The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: chris319 on June 18, 2004, 01:55:24 AM
-
Why bother watching Jeopardy!? You know who's going to win. There is no competition, no suspense, no dramma, no reason to watch. Why bother bringing out two challengers? They might as well turn off their signalling buttons and send them home. When the score is $20,000 to $2,000 to $1,000, why bother playing Final Jeopardy!? Just double Ken's money and run a few extra commercials to pay for it.
Seeing Ken win yet another $30,000 doesn't give me wood, sorry.
-
Oh come on. You gotta be a little excited the higher he goes.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Jun 17 2004, 09:59 PM\'] Oh come on. You gotta be a little excited the higher he goes. [/quote]
You talkin' about Ken, or Chris' wood?
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
I'm not even going there.
-
Chris and his chill pill...
(In a Barker voice) C'MONNNN...WE'RE ON THE VERGE OF MAKING PRIC..*I MEAN*...JEOPARDY HISTORY!!!
-
Yeah, it's a real drag, plus he's bordering on obnoxious. What they need to do is find out in which categories he is weakest and load up on those. Or offer him a job on the show if he would just lose.
-
I find suspense. He's been in a little danger a couple of shows; he's clearly not completely invincible. Give him a bit of an off day, with a final Jeopardy! question he doesn't know, and we could have a new champion yet. Heck, those days get the most tense: can he still hold on to that title of champion? All it takes is one off day for him, or one particularly tough challenger, to dethrone him.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 12:59 AM\'] Oh come on. You gotta be a little excited the higher he goes. [/quote]
I believe Chris is just a being a little sarcastic. I think he wants us to defend why we should bother watching "Jeopardy!" if Ken is just going to smoke his opponents away like firewood.
Well, I really don't care if he wins or loses. He's a cool guy in my book. Despite winning all these games, he doesn't come off as smug and self-congraditory like some long-time champs on shows.
If he wins, I'll go "Ah, good for him ! What a score !". If he loses, I'll go "Ah, oh well ! Hell of a run. Spend the cash well !"
EDIT: I also like to see him win at least one more time tomorrow. So we can see if our own Matt Ottinger is the inevitable one that does the Biblical Task of bringing down the Jennings Juggernaut.
I'm sure in 1980. Some people were saying the same thing about Thom McKee. ("Why bother wasting time with a challenger, just give him $1000 and a car and just slay the dragon and give him another $1000 and some vacation somewhere...")
-Joe R.
-
I have caught his last two shows. To me, I am just simply in awe that he's been able to win so handily. Maybe if I watched his run from day one, I would be a bit more bored and/or not as thrilled to see him win. For me right now though, I'd like to see how far Ken takes this run.
-
Thom was a handsome, intelligent man in a uniform. Can't get any better than that.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 02:54 AM\'] Thom was a handsome, intelligent man in a uniform. Can't get any better than that. [/quote]
Some would say a handsome, intelligent man without anything on would be better.
Brandon Brooks
-
With all this talk on Ken's amazing run, it's no wonder I started my own Ken Jennings Watch last week after his 6th victory. When he finally loses, that's where my watch will end at that point.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 03:43 AM\'] With all this talk on Ken's amazing run, it's no wonder I started my own Ken Jennings Watch last week after his 6th victory. When he finally loses, that's where my watch will end at that point. [/quote]
Well thank heavens then. Someone alert the media.
-
Heck, since most of the time I don't even know the contestants, I don't have someone to root for. This time I do.
Getting there is half the fun.
-
[quote name=\'inturnaround\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 07:07 AM\'] Heck, since most of the time I don't even know the contestants, I don't have someone to root for. This time I do.
Getting there is half the fun. [/quote]
Which is why monday's show will be doubly interesting!
-
Or you could just go back to the pure mechanics of why this show works and pit yourself against Ken, bragging to your wife or dog every time you get a correct response "before" Ken (knowing full well that he has to wait to signal, whereas you don't) - or even better yet, trash-talk the screen when you get one that Ken misses.
If the outcome is all you're interested in - on ANY show - there's no real need to actually watch the show in this day and age. In fact, in the past five years, I've probably read more about game shows than watched them.
If only there was a discussion forum of sorts where people were lining up, just practically begging to give you the results of each day's shows, sometimes even before you'd get the chance to see them...
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 07:52 AM\'] [quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 03:43 AM\'] With all this talk on Ken's amazing run, it's no wonder I started my own Ken Jennings Watch last week after his 6th victory. When he finally loses, that's where my watch will end at that point. [/quote]
Well thank heavens then. Someone alert the media. [/quote]
Matt, you are the media. Take the ball and run with it, man!
As I got home from class last night, during the first commercial break, my dad summed it up best--"He's a god. He's immortal. Nobody will ever beat him. At the first break, the scores are 6800-0-(-200)." (Thanks for spoiling the first part of the show, Dad!) I threw out some Jeopardy! champions whose names he'd recognize like Eddie Timanus and Chuck Forrest. He said Jennings would embarrass them.
-
From what I understand, the Chuck Forrest strategy is no longer allowed due to camera placement issues, etc. But do you think the game would change if the categories would be loaded bottom to top rather than top to bottom, with the big money available right at the outset?
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 04:43 AM\'] With all this talk on Ken's amazing run, it's no wonder I started my own Ken Jennings Watch last week after his 6th victory. When he finally loses, that's where my watch will end at that point. [/quote]
Nothing annoys me more than people deciding that they have to give names to things that don't need them.
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\']From what I understand, the Chuck Forrest strategy is no longer allowed due to camera placement issues, etc.[/quote]
Okay, I'll bite -- what's the Chuck Forrest strategy?
-
I _think_ he's referring to the strategy of bouncing all over the board with your selections, rather than working from top to bottom in a category and then moving along to another one.
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 09:19 AM\'] From what I understand, the Chuck Forrest strategy is no longer allowed due to camera placement issues, etc. [/quote]
I don't buy this. We've discussed that in certain specialized conditions, particularly where clues build on each other as they progress, players are required to play a category from top to bottom, but I refuse to believe this is an across-the-board policy. Otherwise, the fact that the board EXISTS would be one of the great shams in game-show history.
Also, the "camera placement issue" thing doesn't hold water if you know how the show is shot. I've never been to a taping, but I would guess it's a three-camera affair, cross-shot: camera 1 on the left is the wide shot of the players podiums, camera 3 on the right shoots the board, and camera 2 rovers between individual player shots and Trebek.
(And actually, since the board is a static shot, it would make sense for a Camera 4 to be mounted somewhere on the set that holds that shot of the board, freeing up 3 to shoot Trebek. and 2 to concentrate on getting the shot of whoever rang in.)
Jeopardy isn't exactly the most difficult show to block, camera-wise. The most movement happens when an answer "flies out" of the board when it's picked, and those are all added in post. (I suppose they could be done on the fly as a DVE effect as part of the board's programming, and in fact that would be pretty damned impressive.)
-
Also, the "camera placement issue" thing doesn't hold water if you know how the show is shot.
Additionally, the show doesn't even take close-ups of the individual windows anymore. It's simply a computer graphic representing a close-up of a monitor, so no more different than when the answer "flies up" - just with a fake TV screen border around it.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 03:43 AM\'] With all this talk on Ken's amazing run, it's no wonder I started my own Ken Jennings Watch last week after his 6th victory. When he finally loses, that's where my watch will end at that point. [/quote]
Don't let it end there. Follow him around for a while. See how he spends his days. Learn his favorite toothpaste and where he banks. Give us a full report.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 12:19 PM\'] From what I understand, the Chuck Forrest strategy is no longer allowed due to camera placement issues, etc. But do you think the game would change if the categories would be loaded bottom to top rather than top to bottom, with the big money available right at the outset? [/quote]
I can tell you -- with some level of experience -- that you're only partly right. (Hey, it's better than being completely wrong!) There will be occasions when, for techincal reasons, the players are told before a round begins that one particular category must be played from top to bottom. (We had such a warning in my game Monday.) Even then, you could leave the category and come back to it later, but you had to go back to the next clue in order. Other than that, and even that doesn't happen in nearly every game, players are free to jump around as much as they like.
As for your second question, I think loading the game from hardest clues to easiest would come across as anticlimactic. You're supposed to be building to large totals, not knocking off the big ones and then picking up scraps at the end.
-
I was just trying to come up with scenarios on how to beat Mr. Jennings. Of course, Matt may have already figured that out. Maybe they could put a rebus puzzle behind the board......
-
A contestant such as Ken might work better in a TOC situation where the competition is more formidable and some suspense could be worked up. Seeing lopsided match after lopsided match where he trounces two wooden posts to his left could get to be a snore.
Unless one of those wooden posts, er, I mean, contestants is Matt Ottinger, in which case we're all rooting for Matt.
-
Personally, I think that if there were never any appearance limit, some of the Jeopardy greats from way back when could definitely have pulled something akin to what Ken is doing now.
Going backwards a bit in the direction of this thread, I personally find Ken to be an interesting guy to watch. I've been watching J! every day this week, and I don't usually watch it at all. He's mesmerizing.
Unlike most people, I don't usually (read: almost never) notice certain aspects of a person's behavior until someone else points them out. Example: there was a thread on Fark.com about Ken, and one person said: "...notice how he sticks his chin to his right when he answers, EVERY SINGLE TIME? Bugs me more the more I watch it. *Beep* [CHIN THRUST] What is Ticonderoga? *Beep* [CHIN THRUST] What is the Hoover Dam?" I never even noticed that until I read that.
-
[quote name=\'Gus\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 05:29 PM\'] Personally, I think that if there were never any appearance limit, some of the Jeopardy greats from way back when could definitely have pulled something akin to what Ken is doing now. [/quote]
So...why not do what was done with the retired champions on Blockbusters after the winnings limit was doubled, and let 'em come back and try it?
-
[quote name=\'rigsby\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 05:33 PM\'] [quote name=\'Gus\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 05:29 PM\'] Personally, I think that if there were never any appearance limit, some of the Jeopardy greats from way back when could definitely have pulled something akin to what Ken is doing now. [/quote]
So...why not do what was done with the retired champions on Blockbusters after the winnings limit was doubled, and let 'em come back and try it? [/quote]
I wouldn't mind seeing it myself, but J! has a heck of a lot more people trying out for it than Blockbusters did(in the early 80s, traveling contestant searches was a new thing and only the Barry-Enright shows and possibly Dawson Feud did it early on IIRC). Bringing back old school J! champs in the way Blockbusters did would limit the number of contestant slots available for more recent tryouts.
-
I mean, it's getting to the point of history...
(As of yesterday's show...)
It's not just Ken winning, but FJ is _routinely_:
$30,000 -- $8,000 -- $2,000
so it makes one wonder if this guy might win a mil the hard way.
He's already the biggest regular-season money winner in the history of syndicated game shows without a million-dollar payout. (Rutter's was a tournament and the other 20 or so ahead of him were all million-dollar shows...) That's history enough.
-
Could Ken Jennings beat Ben Stein?
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 11:59 AM\']
Also, the "camera placement issue" thing doesn't hold water if you know how the show is shot.
Additionally, the show doesn't even take close-ups of the individual windows anymore. It's simply a computer graphic representing a close-up of a monitor, so no more different than when the answer "flies up" - just with a fake TV screen border around it.
-Jason [/quote]
Didn't the cameras used to zoom up to the monitors in the past?
When I first started watching the show, when the first clue was selected, the cameras just zoomed up to the monitor with said clue in it.
-
Didn't the cameras used to zoom up to the monitors in the past?
When I first started watching the show, when the first clue was selected, the cameras just zoomed up to the monitor with said clue in it.
That's a throwback to the olden days in New York when the answers were on art cards.
Anyhoo, nothing I've posted in this thread is intended to be a slam against Ken himself. The point of this thread is how predictable the game can be when match after match is lopsided in favor of one contestant.
-
I think part of my reason for watching would be how some contestants, knowing that they're up against Ken, and his veritable maven-ness, tend to go all screwball during Final J!.
Case in point, in this rather small JPEG:
http://www.badmentalhygiene.com/heh.jpg (http://\"http://www.badmentalhygiene.com/heh.jpg\")
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 01:17 PM\'] I was just trying to come up with scenarios on how to beat Mr. Jennings. Of course, Matt may have already figured that out. Maybe they could put a rebus puzzle behind the board...... [/quote]
Or maybe they could have a trio of swingers.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 11:59 AM\'] Additionally, the show doesn't even take close-ups of the individual windows anymore. It's simply a computer graphic representing a close-up of a monitor, so no more different than when the answer "flies up" - just with a fake TV screen border around it. [/quote]
I took a look at a recent episode, and when they had a "close-up" of a clue, I could see some of the lights on the set as if they were reflecting off the board. If this is true, then there actually is a camera taking a close-up on the board in some occasions (just not when the "fly up" effect is being used).
Or I'm insane.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 11:46 AM\'] Also, the "camera placement issue" thing doesn't hold water if you know how the show is shot. I've never been to a taping, but I would guess it's a three-camera affair, cross-shot: camera 1 on the left is the wide shot of the players podiums, camera 3 on the right shoots the board, and camera 2 rovers between individual player shots and Trebek. [/quote]
The new J! book has some behind-the-scenes photos including one I found interesting. It's taken from behind the wall downstage of the gameboard. (This was from the dark wood set, but they may use something similar now.) Two panels from that wall are removable, with camerapersons shooting the contestants from behind them--one's a shot of all three, the other's for the player who rings in. I don't recall a snapshot revealing how many more there were, but in the 360-degree view available at the Jeopardy site I counted six camera positions. Admittedly, that's from a touring set (Ohio State), so they might well use more positions than the studio set does.
I feel like such a geek.
-
Jimmy Owen: Yes he could.
-
Okay. (this is like sports radio).
Ken Jennings vs. John Hatten. "Blockbusters" at ten paces. One head-to-head 4x4 game (like Ahmed's Round 3). Who wins?
-
I'd say Hatten.
Jennings has this incredible depth of knowledge, but "Blockbusters" usually doesn't require as much of that. Rather, those who are quicker on the buzzer (and who at least know something) are more likely to win. We know that Jennings is fast on the trigger, but so was Hatten, under tougher circumstances (he had to buzz in more quickly than Jennings would have to, since he could buzz before the question was finished).
So Hatten (at least back in 1980) would probably ring in more frequently than Jennings, thus giving him a better shot at winning.
Now if you consider Jennings against a 2004 Hatten with slower reflexes, the game might not tilt as much in John's favor.
-
[quote name=\'MCArroyo1\' date=\'Jun 19 2004, 11:30 PM\'] So Hatten (at least back in 1980) would probably ring in more frequently than Jennings, thus giving him a better shot at winning.
[/quote]
And John Hatten played his last few games with the knowledge that his house had burned to the ground and still he was flawless.
-
I've only seen the last three shows (never been a regular Jeopardy watcher for some reason), but I've been enjoying them immensely, for many of the reasons mentioned above. (HA! I knew that! You bozo!)
The thing that's been bothering me is the *other* contestants. They're trailing 12,000 to 3,000 or something like that. They get the Daily Double. What do they bet? 800 or some such ridiculous sum.
HELLO! The guy next to you is a 12 time champion, with 400 grand already in the bank, and he's waxing your ass. And you're playing it SAFE?! What, you think he's suddenly going to get nine or ten answers wrong in a row and come back to you? He's suddenly going to forget how to push the button?
These guys had one chance to win, and that was by going big on the daily double and at least getting close enough so that Final Jeopardy was relevant. They're playing to lose. Geeze.
-
[quote name=\'Gromit\' date=\'Jun 20 2004, 03:11 AM\'] The thing that's been bothering me is the *other* contestants. They're trailing 12,000 to 3,000 or something like that. They get the Daily Double. What do they bet? 800 or some such ridiculous sum.
HELLO! The guy next to you is a 12 time champion, with 400 grand already in the bank, and he's waxing your ass. And you're playing it SAFE?! What, you think he's suddenly going to get nine or ten answers wrong in a row and come back to you? He's suddenly going to forget how to push the button? [/quote]
That's bugged me too, actually. Have these contestants seen Ken in action before? Obviously, if they have, they should know that playing it safe is not a good move, but not being familiar enough with the show, I'm not sure how familiar they could be with Ken.
Of course, when he's on for 43 days, hopefully the contestants will realize by then that he's the same guy they've been seeing on TV for weeks, and get a little better with Daily Double betting ;).
-
[quote name=\'Frank15\' date=\'Jun 20 2004, 03:07 AM\'] Of course, when he's on for 43 days, hopefully the contestants will realize by then that he's the same guy they've been seeing on TV for weeks, and get a little better with Daily Double betting ;). [/quote]
You've only been here since late May, so here's a bit of information.
Our own genial host, Matt O. is on Monday, I believe. Matt told us several weeks ago he had taped his show, so for someone to get some idea of Jennings' reign of terror from watching it, then actually facing him, would take a few months ... even assuming they're taping now.
By which time Jennings will own Alex Trebek's house, if not Alex himself.
-
I took a look at a recent episode, and when they had a "close-up" of a clue, I could see some of the lights on the set as if they were reflecting off the board.
It's the same reflection (i.e. same graphic) for every close-up. Last I watched, there isn't even a real close-up of the FJ clue either which was kinda lame.
-Jason
-
There will be occasions when, for techincal reasons, the players are told before a round begins that one particular category must be played from top to bottom. (We had such a warning in my game Monday.) Even then, you could leave the category and come back to it later, but you had to go back to the next clue in order. Other than that, and even that doesn't happen in nearly every game, players are free to jump around as much as they like.
"Technical reasons" must be that the category is all visual, or something like that. Whenever those categories pop up, I've noticed they're always taken in order.
Even though players are free to jump around as much as they like on the other categories, I was under the impression the contestant co-ordinators "encouraged" them to take the clues "in order", but it wasn't complusory.
Also, when a contestant controls a category and plays it in order, the camera usually cuts to a closeup of the monitor, so the camera must be shooting it and ready to be put on the air. Whenever another contestant gains control, they go to a wide shot incase they pick another category.
I've never been to a taping, but that's what I've noticed...
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 08:08 AM\'] "Technical reasons" must be that the category is all visual, or something like that. Whenever those categories pop up, I've noticed they're always taken in order.[/quote]
I've never been to a taping, but that's what I've noticed... Very likely, especially if they don't have five seperate VTR's in the back loaded and ready to go with the Clue Crew or celebrity bits.
I was under the impression the contestant co-ordinators "encouraged" them to take the clues "in order", but it wasn't complusory.
Always keep in mind that what the coordinators suggest the players do in the name of good television and what is actually sound playing strategy are often two entirely different things. I refer you to the advice the contestant coordinators give WOF contestants, which include such brilliant strategic gems as "buy lots of vowels".
Also, when a contestant controls a category and plays it in order, the camera usually cuts to a closeup of the monitor, so the camera must be shooting it and ready to be put on the air.
....or, that whole shot is a computer generated thing they insert in post production. Granted. the shot is done that way to help keep up the "flow" of a category, but it would be a bitch for the director to "assume" that's going to happen and then have to hurry to another shot if the contestant screws him. Far easier camera blocking if they always go to the wide shot of the board, and cut & cover where necessary or desired in post. (The edit would take no time at all anyhow, your audio track is good to go, you just overlay the graphics. Graphics are already in the Chyron (assuming they save the game material for a length of time, and I'm sure they do)...two edits and you're done.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 10:35 AM\'] I refer you to the advice the contestant coordinators give WOF contestants, which include such brilliant strategic gems as "buy lots of vowels". [/quote]
Um... isn't that good strategy, though? I mean, a random vowel is much more likely to appear in the puzzle than a random consonant, so if you have the money, and do not know of a consonant that is extremely likely to be in the puzzle, does it not behoove you to choose a vowel over a consonant? At least until the speed round, where it's more likely to help your competition, anyway.
-
[quote name=\'Frank15\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 09:29 AM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 10:35 AM\'] I refer you to the advice the contestant coordinators give WOF contestants, which include such brilliant strategic gems as "buy lots of vowels". [/quote]
Um... isn't that good strategy, though? I mean, a random vowel is much more likely to appear in the puzzle than a random consonant, so if you have the money, and do not know of a consonant that is extremely likely to be in the puzzle, does it not behoove you to choose a vowel over a consonant? At least until the speed round, where it's more likely to help your competition, anyway. [/quote]
Generally, by the time I've gone through the common consonants, I have the puzzle solved. So why do I want to reveal the vowels to my opponents, when I already know where they are?
We had a thread on here from someone who was on WOF talking about the bad advice the contestant coordinators were giving. Or was it Hollywood Squares? Brandon, do you remember?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 02:22 PM\'] Generally, by the time I've gone through the common consonants, I have the puzzle solved. So why do I want to reveal the vowels to my opponents, when I already know where they are? [/quote]
Fair point. Then again, it seems most contestants solve the puzzle the instant they know it, no matter how little money they have.
And then again, again, if you've already called the common consonants, and you don't know the puzzle, certainly it's a better idea to try a few vowels than to try and hope you can get lucky picking some of the tougher consonants to guess.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 02:22 PM\'] We had a thread on here from someone who was on WOF talking about the bad advice the contestant coordinators were giving. Or was it Hollywood Squares? Brandon, do you remember? [/quote]
I recall the conversation, and think it had to have been WOF.
I found the contestant coordinators for HSq to be unusually helpful. (And I don't say this just to compliment them.) They went through many mock games and showed the various strategies one could use by picking a certain square. It was almost as if they were encouraging contestants to break their bank.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 18 2004, 12:18 PM\'] There will be occasions when, for techincal reasons, the players are told before a round begins that one particular category must be played from top to bottom. (We had such a warning in my game Monday.) Even then, you could leave the category and come back to it later, but you had to go back to the next clue in order.
[/quote]
What happens if you forget, and don't go in order?
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 03:27 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 02:22 PM\'] We had a thread on here from someone who was on WOF talking about the bad advice the contestant coordinators were giving. Or was it Hollywood Squares? Brandon, do you remember? [/quote]
I recall the conversation, and think it had to have been WOF.
I found the contestant coordinators for HSq to be unusually helpful. (And I don't say this just to compliment them.) They went through many mock games and showed the various strategies one could use by picking a certain square. It was almost as if they were encouraging contestants to break their bank.
Brandon Brooks [/quote]
No, wait, it WAS H^2, and I remember why. Didn't you say the contestant coordinators were offering advice as to why to pick the squares OTHER than the corners and the center? I remember something related to them giving horrible advice from a tic tac toe standpoint.
-
Chris, do keep in mind that good tic-tac-toe strategy does not necessarily make good Hollywood Squares strategy. On Hollywood Squares, you must always factor in the possibility of missing a question and (usually) ceding the square to your opponent. Therefore, if you were to start on a fresh board and your opponent picked the upper-left square and got the question right, it would behoove you - contrary to traditional tic-tac-toe strategy - to pick the middle-right square or the bottom-center square.
Class, can anyone tell me why?
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 08:33 PM\'] Chris, do keep in mind that good tic-tac-toe strategy does not necessarily make good Hollywood Squares strategy. On Hollywood Squares, you must always factor in the possibility of missing a question and (usually) ceding the square to your opponent. Therefore, if you were to start on a fresh board and your opponent picked the upper-left square and got the question right, it would behoove you - contrary to traditional tic-tac-toe strategy - to pick the middle-right square or the bottom-center square.
Class, can anyone tell me why? [/quote]
...Um, is it because if you picked any of the other squares and missed, your opponent is one question away from a win, but if you lost the middle-right and bottom-center it wouldn't hurt so much?
-
To go back to the original post ... let's just say that today's show proved that even with a buzzsaw returning champion, J! is certainly worth watching.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 08:37 PM\'] ...Um, is it because if you picked any of the other squares and missed, your opponent is one question away from a win, but if you lost the middle-right and bottom-center it wouldn't hurt so much? [/quote]
Bingo. And to Chris:
No, wait, it WAS H^2, and I remember why. Didn't you say the contestant coordinators were offering advice as to why to pick the squares OTHER than the corners and the center? I remember something related to them giving horrible advice from a tic tac toe standpoint.
No, no, no. To start off, they recommended never picking a middle square (excluding the center, of course) unless you were looking for the secret square, which was in the tourney's case added to your cumulative total, and helped to determine if you moved on to the next round.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 12:22 PM\'][quote name=\'Frank15\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 09:29 AM\']Um... isn't [buying lots of vowels] good strategy, though? I mean, a random vowel is much more likely to appear in the puzzle than a random consonant, so if you have the money, and do not know of a consonant that is extremely likely to be in the puzzle, does it not behoove you to choose a vowel over a consonant? At least until the speed round, where it's more likely to help your competition, anyway. [/quote]
Generally, by the time I've gone through the common consonants, I have the puzzle solved. So why do I want to reveal the vowels to my opponents, when I already know where they are?[/quote]
My strategy includes buying lots of vowels, for a different reason. I pick one consonant (a T, unless the category warrants otherwise), then start picking away at the vowels until I have the puzzle solved (or at least a word or two thereof). I think this is a significantly safer strategy than going through a bunch of consonants, which *are* less likely to appear in the puzzle.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 06:37 PM\'][quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 08:33 PM\'] Chris, do keep in mind that good tic-tac-toe strategy does not necessarily make good Hollywood Squares strategy. On Hollywood Squares, you must always factor in the possibility of missing a question and (usually) ceding the square to your opponent. Therefore, if you were to start on a fresh board and your opponent picked the upper-left square and got the question right, it would behoove you - contrary to traditional tic-tac-toe strategy - to pick the middle-right square or the bottom-center square.
Class, can anyone tell me why? [/quote]
...Um, is it because if you picked any of the other squares and missed, your opponent is one question away from a win, but if you lost the middle-right and bottom-center it wouldn't hurt so much?[/quote]
Actually, despite what common sense may tell you, the center square is of similar strategical merit. Around the time I auditioned for the show, I studied its strategy thoroughly, and found that while the center square is the riskier option in this case, the rewards of having it can jusify that risk. Either move is strategically valid, despite what Fern told the contestants.
-
I pick one consonant...then start picking away at the vowels until I have the puzzle solved
I have a problem with this strategy for a few reasons. You drop a decent sum of cash if the vowels occur only here and there, or you just plum don't know it. It's a lot safer to your score to call common consonants, especially considering the number of large puzzles WoF uses that lend themselves to them.
And if you pick off all the vowels and control passes on via bankrupt, LAT or otherwise, you just opened the door for the others and saved them money. I usually pick off a few consonants, call a vowel I know is there, and hope it occurs elsewhere to help me out. Then, with the solution at hand, I can spin according to wheel location, total scores, and all of those factors.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 09:58 PM\']
I pick one consonant...then start picking away at the vowels until I have the puzzle solved
I have a problem with this strategy for a few reasons. You drop a decent sum of cash if the vowels occur only here and there, or you just plum don't know it. It's a lot safer to your score to call common consonants, especially considering the number of large puzzles WoF uses that lend themselves to them.[/quote]
Mathematically, there's no way to drop more than $1250 per puzzle on vowels. Hardly a strategy-altering sum. Even then, needing more than three is a rarity. I think it's better for your score to know the solution before doing the bulk of the spinning. If you land on $3500, would you rather hope there's an L in the puzzle, or go with the knowledge that there are four Cs? Plus, even the most common consonants are significantly less likely to be in the puzzle than vowels like A and E.
And if you pick off all the vowels and control passes on via bankrupt, LAT or otherwise, you just opened the door for the others and saved them money.
Again, vowels are not that expensive. I've heard there's something in the rules about it, but seriously, how hard is it to pay attention to how far the wheel goes when you spin it, then make a slight adjustment to avoid one of the 2-3 unfavorable spaces?
-
[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 08:54 PM\'] Actually, despite what common sense may tell you, the center square is of similar strategical merit. Around the time I auditioned for the show, I studied its strategy thoroughly, and found that while the center square is the riskier option in this case, the rewards of having it can jusify that risk. Either move is strategically valid, despite what Fern told the contestants. [/quote]
It is (was) pointed out to the contestants that make it to the studio that the center square is indeed a valid play in that situation - it opens you up to three possible lines to play with, as opposed to two with virtually any other choice, so long as you don't play right next to your opponent's square. It also puts your opponent in the position of almost always potentially giving you two in a row on a missed question.
That said, it is a risk-reward issue, because a wrong response usually means three in a row for your opponent on their next turn. That's when it comes down to the bluffing aspect of the game and whether or not you can tell if the star is bluffing. Were it Martin Mull in the center square, I'd probably avoid him and play conservatively, but were it Whoopi or most guest center squares, I would probably take the risk and go for the center, confident that I could read through that star's bluff or recognize a correct answer.
-
What happens if you forget, and don't go in order?
My guess is they'd edit the tape and have the contestant pick again.
-
Ken just had his 14th win yesterday; he's practicaly become a regular on the show!
-
[quote name=\'Frank15\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 11:29 AM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 10:35 AM\'] I refer you to the advice the contestant coordinators give WOF contestants, which include such brilliant strategic gems as "buy lots of vowels". [/quote]
Um... isn't that good strategy, though? I mean, a random vowel is much more likely to appear in the puzzle than a random consonant, so if you have the money, and do not know of a consonant that is extremely likely to be in the puzzle, does it not behoove you to choose a vowel over a consonant? At least until the speed round, where it's more likely to help your competition, anyway. [/quote]
A secondary reason to buy vowels, at least in the first round or two: The faster you and your opponents solve the puzzles, the more puzzles you're likely to face, and the additional puzzle will have more money on the wheel than what you lose on the first puzzle. (When Pat says, late in the show, that it's good news that they have time for another puzzle, I imagine the player in the lead disagrees with him.)