For the second time in the history of the show we have seen "The Banker's gamble" (AKA "second chance" or "undeal") being used as a way of making a player who had previously dealt the chance to undo the offer and basically give them the option of being back in live play again.

However is this something you would like to see done more often or do you feel it's a but unfair to give a player a second chance when they have already dealt and made their decision?

For me I certainly find it interesting when this has happened, albeit only twice, as it does add an extra degree of tension to a game you thought had already ended, in terms of winning any more money. But I also fear this tactic could be used to try and force bigger wins.

Do you think it should be used on a more regular basis, or would you rather it never happened as once someone has dealt they have made their choice and that should be it?

Same with any twist, would love to see it happen again, but it must not be overused!!!

Whenever it's appropriate.

Very sparingly, but not scrapped.

Otherwise really bad deals could be made better and seemed 'okay' with this feature. It depends what context it is used in.

I'd absolutely hate it for someone to take the 1st offer, have a disasterous proveout (eg could have had so much more) and then they undeal and win £250,000. It would be so undeserved.

But, if it was a game like today's, or where the player hadn't at all made a mistake in dealing but could still have more by undealing, then it would be okay. But still sparingly.

I think it should be used sparingly, which seems to be the case. It worked better for Semi than it did for Phyllis back in October, as he said he was a gambler and he looked like he was more up for the challenge. Doing it on a red vs red finish with not much difference between the two remaining values was a bit of a "tester" for this technique I think with a guaranteed £10,000 win.

I'm not sure how I'd feel if it was done on a blue vs Power 5 board. It would add more tension though, definitely... and we do need some more excitement right now in terms of gameplay, so maybe it'd be a good thing...

It should never be done if the lower amount is more than what the player dealt at, as that would effectively be giving the player money for no reason at all. Imagine if Teary Donna had been given the "second chance" offer on her £100k / £250k finish - it would be very weird.

Overall though, I don't think it should be done too often, as it did appear to be trying to generate a big money win and add some more spark to the game. However, maybe they feel that using this technique would encourage some more gambling, which there is definitely a lack of right now.

OK, here's the thing.

Based on experience from its use in Australia, and both uses here fit that, it's going to only be used when a proveout offer could realistically be a stick (or as in the case of Phyllis, a reversion to an earlier offer). So no need to worry about 'undealing' fundamentally ruining the game in the way such opposite strategists as h2005 and latheboult are proposing.

How often does that happen? Not all that often. And I think it's quite interesting, especially if it's an entirely different board. Say, for instance, that a player has the £250k, £35k, £5k and five blues at eight-box, and Deals at £16,500. £250k goes in the next round with two blues, but the sixth round is an all-blue. Again the offer could be £16,500 - but that on a £5k/£35k final two is a very different decision to the same offer on an eight-box board with the £250k and one backup.

Or, for that matter, the rough reverse - an eight-box board with the lowest three of the Power 5 and a mid-red, and a Deal at maybe £16,500 there too... and then the proveout leaves a £75k/blue finish. Probable proveout offer: £26,000 or more. But £16,500 would be an offer that could be rejected even by someone who left that eight-box board - it'd certainly be interesting to see the reaction!

Not quite sure this is 'right', but there are worse things you can do with the game.

Like I said in my previous post, it would be very undeserved. She's not exactly going to decline the banker's gamble of returning £21,000 for a guaranteed £100,000 and a stab at the £250,000. It feels more dry and still very undeserved. She made the mistake, she shouldn't be rewarded for it.

It should happen only if the offer would be exactly the same that the contestant dealt at, plus it should be on a blue/red finish (or a big gamble), in my opinion.

*what H, KP and latheboult said* - it wasn't cheating on a huge scale yesterday as there was 'only' a few thousand between 14K and each of the values and worked well.

I'm not sure about a blue vs power 5 - could feel undeserved if the pwer 5 was won.

It'd be worrying to see it being used that much - it wouldn't be good for the show if contestants started dealing modest sums in the hope they might get the chance to undeal them later. If that makes sense...

Only on rare occasions...

I think it would be good if it was used occasionally, maybe a few times a year. I think it would be more exciting if there was more at stake, like a blue/power 5 finish.