Having a relentlessly unlucky game right from the start and winning 1p

Or

Gambling on a 1p and £250,000 board and winning 1p?

Depends what the offer was on the 1p/£250k board.

Assuming the offer on 1p / £250k was reasonable, then I'd say the gamble going wrong is definitely worse. At least in a trainwreck you can't have any regrets as the high money was never available to you.

Yeah, if I won 1p, I'd much rather have a total trainwreck.

Unfortunately, most of the 1p wins have crept up from a fairly strong position.

It's unluckier if you never had the chance to Deal without being unequivocally cowardly (that, or jocular at the end).

If it's a gamble gone wrong, it might feel worse, but you've put it on yourself somewhat.

I'd definitely "prefer" to win 1p from a game like Nick's or Giorgio's than Trevor's or Katie's....

Yes, Trevor and Katie had games where few would have avoided 1p but the expectation was kept high for a long time... they are the worst kind!

I'd say the gamble gone wrong. I could accept winning 1p if my game had just been awful from the start, but not if i had of declined a decent offer..

I'd say relentless bad luck myself... as you don't have the opportunity to win a good sum of money anywhere in your game.

Definately having bad luck from the start would be worse, as you wouldn't have a chance. As for a 1p/£250k finish, it would depend on the offer. Anything under £40k would be a no deal, anything above £50k would be a deal. £40k-£50k would be a grey area.

I would feel much worse winning 1p from taking a gamble than if my game was falling apart from the start.

At least if you have an unlucky game then you haven't had as much to lose and you never had to turn down any really big offers. But if you were to take a risky gamble at the end and end up winning 1p that would feel much worse. However if you plan to take a gamble then you have to prepare for the outcome, be it good or bad.

To me, winning 1p from a gamble that went wrong would feel alot worse than winning 1p due to having relentless bad luck throughout your game.

At least if you had relentless bad luck from the start you wouldn't have any regrets about no dealing and playing to the end and it would be alot easier to accept as there were no real decisions that you had to make. However you might have regrets about how you played the game if you picked the boxes at random. You might think "If only I picked that box instead" or "If only I had a system then maybe my game wouldn't have gone the way it did".

Taking a gamble and losing would be more painful as you know you had the opportunity to get out of the game with a good amount of money.

Either way, they are both painful outcomes and each come with their regrets and disappointment.

The worst kind is definitely where you get big offers that still absolutely demand a No Deal, and then the game collapses thereafter. The expectation's been built up (not least by the board that would be needed for that situation) and then gets dashed just when you seem destined to win life-changing money. I'm thinking especially of Katie's game here!

I think the next worst kind is taking a big gamble and losing, but the unluckier kind is an outright trainwreck - if you took a gamble and lost, you had to be prepared to lose. If you're not, Deal.

The worst LUCK as the title suggests is if the game doesn't fall right from the start. It is however worse to see a gamble go wrong than it is for a game to be *beep* from the beginning. However, a game being rubbish from the beginning will have no tension, so viewing wise the latter may be better.

KP and Wakeyist in 'common agreement' surprise!

(Though perhaps I put mine through a Greenyist filter and you a Wakeyist filter, me saying that you had to be prepared to lose if you take a gamble, you saying it hurts more to see a gamble go wrong; most people, I daresay, would agree with both to various degrees?)