Cheering for a contestant to lose for selfish reasons....

[Mr. Matté]

I guess it's more of an after-the-fact but I like it when clues get cuckooed/buzzed in Pyramid, and having the host explain the judgement call if it's not obvious why.

[BrandonFG]

Never been a fan of $1 upbidders

The British thwarted that maneuver by giving the advantage of spinning last in the Showcase Showdown to the person who bid closest to their one-bid item.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Would make one-bids interesting seeing how far off contestants are at times. Granted, the actual retail prices surprise me at times too.

[Dbacksfan12]

Never been a fan of $1 upbidders (I know it's strategy but it still irks me), so anytime they get on stage I root for them to lose their pricing game. Because I'm petty.

See, I'm completely the opposite.  I'm of the opinion that if you are the fourth bidder, there are only four possible rational bids, and I get irked when they win while making a different bid.

That's the camp I've been in for a long time.

WRT the original topic, I enjoy schadenfreude.  Therefore, anyone who won less than $1000 on DonD when given a huge offer previously fits the criteria.

The British thwarted that maneuver by giving the advantage of spinning last in the Showcase Showdown to the person who bid closest to their one-bid item.

I don't see how this thwarts the maneuver at all.  If the item is $805 and I bid $801, I've made a better bid than an item that's $1000 versus four "unique" bids of $450, $500, $550, and $399.

[MikeK]

Stealing the idea from the scary thread...



When my sister and I watched PYL, whether original broadcast or USA reruns, my sister and I rooted for the Whammy, for both the comic relief and because the animations were cool tech for the mid-80s.

[Unrealtor]

It might encourage someone to get closer to the ARP than just sliding by, especially if you think there is some room to maneuver. It becomes more a test of pricing than game theory.

This is exactly what I see it as doing. It doesn't fully prevent one-upping someone or completely eliminate the situations where it's the best strategy, but it changes the fourth bidder's strategy to be the same as the second and third bidders -- basically, you only one-up someone if you think they're particularly close, and otherwise you go for the lower end of your best guess for what the price is.

[Unrealtor]

There are definitely contestants I have rooted against because I haven't liked them. I had a friend who was up against James Holzhauer on the second taping day of his Jeopardy! run and supposedly he kept up the "Jeopardy! villain" kayfabe to the point where the contestant staff were complaining at him and this friend took an intense dislike to him as a person. I've softened since then, but it's a good example.

But mostly, I don't know contestants well enough to really dislike them enough to actively root against them. However, I absolutely pick favorites, even in person at the Price Is Right tapings that I've been to in the last year. I would root for anyone playing their regular game on stage but I caught myself holding back on giving advice from the bidders if they were competing with someone who I had spoken to in the waiting room before the show or someone who I knew through online TPIR/game show fandom.

[chrisholland03]

I was the weird kid that liked the illegal clue sound on Password Plus/Super Password.  The more illegal the better. 
I also enjoyed watching the benches move on Hot Potato.  Hot Potato nirvana was a long pass and a wrong answer - a full light show/sound effect and bench movement. 
I think the Supermarket Sweep vegetables were underplayed.  And should have been more aggressive in stealing shoppers carts. 

[Loogaroo]

This blends into the "hyperactive contestants" discussion quite a bit, but whenever I see a contestant that's so incredibly extra that it reads as fake, then I'm rooting for that player to go down.

There was also a phenomenon when I worked on Funny You Should Ask where about 20-30% of the contestants in the interview phase would say, "WHEN I win the money..." and we usually rooted for those players to lose. It's like, you're playing for $6800, max. The last question is going to be a 1-in-5 crapshoot. Stop it.

In terms of specific examples, there was that one guy on WWTBAM during the clock era who verbally trampled over Meredith to lock in his answer as fast as humanly possible just to pick up a few extra seconds for that million-dollar question that he was oh so certain he would get to. Strategy wise I get it, but he was playing into the heel role a bit too heavily by bellowing "Do You Have A Problem With That?" when Meredith called him on it. Watching him crash at $25K was immensely satisfying.

[JasonA1]

basically, you only one-up someone if you think they're particularly close, and otherwise you go for the lower end of your best guess for what the price is.

Regarding this Price is Right strategy if they installed the Showcase Showdown rules Alonzo brought up -- I like all of it in game theory land, but there are so many items with a price that feels "illogical" that I think the net effect would be lost, especially in America.

Our collective knowledge of what attributes make things expensive, and what brands have what reputation, isn't as strong as our trivia knowledge IMO. If everybody's bidding around $500 for a riding lawnmower, and I know as a Husqrvana that it's somewhere in the thousands, I don't know how much I want to play with that idea and risk not getting on stage at all. Looking right now, I thought most of their models would be $3000 and up these days. But they still have several under 3k. I can't see a world in which I straddle the line of safety (in this case, bidding $1999) and still gain the advantage I want for the Wheel. Prices are too big of a crapshoot NOT to one-up.

-Jason

[BrandonFG]

There are definitely contestants I have rooted against because I haven't liked them. I had a friend who was up against James Holzhauer on the second taping day of his Jeopardy! run and supposedly he kept up the "Jeopardy! villain" kayfabe to the point where the contestant staff were complaining at him and this friend took an intense dislike to him as a person.

I think that's what turned me off when he was a Chaser: he leaned into the villain role way too heavily. Ken and Brad seemed to have fun with it, Mark continued his role from the UK and GSN versions, but it really felt like James was self-aware for all the wrong reasons.

Wasn't a big fan of the other Chasers they added in S2 for the same reason.

/His "Brad's score is still up there" J!GOAT zinger is still pretty funny tho

[TLEberle]

In terms of specific examples, there was that one guy on WWTBAM during the clock era who verbally trampled over Meredith to lock in his answer as fast as humanly possible just to pick up a few extra seconds for that million-dollar question that he was oh so certain he would get to. Strategy wise I get it, but he was playing into the heel role a bit too heavily by bellowing "Do You Have A Problem With That?" when Meredith called him on it. Watching him crash at $25K was immensely satisfying.

Alan Carver of Federal Way, Wash. is just glad somebody remembers him.

One of the (several) issues with the clock seasons was that the clock starts as Meredith reads the choices, and you also accrue that time for Q15 throughout. From what I recall, if Alan had decided to stop at $50,000 instead of speedrunning his turn as a pilot for Game Shows Done Quick, he would have been sixth in line for the Group of Ten playoff which would be a much better way to win the million dollars. Such is life. As much as it comes off as rude or brusque and you may dislike it, it is a perfectly valid way to play.

I guess this goes two ways. I despise hyperactivity for its own sake, whether produced or someone looking to get a few more seconds of fame. Two of the contestants who each won $250,000 during Millionaire: College were extremely joyous after winning their prize, and who could blame them. There is not a doubt in my mind that Jon Lubin or Nancy Redd displayed true emotional release as opposed to some of the latter day shows that seem to use emotion as a cover for a paper thin game or a hope to gain clicks in a balkanized entertainment universe.

[cliffhanger285]

There are definitely contestants I have rooted against because I haven't liked them. I had a friend who was up against James Holzhauer on the second taping day of his Jeopardy! run and supposedly he kept up the "Jeopardy! villain" kayfabe to the point where the contestant staff were complaining at him and this friend took an intense dislike to him as a person. I've softened since then, but it's a good example.

Didn't he (or a "friend") spoil a bunch of his game results before his run even started airing on a "King James" website?

[Clay Zambo]

My episode of MILLIONAIRE started with the Fastest Finger question about movies I had not seen. No shame there.
Successful contestant plays, their run ends. (Honestly I don't remember what happened.)

Second Fastest Finger: TV shows I do not watch. Oh, well, I'm still having a good time.
Successful contestant gets into Hot Seat, does pretty well, dials his phone-a-friend, THE FRIEND DOESN'T ANSWER. Not the question, the phone.

I realize if he chooses a wrong answer, there will be time for another FF.

I realize I am actively rooting for him to choose a wrong answer. Which he does.

Third Fastest Finger, the Blindingly Easy Geography question, to which I know the answer but press the buttons in the wrong order.

Until then I did not know I could root for someone to lose. Apparently I can. I'm not happy about that, but these things happen. It's good to learn things.

[MikeK]

I was an America's Team member on two episodes of Trivial Pursuit: America Plays, specifically the October 31, 2008 episode is relevant here.  Through the entire game before the final round, the contestants shut out America's Team.  The winning contestant was in a situation to win a nice bundle of cash for the last 3 questions of the final round.

Let's just say with my $765 share, one item I bought was an XBox 360.

[BrandonFG]

I was an America's Team member on two episodes of Trivial Pursuit: America Plays, specifically the October 31, 2008 episode is relevant here.  Through the entire game before the final round, the contestants shut out America's Team.  The winning contestant was in a situation to win a nice bundle of cash for the last 3 questions of the final round.

Let's just say with my $765 share, one item I bought was an XBox 360.

This is a show that I’m still bummed I waited too late to submit anything. I also wonder if they were about a half-decade too early with the technology?