Oh dear. Gamble was arguable either way; just unlucky he made the wrong call.

And once again, The Banker gets the victory over the cautious contestant. Cautiousness doesn't always pay off and it showed today.

Why even offer the gamble at all?! It's just pointless. No one will EVER take it.

They just don't have the bottle to go for it. If they did, the £250,000 winners would be well over double figures...

How funny is it that I started this thread with a point about the sparsity of the 35k coming to the table recently!!!!!

Oh yeah, well predicted.

No, it is because they make sensible decisions based on the board and do not take such reckless gambles like that.

Should been offered more times in my view... so far this year I think it's only been accepted once (or twice).

And when cautiousness does pay off then you laud the player as a hero and a clever b*stard. Logic...

Anyway, congratulations to Lee for NOT taking a foolish gamble and for grabbing £10,000 when it will obviously enhance his life greatly.

And one small complaint now - Noel, it ISN'T incredible and odd defying to have the same amount on the table twice in a row... same goes for players having the same amount in consecutive shows and for boxes to have the same amount in consecutives shows... it's always 1 in 22. Always.

Yeah but you know what I mean. They should not just sit and open boxes. They should be thinking about their own games, thinking, ahh, what mistakes have been made here and how can I do different. We've had big money that hasn't been taken at the table recently.

Just shows that the majority of players are sensible and do not make reckless decisions.

With the exception of Alice who took it and won the jackpot back in 2009.

That's what KP does, not me.

That was three years ago when there weren't so many cautious players.

When was the last time the £35,000 came twice to the table in row?

Cheers lol, very strange though!

It is not called cautious to avoid the gamble, it is called sensible.

Beacuse games and boxes dont have memories. Every player takes the gamble on their game, with their life and their money. The same as you would if it was you playing.

Nice to see a Banker's Gamble that's genuinely arguable either way and produced a properly different decision from the Deal point. There, too, both decisions were easily justifiable.

At least he didn't gamble and swap, and at least Noel pointed out as much.

Thanks KP, you've just saved me from needing to post.