Originally Posted by Welsh-lad:
“Still I think it's unfair. If they were cash-building for a central kitty, like they do in the Chase, then fine. But in this case they've built up their own bank by answering questions etc.
It would also be more jeapordy for the finalist because they could plausibly go home with nothing whereas the first one knocked out could leave with £500 or something.”
It only seems unfair as their "winnings" are represented as a cash value throughout. When really the counters everyone has taken out of the machine only gain a cash value right at the very end of the final round. So people who are eliminated earlier than this point are not losing any cash as they didn't win anything yet.
The system appears fairer if you consider what if the scores were recorded as "number of counters won" throughout. So you would have a much fairer (and less dramatic) representation with the Round 1 contestant being dropped with only 5 counters won etc.
The jackpot gamble would then be presented as "do you want to trade the 71 counters you have for three more to get the £10k jackpot, or sell them to me at £50 each for £3550?"