The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Jeremy Nelson on July 25, 2011, 04:24:53 AM
-
A lot of shows, if you read the rules correctly, allow for some sort of strategy to be used to maximize dollar totals. Which one irks you the most when it's not used?
For me, it was during the Family Feud "one strike rule" days, when a family had a big enough bank to throw the last round and didn't- I recall a couple of years where the steal wasn't added to the bank.
-
I think the most common one for me is on Wheel, when a contestant hits a larger space, but calls a letter that only appears once or twice. If they're clearly just guessing at letters, that's one thing, but it irks me a bit more when they know the puzzle and are just building the bank.
When Alex says there's less than a minute to go on Jeopardy! and the contestant in control trails, I always wonder why he or she doesn't start going for the higher dollar values, to close the gap. Sure you may give the leader a chance to pad his or her lead, but you also gotta play to win.
-
A lot of shows, if you read the rules correctly, allow for some sort of strategy to be used to maximize dollar totals. Which one irks you the most when it's not used?
TPiR, in contestants row. If the bids are, say, $1200, $1450, and $985; the last person bidding should bid either $1201, $1451, $986, or $1. Bidding something like $1250 makes no sense at all.
-
In the almost 20 years since the game debuted, I don't think I've ever seen a single contestant use the "Cover Up strategy" on TPiR. I don't watch the show as religiously as I used to, though, so feel free to prove me wrong.
-
In the almost 20 years since the game debuted, I don't think I've ever seen a single contestant use the "Cover Up strategy" on TPiR. I don't watch the show as religiously as I used to, though, so feel free to prove me wrong.
I don't recall a strategy for Cover Up. Someone once told me that they'd throw the first number to guarantee a third chance, but then there's the off chance that they miss everything else and screw themselves out of a second chance, let alone a third. Is this the one, or do you have something better?
Since we're on the Price, the zero rule in Ten Chances. For a game that has been so constant with this strategy for so long, it's irritating to see very few people "get it".
-
I don't think anyone on Lingo ever thought about doing this. If you draw the ? Ball, do NOT pick the number that immediately gives you a Lingo because even though you get the points right away, you also pass control to your opponents. If you're a good solver, keeping control gives you the chance to rack up the points and keep the game away from your opponents until you eventually hit that Lingo. The exception for this would be late in the game.
And this is a solving strategy that some people don't take advantage of: Players are so focused on filling in the given letter pattern that they don't use a random word in order to possibly gain missing letters or information. You see it all the time in Bonus Lingo when contestants freeze up. Chuck and Bill always ask them to guess anything.
Dean
-
Since Jeopardy contestants are generally regarded as among the brightest game show players, it's always disappointing to me when it's obvious that these bright people haven't taken the time to consider a few basic Final Jeopardy wagering strategies. Amazingly, some used to turn up on Sony's Jeopardy board after their appearances and as much as admitted that they didn't care about any of that. Most commonly, these folks can be identified as the ones who, when trailing, wager all but $1 of their total.
-
I don't think anyone on Lingo ever thought about doing this. If you draw the ? Ball, do NOT pick the number that immediately gives you a Lingo because even though you get the points right away, you also pass control to your opponents. If you're a good solver, keeping control gives you the chance to rack up the points and keep the game away from your opponents until you eventually hit that Lingo. The exception for this would be late in the game.
I saw this at least once. I think our very own Lobster (where's he been?) did it.
-
Amazingly, some used to turn up on Sony's Jeopardy board after their appearances and as much as admitted that they didn't care about any of that. Most commonly, these folks can be identified as the ones who, when trailing, wager all but $1 of their total.
My girlfriend, who passed the J! contestant test (and was then weeded out of the personality portion of the audition; their loss, I say :)) is very adamant about disliking the reduction of FJ to a mathematical exercise, to the point where she gets seriously annoyed with me if I start figuring it out aloud during the break. Boggles the hell out of me, but it's easy enough to concede on and be quiet about it. :)
-
When Alex says there's less than a minute to go on Jeopardy! and the contestant in control trails, I always wonder why he or she doesn't start going for the higher dollar values, to close the gap. Sure you may give the leader a chance to pad his or her lead, but you also gotta play to win
Yeah, that bugs me too, especially if going for a higher value might prevent a runaway if contestant in control gets it right.
-
My girlfriend, who passed the J! contestant test (and was then weeded out of the personality portion of the audition; their loss, I say :)) is very adamant about disliking the reduction of FJ to a mathematical exercise, to the point where she gets seriously annoyed with me if I start figuring it out aloud during the break. Boggles the hell out of me, but it's easy enough to concede on and be quiet about it. :)
I'm sure she has many other lovely qualities that make up for this tragic flaw.
-
I think the most common one for me is on Wheel, when a contestant hits a larger space, but calls a letter that only appears once or twice. If they're clearly just guessing at letters, that's one thing, but it irks me a bit more when they know the puzzle and are just building the bank.
This, but what's more egregious is when a player calls a fiver on $300.
-
I don't recall a strategy for Cover Up. Someone once told me that they'd throw the first number to guarantee a third chance, but then there's the off chance that they miss everything else and screw themselves out of a second chance, let alone a third. Is this the one, or do you have something better?
Yeah, that's the one. It's not a guaranteed winner, of course, but it will give you at least one more guess. And I would argue that it may be better to intentionally miss the second number, particularly if it's a subcompact car and the choices are something like 4, 8, and 0.
Since we're on the Price, the zero rule in Ten Chances. For a game that has been so constant with this strategy for so long, it's irritating to see very few people "get it".
AFAIK Barker never explicitly mentioned it, which sometimes got on my nerves. It's either a rule that contestants must follow, or it's not. No reason to keep it like a nuclear secret. Same goes for Drew, but my bigger complaint is that he so obviously hates hosting that game.
-
AFAIK Barker never explicitly mentioned it, which sometimes got on my nerves. It's either a rule that contestants must follow, or it's not. No reason to keep it like a nuclear secret. Same goes for Drew, but my bigger complaint is that he so obviously hates hosting that game.
Was the "rule" in place from playing #1?
-
Was the "rule" in place from playing #1?
Not that I recall.
-
I don't think anyone on Lingo ever thought about doing this. If you draw the ? Ball, do NOT pick the number that immediately gives you a Lingo because even though you get the points right away, you also pass control to your opponents. If you're a good solver, keeping control gives you the chance to rack up the points and keep the game away from your opponents until you eventually hit that Lingo. The exception for this would be late in the game.
I saw this at least once. I think our very own Lobster (where's he been?) did it.
The other part of this Lingo strategy is that it puts your Lingo into round 2 where the value is higher as two Lingos a game is less likely anyway (unless you're on a team that is REALLY good at the game).
-
AFAIK Barker never explicitly mentioned it, which sometimes got on my nerves. It's either a rule that contestants must follow, or it's not. No reason to keep it like a nuclear secret. Same goes for Drew, but my bigger complaint is that he so obviously hates hosting that game.
Barker might not have mentioned such a rule on camera. However, at a TPiR taping I was at 10 years ago, Barker mentioned off-camera after a Ten Chances playing that the contestant must not know about "the rule" without specifying that each price ends in zero. Said contestant only won the first prize.
-
Was the "rule" in place from playing #1?
Not that I recall.
That's my sense too. Which would probably explain why Barker never made a point of it--a game show host would rarely if ever explain a specific strategy for a game (especially if the strategy changes over time); theoretically it's up to you to figure out the strategy.
-
About a year ago there was a similar thread regarding strategies and I posted about three different strategies I would employ as a Jeopardy contestant. Wow, so many jumped down my throat to tell me it was akin to cheating as the game wouldn’t be pure if I did these things.
Sorry, but if there isn’t a rule against something, that’s not my fault; and if I’m on the show, I intend to play to win.
-
About a year ago there was a similar thread regarding strategies and I posted about three different strategies I would employ as a Jeopardy contestant. Wow, so many jumped down my throat to tell me it was akin to cheating as the game wouldn’t be pure if I did these things.
Sorry, but if there isn’t a rule against something, that’s not my fault; and if I’m on the show, I intend to play to win.
Was this on the Jeopardy board? I was unable to find the post here and I'm curious.
-
About a year ago there was a similar thread regarding strategies and I posted about three different strategies I would employ as a Jeopardy contestant. Wow, so many jumped down my throat to tell me it was akin to cheating as the game wouldn’t be pure if I did these things.
Sorry, but if there isn’t a rule against something, that’s not my fault; and if I’m on the show, I intend to play to win.
Was this on the Jeopardy board? I was unable to find the post here and I'm curious.
Maybe this is what he's referring to. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21198&view=findpost&p=254960&hl=&fromsearch=1")
-
Maybe this is what he's referring to. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21198&view=findpost&p=254960&hl=&fromsearch=1")
Well, maybe, but that's one, and he was claiming "about three." It's also nowhere in the area code of "akin to cheating," it's just pointless.
-
Was the "rule" in place from playing #1?
Not that I recall.
The "rule" was pretty much in place around Season 8 or 9 for the second prize and the car, though some of the first prizes still ended in 5 until Season 25 or 26.
-
I don't recall a strategy for Cover Up. Someone once told me that they'd throw the first number to guarantee a third chance,
The last time I remember someone intentionally using the strategy was in 1997. As a substitute teacher, I showed TPIR to the class and they were mathematically able to explain to me by how much the contestant increased his odds.
but then there's the off chance that they miss everything else and screw themselves out of a second chance, let alone a third.
When was the last time we had a wipeout in this game? I know it's happened.
-
I always wince when a TPIR pricing game (like One Right Price, Pick A Number,...) offers a PAIR of identical items (like motorbikes) and they choose a price that ends with an ODD number.
Another common ignored strategy of the past was on The Joker's Wild, when the contestant (especially a challenger) would be leading in the scoring with either $400 or $450. They spin a double or triple and choose the full amount instead of the minimum amount needed to reach $500.
-
Maybe this is what he's referring to. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21198&view=findpost&p=254960&hl=&fromsearch=1")
Well, maybe, but that's one, and he was claiming "about three." It's also nowhere in the area code of "akin to cheating," it's just pointless.
True that.
Maybe he misremembered. :)
-
Another common ignored strategy of the past was on The Joker's Wild, when the contestant (especially a challenger) would be leading in the scoring with either $400 or $450. They spin a double or triple and choose the full amount instead of the minimum amount needed to reach $500.
There's an argument to be made either way. Get it wrong, and the champion could catch up big time, or win. Get it right, though, and depending on what the champion has could force him to have to get three Jokers to even have a chance to win. (Assuming no Mystery or Fast Forward categories to skew the scoring.)
-
Get it right, though, and depending on what the champion has could force him to have to get three Jokers to even have a chance to win.
I strongly suspect Tim may have misremembered who goes first, or else he wouldn't have called out the challenger in particular. Clearly he was shooting for the other-guy-doesn't-get-last-licks situation.
-
I don't think anyone on Lingo ever thought about doing this. If you draw the ? Ball, do NOT pick the number that immediately gives you a Lingo because even though you get the points right away, you also pass control to your opponents. If you're a good solver, keeping control gives you the chance to rack up the points and keep the game away from your opponents until you eventually hit that Lingo. The exception for this would be late in the game.
I saw this at least once. I think our very own Lobster (where's he been?) did it.
I just watched Lobster's game on YouTube. (http://"http://youtu.be/TecifE4kGA8") He did not get the chance to do this, but his opponents stumbled into it. According to his blog, they had never seen the show before. When they drew a ? Ball and had two numbers for a Lingo, they inadvertently picked a different number, only later realizing their mistake of not scoring a Lingo right away in order to tie the game. They then lost control while solving the final word of the round.
Lobster even mentions this hold-off-on-the-Lingo strategy in his blog. (http://"http://www.myspace.com/lobbo/blog#!/lobbo/blog/215305434")
/I guess you could say they...
//[puts on sunglasses]
///...dropped the ball.
////YEEEAAAAHHHH!!!
Dean
(I apologize for that.)
-
I always wince when a TPIR pricing game (like One Right Price, Pick A Number,...) offers a PAIR of identical items (like motorbikes) and they choose a price that ends with an ODD number.
It is very possible for 2 identical items to have an odd price. Suppose a motorcycle has an MSRP of $1999.49. 2 x 1999.49 = $3998.98. Rounded to the nearest dollar = $3999. What I am not sure of is: Would they take the total of the 2 items and then round to the nearest dollar? Or would they round each individual item's MSRP and then add them together for the prize package total?
-
I always wince when a TPIR pricing game (like One Right Price, Pick A Number,...) offers a PAIR of identical items (like motorbikes) and they choose a price that ends with an ODD number.
It is very possible for 2 identical items to have an odd price. Suppose a motorcycle has an MSRP of $1999.49. 2 x 1999.49 = $3998.98. Rounded to the nearest dollar = $3999. What I am not sure of is: Would they take the total of the 2 items and then round to the nearest dollar? Or would they round each individual item's MSRP and then add them together for the prize package total?
I would assume that the prices of all prizes in a package are added, then they deal with the cents.
As far as Ten Chances goes, it's been played since 1975, and I've seen the zero rule in effect for the car in a 1980 episode. I think for the first two prizes, it always has been. I think Drew hates playing this game for the same reason that I hate watching it now- you know the rule, and it can irritate you to see that people who claim to have watched the show for years don't get it. Honestly, this is a game that should be getting little play because it's really not that hard. But then again, it could just be the peanut gallery.
-
While we're discussing TPiR, I guess Hit Me goes without saying? ;-)
-
A lot of shows, if you read the rules correctly, allow for some sort of strategy to be used to maximize dollar totals. Which one irks you the most when it's not used?
TPiR, in contestants row. If the bids are, say, $1200, $1450, and $985; the last person bidding should bid either $1201, $1451, $986, or $1. Bidding something like $1250 makes no sense at all.
Sigh, And the Game becomes Less fun. Even less watchable when somebody tries to botch a bid.
-
I always wince when a TPIR pricing game (like One Right Price, Pick A Number,...) offers a PAIR of identical items (like motorbikes) and they choose a price that ends with an ODD number.
It is very possible for 2 identical items to have an odd price. Suppose a motorcycle has an MSRP of $1999.49. 2 x 1999.49 = $3998.98. Rounded to the nearest dollar = $3999. What I am not sure of is: Would they take the total of the 2 items and then round to the nearest dollar? Or would they round each individual item's MSRP and then add them together for the prize package total?
In theory, they would take the $3999 price, but in practice, this pretty much never happens. The even choice is correct 98% of the time.
-
In theory, they would take the $3999 price, but in practice, this pretty much never happens. The even choice is correct 98% of the time.
Seems to me that since they "round all prices to the nearest dollar", they would round each price before adding them together.
-
Seems to me that since they "round all prices to the nearest dollar", they would round each price before adding them together.
This may be one of those rare times when Words don't have Meanings after all. The on-air language is clearly designed simply to tell contestants not to bid in cents. I don't think you can extrapolate one way or another how they handle a group of prizes based on that one line. Besides, they don't "round ALL prices to the nearest dollar" anyway, or else some of the grocery games would be awkward.
-
Sigh, And the Game becomes Less fun. Even less watchable when somebody tries to botch a bid.
When I think about people deciding the show is unwatchable because the person in the fourth seat in a guessing game with absolutely no pre-screening exam didn't use optimal strategy, I start to think my girlfriend has a point about the whole Final Jeopardy thing.
Besides, they don't "round ALL prices to the nearest dollar" anyway, or else some of the grocery games would be awkward.
"You need between $20 and $21 to win. Where would you like to start?"
"20 of the Snickers bars, Drew!"
"Dammit."
-
Seems to me that since they "round all prices to the nearest dollar", they would round each price before adding them together.
The rounding happens after they're all added together. I can double check my sources (I have the info itself saved on my home PC, and I'm at work) but this was covered on G-R in the past.
-Jason
-
The Contestants' Row thing that cheeses me off is when somebody bids one dollar higher and he or she isn't even the last bidder. I'd love to see this rule: if you bid within, oh, $20 of someone else and don't win, you go home. They just call two (or three or four) new people next time. Then people won't just keep doing it over and over.
-
The Contestants' Row thing that cheeses me off is when somebody bids one dollar higher and he or she isn't even the last bidder. I'd love to see this rule: if you bid within, oh, $20 of someone else and don't win, you go home. They just call two (or three or four) new people next time. Then people won't just keep doing it over and over.
Which unfairly punishes those who are there to profit from another's stupidity.
-
I'd love to see this rule: if you bid within, oh, $20 of someone else and don't win, you go home.
You're really suggesting a rule that effectively forces the person in fourth seat onto the bubble if they employ optimal strategy?
(And I haven't even gotten to the WTF-ness of trying to explain that one to the folks at home.)
-
. I'd love to see this rule: if you bid within, oh, $20 of someone else and don't win, you go home. They just call two (or three or four) new people next time. Then people won't just keep doing it over and over.
I'd love to see everyone who bids 420 get their ass kicked on air. But that's just like your suggestion- solves nothing and is a potential lawsuit waiting to happen.
-
I'd love to see everyone who bids 420 get their ass kicked on air.
Isn't public ridicule from this board enough?
/:)
-
The rounding happens after they're all added together. I can double check my sources (I have the info itself saved on my home PC, and I'm at work) but this was covered on G-R in the past.
I'll vouch for that. All packages' prices are calculated this way, including showcases.
-
The Contestants' Row thing that cheeses me off is when somebody bids one dollar higher and he or she isn't even the last bidder. I'd love to see this rule: if you bid within, oh, $20 of someone else and don't win, you go home. They just call two (or three or four) new people next time. Then people won't just keep doing it over and over.
Which unfairly punishes those who are there to profit from another's stupidity.
Now, though, if the second bidder bids $1 over the first, the first player is unfairly punished for another's stupidity. The stupid person presumably gets his just desserts if the third or fourth bidder bids $1 over him.
I suppose a simpler rule would be you simply aren't allowed to bid within $20 over another player. And no, I don't see them doing it.
-
One of the things I liked about Cullen TPIR is that you started the bidding at a certain amount and had to go higher incrementally. None of this sniping and $1 bidding.
-
Now, though, if the second bidder bids $1 over the first, the first player is unfairly punished for another's stupidity. The stupid person presumably gets his just desserts if the third or fourth bidder bids $1 over him.
Thinking about this for a second: there's an interesting opportunity to grief someone here, if you didn't care about winning and just wanted to be a right bastard: if you *always* +1 the player in the seat to your right, regardless of turn order, they're never getting on stage before you do unless they are exactly right.
I dunno. I'm sure this was covered several seasons ago on Masters of the Obvious, but it just came to me now.
-
At least for me, the fun of game shows partly lies in the unexpected happening. It would be far, far less interesting a genre if everything went according to Hoyle. Sometimes the champ does the math wrong and loses by a dollar even though he's right. Sometimes a person can solve the puzzle with a single letter. Twice this week in reruns contestants polled the audience on Q4 in the stack, and both of them on Movie Week. (this was when the game still had the standard difficulty stack) The Price is Right affords many more chances per time period of wacky stuff to happen, and I think the show is more interesting because of it. I certainly wouldn't deem it unwatchable because the contestants haven't formed their battle plan long before arrival and didn't stick to it once they got to play, even if it means they do something that hurts their chances of getting to further their interests.
-
Now, though, if the second bidder bids $1 over the first, the first player is unfairly punished for another's stupidity. The stupid person presumably gets his just desserts if the third or fourth bidder bids $1 over him.
Thinking about this for a second: there's an interesting opportunity to grief someone here, if you didn't care about winning and just wanted to be a right bastard: if you *always* +1 the player in the seat to your right, regardless of turn order, they're never getting on stage before you do unless they are exactly right.
Less bastardly, I could swear I once saw a lady in second position bid $421 just to bitchslap the bozo in first position.
-
Less bastardly, I could swear I once saw a lady in second position bid $421 just to bitchslap the bozo in first position.
Following a disdainful look, if I remember correctly, absolutely. :)
-
None of the above comes close to the amount of headdesking I do behind the curtain when a team are solving the wall on Only Connect, spot 5 items in a potential group, then give up after the fourth permutation.
-
The Contestants' Row thing that cheeses me off is when somebody bids one dollar higher and he or she isn't even the last bidder. I'd love to see this rule: if you bid within, oh, $20 of someone else and don't win, you go home. They just call two (or three or four) new people next time. Then people won't just keep doing it over and over.
Which unfairly punishes those who are there to profit from another's stupidity.
Now, though, if the second bidder bids $1 over the first, the first player is unfairly punished for another's stupidity. The stupid person presumably gets his just desserts if the third or fourth bidder bids $1 over him.
I suppose a simpler rule would be you simply aren't allowed to bid within $20 over another player. And no, I don't see them doing it.
And here's why: suppose I happen to know that the exact price of the IUFB is $439, but I'm in the second position and the person in the first position bids $420. I'm now locked out of the IUFB and potentially a five-figure sum of prizes because the idiot to my right got lucky while making a drug reference on national TV.
It also feels a bit like you're punishing good strategy. If I think the ARP is between $1200 and $1500 but someone else has already bid $1200, why not bid $1201 and cover as much of that range as possible?
Semi-OT: On Cullen's TPIR, if the bid of the person ahead of you on his/her first crack at an item was more than you thought the prize was, could you bid less or were you just SOL? It seems like the first time through on most prizes had everyone going up by the minimum, but I don't suppose that was set in stone.
-
Semi-OT: On Cullen's TPIR, if the bid of the person ahead of you on his/her first crack at an item was more than you thought the prize was, could you bid less or were you just SOL? It seems like the first time through on most prizes had everyone going up by the minimum, but I don't suppose that was set in stone.
One their occasional one-bid games, he made it clear that you didn't have to bid higher than your opponent. On the others, I can't find anything specific about being able to underbid the first bidder, but they typically started the bidding so low that it was never a problem. Keep in mind that the point of the original game was to resemble an auction (the original version was called The Auctioneer), not to nail the price on your first bid.
-
Semi-OT: On Cullen's TPIR, if the bid of the person ahead of you on his/her first crack at an item was more than you thought the prize was, could you bid less or were you just SOL? It seems like the first time through on most prizes had everyone going up by the minimum, but I don't suppose that was set in stone.
One their occasional one-bid games, he made it clear that you didn't have to bid higher than your opponent. On the others, I can't find anything specific about being able to underbid the first bidder, but they typically started the bidding so low that it was never a problem. Keep in mind that the point of the original game was to resemble an auction (the original version was called The Auctioneer), not to nail the price on your first bid.
Matt, from what I've seen on YouTube videos of Cullen's TPIR, a contestant could underbid on their first bid only, and were automatically frozen at that bid.
-
Matt, from what I've seen on YouTube videos of Cullen's TPIR, a contestant could underbid on their first bid only, and were automatically frozen at that bid.
ISTR this being the case as well.
-
Matt, from what I've seen on YouTube videos of Cullen's TPIR, a contestant could underbid on their first bid only, and were automatically frozen at that bid.
ISTR this being the case as well.
Seems logical. Stewart wasn't the sort to leave a gaping flaw in his games for very long. I skimmed a couple of episodes before I posted just to see if I could find any reference and I didn't.
-
Stewart wasn't the sort to leave a gaping flaw in his games for very long.
Especially since if this wasn't the case, the player in first position could just keep highballing to keep everyone out if he was in the lead.
-
Especially since if this wasn't the case, the player in first position could just keep highballing to keep everyone out if he was in the lead.
"Two million dollars, Bill!"
"Aw, f**k."
-
And here's why: suppose I happen to know that the exact price of the IUFB is $439, but I'm in the second position and the person in the first position bids $420. I'm now locked out of the IUFB and potentially a five-figure sum of prizes because the idiot to my right got lucky while making a drug reference on national TV.
It also feels a bit like you're punishing good strategy. If I think the ARP is between $1200 and $1500 but someone else has already bid $1200, why not bid $1201 and cover as much of that range as possible?
In your example, the idiot to your right made a canny bid and should be rewarded. Better he than the idiots who go up by a dollar without thinking.
-
And here's why: suppose I happen to know that the exact price of the IUFB is $439, but I'm in the second position and the person in the first position bids $420. I'm now locked out of the IUFB and potentially a five-figure sum of prizes because the idiot to my right got lucky while making a drug reference on national TV.
It also feels a bit like you're punishing good strategy. If I think the ARP is between $1200 and $1500 but someone else has already bid $1200, why not bid $1201 and cover as much of that range as possible?
In your example, the idiot to your right made a canny bid and should be rewarded. Better he than the idiots who go up by a dollar without thinking.
In your example you're sending someone home for no legitimate reason. Tell me how making a change that could potentially cause damage to the long term future of the series is good.