I hate to agree with the MarkBot 6000, but this £50,000 should've been won. Just saying.

£140,000 on a final two of £10,000 and £250,000 was above the average..."stranger things have happened"...

So the last time the BG was offered with a red as a backup was in 2010?

And the person who refused that was one of the biggest idiots in the show's history.

While I don't normally condone your calling every contestant who didn't win the highest amount in their game (or who has really bad luck) an idiot, she would certainly be a contender for the most questionable decision.

Just said on Twitter that she would have accepted the Bankers Gamble and also swapped the box if he offered it.

Stalker.

There were a couple declined on £35k/orange finishes since then but I was looking at £10k minimum backup.

Tom (01/04/11) - Dealt at £15,450 - £3k/£35k finish (Declined - £3,000 in box)

Ken (12/07/11) - Dealt at £13,000 - £1k/£35k finish (Declined - £1,000 in box)

And then she'd have got £11k less than she won.

I find it impossible to disagree.

If you win a blue, you're automatically an idiot. If your gamble goes wrong and your game falls flat, you're an idiot as well because you could've prevented the crash by accepting an earlier offer.

My opinion has been such for seven years, and it will not - and cannot - change.

a fantastic game with another entertaining and loquacious player, the relationship between Rachel and the Banker gave the game an extra frisson. A very funny game and an exciting one.
Certainly think there was a case for the Banker's Gamble (or whatever we're calling it these days) not least because of that unusual relationship Rachel had established with the Banker. It was a shame the £50k was on the table again but £26,000 is still an achievement in itself, and it is let's not forget just over 50% of the value of the box so not a massive undersell

You forgot to add - if you sell your box for less than it's value then you're an idiot