I have to be honest, Father George’s decision to take on two chasers has to be respected. Having that self-awareness where you know you have very little chance of beating a lot of chasers so you must take a lower offer must be commended. So many players get suckered in due to the money and the adrenaline and end up biting off more than they can chew, paying the price. The jump from £2,000 to £5,000 with an extra 5 seconds on the chaser’s clock would’ve been difficult to justify so it was a good decision.
Actually, in *both* cases, the 2-chaser offer was arguably the right decision. It’s just a shame that the contestant who won wasn’t exactly someone that you could root for, to say the least… I feel like the reason why more people don’t take on just 2 chasers is because of the absurdly low amount of money compared to what you _could_ win. Even at the maximum of £5,000, we’ve seen many players bag that amount or similar by beating a chaser on the main show. “Why settle for £1k-£5k when I have the chance for unattainable sums with even just 3 chasers?”, if you know what I mean. Unfortunately, like you said, this ends up biting many people in the a§§, especially when they leave with *£0* after losing with sub-5 seconds on their clock.
@@T6448_P2 I wouldn’t even be able to beat two chasers haha. You need to get quite a few questions right in order to do it, it’s trickier than it seems, because it’s like a game of chess with the clocks. Even with an offer of 33 seconds, you’d still need to get about 8 questions right to win which would be tricky for me.
that second guy is the biggest clown in beat the chasers history, all that pompousness for winning 1000 pounds with a huge time advantage and getting most of the questions wrong
Basically what Paul is saying when he says “I could beat Usain Bolt over 100m with a 24 second advantage” is- “You’re not beating the best because you’re good, but because you have the best advantage. He was a coward with a big mouth talking as if he’s on the same level as them when he first walked in yet got one question right and took the easiest option. Absolute coward. Then at the end acting as if he’s beaten the best and thrashed them lol he had a 24 second advantage. As Mark said “You absolute chicken”.😂
Could have been a completely different story here had either of the chasers simply guessed 'what TV drama?" rather than passing. Spent five whole seconds on this which is a long time in this scenario.
Definitely rubbed me the wrong way… What point was that proving anyway? If you truly wanted to wipe the smirk off the chasers’ faces, you’d wanna go for all 5 of them and win! Ah well. At least he picked the right amount and won fairly comfortably. The jump from 2 chasers to 3 in terms of time was way too much in my opinion.
@@T6448_P2 Paul raised a good point tho. I could definitely beat Usain Bolt with a 24 second advantage. I don’t think it would wipe the smirk off his face.
I did find him funny though. He reminds me of this Chilean-American RU-vidr that arrogantly looks down on everyone when he wins but begs for mercy when he loses. Either way, he's still a bit rude.
@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodwh752 Tbh, I love when contestants play jokes with the chasers. I think Muhammed doesn't know the difference between 'Jokes' and flat aout 'Insulting'
he was so rude Mohammed similar to what Paul said they answered many more questions than him with a lot less time on their clock too, he made a fool of himself being so cocky just to win a grand
They didn't answer more questions. They answered one less correctly, just higher accuracy. Due to alternating questions they can never answer more or less. But with time advantage of 25 seconds, yeh, he was an asshole lol. ''smirk wiped'' bro they couldn't do much better...
Me before premiere: Alright! WHO decided to face against just 2 chasers?! Me after premiere: Father George and Muhammad, why did you guys face on just 2 chasers?! Edit: Wow! 10 likes… Already? How?!
aka the total cowards that just wanted the pride of having the best shot at beating the chasers. With the huge jump between the cash builder and just the next offer and usually just a few seconds time difference it's silly to stick with your cash builder amount. Plus facing 3 chasers vs 2 is negligible as the slightly higher amount of knowledge is balanced by the greater possibility of the chasers getting in each other's way.
I haven’t run the stats on this so I may be corrected but I think taking on three chasers is the most common option by players and we often see it backfiring and they lose by a few seconds. You could think about it this way, say it was two chasers and 35 seconds on their clock. If we assume they play a perfect game, they probably get seven questions right and because of that, the contestant has to get 8 right in order to win (because it goes back and forth). Getting 8 questions right under pressure is not easy and if you psych yourself out, you can still lose. I’ll be honest, I’d still get beaten by two chasers, I reckon. Because I haven’t got the ability to focus and keep my cool, even if they only had 30 seconds, I still wouldn’t be guaranteed a win. What do you think?
