The Game Show Forum > Game Show Channels & Networks
New show coming to Buzzr on February 17...
beatlefreak84:
--- Quote from: Chuck Sutton on February 18, 2019, 12:07:20 PM ---On the Hollywood Squares, I wondered again yesterday what is actually the better strategy since you can lose a game on a wrong answer.
1) Trying to block and risk giving your opponent a win, or
2) Or try a square that if you get it right sets you up for a win when the opponent picks the square and gets it wrong.
--- End quote ---
This was something I was thinking of while watching the show as well. And, based on my rudimentary thoughts and computations, it seems better to try and block. Here's a scenario to illustrate:
Number the boxes on the board from 1 through 9, with 1 being the top left and 9 being the bottom right. Assume, by way of argument, that X controls boxes 4 and 5, and O controls box 1. Further, we assume that, for each question, the player has a 50% of getting it right, and each correct answer is independent of all others.
O really has two logical moves here: (1) go for box 6 and the block, or (2) go for box 3 to try and set up for a win.
Notice that, in either case, X has a 50% chance of the win with box 6, either on his own, or with a miss from O. So, let's see what happens to O in each case:
(1) O has a 50% chance of a successful block, forcing X to go elsewhere to try and establish a new winning path (likely box 7).
(2) O has a 50% chance of getting box 3, but then also needs X to miss box 6. If this happens, then O has two paths to victory, but, by our assumptions, this is only a 25% chance. Should O go for 3 and miss, then, even if X misses 6, box 7 can now give X the win.
The way I see it, O is counting on two questions in a row going his/her way in (2) for it to be a favorable outcome, but only needs one question going his/her way in (1), and the onus is now back on X to start over again. Plus, regardless of what happens to X in box 7, O goes for box 3 and, if successful, now has two paths to victory anyway. Thus, in (1), the ball is fully in O's court, and it's his/her game to lose at that point. Otherwise, in (2), O is counting on an X miss.
So, in this scenario, it is definitely better for O to just go for the block, even with the risk of a miss and giving X the game. Too many things need to go right for O to try any other strategy and have the outcome be better.
I tried designing other scenarios and pretty much came up with the same idea; namely, I don't see any competitive advantage (assuming the questions are 50-50 toss-ups) to not trying for the block.
That's my quickie argument for trying for the block, but, as HS is not a mathematical game, obviously, YMMV. :)
/yes, I analyzed a game show that's been off the air for 36 years...
//wouldn't be the first time!
Anthony
calliaume:
Okay. But here's a scenario I saw in one of the episodes that aired this weekend:
___|_O_|___
___|___|___
_X_|___|_X_
It's O's turn. Do you take the center square and try to set up the dual implication pick for X, or go for the block with a 50/50 chance of losing the game, but setting up a possible win on the next turn if X misses?
It's a tougher game as a result of this change - and not necessarily a better one.
chrisholland03:
It's been said several times before, but the fatal flaw here was a lack of appreciation for what made MG or HS work. A lot of the banter felt like several side conversations going on at the same time, the result of literally throwing 6/9 random celebrities in a box with no guidance. MG needed 2 anchor celebrities who could knock things off track strategically when things got too dry, and who could reign it back in when things got too sloppy. HS needed the comedy sweeteners to keep the celebrities from rambling on all day, or swinging and missing wildly. Celebrity positioning in both games was key, and they were placed seemingly randomly.
Rayburn was badly neutered here. He came across very scripted, and didn't have anyone to use his schtick on. Likewise, Bauman was relegated to playing traffic cop to the celebrities.
Had they appreciated the essence of MG and HS, I think the net result would have been significantly different, even if that were the only change made.
MSTieScott:
It just occurred to me that to the Match Game side of "what made Match Game work," they faced a couple of big problems:
1. They were starting from scratch, so they had to try to find a new panel chemistry. Match Game 73 had Richard Dawson as its one-liner ringer from the outset, but it took a while for them to discover the Brett/Charles chemistry that added a different type of levity. I'm going to assume that MGHS never found that chemistry. And even if they had, the only way to maintain it would be to have one or two additional regulars in the first half of the show every day, thereby limiting the participation of the other guest celebrities. (For maximum efficiency, Jon Bauman should have been part of that chemistry, but he was likely preoccupied with learning how to be a game show host.)
I acknowledge the counterargument that the current Match Game doesn't have any permanent regulars, yet it's in its fourth season now.
2. The '70s Match Game taped five (or six) half hours in a day, and it's a known fact that the social interaction (and alcohol) between tapings made the celebrities looser and more fun during the program. MGHS, on the other hand, had to power through five hour-long shows in a day -- I'm guessing that there was a real pressure to get everybody changed and ready for each subsequent episode. Possibly not much time to chat and have fun when the cameras weren't rolling. And probably not as much liquor, because I'm guessing Hollywood Squares doesn't work as well when the celebrities are inebriated.
--- Quote from: calliaume on February 19, 2019, 12:25:36 PM ---Okay. But here's a scenario I saw in one of the episodes that aired this weekend:
___|_O_|___
___|___|___
_X_|___|_X_
It's O's turn. Do you take the center square and try to set up the dual implication pick for X, or go for the block with a 50/50 chance of losing the game, but setting up a possible win on the next turn if X misses?
--- End quote ---
But does your question assume that O would definitely claim the center square? Because if O goes for the center and misses, they are well and truly screwed anyway. So in that situation, O should definitely play for the bottom center.
JasonA1:
--- Quote from: MSTieScott on February 19, 2019, 01:43:07 PM ---MGHS, on the other hand, had to power through five hour-long shows in a day -- I'm guessing that there was a real pressure to get everybody changed and ready for each subsequent episode.
--- End quote ---
Tapings for one show week were split over two days - most often (AFAIK) 3 shows on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. I'm sure there could have been variations; but in one schedule I've seen, the relative times they were in studio were 3 to 9 PM on Saturday and 1 to 5:00 PM on Sunday. That surely includes rehearsal/makeup/et al. All of this probably contributes to the odd bookings MGHSH seemed to get.
-Jason
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version