You see, I saw Ashley as more the girl-next-door type. I think a lot of posters on here would agree. I think Helen would be the much more obvious prom queen type figure in there.

If Charlie was the girl-next-door I'd keep my curtains closed.

When have reality shows been fair competition? I don't know whether you watch Big Brother but the most disliked person in it was given £50k purely because he pressed a button before another housemate. You need to stop taking these shows so seriously!!

Ashley was hardly shown until Helen went. Helen dominated most of every show - and over 90% of the threads on here.

I admit ITV favoured Ashley for narratives in the bush telegraph towards the end as the celebs thinned out. I suspect some of it was because she became more involved in tasks and storylines - and some because she provided good sound-bites.


IMO David and Eric deserved to finish higher than Charlie - but then I had no idea who Charlie was before.

I said on another thread that in my opinion the reason that Ashley didn't win was because she was not seen to overcome any challenges. She was basically a female David, took everything in her stride and at no point was she seen to be struggling.

If anything, imo ITV seemed biased towards Ashley, she probably got more airtime than most of them, and certainly was seen to be narrating in the hut a lot more than anyone else.

I really liked them both and thought they both deserved to be in the final, however, I was routing for Charlie to win, not because she is in Eastenders (I don't watch it) not because she is British, and not because of her daughter, but rather it was that I saw a vulnerable side of her that I did not really see in Ashley.

I didn't.

Ashley was fourth or fifth favourite with the bookies when I placed my bet on her.

I would invite her in for a cup of tea! I like her, Ashley not so much.

How many times.... It's not the show I'm taking 'so seriously' it's the £350 I missed out on.

But Charlie was always popular on here as well.

I never thought it would be an easy win for Ashley. She was very like the Shannon twins on Celebrity Big Brother, who had the same "always been pretty and popular" air to them. I liked them - certainly far more than the drunk and needy Denise Welch, who won - but could see what put people off. People like an element of self-doubt, of having lived through some rough times; Ashley was the prettier of the two, but gave the impression that she had never suffered a moment's insecurity. Charlie is the one who knows what it is like to be chubby, who knows what it is like to be left with a baby; Ashley is the one who went straight from high school to international stardom, and never seems to have had a setback since then. I thought she was good in IAC and would have been happy for her to win; but people being 'completely smitten' is never enough to win a rtv show.

Hopefully, you have learnt a vauable lesson then.

What on earth is there not to like about Ashley?

I don't think we ever saw her without a smile and that is a trait that makes a human rather likeable, judging by the huge threads on here singing her praises.

Let me guess though, that makes her a fake person?

Again, not wanting to bad mouth anyone in particular on an internet forum, I'd suggest someone like Helen would be more of a 'fake' type character (all smiles and 'love you' and 'babes') when it suits her, but the jungle is more than enough to make that sort of fake smile drop over 3 weeks, which Ashley's didn't so that suggests to me it wasn't fake. Hope that makes sense.

Unfortunately, this thread seems to have gone down a 'who should have won and why' route, which I'm not really interested in and there are several other threads here already debating that.

I just can't wait to see the voting figures and whether they suggest that the child's plea had a significant impact on the result.

I do think ITV and the producers had a lot to do with Charlie winning

Yes Charlie got the votes but a lot of very favorable editing went her way in the last week

ITV have been under fire by the press since Brians 'meltdown' and questions were asked about 'duty of care' and why was Brian allowed in the jungle without his medication

Media also asked why was the Helen situation allowed to go on when she has a history depression and other problems

Next we have all the newspapers up in arms for using a child on a trial (even though it was just standing behind a door)

From what the news outlets are saying Charlie had behind the scenes talks after that stunt and threatend to walk unless she was told her child was alright and not upset by not seeing her mother

What a good ending for ITV and producers to see mother and child reunited as Queen and princess of the jungle

Charlie was not the worst celeb by a long shot and was like wallpaper, a nice bit of background that occasionaly you noticed when nothing is going on and said thats nice

The only time I noticed Charlie was because of other celebs or Kiki and not because of herself

Charlie was background until the last week and after the door trial all of a sudden she got better AT and Kiki was mentioned a lot

Her phone call was four mins long and queen and princess of the jungle came into it, that IMO was for the benefit of the voting public out of four mins I would have liked to have heard more about Kiki quaffing pink champagne and ordering room service (not bad for a seven yearold) than mummy I want you to be queen of the jungle

Im not saying Charlie used her child to garner votes but IMO someone did, someone agreed to the child being used (appearing) on the programme

I found it very odd that mother and child were reunited before the winner was announced and I hope it has not set a trend for celebs with children

I find it odd that celebs take the money to appear on these programmes then do nothing but moan about missing their children

You shouldn't have called Eh? How? then.

You answered your own question anyway, ITV bringing Kiki into the show, which got extensive press coverage and comment, must have had a big influence.

And don't forget Ant and Dec both tipped Charlie to win before the show had even started!!! If every other soap fan thought the same thing then that's what you call a flying start.

Thankyou for someone agreeing with me at last.

I think it would be all too easy for me to go, 'Oh well, I lost a bet, my own fault, better luck next time,' and just move on.

As soon as I heard that quote in the phonecall, I did think 'nah, that's completely out of order,' so I do think ITV or specifically this show's makers have a case to answer here.


The particularly frustrating part in all this is that if it had been David and Ashley who were in the final, as I fully expected it to be, then I would have 'laid off' my original bet by betting on David, so that I won a bit of money either way. However, because Charlie got to the final and I thought she had very little chance of beating Ashley, I decided not to lay the bet off and left it as a £350-or-nothing bet on Ashley only.

Even the This Morning poll had Ashley as the winner and that poll has never been wrong

Then as soon as the "win it for me" and "jungle princess" was heard by the public over the phone I knew then that Ashley had lost it

No celeb no matter how nice or fair they have been can compete with a cute kid who wants mummy to be queen of
the jungle

I just wish that Kikis words didnt sound like they had come from an agent or producer, the pink champagne and room service comments certainly would have allayed any comments to the press and viewers about her being upset or traumatized by not seeing mummy

What were the percentages on the This Morning poll?

I didn't realise they did a poll, seems a bit silly when it's on the same channel as the actual show, why would ITV want to give away any clues as to the outcome of the vote, surely this spoils the suspense in many ways? Were these polls daily and if so where can I find the results?

I'm trying to learn a lesson now, hence this thread. I'm trying to work out exactly where and why this bet went wrong (no - not when I placed it, for all the funny people out there.)

If I simply went 'Oh well, never mind' and forgot about it, like several people seem to have suggested, then 6 months or a year down the line, I'd be open to making the same mistake again. As humans, we should learn from our mistakes. That's all I'm trying to do here.

The only lesson you have to learn is that when betting the only winners are the bookies.

[quote=stargazer61;62737653]The only lesson you have to learn is that when betting the only winners are the bookies.[/QUOTE

Your quote is completely untrue. The bookies are the major winners but other people do win too.

You see, you're making a common mistake there. Perhaps through ignorance or perhaps through the media lumping 'gambling' all in together in the one bracket.

There are two very different types of gambling:

The first is gambling games such as blackjack, roulette, lotteries or bingo where the house (ie the casino, bookies, bingo hall, etc) has an edge and even though a player can win for a period of time or have a huge win, in the long run the house has a statistical in-built advantage and is guaranteed to make money off the players, whatever the outcome. Most of these (apart from blackjack) are solely games of luck.

These types of games should probably be illegal in my opinion, due to how addictive they are and the guarantee of losing in the long run, however I suppose there are positives when you consider the social aspects of bingo or a casino and the potential opportunities a lottery win can bring to people who otherwise would not have such opportunities.


Separate to these are forms of gambling which can be beaten using skill or knowledge. I win money at poker because despite there being luck involved, it is a game of skill in the long run. Equally, when betting on sports or events like 'I'm A Celeb...' I can use my own knowledge to select which events to bet on and which contestants, players or teams to bet on. People do 'beat the bookies' and make money by doing this. I couldn't tell you if I make money by doing this as I win some bets and lose others and don't keep track of my long term results.

In this instance, when I first thought Ashley had a chance of winning, I checked her odds and she was around 12 or 14-1. I wasn't brave enough to bet at that stage but placed several bets on her at odds of between 6-1 and 4-1. That wasn't the mistake here, given that she then came into 1-2 favourite, I was correct in thinking that 4-1 and 6-1 were good prices and betting on them.

My mistake was in not thinking Charlie could win it. If I had thought Charlie had a realistic chance, I would have (and should have) bet on her to win once we got down to the final two and therefore guaranteed myself a win either way. As I mentioned earlier, had David reached the final I would have done this as I thought he had a real chance of winning.

So, the mistake was not the placing of the initial bets, as many people seem to be suggesting.

Going a bit off-topic, this isn't worst case of viewer manipulation or favourable editing. Who remembers how Pete Bennett secured his victory in the seventh series of Big Brother? He spoke to his housemates about a dream he'd had, in which his deceased friend had appeared and said that Pete had to go on Big Brother and win it. Pete concluded that if he didn't win, it meant that it hadn't really been his friend talking to him. The public fell for it, of course.


Ha ha! You'd also repair that hole in your fence, right?


Ashley has had difficulties, according to the tabloids, but we just never heard her talk about them on the show.

Well none of us are interested in people whining about putting bets on and losing £350. If you had started your topic with, "I lost a bet on ***** to win" most of us wouldn't have come in here. Yet you seem to believe you can list your reasons why Ashley should have won, but we can't?

That's not how I recall it at all. The show was all about Helen (until she left); David, Ashley and Hugo. The rest barely got a look in - and when they did, it was negative. The meddlers task was the prime example. That sealed Ashley's popularity and there was ne'er a mention on here that her selection (and David and Hugo's) gave an unfair advantage.

I think Wonky's spot on; the focus came more on Charlie in the last few days (and only in the last few days) because she was so popular despite the lack of coverage. Also, the Kiki thing, if one was cynical, could be perceived as UNfavourable rather than favourable editing.


I thought Ashley was a lovely girl - but people who always smile never float my boat. A bit of complexity is always more attractive. I loved that Charlie was the one who demonstrated how exasperating Helen was. She reacted just as I would have -which is why I identified with her.

When people smile all the time, I find them difficult to read and relate to.


Wasn't it always a 'who should have won and why' thread? I thought so.


Speaking as someone who works beside a turf accountant's and cannot resist a tip; and has been trotting after my dad around racecourses for as long as I can remember - I couldn't disagree more with this post.

There's no such thing as a dead cert - ever. You can know every detail of every single aspect of the progeny and form of every horse in the field and back the favourite at ridiculous odds and still lose. In fact, you probably will.

That there is betting. You can never call foul when you make a bet.

Your post worries me slightly, to be honest. Never think you can beat the bookies - because you won't. If you did keep track of your wins and losses, I guarantee you - the bookies are up.

The ONLY professional gamblers who make money are poker players - because that is pure skill and the only thing that can beat you is someone who is more skillful than you.

I totally disagree. Pete was ahead from day one of that BB and almost nothing could have stopped him winning. It was a bitchy, insecure house, and he was an oasis of gentle peace in the middle, albeit out of a hatred of stress rather than out of personal strength.

I thought the editing was a bit cruel showing that dream on the highlights. It was a quiet, private conversation, not a big grandstanding thing; it made him look rather an ass. And he was utterly vilified for it on DS. It could not have won him a single vote.



Wrong sort of difficulties altogether. We like our celebrities to have weight problems and babies not problems with married men.

BIB

I think the problems are more to do with her father going bankrupt and her brother being in and out of jail

on another topic its reported in the press that even the other celebs are saying Kiki and the door stunt won it for Charlie

I agree that there is no such thing as a dead cert.

However, I don't agree that nobody can or nobody is beating the bookies. The bookies offer odds on every event. Gamblers don't have to bet on every event, they can use their knowledge to choose what to bet on, ie where they see value or where they think the bookies' odds are wrong.

There are plenty who do this and who make money doing so. I'm not one of them and not sure I'd want to be as it would be a very stressful way to make a living, but to say nobody is beating the bookies is just untrue.