One last MG 90 question

[adamjk]

I am noticing a bad rule in match up on these early shows, in that in final match up, the trailing player gets to go first. This could lead to a contestant winning the game without having to do the final match up, as was the case on today's rerun. My question is, was this rule ever rectified?

[Steve McClellan]

Presumably, they did it this way to make the ending a bit more cheery (usually ending on a match instead of time running out). As such, I don't believe they changed it.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 31 2004, 02:46 PM\'] I am noticing a bad rule in match up on these early shows, in that in final match up, the trailing player gets to go first. This could lead to a contestant winning the game without having to do the final match up, as was the case on today's rerun. My question is, was this rule ever rectified? [/quote]
 Why is it a bad rule?  They were playing for money; so its possible that they did this to reduce payouts. It may have been done to reduce the length of the game as well.

[adamjk]

Well to me it is bad, due to the fact that it could lead to players winning without having to play final match up

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 31 2004, 01:26 PM\'] Well to me it is bad, due to the fact that it could lead to players winning without having to play final match up [/quote]
God help me, I'm gonna side with Adam here. I was never fond of this either.

That said, I'm sure the truth lies somewhere between (or in conjuction with both) Steve and Mark. The rule as written both sets up the majority of games to end on an aesthtically pleasing high note with a match, or an exciting close call if they failed to pass their opponent, and the fringe benefit , since they end the game on the passing match, is that they never have to pay out more than $100 more than the losing opponent scored.

Which drove me insane, for two reasons: one, you're penalizing the earning potential of the player who has done the best throughout the first three rounds, which isn't fair, and two, you occasionally get that uncomfortable situaton Adam mentioned, where you have to um and uh and explain to the folks at home that Bob won the game without having to do anything.

I would imagine the producers decided that the benefits mentioned by Steve and Mark outweighed the annoyances that me and Adam see in the system. And I can understand why, I think. The aesthetics of the endgame are important, and the Uncomfortable Situation didn't come up all THAT often (though more so than it happened on, say, Pyramid, IIRC). So it was worth occasionally dealing with in order to gain the more frequent advantages.

(And when you boil it all down, it's MATCH GAME. We're not supposed to really give a rip how "fair" the game is, it's played for laughs. Although MG90 took themselves a little more seriously than any version before or since, I think.)

(Adam, here's something you could do yourself (and us) a great service by working on: Having an opinion is great. Having an UNPOPULAR opinion is fine. But you gotta be able to defend it.  You said it was a bad rule, and you cited what could happen as a result of it, but you gotta tell us WHY you think it's a bad rule. "I think they should bring back Gambit." Great, me too. But obviously they haven't, so convince me WHY a lack of Gambit in our lives is a bad thing. Get the idea?)

[adamjk]

Yes I do. BTW, I have another thing I dislike on MG 90. That is that the in 2nd question round, the contestant still got just $50 per match like in round 1. I don't like it because, the final match up is worth $100, why couldn't the final question round be worth the same? Doesn't make any sense. The 1st question round and Match Up each paid out the same per match, why couldn't the they do that for the final question and Match Up rounds?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 31 2004, 02:23 PM\'] Yes I do. BTW, I have another thing I dislike on MG 90. That is that the in 2nd question round, the contestant still got just $50 per match like in round 1. I don't like it because, the final match up is worth $100, why couldn't the final question round be worth the same? Doesn't make any sense. The 1st question round and Match Up each paid out the same per match, why couldn't the they do that for the final question and Match Up rounds? [/quote]
I'm sure they had a reason for it. My guess is that they wanted to keep the game as close as possible going into FMU, and with second-round-matches at $100 it might have opened up too big of a lead more often than they would have liked.

Remember what I said in my High Rollers post about scoring. FIRST you get the game down, and THEN you develop a scoring system that is hopefully fair, produces the average payouts that your budget allows, and makes for an exciting game. Sometimes that doesn't allow things to be even across the board.

[jbrocato]

On Tuesday's show, a champion was retired with about $28,000 in cash.  Was that because the show retained the $25,000 limit from its CBS days or did the Shafer version have a five-day retirement?

Also, am I under the correct impression that on the CBS MG, contestants could win an unlimited number of times as long as they did not pass $25,000?

John Brocato

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'jbrocato\' date=\'Sep 1 2004, 06:55 AM\'] On Tuesday's show, a champion was retired with about $28,000 in cash.  Was that because the show retained the $25,000 limit from its CBS days or did the Shafer version have a five-day retirement?

Also, am I under the correct impression that on the CBS MG, contestants could win an unlimited number of times as long as they did not pass $25,000?

 [/quote]
 Shafer MG had a five show limit.

MG7x didn't have a limit of number of wins(save for the one win, no returning champs format of MGPM and the two players play in two games format of MG Daily Syndie). PLayers of the daytime MG7x stayed until defeated or they passed the $25K limit. THe latter only happened once, on one of the CBS MG7x's very last episodes(not seen nationally until GSN aired it in 2001)

[Pyramid80]

One comment that I would like to make about the "match up" segment is that the magic screen that the contestant uses in selecting the words appears to be the same thing that was used on the bonus game on Trivia Trap.  It was the same sound effect anyway.

[gsnstooge]

I like Match-Up, even when I saw it on ABC (I had cable).  It is easier than to me than the double-entendre questions.

[Particleman]

Yesterday, I saw this version of Match Game for the first time.  I was a bit skeptical about it before I watched it but I'd have to say that it captured a lot of the Match Game 7x spirit.  The opening showcased close-ups of the starts, some of the camera work was the same, heck, even the first think cue was based off of the original cue.  I laughed my butt off at the game just like I did Match Game 7x!

Having said that, I honestly didn't even notice if the new system seemed fair or not.  I think what Chris said about Match Game being a show intended for laughs more than money holds true here.

Do you guys think the Match Up rounds fit in with the rest of the show, which holds faithful to Match Game 7x?  I think it works pretty well despite the Final Match Up flaw.

Some may not agree with me on this but concerning money payouts, the focus seems to be on the potential to "win $10,000."  With that potential, it's easy to forget (at least for me) the money you win during the front game.  In fact, it took about a month for me to realize how much money matches were worth on MG 7x.  That's not to say the scoring isn't fair in Final Match Up.

[Ian Wallis]

Which drove me insane, for two reasons: one, you're penalizing the earning potential of the player who has done the best throughout the first three rounds, which isn't fair,

Another probable reason why they had the person trailing go first, which hasn't really been touched on, is that if the player in the lead went first, they could possibly build up such a big lead that the trailing player would have no chance of catching them.  I guess they wanted to give everyone a fair chance at winning.

Other shows have done this in different ways:  Bergeron "Hollywood Squares" for example, which made the later games worth more.  A player on that show could win three out of four games, but still lose in the end.  I never cared for that...

[Ian Wallis]

MG7x didn't have a limit of number of wins

There was one player on MG7x who won 14 games - but only about $16,000.  He was the record holder in terms of games won, but because he kept blowing the Super Match he never got close to the $25,000 limit.  He was on in late '76 and early '77.  One of his games was the only time two men ever played each other on that version of the show.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Sep 1 2004, 06:05 AM\'] Another probable reason why they had the person trailing go first, which hasn't really been touched on, is that if the player in the lead went first, they could possibly build up such a big lead that the trailing player would have no chance of catching them. [/quote]
 Actually, it _has_ been touched on. That's what we're talking about when we're talking about the aesthetic quality of a game ending on a match rather then on a buzzer. More often than not, if the better player goes first, they ARE going to build up that insurmountable lead, and the game is going to end with the clock expiring on the poorer player. Fine gamewise, but it's not great TV. The way they do it now, the poorer player is probably NOT going to build up that kind of lead, since they have to catch the leader, AND they're not as good, so the lead won't be as huge. So assuming law of averages, more often than not the game will end on an upbeat: "Match...and win!"