Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Rules flaws, etc...  (Read 20408 times)

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 26887
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #90 on: March 18, 2009, 03:24:34 PM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210665\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 12:12 PM\']
Monty's version was different.  He finished the question before he took any answers.  I can't remember whether players had to wait for the entire question to be finished before they could signal or if, even worse, they could buzz in early and still get to hear the entire question.  If it was the latter, that would certainly be a "buzz first, think later" scenario.[/quote]
Oh, right, they could buzz early and hear the whole thing ('cuz at the end the shot of the board would zoom out and the players would already be lit up in 1-2-3 order), no matter what, as opposed to first-one-in-interrupts-and-other-two-queue. Yes, that makes total sense and is a very valid complaint.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype, YIM, AIM: FredSmythe

CarShark

  • Guest
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #91 on: March 18, 2009, 04:35:13 PM »
Actually, that's not true. On a couple of mtiller's Split Second clips, Monty said up front that you couldn't buzz until he finished the question, or you'd be locked out (and generally end up third). The reason the lights were usually on by the time the camera was on the contestants was that there was about a half-second from the time Monty finished the question to when the answers were actually shown on the screen. The daring rang in during that gap.

Another thing about Split Second (which is probably more annoyance that outright flaw) was that you didn't a bigger advantage for having a bigger lead.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 04:41:30 PM by CarShark »

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 26887
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #92 on: March 18, 2009, 05:49:43 PM »
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'210672\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 01:35 PM\']
Actually, that's not true. On a couple of mtiller's Split Second clips, Monty said up front that you couldn't buzz until he finished the question, or you'd be locked out (and generally end up third). The reason the lights were usually on by the time the camera was on the contestants was that there was about a half-second from the time Monty finished the question to when the answers were actually shown on the screen. The daring rang in during that gap.[/quote]
Ah. Still, though, interrupting the question was a key bit of strategery on the Kennedy version. I dunno if it matters if the buzzer race is at the start of the question or at the end.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype, YIM, AIM: FredSmythe

Ian Wallis

  • Member
  • Posts: 3537
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #93 on: March 18, 2009, 05:54:51 PM »
On some of the episodes I have, you couldn't buzz in until he finished the question, but you could as soon as the 3 parts appeared on the board.  Usually when Monty was reading the 3 parts, you'd hear the buzzes.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 05:55:05 PM by Ian Wallis »
For more information about Game Shows and TV Guide Magazine, click here:
http://gamesandclassictv.webs.com/index.htm

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12186
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #94 on: March 18, 2009, 06:50:35 PM »
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'210685\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 04:54 PM\']On some of the episodes I have, you couldn't buzz in until he finished the question, but you could as soon as the 3 parts appeared on the board.  Usually when Monty was reading the 3 parts, you'd hear the buzzes.[/quote]
It struck me then and it strikes me now that the producers didn't know their own game as well as they should.  Because either way, it's the same three-way buzzer race for every single question, since there's no penalty for being wrong.  At least with the original version, there was a bit of strategy to it and a smarter or more daring player was rewarded.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

TimK2003

  • Member
  • Posts: 3631
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #95 on: March 18, 2009, 07:51:08 PM »
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'210642\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 10:30 AM\']
Quote
At one time, the champion spun first, which meant that conceivably a challenger could go away having never spun. (I assume this did happen at some point.) I would call that a flaw, but I agree that with the challenger spinning first, it's merely annoying.

It did happen occasionally (I think GSN even ran an episode or two when it did), but Jack would always mention that challenger would get to play another game.  Nobody ever left without having at least one spin.

As for the three jokers rule, it kind of bugged me too.  If the player who got the three jokers had one additional turn, I would have liked to have seen the other player also get a chance so that they had the same number of turns.  However, the odds of three jokers coming up two spins in a row was pretty remote.
[/quote]


Didn't they lift that rule during all of the T of Cs so that each player would get the same number of spins?

Don Howard

  • Member
  • Posts: 5735
  • Lurker
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #96 on: March 18, 2009, 08:23:52 PM »
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'210689\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 07:51 PM\']
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'210642\' date=\'Mar 18 2009, 10:30 AM\']
Quote
At one time, the champion spun first, which meant that conceivably a challenger could go away having never spun. (I assume this did happen at some point.) I would call that a flaw, but I agree that with the challenger spinning first, it's merely annoying.
It did happen occasionally (I think GSN even ran an episode or two when it did), but Jack would always mention that challenger would get to play another game.  Nobody ever left without having at least one spin.
As for the three jokers rule, it kind of bugged me too.  If the player who got the three jokers had one additional turn, I would have liked to have seen the other player also get a chance so that they had the same number of turns.  However, the odds of three jokers coming up two spins in a row was pretty remote.
[/quote]
Didn't they lift that rule during all of the T of Cs so that each player would get the same number of spins?
[/quote]
Indeed they did.
In my sixth year in the cornfield.

wdm1219inpenna

  • Member
  • Posts: 171
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #97 on: March 19, 2009, 07:47:07 PM »
The potential flaw with Lucky Seven using zeros is, if the player guessed 7, and the number was 0, would that be judged as missing it by 7, or by 3?  Because of that possibility, I believe the show has not used zeroes in car prices in decades.  If any Lucky Seven car has had a 0 in the price in the last 20 years, I'd like to see it or hear about it, but I think it's been a very long time since that was the case.

Kevin Prather

  • Member
  • Posts: 6010
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #98 on: March 19, 2009, 08:16:45 PM »
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'210764\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 04:47 PM\']
The potential flaw with Lucky Seven using zeros is, if the player guessed 7, and the number was 0, would that be judged as missing it by 7, or by 3?  Because of that possibility, I believe the show has not used zeroes in car prices in decades.  If any Lucky Seven car has had a 0 in the price in the last 20 years, I'd like to see it or hear about it, but I think it's been a very long time since that was the case.
[/quote]
I think that's a hogwash argument, myself. 7 is not 3 away from 0, it is 3 away from 10. It is 7 away from 0, period. If you call a 9 against a 2, that's a $7 penalty, not a $3 penalty. Wraparound can't count.

CJBojangles

  • Member
  • Posts: 330
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #99 on: March 19, 2009, 08:17:04 PM »
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'210764\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 04:47 PM\']The potential flaw with Lucky Seven using zeros is, if the player guessed 7, and the number was 0, would that be judged as missing it by 7, or by 3? [/quote]
My guess is that it would be judged as missing it by 7, considering 7-0 is not 3.

wdm1219inpenna

  • Member
  • Posts: 171
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #100 on: March 19, 2009, 08:27:48 PM »
[quote name=\'CJBojangles\' post=\'210768\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 08:17 PM\']
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'210764\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 04:47 PM\']The potential flaw with Lucky Seven using zeros is, if the player guessed 7, and the number was 0, would that be judged as missing it by 7, or by 3? [/quote]
My guess is that it would be judged as missing it by 7, considering 7-0 is not 3.
[/quote]

Precisely why they no longer have 0's in car prices, to avoid any guessing or any possible argument from a player.

If the car was $17,059 and the player guessed 8 for the 3rd #, 8-0=8, however, the player could argue "well I thought the 3rd digit was 8, as in $800, and that 0 could be $1,000 therefore 10-8 = 2.  A very lame argument I agree, and I'm inclined to agree with you, if someone guessed 8 and the digit was 0, 8 minus 0 equals 8, the player loses, too bad so sad.  Unfortunately with our "modern" society, plagued by ADHD due to much over-saturation of "information" and having to keep track of stuff, passwords, voice mails, e-mails, phones, ipods, i phones, now flying cars, it's small wonder more and more "thinking" games for Price is Right have been axed.  Very sad commentary on our modern "high tech" society.

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 14634
  • Game Maven
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #101 on: March 19, 2009, 09:16:40 PM »
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'210770\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 05:27 PM\']
If the car was $17,059 and the player guessed 8 for the 3rd #, 8-0=8, however, the player could argue "well I thought the 3rd digit was 8, as in $800, and that 0 could be $1,000 therefore 10-8 = 2.  [/quote] The easy way to solve this point is to say "For every dollar away that you are away on the number line, you lose a dollar. Numbers stretch in two directions, not form a clock face, like Kevin said.

So why haven't TPTB done this? My guess is that it's easier to add options to the car to weed out the noughts rather than have someone complain "I thought the numbers wrapped around!". They seem to take the path of least resistance in cases like this.

Quote
Unfortunately with our "modern" society, plagued by ADHD due to much over-saturation of "information" and having to keep track of stuff, passwords, voice mails, e-mails, phones, ipods, i phones, now flying cars, it's small wonder more and more "thinking" games for Price is Right have been axed.  Very sad commentary on our modern "high tech" society.
I would suggest that every game on TPIR requires "thinking" to some extent. You lost me with the rest of that rant there. That was a whole bunch of unfounded clacking of keys.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 09:16:57 PM by TLEberle »
Travis L. Eberle
Director of Ludic underlings.

That Don Guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 881
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #102 on: March 19, 2009, 10:13:45 PM »
Deep inhale...

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'209038\' date=\'Feb 27 2009, 11:02 PM\']
They were referring to the One-And-Done way of handling contestants in the 70s. If you get a bad celeb, too bad.
[/quote]
There was an article in TV Guide once by a contestant who was the victim of "one and done" because, in a tiebreaker, the celebrity giving the clues said, repeatedly, "It tilts, and it's in France" for the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'209076\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 09:51 AM\']
[quote name=\'GameShowGuru\' post=\'209063\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 10:15 AM\']You just answered a question that I had for years regarding the remaining 1 in a main game round: If a 1 is the last number remaining on the board, it is essentially a tie game.  The toss-up question serves as the tie-breaker whereby whoever "wins the question" will win the game by default.[/quote]
In the spirit of full disclosure, I can't say I ever saw it happen.[/quote]
I did, and that's how it was handled - whoever controlled the next roll automatically won.

(Leaving just the 1 in Big Numbers was not as big of a problem in the show's earliest days, when you won a car for removing 8 numbers.)
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'209131\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 04:40 PM\']
IIRC, On Fleming J! you'd usually hear someone ring in as soon as the card was pulled.
[/quote]
Even before it was pulled, on occasion, at which time Art would remind the contestants not to ring in until the question had been revealed.
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'209278\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 04:41 PM\']
Celebrity Sweepstakes started as a three-player game and then became a two-player game. A contestant started with $20 and could bet $2, $5 or $10 on which celebrity could answer a trivia question correctly. The flaw was if a contestant ended a round with no money both contestants were given $20 to continue the game. The result was that every bet was for $10 because the contestants would just get their money back if they were wrong twice. The producer's solution was restrict bets to $2 if a player's score was $10 or less. My solution would have been to start the contestants with $19.
[/quote]
It might have been done that way in the earliest days - or perhaps you're confusing it with the couples version of Sale of the Century, where this did happen (at least on the syndicated version) - but every time I saw a contestant down to zero on Sweepstakes, both contestants were given $2.  (If one was down to $1, both were given $1 because of the $2 minimum bet.)

I remember one show where the score was something like 350 to zero after the Homestretch Round, so both contestants were given $2; they both picked celebrities who missed the All or Nothing question, and the $2 contestant bet nothing while the $352 contestant bet it all (in part because the prize for betting everything and losing it was usually worth over $1000 in the days of $3000 cars), so the contestant won $2 to $0 - and won something like $12,000 the next day.

Speaking of Celebrity Sweepstakes, I can think of two flaws:
One - the "$2 maximum bet if you have $10 or less" rule when the players began with $20 (note that when they first switched from three players to two, and again in the last few months of the show, the starting amounts were $50), which meant that the players tended to bet $5 on their first bets.

Two - in the last few weeks, the celebrities didn't have to write down their answers, so there was no guarantee that anybody had the correct answer.
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'209436\' date=\'Mar 3 2009, 01:59 PM\']
Having gone to see the show fairly often, three other weeks feauturing two male celebs on $20K Pyramid were:

Sal Viscuso vs. Billy Crystal
Tony Randall vs. Jack Klugman
Tony Randall vs. Dick Cavett - the one week Clark was afraid they'd do - and they did
[/quote]
Randall vs. Klugman was also on the CBS 10K version.  I'm fairly certain that on one of those shows, they had three $10K wins (if a tiebreaker ran long, they played the WC at the start of the next show), all with Klugman.
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'210592\' date=\'Mar 17 2009, 05:19 PM\']
Way back in the day, when Chuck hosted Wheel of Fortune, the wheel had a "Buy a Vowel" space on it.  I believe if a player landed on it, but had less than $250, they lost their turn.  If they had $250 or more, they were forced to buy a vowel.  I wonder if someone landed on it when all the vowels were already revealed?  That would have probably caused them to lose their turn.  Subsequently, that space was ditched very fast!
[/quote]
You remember correctly about the "lose your turn if you don't have the $250".  I never saw a situation where somebody landed on it after all of the vowels were gone.

Here are a few more flaws:

On Password Plus (and possibly Super Password as well), the producers took their time in deciding whether or not a clue was illegal.  As a result, a player would guess the word before being informed that the clue was illegal, and as a result, the other team was given the chance to solve the puzzle.

On Cullen $25,000 Pyramid, in early episodes, it was possible for nobody to have the chance of winning the $25K; if they ran out of time to have another tiebreaker and a Winner's Circle, the players would split $2500.

And don't get me started on all of the TPIR games where, even if you know every price, there's a chance you won't win the main prize (back in the days of "Hole in One (Just One)", I saw two contestants miss from the closest line).

-- Don

pyrfan

  • Member
  • Posts: 380
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #103 on: March 19, 2009, 11:37:44 PM »
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'210783\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 10:13 PM\']

Randall vs. Klugman was also on the CBS 10K version.  I'm fairly certain that on one of those shows, they had three $10K wins (if a tiebreaker ran long, they played the WC at the start of the next show), all with Klugman.

[/quote]
According to an article in several newspapers from 1973, Jack Carter was the first celeb to give away $30,000 in one week on "Pyramid," and it was a few months after the Klugman/Randall week. I'm not saying you recall incorrectly; maybe they forgot about Klugman's streak.


Brendan

Jay Temple

  • Member
  • Posts: 2227
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #104 on: March 20, 2009, 05:48:43 PM »
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'210783\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 09:13 PM\']
Deep inhale...

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'209038\' date=\'Feb 27 2009, 11:02 PM\']
They were referring to the One-And-Done way of handling contestants in the 70s. If you get a bad celeb, too bad.
[/quote]
There was an article in TV Guide once by a contestant who was the victim of "one and done" because, in a tiebreaker, the celebrity giving the clues said, repeatedly, "It tilts, and it's in France" for the Leaning Tower of Pisa.[/quote]
I think I read that it was Cloris Leachman in her only appearance.
Quote
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'210592\' date=\'Mar 17 2009, 05:19 PM\']
Way back in the day, when Chuck hosted Wheel of Fortune, the wheel had a "Buy a Vowel" space on it.  I believe if a player landed on it, but had less than $250, they lost their turn.  If they had $250 or more, they were forced to buy a vowel.  I wonder if someone landed on it when all the vowels were already revealed?  That would have probably caused them to lose their turn.  Subsequently, that space was ditched very fast!
You remember correctly about the "lose your turn if you don't have the $250".  I never saw a situation where somebody landed on it after all of the vowels were gone.[/quote]
If you say you saw it, I'll trust your recollection. I thought I once saw a scoreboard with a negative figure on it, though, which would make sense if they still forced you to buy a vowel in that situation.
Protecting idiots from themselves just leads to more idiots.