The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Matt Ottinger on August 24, 2008, 01:02:45 AM
-
246 posts into this topic (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16006\"), we began what became a rather heated argument about a reported rule change to The Price Is Right pricing game "Make Your Mark" (formerly "Barker's Markers"). Now's your chance to cast your vote and make YOUR mark on one of our very infrequent poll questions. For those few of you unfamiliar with the game, the rules below are borrowed liberally from the Wikipedia article, edited for our purposes but with as little bias as possible.
MAKE YOUR MARK RULES:
The contestant is given $500 and is shown four prices on the game board. Three of the prices correspond with the three prizes; the fourth is an extra price that does not match any of the prizes.
The contestant is asked to place markers beside the three prices that correspond with the prizes. The contestant is not required to specifically match prices to their prizes; they are only required to choose the three prices that are correct.
The correctly marked prices of two of the prizes are revealed, leaving the third prize and two possible prices. The contestant is then given the option to return the $500 in order to move their marker to the unselected price if they believe their initial choice is wrong. After the final reveal, if all three prices are selected correctly, the player wins all three prizes.
UNDER THE ORIGINAL RULES, if a contestant chooses to leave the marker at the originally selected price and that price is wrong, not only do they lose the game but they also lose the $500.
UNDER THE REPORTED NEW RULES, if a contestant chooses to leave the marker at the originally selected price and that price is wrong, they do not win the prizes, but they keep the $500. In other words, if a contestant is not sure (or doesn't care), they can choose to keep the $500 no matter what, and may still win the prizes anyway.
-
How about adding a choice that says, "There's $500 cash in this game?!"
Bottom line...who cares. The game is still there.
-
OK, now that I understand what all the fuss was about, my question is (like many of you) what is the point of giving the player $500 if they keep it anyway?
To me, the player should have to earn the right to make a change (a la Pathfinder: match the price on a small item, etc.) and the $500 is not even given away. Or it could be earned if the player was right on the first try or (like the Shell Game) they could match prizes to the prices once they have determined they won.
/My apologies to the Mods if my comment is "out of line"
-
[quote name=\'joker316\' post=\'195010\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 07:42 AM\']
/My apologies to the Mods if my comment is "out of line"[/quote]
A good rule of thumb is that a comment is not "out of line" if it doesn't attack a person. And yours didn't.
-
I'm going to make a minor whine about the poll, because I already know that it's just a poll and doesn't need to have surgery done on it. I think that the change will have a decent impact on the game, but that said impact will not necessarily be either better or worse for the game, so I chose the third option.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'195016\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 10:57 AM\']
I'm going to make a minor whine about the poll, because I already know that it's just a poll and doesn't need to have surgery done on it. I think that the change will have a decent impact on the game, but that said impact will not necessarily be either better or worse for the game, so I chose the third option.[/quote]
Valid point. I tried my best to word these things the best I could, but I didn't want to have a whole lot of nuanced options. The third option probably should have read "little or no impact on the quality of the game." Because of COURSE it has an impact on the game, it's a rule change. But yes, for the purposes of our exercise, you chose correctly if you felt it was neither "better" nor "worse".
-
Bizarre change.
Why give an unsponsored* $500 for doing absolutely nothing?
*Yes, I realize much/most/all of the items pawned on TPIR aren't sponsored anymore. But why give $500 without even the possibility of a sponsor? Maybe the new bank getting put into my local Wal-Mart could help.
-
I don't really understand the purpose for the change yet, and I can't condone the idea of giving away $500 even if they lose. I voted for "made the game worse," and although this alone isn't earthshattering, I think if the show gets a notion to keep making changes that really didn't have to be made, then even casual viewers will start to notice at some point.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195020\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 11:40 AM\']
Bizarre change.
Why give $500 for doing absolutely nothing?
[/quote]To facilitate the main decision of the game: keep the money or switch the marker?
-
I am finding the comments in this thread terribly amusing.
-
I'm looking at the pros and cons, but I favor the change. I mean, don't "contestants not appearing on stage" get a prize just for looking good and bidding lousy?
-
I voted no difference, and I'm surprised 9 people (thus far) have voted this bad.
If they gave away a ridiculous amount of money (which $500 isn't) just for playing the game, then maybe you can make that argument.
Since they don't...
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'195034\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 12:54 PM\']I voted no difference, and I'm surprised 9 people (thus far) have voted this bad.[/quote] The answer didn't say "bad," it said "worse." There is a qualitative difference between the two.
Since they don't...
You'll declare yourself the winner and carry on like normal.
/Deja Vu isn't just an exotic bar in Seattle...
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'195034\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 12:54 PM\']
I voted no difference, and I'm surprised 9 people (thus far) have voted this bad.
[/quote]
You shouldn't be. At all. Heck, at this point you can even draw a flowchart to figure out how people are gonna vote.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'195036\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 03:15 PM\']You shouldn't be. At all. Heck, at this point you can even draw a flowchart to figure out how people are gonna vote.[/quote]
Approves. (http://\"http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics40/perot2.jpg\")
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'195037\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 02:01 PM\']
Approves. (http://\"http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics40/perot2.jpg\")[/quote]
Can I finish? ;)
-
/Deja Vu isn't just an exotic bar in Seattle...
True dat (http://\"http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/Fedya/dejavu.jpg\")
-
I voted "worse" as it is the closest of the somewhat narrow choices to how I feel about the change.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'195023\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 12:54 PM\'][quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195020\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 11:40 AM\']Why give $500 for doing absolutely nothing?[/quote]To facilitate the main decision of the game: keep the money or switch the marker?[/quote]
That wasn't the game's main decision until after they changed the rule.
-
Before, anyone who was interested in the money and not the prizes would never turn in the cash.
Now, anyone who was interested in the money and not the prizes would never turn in the cash.
Before, most people would assume they get to keep the cash win or lose and be surprised when Bob/Drew asked for it back if they lost.
Now, most people would assume they get to keep the cash win or lose...and be right.
I voted 'no difference', but based on what I just said...hmm, I do think the game is actually slightly better off than it was before. Not enough to move it into 'positive' territory, though, since very few people should be keeping the cash in the first place.
(My point is that this isn't going to change much...the keeping of the cash isn't going to entice anyone to keep the cash that wasn't going to keep the cash anyway.)
-
It always seemed goofy when Bob demanded the money back if a player lost. "Indian giving" was the old schoolyard expression for it. So I voted "yes," it's better.
But geez, they only play the frickin' game once a month, don't they? Cripes!
-
I took the option of indifference, because I hardly envision Drew making a big deal out of the contestant being able to keep the money "win or lose." The function of the cash doesn't really change, it just works a little more fluidly from a presentation standpoint. Meaning, the contestant will lose like before, but they'll get the handshake and Drew saying "but you still get to keep the $500, we'll be right back..." or some such. From a gamesmanship standpoint, yeah, it's money for nothing, but for the show - no big deal.
-Jason
-
I think it was often goofy when Bob demanded the money back because Bob had just done a poor job of explaining that that might happen. The money should be the temptation, not the money + a clumsy description of the rules.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'195142\' date=\'Aug 25 2008, 03:57 PM\']
Meaning, the contestant will lose like before, but they'll get the handshake and Drew saying "but you still get to keep the $500, we'll be right back..." or some such.
[/quote]
...and this is how this all began.
-
I voted "indifferent". As I expressed previously, giving a contestant $500 isn't going to make or break the show. I also fail to see (and have yet to hear a decent argument) as to exactly why this is such a horrible change, other than the inevitable "They're changing things just because!"
The show has other issues that need attention. This is, at best, a non-issue.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'195204\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 09:23 AM\']
I also fail to see (and have yet to hear a decent argument) as to exactly why this is such a horrible change, other than the inevitable "They're changing things just because!"[/quote]
I voted why I did, again, because this new rule doesn't exactly appear bad on the air. But from the normal standpoint we take on this board of making the game most fair and logical? They're giving the contestant $500 for doing nothing. This isn't a consolation prize for doing something positive in the game - this is money they're getting to keep, even if they do the WRONG thing with it. It doesn't bother me like it does some of the other TPIR fans, but it's pretty clear (to me, I qualify) why it's negative from a logic standpoint.
Frankly, they could stand to dump the cash from the game altogether, or change it to a non-visual $500 bonus for getting all three right on your original picks; which is essentially what the old rules were, but it wasn't executed that way.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'195209\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 08:16 AM\']
But from the normal standpoint we take on this board of making the game most fair and logical?[/quote]
If that's the normal standpoint we take, then we have a problem, since the goal for them is to make the best television, not the best game. And removing the "You lose! *yoink!*" is better television.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'195218\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 01:10 PM\']
If that's the normal standpoint we take, then we have a problem, since the goal for them is to make the best television, not the best game. And removing the "You lose! *yoink!*" is better television.
[/quote]
Yes, I agree, and said so much in my last two posts. It just seemed to me the way the rule change made the game bad was lost on some people in the last thread. I found that odd, given how in the past, we as a group were quick to judge new rule changes that made for worse games, but better TV. This was noticeable back when people posted proposals, as well.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'195228\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 12:51 PM\']
I found that odd, given how in the past, we as a group were quick to judge new rule changes that made for worse games, but better TV. This was noticeable back when people posted proposals, as well.[/quote]
In the words of the great philosopher Tonto: "What you mean "we," white man?" :)
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'195209\' date=\'Aug 26 2008, 10:16 AM\']Frankly, they could stand to dump the cash from the game altogether, or change it to a non-visual $500 bonus for getting all three right on your original picks; which is essentially what the old rules were, but it wasn't executed that way.[/quote]
As best as I can tell, the intent of the old rules were that Roger wanted there to be some 'cost' to switching the marker, since otherwise the game is too easy to win via the Monty Hall problem. The only way to give a 'cost' was to give the contestant something at the outset that they could later 'spend'. Hence, the $500.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'195164\' date=\'Aug 25 2008, 09:03 PM\']
I think it was often goofy when Bob demanded the money back because Bob had just done a poor job of explaining that that might happen. The money should be the temptation, not the money + a clumsy description of the rules. [/quote]
I was never confused about the rules to this game, and I thought Bob did a good job of explaining it. If you don't win the prizes, you don't get to keep the money. I don't see why people are bothered with "Oh, the mean host took back the $500." I never thought that. People probably thought Monty was mean when they traded $1,000 for a giant stuffed Teddy Bear, but they didn't stop giving zonks on LMAD because of it.
On ANY game show, it's not the host's fault if the contestant doesn't understand the rules, of if the contestant has a low-wattage light bulb in his/her head. I also think it was asinine to retire Hit Me because people actually couldn't grasp the rules of "21" but that's another argument altogether.
-
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'195418\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 12:10 PM\']
I don't see why people are bothered with "Oh, the mean host took back the $500." I never thought that. People probably thought Monty was mean when they traded $1,000 for a giant stuffed Teddy Bear, but they didn't stop giving zonks on LMAD because of it.[/quote]Um, the two aren't REMOTELY comparable.
On ANY game show, it's not the host's fault if the contestant doesn't understand the rules, of if the contestant has a low-wattage light bulb in his/her head.
The question is not one of whose fault it is. The question is whether it's good television or not. And it isn't.
-
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'195418\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 03:10 PM\']I was never confused about the rules to this game, and I thought Bob did a good job of explaining it.[/quote]With that I will agree.
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'195418\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 03:10 PM\']On ANY game show, it's not the host's fault if the contestant doesn't understand the rules . . .[/quote]On any other game show, I would agree because the contestants are all playing the same game and thus are advised of the rules of the game they will be playing in advance. On TPIR, however, the host's explanation of the individual pricing game rules is critical because the contestants haven't been advised of those rules in advance. (This is not meant to be combative but merely to offer a differing viewpoint on the importance of the host's rule explanations. I voted that the change won't make much difference, by the way.)
-
I'm really in shock that the "Make Your Mark" change has caused two threads worth of "controversy" while the "3 Strikes" change seems to be all but forgotten. I'm not saying that "3 Strikes" is where all this energy needs to be focused because, at the end of the day, none of this really matters when it comes to the show overall. I'm just saying I thought I'd be seeing more discussion over "3 Strikes" because that rule change is way more drastic by comparison.
As far as "MYM" goes, I voted "little to no impact". As stated previously, it seemed like the average viewer/contestant thought they only lost the $500 if they spent it on the change and seemed especially surprised that they lost the money anyway if they lost and left everything the same. All this change does is make things more "logical", if you will. However, since "MYM" is one of the lesser-known games on the show, I doubt this small addendum to the rules will cause a widespread boycott against the show like some people (not necessarily on this board) will lead you to believe.
Gameplay mechanics, better television arguments, etc. aside, I think the only reason why this is causing such an uproar is because it goes against the whole "all or nothing" thing that "Price" has had for most of its games. Usually, it's "if you win X, you'll get Y as a bonus" or "you can take X and leave Y on the table" and "if you lose, you don't win Y and you forfeit X". This new rule change says "if you lose, you don't win X but you get to keep Y if you don't spend it". To that I say...so the f*** what? Like I said, it makes more sense that way than to take everything away for a loss.
-
[quote name=\'MTCesquire\' post=\'195437\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 03:01 PM\']
Gameplay mechanics, better television arguments, etc. aside, I think the only reason why this is causing such an uproar is because it goes against the whole "all or nothing" thing that "Price" has had for most of its games.[/quote]
No, there are other reasons.
Unless you mean "uproar among the die-hard Price fans."
-
Perhaps I've lost my senses, but I recall more than one occasion where Bob didn't explain what could happen to the $500 any further than "if you don't switch and you're wrong, you lose everything". Of course, that's more a fault of Bob than a fault of the game, but I never meant to classify it as the latter.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'195442\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 07:10 PM\']
[quote name=\'MTCesquire\' post=\'195437\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 03:01 PM\']
Gameplay mechanics, better television arguments, etc. aside, I think the only reason why this is causing such an uproar is because it goes against the whole "all or nothing" thing that "Price" has had for most of its games.[/quote]
No, there are other reasons.
Unless you mean "uproar among the die-hard Price fans."
[/quote]
At first, I meant uproar in general. Then, after thinking about it some, I guess I do mean uproar within the Price community, which in turn spilled over in the "general population", if you will. I'm still like BFD since Make Your Mark gets played once in a blue moon. Now, if they decided to turn both $0 spots on the Plinko board into $5,000, then there'd be a reason for all the commotion.
-
I must admit, I am somewhat confused here.
If the player keeps the $500, in exchange for not switching the 3rd marker, and they were wrong to do so, they still get to keep the $500 now. This much I understand.
Should the player give back the $500 to change the 3rd marker and they are right, they win all 3 prizes only. Is this correct?
Should the player give back the $500 to change the 3rd marker and they are wrong, they lose all 3 prizes, but get the $500 back?
I used to like this game, but now with all these rule changes for so many different games, I'm ready to retire this 3 prize game. I'm still not totally clear on 1/2 off why players win $500 cash when they win the small prize portion of the game, and if they get all 3 right, and find the right box, do they win $1,500 plus $10,000?
To touch upon the 3 Strikes rule change, giving the 1st digit for free, not necessarily a bad idea. It will make the game a little bit faster perhaps, and allow them to use more reasonably priced cars. To me, Golden Road and Golden Road alone should have the pricier automobiles. Three Strikes was played for many years for "regular" cars and it was still a fun and exciting game to watch. Many pricing games give the 1st digit for free, or in Money Game's case the middle digit for free, so I suppose that's why not too much "uproar" has ensued over that.
-
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'195501\' date=\'Aug 29 2008, 09:31 PM\']
I used to like this game, but now with all these rule changes for so many different games, I'm ready to retire this 3 prize game. I'm still not totally clear on 1/2 off why players win $500 cash when they win the small prize portion of the game, and if they get all 3 right, and find the right box, do they win $1,500 plus $10,000?[/quote]
Just pretend that Drew hands the contestant $500 every time they get a pair of SP's right.
To touch upon the 3 Strikes rule change, giving the 1st digit for free, not necessarily a bad idea. It will make the game a little bit faster perhaps, and allow them to use more reasonably priced cars.
Here's the thing, though.
First digit free = good.
One strike in the bag = good.
Both at once = BAD.
If they left the three strikes in the bag, they could probably keep playing for Three Strikes-caliber cars. Now, they're stuck with Dodge Caliber cars. :-/
-
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'195501\' date=\'Aug 29 2008, 10:31 PM\']Should the player give back the $500 to change the 3rd marker and they are wrong, they lose all 3 prizes, but get the $500 back?[/quote]
No. If you pay the $500 to change the marker and you're wrong, you get nothing at all.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'195507\' date=\'Aug 29 2008, 11:04 PM\']
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'195501\' date=\'Aug 29 2008, 10:31 PM\']Should the player give back the $500 to change the 3rd marker and they are wrong, they lose all 3 prizes, but get the $500 back?[/quote]
No. If you pay the $500 to change the marker and you're wrong, you get nothing at all.
[/quote]
Thank you for that clarification Matt. I thought that is how it was going to be, but it was not totally clear to me before now.
-
"Make Your Mark" now is now very similar to "Tempatation" but that's okay because "Shell Game" is almost "Bonus Game" and "Clearance Sale" is a variant of "Easy as 1, 2, 3." All are exciting puzzles which are fun to watch.
-
Why should the player get to keep the $500 without risking it? Easy, because if the contestant is not thrilled about the prizes, they'll leave everything the way it is and get $500 just because. That's why everyone will not give up money anytime this game is played, and even more so now because of the rule change.
"Oh, I don't get to win a car, I'll just take the $500 without a care in the world."
I mean, in Spelling Bee the player always risks the chance of losing out on guaranteed money with each turn of the card. The thing is if the contestant doesn't like his/her chances then the money might get taken. But the thing there is that with a 1 and 15 chance of picking a card with the "CAR" on it, most would choose not to regret losing out on a car, so they go for it.
So in comparison to Spelling Bee where the money was the lesser concern of the game, the new rules of Make Your Mark seem to put more emphasis on the fact that you can have a guaranteed $500 without risk, and that isn't right. When the money was a lose-lose for placing a mark on the rouge price, the money was a lesser concern in terms of having a temptation factor, and that's been lost.
-
Maybe we can get another seven pages out of this thread.
The new rules reward the contestant for being wrong and losing the game. If S.V. and company had thought this over for two minutes, they might have come up with the following:
The contestant places two markers. The house reveals the two selected prices. If the contestant has selected the "danger price", game over. If not, the contestant is awarded $500. He may then end the game and walk away with the $500 bonus, or he may forfeit the bonus for the right to place the final marker. If he places the final marker correctly he wins the prizes but not the bonus.
- The contestant must earn the $500 bonus.
- The contestant may walk away if he is unsure of the price of one of the prizes.
- The contestant is not rewarded for losing the game.
This is from page 17 of the Frank Wayne playbook.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195698\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 11:54 AM\']
If S.V. and company had thought this over for two minutes, they might have come up with the following:[/quote]
That's where they fail. Thinking.
That's an excellent way to make it work.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195699\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 12:16 PM\']That's an excellent way to make it work.[/quote]
Quite. I'd have played it out like Greed*, but your way works as well.
*-Place 3 markers, show two prices, offer $500 to bail.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195699\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 12:16 PM\']That's an excellent way to make it work.[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'195701\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 09:26 AM\']
Quite. I'd have played it out like Greed*, but your way works as well.
*-Place 3 markers, show two prices, offer $500 to bail.[/quote]
The odds are a little more in favor of the contestant winning the bonus if he only has to place two markers to start with.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195706\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 01:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195699\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 12:16 PM\']That's an excellent way to make it work.[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'195701\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 09:26 AM\']
Quite. I'd have played it out like Greed*, but your way works as well.
*-Place 3 markers, show two prices, offer $500 to bail.[/quote]
The odds are a little more in favor of the contestant winning the bonus if he only has to place two markers to start with.
[/quote]
It's too bad you both can't work on the show!
Then again, you both have good ideas and common sense and Lord knows Fremantle can't have that on TPIR!
-
It's too bad you both can't work on the show!
Already have, in a very minor capacity.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195698\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 10:54 AM\']
The contestant places two markers. The house reveals the two selected prices. If the contestant has selected the "danger price", game over. If not, the contestant is awarded $500. He may then end the game and walk away with the $500 bonus, or he may forfeit the bonus for the right to place the final marker. If he places the final marker correctly he wins the prizes but not the bonus.[/quote]
So you've 'fixed' the game by completely removing the Monty Hall problem, since the two revealed prices are now essentially random instead of revealed with full knowledge that they're correct? Not to mention that the odds of me winning the game under these rules are considerably less than they were under the current rules? No thank you.
You're fixing something that's not broken, by assuming a contestant is going to be more worried about $500 in their hand than they are about winning the game in front of them. One, not everyone will fall for that. Two, if they're going to be that dense, there's no use pandering to them. They won't get it regardless. Might as well focus on the people that will actually, you know, TRY.
-
the two revealed prices are now essentially random instead of revealed with full knowledge that they're correct? Not to mention that the odds of me winning the game under these rules are considerably less than they were under the current rules?
They're not "essentially random". A contestant is supposed to bring his pricing skill to the game and is rewarded if he is correct. He has to earn the $500.
a contestant is going to be more worried about $500 in their hand than they are about winning the game in front of them
Winning $500 is preferable to winning nothing, as would be the case is the contestant is unsure about the last prize. My version is preferable to awarding $500 for losing the game.
The overarching goal is to create a challenging game which will beguile the audience, not to put prizes in the hands of contestants.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195978\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 04:46 PM\']The overarching goal is to create a challenging game which will beguile the audience, not to put prizes in the hands of contestants.[/quote]
I would argue that one goal of Barker's Marker$ specifically was to create a game based around the Monty Hall Problem -- something that is totally lost with your revamp.
-
I would argue that one goal of Barker's Marker$ specifically was to create a game based around the Monty Hall Problem
So what? Even if you leave the Monty Hall element in place and play by the old rules, or let the contestant keep $500 for losing the game, it's not one of their stronger pricing games. IOW the Monty Hall problem doesn't necessarily make it a compelling game.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195991\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 07:08 PM\']So what? Even if you leave the Monty Hall element in place and play by the old rules, or let the contestant keep $500 for losing the game, it's not one of their stronger pricing games. IOW the Monty Hall problem doesn't necessarily make it a compelling game.[/quote]
I would agree with this. (And you want to be careful when both moderators are on the same page!) Whatever the original thought behind the original game may or may not have been isn't really relevant to whether a change to the game makes it better or worse. Unless, of course, your objection to it is the change itself.
Put another way, say a pricing game is based on tiddlywinks. If the game is changed so that it no longer resembles tiddlywinks, the new game might still be a better game (or might still be a worse game) than the original, but it wouldn't be better or worse JUST because the original creator of the game really, really liked tiddlywinks.
-
I really must be missing something, because there's one thing that keeps sticking in my mind.
Last season there was a playing of Make Your Mark where the last prize to be revealed was a luggage set, and the two possible prices were (something dramatically different like) $2,000 and $999.
I would think most people would be able to pick the correct answer given that choice (iirc, the contestant did) but say the exact same situation was presented under the new rules, the contestant had marked $2,000, and really, really believed against all logic it was right, therefore keeping the mark. Wouldn't that end up rewarding said player with the $500 even though they made a pretty poor choice?
Like I said, I'm definitely missing something....
-
Awarding a player just winning one's way on stage is not unhreard of. It is the basis of "Temptation." "Let 'em Roll" guarantees the player at least $500. I have no problem with the rule change.
-
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'196002\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 09:01 PM\']Awarding a player just winning one's way on stage is not unhreard of. It is the basis of "Temptation." "Let 'em Roll" guarantees the player at least $500.[/quote]
And they're also both played for cars. Very different animals, both of them, than Barker's Marker$.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196014\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 09:00 PM\']
And they're also both played for cars. Very different animals, both of them, than Barker's Marker$.[/quote]
I utterly fail to see how the grand prize being a car has any bearing whatsoever on the original point of giving someone prizes for doing nothing in their game.
-
I utterly fail to see how the grand prize being a car has any bearing whatsoever on the original point of giving someone prizes for doing nothing in their game.
Worse than doing nothing, they flat-out lost the game. With MYM, given four prices and three markers, two are going to be right no matter what. To blow it on the final marker means you've lost the game and should go home empty-handed. Temptation is not the same in that the contestant may forfeit the prizes and go for the car. If he loses the car, he likewise walks away empty-handed having forfeited the smaller prizes.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'196018\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 10:21 PM\']
Temptation is not the same in that the contestant may forfeit the prizes and go for the car. If he loses the car, he likewise walks away empty-handed having forfeited the smaller prizes.[/quote]
Then is Let 'em Roll flawed?
-
Has anyone wondered why the host doesn't just hold the $500 in his hand, then explain to the contestant that if they're right, they win the prizes and $500, but they can forfeit the $500 to change a mark, or they can not change anything and risk losing everything? Why does the contestant need to hold the $500 at any time during the game?
I always thought of the $500 as a bonus the contestant would win if he/she made 3 correct marks in the first try. If contestant was confident of the original picks, the $500 was risked. If not, surrender the $500 to be almost 100% sure the prizes will be won.
If the contestant only sees the $500 but never holds it until they win all the prizes and the $500, then this rule change never needed to happen. All the awkwardness of 'indian giving' would never have been an issue. Why isn't this the way they do it? Am I completely insane here?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196016\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:21 AM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196014\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 09:00 PM\']And they're also both played for cars. Very different animals, both of them, than Barker's Marker$.[/quote]I utterly fail to see how the grand prize being a car has any bearing whatsoever on the original point of giving someone prizes for doing nothing in their game.[/quote]
Yes, you do. It's just that, as I already pointed out in the other thread that got locked after I did so, you don't want to acknowledge that anything I say might have some valid reasoning behind it.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'195996\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 06:59 PM\']Last season there was a playing of Make Your Mark where the last prize to be revealed was a luggage set, and the two possible prices were (something dramatically different like) $2,000 and $999. [/quote]Without having seen this episode, or knowing what the luggage in question is, I'm not sure what the point is. There is luggage that costs that much (http://\"http://letmom.com/Household/Mom-Baby-Toys/cent-shipping-mulholland-brothers-series-luggage-set-mul1138-p-2056090.html\"), so a contestant may absolutely be right in thinking that it was $2,000.
As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'196034\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:01 PM\']As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?[/quote]Does the contestant win the can of Dinty Moore beef stew at the beginning of Golden Road?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196027\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 05:32 AM\']
Yes, you do. It's just that, as I already pointed out in the other thread that got locked after I did so, you don't want to acknowledge that anything I say might have some valid reasoning behind it.[/quote]
In that other thread, I also invited you to state that reasoning and change my mind.
I see you're still more interested in taking pot-shots than you are in actually taking me up on that offer. Unfortunate, but it's not going to ruin my day either way.
However (and against my better judgment), that offer still stands. I invite you again to tell me why the value of the grand prize in a game suddenly validates consolation cash for losing. For a twenty-point bonus, you are invited to tell me exactly where that threshold is.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'196034\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:01 PM\']
As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?
[/quote]
Hmm.
Switch (delare no switch and you've done nothing.)
Temptation
Make Your Mark
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196041\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 10:38 AM\']
Switch (delare no switch and you've done nothing.)[/quote]
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7695/failcw6.jpg (http://\"http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7695/failcw6.jpg\")
-
Hey Steve...
An overwhelming majority of people don't agree with you.
Don't you think it's time you gave up this vendetta you have? NO ONE CARES AS MUCH AS YOU DO.
-
Would there be anything wrong with, instead of changing the rules, saying to the contestant something like, "...and if you are able to pick all three correct prices without switching, you'll receive a $500 bonus!" before asking for the contestant's choices?
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196044\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 11:48 AM\']
Hey Steve...[/quote]
As usual, you're not helping at all.
My offer was sincere.
-
[quote name=\'Monarx\' post=\'196045\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 02:56 PM\']
Would there be anything wrong with, instead of changing the rules, saying to the contestant something like, "...and if you are able to pick all three correct prices without switching, you'll receive a $500 bonus!" before asking for the contestant's choices?
[/quote]
That would be a fine idea.
Re: Chris, I know I'm not Steve, but to play devil's advocate: in a game with a higher grand prize, some bribe money naturally enters the equation. If a contestant were just playing Let Em Roll for a car or nothing, it's considerably less fun than watching the tussle between another roll or $X,X00. Granted, a bulk of the contestant pool for TPIR would rather have "the car B0B!!!!111" than cash, but when we change the grand prize to a $5,000 trip to Atlanta, or expensive dining room furniture (see: tax burden), suddenly a couple hundred bucks doesn't look so bad. Spelling Bee has a bribe; as does Temptation, Pass the Buck...
For that arbitrary figure, apparently $10,000 seems to fit, as two cash games for that amount offer up lesser prizes to walk away from a chance at the big kahuna.
Looking at your question and previous posts, though, I would agree that to some extent, Let Em Roll is flawed. In all the other examples, the cash functions as a way out, rather than a flat-out "here ya go!" Perhaps a provision that your last roll can only be for the car, and produce no cash? Reeks of the Confusing Joe Public rule ("how come dey didn't get duh money duh second time?"), but makes sense from the gamesmanship standpoint. The risk to take the final roll is less than it should be, because the contestant can't go away empty handed.
Where I imagine Steve is coming from: the cash seemingly "given" to players in pricing games for a bigger prize is merely a function of making that game more interesting. Infusing cash into games for mediocre prizes does not stand to make them more interesting - it encourages some people to take the money, and makes for a worse game.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196051\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 03:10 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196044\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 11:48 AM\']
Hey Steve...[/quote]
As usual, you're not helping at all.
My offer was sincere.
[/quote]
I don't doubt it.
I'm speaking for myself here. This TPIR crap has been going on for three threads, and it's pretty obvious where people stand. 90 people don't agree with Steve's position.
If he doesn't want to get off the soapbox, that's his problem.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to respond to your offer.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'196052\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:17 PM\']
Re: Chris, I know I'm not Steve,[/quote]
That's correct.
in a game with a higher grand prize, some bribe money naturally enters the equation.
Not talking about bribe money. Talking about money given to a player who flat-out lost their game.
For that arbitrary figure, apparently $10,000 seems to fit
Fine. Why? Why is it fine and dandy at $10,000+, but No Can Do at $9,999 or lower?
Looking at your question and previous posts, though, I would agree that to some extent, Let Em Roll is flawed.
Your opinion, which I respect your right to, and disagree with. And my point: I've never heard anyone complain about that particular "flaw" in the almost-nine-years Let 'Em Roll has been played, or in the 25-plus-years Money Game has been played. Only when it's OMG CHAAAAANGE to an established game have the Chicken Littles come out and pronounced the sky to be falling, which leads me to conclude that it's not the rule that people are having a problem with, but the change.
Perhaps a provision that your last roll can only be for the car, and produce no cash? Reeks of the Confusing Joe Public rule
Yes.
but makes sense from the gamesmanship standpoint.
For the 75th time: the goal is not to produce balanced gameplay. The goal is to produce entertaining television. Sometimes one follows the other. Sometimes it doesn't.
Infusing cash into games for mediocre prizes does not stand to make them more interesting - it encourages some people to take the money, and makes for a worse game.
So what's the lesser of two evils? People deciding to hold onto the cash a teeny bit more often than they like in return for making the game easier to understand and causing more winning and good feelings, or confusing the viewer by ripping the $500 out of a contestant's hand for seemingly no good reason? My argument's for the former.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196053\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:24 PM\']
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to respond to your offer.[/quote]
I assure you my breathing is quite regular. However, I want to make it clear that, despite Steve's blanket accusations, I am absolutely willing to listen to and consider an argument contrary to mine (provided, of course, that the courtesy is returned), and am even willing to change my opinion if that argument contains evidence sufficient to convince me.
But if he doesn't want to, I'm really fine with that too. So long as it's clear to everyone that the offer is out there.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'196034\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'195996\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 06:59 PM\']Last season there was a playing of Make Your Mark where the last prize to be revealed was a luggage set, and the two possible prices were (something dramatically different like) $2,000 and $999. [/quote]Without having seen this episode, or knowing what the luggage in question is, I'm not sure what the point is. There is luggage that costs that much (http://\"http://letmom.com/Household/Mom-Baby-Toys/cent-shipping-mulholland-brothers-series-luggage-set-mul1138-p-2056090.html\"), so a contestant may absolutely be right in thinking that it was $2,000.
As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?
[/quote]
I knew I explained it poorly. I really wish I remembered the exact detail of the playing, because it was without question *something* ridiculously obvious.
I do concede that these instances would odds-on likely be rare, my concern is with them happening at all.
Oh, and guys...we made it this far civilly, let's not mess it up now. (the closest I will come to soapboxing in this thread)
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'196058\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:51 PM\']
I do concede that these instances would odds-on likely be rare, my concern is with them happening at all.[/quote]
But that's the *goal*, isn't it? Sometimes you guess the two prices correctly that make the third decision difficult, and sometimes you get the two prices that make the decision a slam-dunk. Seems to me it's the equivalent of burning a 50/50 on Millionaire and having the two leftovers be the right answer and the one you are SURE is wrong.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196054\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:42 PM\']
For that arbitrary figure, apparently $10,000 seems to fit
Fine. Why? Why is it fine and dandy at $10,000+, but No Can Do at $9,999 or lower?, as two cash games for that amount offer up lesser prizes to walk away from a chance at the big kahuna. [/quote]
Never mind the fact that they could decide to roll out three different Mini Coopers for the game*, and suddenly make the game worth $60,000 over the current $7000-$10,000. A threshold argument will never hold up.
*or any game for that matter.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196059\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:54 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'196058\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:51 PM\']
I do concede that these instances would odds-on likely be rare, my concern is with them happening at all.[/quote]
But that's the *goal*, isn't it? Sometimes you guess the two prices correctly that make the third decision difficult, and sometimes you get the two prices that make the decision a slam-dunk. Seems to me it's the equivalent of burning a 50/50 on Millionaire and having the two leftovers be the right answer and the one you are SURE is wrong.
[/quote]
I guess. I think now that the real question should be why the four prices can't be similar enough to eliminate such an event...but yeah, you're right. I'm just babbling.
Although, the more I think about it, almost any game can be 'dumbed' into winning something... I would love to know what the odds of winning, for instance, Triple Play are if you just answer randomly.
-
4.2%, same as Golden Road (1/2 * 1/3 * 1/4 = 1/24)
-
[quote name=\'WhammyGuy28\' post=\'196024\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:58 AM\']If the contestant only sees the $500 but never holds it until they win all the prizes and the $500, then this rule change never needed to happen. All the awkwardness of 'indian giving' would never have been an issue. Why isn't this the way they do it? Am I completely insane here?
[/quote]
Because the $500 was concepted as a 'cost' to make the switch instead of as a 'bonus' for winning. Even if that's what it effectively is, it's not the reason it exists, and it's entirely possible no one over there even considered it could be seen that way.
That said, there's no real good reason for it not to be that way...but there's nothing particularly wrong with the current method.
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'196066\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 05:43 PM\']Because the $500 was concepted as a 'cost' to make the switch instead of as a 'bonus' for winning. Even if that's what it effectively is, it's not the reason it exists, and it's entirely possible no one over there even considered it could be seen that way. [/quote]
But again (and I'm trying not to get too involved in this anymore), you're talking about what the original "concept" was, and in the first place you probably weren't in that production meeting to know for sure, and in the second place, whether the change strays from the original concept doesn't really affect whether the change itself makes the game better or worse.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'196067\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:45 PM\']
in the second place, whether the change strays from the original concept doesn't really affect whether the change itself makes the game better or worse.
[/quote]
Which is why I voted "no change." The game sucks either way.
-
First of all...PYLdude, you just like yelling at people. I'm not going to dignify it by trying to respond to your posts.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196039\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:34 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196027\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 05:32 AM\']Yes, you do. It's just that, as I already pointed out in the other thread that got locked after I did so, you don't want to acknowledge that anything I say might have some valid reasoning behind it.[/quote]In that other thread, I also invited you to state that reasoning and change my mind.[/quote]
Oh, come on, Chris. You're not this stupid, and you know darn well I don't think you're this stupid, either -- you're just trying to bait me. You and I both know full well that I already explained my stance in the other thread and that you intentionally ignored it because acknowledging it would have gotten in the way of your ability to snark at me.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196054\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:42 PM\']Fine. Why? Why is it fine and dandy at $10,000+, but No Can Do at $9,999 or lower?[/quote]
Again, you and I both know full well there's no hard and fast rule for when this is and isn't okay, and we both know that by asking someone to explain why there is, you're only baiting them to make a reply that you've already prepared a snarky rebuttal to. This kind of thing needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Take Spelling Bee, for instance. It offers a bailout of up to $5,000, but the prize in that game is something contestants are generally going to be tempted by, and if I'm not mistaken, the odds of winning are usually in their favor. It does present the possibility of the contestant doing everything wrong and still winning, but the odds of that happening are so low that it's hardly worth worrying about. Temptation has prizes that are supposed to get the contestant to consider quitting -- it's a hard game that just isn't going to be won all that often. Let 'em Roll has flaws, but they're not all that glaring, because the game is usually set up to make it very unlikely that the contestant will only get one roll, and again, any bailout has to be weighed against the chance to win a car. Pass the Buck does have some glaring flaws, because you can do all the pricing wrong -- which isn't that inconceivable -- and still win the car or an assload of money. I understand that they had to change the original format -- in which you didn't get any turns for free -- because it was taking up too much time, but that doesn't mean the longer version didn't make for a better game.
The whole thing has a different feel to it, though, when you take the car out of the equation -- you're allowing the contestant to take money instead of risking it by playing for prizes they may very well not even want. It works alright in Step Up, because every correct choice you make earns you more money -- but in Barker's Marker$, there's not really any incentive whatsoever to try to win the prizes if you don't really want them, and that, as you seem to enjoy stressing the importance of, does not make for very good television.
-
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'196002\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 09:01 PM\']
Awarding a player just winning one's way on stage is not unhreard of. It is the basis of "Temptation." "Let 'em Roll" guarantees the player at least $500. I have no problem with the rule change.
[/quote]
I'm just curious to know if the value of the IUFBs which precede these "free money, win-or-lose" games is usually lower than other IUFBs which lead to other pricing games in which a loss = $0.
For example:
Contestants who come up to play Cliffhangers on average win a $2000 prize in Contestant's Row while
Contestants who now come up to play Make Your Mark on average win a $1000 prize in CR...Add the $500 automatic on-stage consolation prize, they are guaranteed to win a minimum of $1500 in cash & prizes which is now at or closer to the average value of each IUFB on the show.
If this is the case, then the producers have, or could, technically "split" the contestant's initial winnings between contestant's row and the stage, making the contestant and most viewers think they are earning free money when they really aren't.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196073\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:31 PM\']
Oh, come on, Chris. You're not this stupid, and you know darn well I don't think you're this stupid, either -- you're just trying to bait me.[/quote]
I'm really not, and I'm not sure how I can make that any more clear.
This kind of thing needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
No, it really doesn't. If you're saying that you can look at one game and say "oh, it's okay there" and look at another and say "OH NOES NOT THERE", then there must be some kind of metric by which you are making that decision. I am simply asking you to clarify what that metric is, and explain your rationale for selecting that metric, which I think is a completely reasonable question considering all you have done today is rant at me about how I'm not interested in listening to you.
Take Spelling Bee, for instance.
As I said to Jason, bailout money <> consolation money. I am not discussing "bailout offers" here at all.
but in Barker's Marker$, there's not really any incentive whatsoever to try to win the prizes if you don't really want them,
So I posit this: if you have a contestant up on stage who is in a position to say "Naah, I'll take the $500 because I don't care about winning the game", then you either have a) a poorly-chosen contestant, or b) poorly-chosen prizes.
and that, as you seem to enjoy stressing the importance of,
...because it's the truth...
does not make for very good television.
Again, if the number of people who either a) tank the game or b) don't care about winning, just to walk off with $500, ends up being statistically significant, there are FAR bigger problems with the production than a few changes to game rules.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196041\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 10:38 AM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'196034\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:01 PM\']
As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?
[/quote]
Hmm.
Switch (delare no switch and you've done nothing.)
Temptation
Make Your Mark
[/quote]
For the love of Pete, the Make Your Mark problem is not that they're awarding $500 for doing nothing[/b], they're awarding $500 for losing the game[/b]. It is NOT[/i] the same as doing nothing, e.g. Switch?. If you can't get a handle on that advanced concept I frankly wonder why you're participating in this discussion.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'196079\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 05:33 PM\']
It is NOT[/i] the same as doing nothing, e.g. Switch?. If you can't get a handle on that advanced concept I frankly wonder why you're participating in this discussion.[/quote]
I ask myself that question often, actually.
And I wasn't aware that making a decision as to whether the prices were in the correct places was "doing nothing" in the first place.
-
Solution: Make the $500 a bonus for making 3 correct marks without making a change. Never have the contestant touch the money until that happens. Dangle it when it comes time to choose to either go for it, or change a mark, but don't let the contestant hold it until when/if its revealed that they've made 3 correct marks without changes and win everything.
Who's idea was it to let the contestant hold the $500 to begin with? That was the real mistake all along IMHO. This decision to let the contestant keep the $500 is irrelevant to that first mistake. Therefore, IMO, allowing the contestant to keep the money changes nothing.
Looks to me like it ultimately it comes down to an opinion. My opinion is the $500 should be a bonus prize, but the opinion of the folks running the game turned out to be that the $500 is a consolation prize that ensures the contestant will not win $0. It's not the first time my opinion's deviated from the opinions of those who create stuff I see on TV, so I'm not losing any sleep over it, nor do I think the sky will fall and Price will die in a fire because of this change.
/I'm not the only one who thinks we are completely overthinking a pricing game here am I?
-
[quote name=\'WhammyGuy28\' post=\'196085\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 06:06 PM\']Looks to me like it ultimately it comes down to an opinion. My opinion is the $500 should be a bonus prize, but the opinion of the folks running the game turned out to be that the $500 is a consolation prize that ensures the contestant will not win $0. [/quote]Except it's not. It is the price to swap the final marker.
/I'm not the only one who thinks we are completely overthinking a pricing game here am I?
Not a bit.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\']Except it's not. It is the price to swap the final marker. [/quote]
Yes, it's that too. But it's now a consolation prize in case 'going for it' resulted badly.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196073\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 06:31 PM\']
First of all...PYLdude, you just like yelling at people. I'm not going to dignify it by trying to respond to your posts.
[/quote]
Well, I'm sorry that you don't see this becoming a vendetta.
Get off it already.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196096\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 07:37 PM\']Well, I'm sorry that you don't see this becoming a vendetta.[/quote]You're the one who insists on classifying it as such.
I'd also like to point out that a majority of people can be very very wrong. Many scientific developments are made because one guy thought outside the box. All it means is that they're in the majority.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'196097\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 09:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196096\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 07:37 PM\']Well, I'm sorry that you don't see this becoming a vendetta.[/quote]You're the one who insists on classifying it as such.
[/quote]
Well, when a guy is given an opposing point of view, given facts to back up why the opposing point of view has some merit, and refuses to consider it because he doesn't like the person giving the point of view to him and refuses to listen to anyone who won't agree with him...
if it isn't a vendetta, what is it?
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196099\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 07:55 PM\']
if it isn't a vendetta, what is it?[/quote]
What it is is "not yours to name, because it doesn't involve you."
I'm fine fighting my own battles, although I don't even feel this is worth escalating to "battle" status. Fair enough?
-
Solution: Make the $500 a bonus for making 3 correct marks without making a change. Never have the contestant touch the money until that happens. Dangle it when it comes time to choose to either go for it, or change a mark, but don't let the contestant hold it until when/if its revealed that they've made 3 correct marks without changes and win everything.
That change is merely superficial. It doesn't really alter the game play nor the contestant's reward under the old rules.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'196103\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 09:05 PM\']
That change is merely superficial. It doesn't really alter the game play nor the contestant's reward under the old rules.
[/quote]
Perhaps not, but since a certain awkwardness of giving the contestant $500 and then snatching it back in the case of loss was cited as a reason for making the existing change, I thought that would solve said awkwardness.
To be fair, letting the contestant keep the $500 solves said awkwardness as well. This is why I said it ultimately came down to opinion of which is the best solution.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'196103\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 12:05 AM\']
Solution: Make the $500 a bonus for making 3 correct marks without making a change. Never have the contestant touch the money until that happens. Dangle it when it comes time to choose to either go for it, or change a mark, but don't let the contestant hold it until when/if its revealed that they've made 3 correct marks without changes and win everything.
That change is merely superficial. It doesn't really alter the game play nor the contestant's reward under the old rules.
[/quote]
But it does solve the problem (if you choose to look at it that way) of a contestant having to give money back that they had announced they were keeping a few seconds before. Even if you managed to get a clear explanation out of Barker that you only got the $500 if you didn't move the third marker and the price is right, it seemed a bit unfair.
Letting the contestant's decision on keeping the $500 stand, right or wrong, is one reasonable way to fix that (though, to some, it creates other problems.) Not giving them the $500 until they've actually won it is another.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196042\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:42 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196041\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 10:38 AM\']
Switch (delare no switch and you've done nothing.)[/quote]
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7695/failcw6.jpg (http://\"http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7695/failcw6.jpg\")
[/quote]
Not as good as the first, but a valid attempt (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/fail2.jpg\") (and they are fun to do)
Screenshots from gscentral.net
-
Actually...looking at it in a completely different way, I think I like it.
You get on stage, and you're handed $500. You can either keep the $500 or trade it in to (essentially) increase your chances of winning the game. Of course, seeing as how this is The Price is Right and not Let's Make a Deal, there's some pricing knowledge thrown in as well.
If it worked for Let's Make a Deal, why can't it work for The Price is Right?
I still don't see how this change is significant enough to get anyone worked up. It's not going to change anything, gameplay-wise, yet it will help the flow of the game, removing the most awkward part of the game (both to describe and enact).
-
It's a good change for the frat boyz they pick to be on the show. What would they do with an armoire anyway?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'196124\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 12:05 PM\']
It's a good change for the frat boyz they pick to be on the show. What would they do with an armoire anyway?
[/quote]
Liquor cabinet?
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'196120\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 11:31 AM\']
You get on stage, and you're handed $500. You can either keep the $500 or trade it in to (essentially) increase your chances of winning the game. Of course, seeing as how this is The Price is Right and not Let's Make a Deal, there's some pricing knowledge thrown in as well.[/quote]
I think those of us who see the change as an improvement are looking at it exactly this way. The way we see it, you're not getting $500 for losing the game, you're getting $500 in order to play the game, and you may or may not decide you want to give it up later to improve your chances of winning.
It is very much a LMAD model. Monty did stuff like that all the time. The enormous difference is that on TPIR, we've become accustomed to judging a performance based on whether a game was "won" or "lost". On LMAD, you might win the top prize or you might get zonked, but there was a lot of middle ground where you'd go home with something else. Letting a Dealer go home with $500 because he didn't want to gamble on the bigger prize was no big...deal. But I can certainly see why people would object to letting that happen on a TPIR game.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'196137\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 11:04 AM\']
But I can certainly see why people would object to letting that happen on a TPIR game.
[/quote]
I could too...if it hasn't already been happening for over 25 years. (See Number, Any, or Chances, Ten.)
-
What would be interesting is if they continued the LMAD model and gave people the choice to trade in their prizes for a chance to spin the Big Wheel of the Day. Imagine the savings to the budget!
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'196114\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 10:11 AM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196042\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:42 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196041\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 10:38 AM\']
Switch (delare no switch and you've done nothing.)[/quote]
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7695/failcw6.jpg (http://\"http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7695/failcw6.jpg\")
[/quote]
Not as good as the first, but a valid attempt (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/fail2.jpg\")
[/quote]
Followed by the obligatory animated .gif: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6817/3s...sfailfangl9.gif (http://\"http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6817/3strikesfailfangl9.gif\")
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Matté\' post=\'196146\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:35 PM\']
Followed by the obligatory animated .gif: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6817/3s...sfailfangl9.gif (http://\"http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6817/3strikesfailfangl9.gif\")
[/quote]
I like it (yeah, it's directed at me), but I don't get the "F" in the first slot.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196148\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'Mr. Matté\' post=\'196146\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:35 PM\']
Followed by the obligatory animated .gif: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6817/3s...sfailfangl9.gif (http://\"http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6817/3strikesfailfangl9.gif\")
[/quote]
I like it (yeah, it's directed at me), but I don't get the "F" in the first slot.
[/quote]
Giving away the first position in 3 Strikes, perhaps...to spell out FAIL?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'196150\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:45 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196148\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:43 PM\']
I like it (yeah, it's directed at me), but I don't get the "F" in the first slot.
[/quote]
Giving away the first position in 3 Strikes, perhaps...to spell out FAIL?
[/quote]
[LudlowBaxter (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRSooA7mjEo\")]That is correct, Alex.[/LB]
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196138\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 02:12 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'196137\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 11:04 AM\']
But I can certainly see why people would object to letting that happen on a TPIR game.
[/quote]
I could too...if it hasn't already been happening for over 25 years. (See Number, Any, or Chances, Ten.)
[/quote]
25? Are you sure you're counting correctly?
Despite my usual opinions (seeing 'fanb0i' turns my stomach) looking at this through the LMAD lens really changed my mind, now that I think about it.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196078\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 08:31 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196073\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:31 PM\']This kind of thing needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.[/quote]No, it really doesn't. If you're saying that you can look at one game and say "oh, it's okay there" and look at another and say "OH NOES NOT THERE", then there must be some kind of metric by which you are making that decision.[/quote]
I've already made an entire post -- the one you just responded to, in fact -- explaining why that isn't the case. Not every pricing game is comparable to every other pricing game -- they all have different prizes and different structures, and some of those combinations of prizes and structures work better with bailout options and consolation prizes than others do.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196163\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 03:37 PM\']
I've already made an entire post -- the one you just responded to, in fact -- explaining why that isn't the case. Not every pricing game is comparable to every other pricing game -- they all have different prizes and different structures, and some of those combinations of prizes and structures work better with bailout options and consolation prizes than others do.[/quote]
That doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me. But maybe I'm missing something, so I'll try asking again: what quality does Barkers Markers possess that makes it incompatible to a consolation prize (and, again, I *really* want to stress that all I'm interested in is that precise taking-something-away-even-if-someone-lost situation, as opposed to taking-something-away-for-voluntarily-quitting) that Let 'Em Roll or Money Game apparently doesn't have? Are you arguing that it's okay to give someone consolation money for failing to win a car and it's not for five-to-seven-grand-or-so in prizes?
EDIT: Actually I went back and looked at your earlier post, the gist of which I boiled down to "because it's a car and not a gazebo." Which still doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me, but in response I refer you back to my comments -- in the post *you* just responded to, in fact -- about "then you need contestants who just want to win *something*, or prizes that don't completely blow."
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196163\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 06:37 PM\']Not every pricing game is comparable to every other pricing game -- they all have different prizes and different structures...[/quote]
The fact that you would use a word like "structure" to describe what are basically a bunch of juvenile guessing games tells me you are taking this WAYYY too seriously.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196164\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 06:53 PM\']That doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me. But maybe I'm missing something, so I'll try asking again: what quality does Barkers Markers possess that makes it incompatible to a consolation prize (and, again, I *really* want to stress that all I'm interested in is that precise taking-something-away-even-if-someone-lost situation, as opposed to taking-something-away-for-voluntarily-quitting) that Let 'Em Roll or Money Game apparently doesn't have? Are you arguing that it's okay to give someone consolation money for failing to win a car and it's not for five-to-seven-grand-or-so in prizes?[/quote]
Actually, I'm arguing what I've been arguing since the first thread -- that you're intentionally ignoring the part of my argument that makes you look wrong. But you already knew that.
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'196171\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 08:45 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196163\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 06:37 PM\']Not every pricing game is comparable to every other pricing game -- they all have different prizes and different structures...[/quote]The fact that you would use a word like "structure" to describe what are basically a bunch of juvenile guessing games tells me you are taking this WAYYY too seriously.[/quote]
Now, y'see, this has no actual bearing on the argument -- it's just an insult designed to make me look like a obsessive fanboy. I'm not really sure why it's supposed to surprise anyone, either -- I mean, given that I wrote this thing (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/faq/index.php/The_Price_Is_Right_Timeline\"), I don't think it takes a genius to see that I take the show a bit more seriously than most people. And you're allowed to think that's silly if you want to...but again, it's totally irrelevent as far as whether or not my statement was accurate.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'196171\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 04:45 PM\']
The fact that you would use a word like "structure" to describe what are basically a bunch of juvenile guessing games tells me you are taking this WAYYY too seriously.
[/quote]
17 pages and counting tells me this whole thing is being taken WAYYY too seriously. There's a consolation prize in Make Your Mark now, and TPIR hasn't died in a fire because of it. Feeling relieved that that hasn't happened, now we all can get on with our lives & our clever 'fail' gif creating...
/Perhaps the $500 should be hereby designated 'fail money'?
//Aw crap, now it's just going to continue with people arguing the pros & cons of using the term 'fail money' to describe a consolation prize that shouldn't be there. But then other people are going to argue consolation prizes are nothing new, and it doesn't matter much. Then still other people who hate change are going to argue that it's bad because it's change. Then people are going to start throwing barbs at the other people. Then the other people are going to start throwing barbs back. aaaaaaaAAAAHHHHH!!!! *blows brains out*
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196191\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 08:53 PM\']
Actually, I'm arguing what I've been arguing since the first thread -- that you're intentionally ignoring the part of my argument that makes you look wrong. But you already knew that.[/quote]
Okay, Steve. I've really made a concerted effort to give you the benefit of the doubt here and tried very hard to debate this with you in an adult manner. I see now that that was a mistake.
C'est la vie.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196191\' date=\'Sep 5 2008, 10:53 PM\']
And you're allowed to think that's silly if you want to...but again, it's totally irrelevent as far as whether or not my statement was accurate.[/quote]Well, from personal experience, I can say that when there's a subject that I care deeply about that is getting dissed, I tend to defend it to the death, sometimes straying from rational arguments.
Not that I'm taking either persons' side in this argument.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196218\' date=\'Sep 6 2008, 06:32 AM\']I've really made a concerted effort to give you the benefit of the doubt here and tried very hard to debate this with you in an adult manner.[/quote]
Oh, ya did not, and you know it. Your entire style of "debate" revolves around ignoring any statements that might put a dent in your case if you actually acknowledged them and then trying to talk around them loudly enough to keep anyone from noticing that that's what you're doing. You're a master of rhetoric, really -- when you run into something you can't refute with a straight argument, you're able to spin your words in such a way that even though you're not making any kind of actual case for yourself, it still sounds like you are.
I'm not going to pretend I'm the most mature person in the world...but for you to act as though the statements of mine that you don't want to bother dealing with were never made and then accuse me of being childish is at the very least the pot calling the kettle black.
-
I am *utterly* speechless.
(Except for that. Okay, *now* I'm speechless.)
-
Methinks 17 pages might be a good point to end this at....
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196274\' date=\'Sep 6 2008, 02:58 PM\']
I am *utterly* speechless.[/quote]
And I am speechlessly utterless!
Actually, there are quite a few things I could say to Steve right now, but I'd end up getting sent to the Shirley Booth.
/OK, that was stupid.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196274\' date=\'Sep 6 2008, 11:58 AM\']
I am *utterly* speechless.
(Except for that. Okay, *now* I'm speechless.)
[/quote]
Gavazzi has accomplished the impossible.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195020\' date=\'Aug 24 2008, 11:40 AM\']
Bizarre change.
Why give an unsponsored* $500 for doing absolutely nothing?
*Yes, I realize much/most/all of the items pawned on TPIR aren't sponsored anymore. But why give $500 without even the possibility of a sponsor? Maybe the new bank getting put into my local Wal-Mart could help.
[/quote]
This is what happens when a veteran producer who knows the show's traditions is fired.
Yes, Fingers Greco will keep things as intact as she can, but I'm not sure that she'll be able to do it for long.
-
See, Billy Idol gets it.
(And so does DrJWJustice.)