There seem to be different types of "bad" game but I'm not sure what type is the best. Early deals going catastrophically wrong (like Richard's) seem to be good in as much as they create a lot of debate; but they're quite frustrating to watch. On the other hand, when someone takes a calculated risk (like Ian today), it can be just as bad. Whereas crazy gambles going wrong - like Nudist Di - can be quite amusing...

Which one do you think is the "best" bad type of game...?

A statistically bad deal which turns out to be a good decision

Crazy gambling going wrong. Dennis and Madie produced two of my favourite games (certainly outcomes) of all time!

Although I'd probably enjoy a crazy gamble now for the variety... at least I'd have to get out insults I've not used in a year, instead of calling from the Wakeyist playbook!

Failing that, pure trainwrecks can sometimes (though not always) be hysterical. Emi stands out as one that was funny, Geordie as one that wasn't.

I'd say the best type of bad game is either pure trainwreck or crazy gamble gone wrong.

At least when there's a total trainwreck (such as Derek Brown), the player had 0 chance of getting any meaningful money, and it can often be quite funny (as with Derek). Players who pull off crazy gambles which go wrong (where they could be classed as greedy) probably provide a lot of tension in their game... as well as looking rather foolish. Games like that can be quite amusing (see nudist Di for example). I'd quite like to see a crazy gamble now actually.

Statistically bad deals are always frustrating whether they turn out to be a good or a bad decision (although turning out to be a good decision does provide a "feel good factor" at least). A game where a player shows a good reading of the board but wins a low amount is probably the worst type of bad game, as they give it a good shot but it goes wrong.

The pure trainwreck.

Simply because there is never anything avaliable and they can actually be quite painful.

Games like today on the other hand, are the worst type of bad game.

Has to be the complete trainwreck where the player takes it well. The more spectacular the better - first offer peaks, highest offers barely into four figures, all-blue final fives, comedy deals etc!

I have two types of choice, the first being the comedy trainwreck, usually when the offers don't get above 10k, the player has a laugh about it and a big win never looks a possibility. Derek Brown's is the best recent example of this.

The other is the "best out of a bad job" games where the player bravely battles through what looks like is going to be disaster but manages to rescue a few thousand out of it from a low red box win or a cut-your-losses deal that turns out to be an OPW, like Phyl's or Peter's recently.

Crazy gambling producing a low amount

...because the chances are we will never forget it.

I would say either a pure trainwreck or a crazy gamble.

As mentioned Derek Brown had a complete an utter trainwreck and in a strange way provided an entertaining game for the wrong reasons with the Banker declaring it the worst ever game. But it's the way Derek handled the situation that helped make the game entertaining. He still managed to keep a smile and despite what happened he still seemed to enjoy his game.

For me when there's a trainwreck it's all about how the player handles it. I understand that for some people they might find it hard to remain positive if they have a trainwreck, but i'd much rather someone like Derek who can just laugh at how bad his luck had been than someone who gets all emotional and quiet.

Either that or a crazy gamble, which whilst may not be the best option for the player in the chair, it can make for an exciting game for us the viewer.

Crazy gambling. It may be stupid, but he will look back on it and laugh...

Either a good reader of the game going home with a low amount...
... because that shows how little stats can help in the show.

Pure Trainwreck...
... because I find them quite funny.

Crazy Gambling...
... Because all are very memorable, we have Swappy Barbara, Matt (2), Orry...

I'm going to go for the top one though.

And all 3 of those crazy gamblers would have won power 5s had they not done the stupid sin of swapping!

'crazy gambling' but 1K Michael's Game still cracks me up to this day.

Simone also did a crazy gamble, but unfortunately she would have been £75,000 better off if she'd have swapped.

Is that a crazy gamble though? - it was a poor offer, I'd turn that down - a 50% chance of huge potential gain and for some of those other ones as well.

I said a statistically bad deal which turns out to be a bad decision. It's quite funny to watch their faces when they find out what they could have won. My feeling is, if they make a bad decision, they deserve everything they get. I don't like pure trainwrecks much. I feel quite sorry for the players when their games just don't get off the ground and they never have a chance of winning more than a few grand.

Statistically bad deals gone wrong can produce the biggest talking points on the forum. Look at Hayley's and Richard's deals...

I think it can be seen as pretty bad when a male player with the potential to look quite hot happens to be wearing a shirt that just doesnt compliment them on the day of their game.