Following Trev's agonising torment today over whether to hand back his 'winnings' of £15,500 for the chance of £50,000, I thought I'd see which other banker's gambles have been offered on the show (this has probably been done before). It's not been a particularly successful ploy by the banker, as only 2 players have taken it, and for most it has proved a risk too far.

But the question is, how many (realistically) would you have taken from the above?

Semi, Marysia, Karina and David for sure.

Joanne is a slightly tricky one but probably not - that stake level is low enough for the size of the blue to matter a bit, I'd take it on with £750 as the fallback. Trev's was also reasonable to risk but again I'd have chosen not to - £3k as the fallback would do the trick there. And I'd be sorely tempted to risk Jess's, but I think I'd have very reluctantly decided that turning £40k into peanuts would be more clearly bad than turning it into £250k would be clearly good.

The rest, only Wakey would!

The only ones I'd have taken were Semi's, Karina's and £3k David's, and I'd have almost definitely taken Marysia's. Trev's today was the only other one that's tempted me from that list, due to the red backup, but I still wouldn't have gone for it.

Also a few others:

Halloween week Chris (£8k on £3k vs £20k), William (£4,000.01 on £50 vs £35k) and Ann (£1,001 on £50 vs £10k) which were "definitely deal" for me;
Christmas Star Ian's £71k on £3k and £250k which was "no deal" for me;
The first ever Banker's Gamble (Phyllis with £10k on 1p vs £50k) and Adam (also £10k on 1p vs £50k) - both were "no deal but tempting to deal" for me.

I'd go for those 1p/£50k gambles on £10k, though not on very much (if any) more.

Halloween Chris was a Deal from me. Ian's £71k on the Laura finish was a No Deal, I'd want £50k to consider Dealing there and £60k to be sure so £71k was definitely not to be gambled. And William's was a ridiculously easy one. As was Ann's, but that didn't really need posting here.

I put the wrong thing there. Halloween Week Chris was a definite deal for me (as was Ann's!). Ian's would've been a no deal though, as I said...

Thanks, added those to the list, although it's slightly flawed now as you can only vote for 12 options out of the 16!

I think another option is needed...

Are these all the banker's gambles there have ever been then? It seemed like there were loads offered during the summer of last year.

Right, ok, list adjusted, if anyone (which I doubt) would've taken all of the gambles, just mark the "wakeyist" box, otherwise you have 12 votes to cover the options. Sorry bout that.

Anyone that's already vote will need to vote again as it reset all the votes. I won't be changing any more now, so vote away!

To be honest, I'm not sure if that's all the banker's gambles, but it's certainly more than I thought there were. I suppose we forget a lot of them as they turn out to be irrelevant anyway.

Ann's wasn't worth confirming.

Semi, Karina, £3k David, Halloween Chris, Marysia, William and the two 1p/£50k finishes.

Was Ann the one that looked like Carol Vorderman? (or at least, Noel thought that... )

Well she certainly didn't have her mathematical ability

I went with Semi, Marysia, Karina, David, Chris, William, Adam/Phyllis and Ann of course.

However the only one whch I'd have dealt at the same point with earlier was Semi - Chris's game I would have dealt £13,500 at 5-box and Karina's, 7k at 3-box. Both mean decline the banker's gamble if it was offered there.

And the rest I'd have still been playing at!

Semi, Marysia, Karina, 3k David, Chris and William. Oh, and Ann's as well.

Semi, Chris, Ann, 3k David, William, Karina and Marysia would all be ones I'd have taken, though in some cases, I wouldn't have taken the original deal.

There are 6 on here that have got a lot of votes, and I voted for all 6 but no others. Banker's gambles
should only be offered when weighted in favour of the contestant otherwise they are just a waste imo
because Wakeyists would not have dealt in the first place.

Whether you already knew or not but the whole Banker's Gamble concept isn't being used in it's true form. When the idea was invented in Australia the purpose to have the Second Chance (as they call it) was to offer it when the final two amounts are a modest/high value (pink or green amount) against a blue amout, thus creating the all of pittance element. Simply, Glenn & Richard have done a very clever job to extend the idea here and include two amounts on the right hand side.

Ann's, Semi's, Marysia's, William's and £3k David's. Possibly others too, they're the only ones that I remember thinking that it would be a good idea to take the gamble.

I have to mention another one, seeing as I saw the game live

Vincenzo's Give back £17,500 on £10/£50,000


I wouldn't have done that one, though I would not have taken £17,500 initally.


I voted for Semi, Marysia, Karina, David, Trev, Chris, William and any others! (Ann)

This is what I would do for all of the Banker's Gambles in the poll.

Semi: Definitely accept the BG.
George: No deal the BG.
Michelle: No Deal the BG.
Linda: No Deal the BG.
Joanne: Possibly.
Jess: Very tempted due to the presence of £250k.
Marysia: Likely deal the BG.
David: Unlikely.
Karina: Definitely take the BG.
David: Definitely take the BG.
Trev: Possibly.
Chris: Most probably.
Ian: Unlikely, but very tempted.
William: Yes take the the BG.
Phyliss/Adam: Possibly.

Yes, forgive me for missing some players off the list - I did it rather quickly!