Chris_M is capable of realising that outcomes other than the one that actually would have occurred were possible, at least to the knowledge of the player when they make their decision.

Chantelle did act in a manner that I considered borderline reckless, and Patrick was justifiably cautious (whether I would have done the same I'm not sure). If they'd both had 1p - both possibilities at the time - who would have been the hero and who would have been the villain?

That's just like saying 'If they'd both had £250,000, who would have been the hero and who would have been the villain?'

Don't try and twist it to make it sound like Chantelle was an idiot, when she wasn't.

i still dont understand why the 26k then29k was offered. so really low?

yeah on reflection I think I'd agree James - particularly given how mean the banker was with the previous offer.

Makes what Kelsie did seem even more sensible IMO. if it's about 50% chance to lose, 50% to gain then even though the biggest winning amount was bigger, I'd still go for a deal.

I guess the offer was low because the banker thought he could get a deal for it. I guess that's where he makes a judgement of the payers - pretty harsh though but I guess that's the game.

I found that one of the hardest games to watch because it was obviously so upsetting

The way the game played out, I don't actually think Kelsie would have played out the last numbers as she did. I'm sure she'd admit this too, that this wasn't her honest choices.

She was heard saying that she was 'scared' of what Di had, however straight after dealing that's the one she went for, when to be honest if she hadn't dealt, she woulda kept it, so maybe keeping the £750 might have been worrying, however still think everything pointed to a bigger win.


FD

Calling a brave contestant stupid - hpw incredibly sad. Chantelle just so happens to be one of 2 of my most favourite contestants

Your opinion may vary on Chantelle, though I certainly have mine and it differs.

You've actually undermined your own point. If Julie from January and John G from February both had £250,000, the former would have been a villain and the latter a legend. As it is, they both had blues, Julie got a spectacular OPW, John G had a disaster.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a tendency to judge people based on how their game went, including the proveout if they Deal, rather than on their decisions based on what is known at the time. There'd be no game if you knew where the money was!

I've actually got more respect for the players who deal at a sensible sum than the ones who go right to the end without hardly considering any of the offers. It means they know the value of money.

ITA, smooth_criminal! Some are too cautious for me (and I'm known as very cautious among most of the fans here and at Bother's Bar), and Kelsie was one; however, it was obvious she was very nervous and had a figure in mind. (In more ways than one...)

The games of Chantelle, Dennis and about one in three January players could just as easily have skipped all six rounds and gone straight to the box opening. Does that sound dull? Exactly.

An article from Kelsie's local paper, the Shropshire Star:

http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/2007/03/kelsie-sobs-at-missing-jackpot/

Personally I think Kelsie was very brave to turn down the previous offer of £20,000 (which I would have taken) as she only had 2 higher amounts, and I think she should have been rewarded for this instead of being punished like she was.