think they've been completely wrong to do so, then destroy the board in the proveout, are just as exciting as the big-money gambles in my eyes!

Poor Janet. A really nice lady who deserved so much more.

i just get the feeling quieter characters or the janet type character get low offers even with greta boards...the 20k and the 10k offers should of been higher.

A very brave lady today. £20K was an offer that had its merits in both dealing and no dealing.

Helen B is apparently a mummy soon, I really hope she doesn't get the constant bad luck, its not really a responsibility, its a curse!