The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: tvmitch on November 03, 2008, 08:20:29 PM
-
Only 5 minutes into the show and this format has already won me over. This is how the daily version should work - or at least implement some elements, like the decision clock.
-
Amen, brotha. I'm sure that was awesome.
/Damn myself for not DVR-ing it ahead of time. Awaits in the "Video & Audio forum. ;-)
-
I love the idea of picking all of your cases at once, and the shot clock was cool. Wouldn't mind seeing this become the primetime version, but like the daytime version, there wasn't a lot of breathing room.
How many contestants did they have? I counted at least two (was watching football at the same time).
One thing I really like: no time for the family members to talk.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'200976\' date=\'Nov 3 2008, 09:27 PM\']
I love the idea of picking all of your cases at once, and the shot clock was cool. Wouldn't mind seeing this become the primetime version, but like the daytime version, there wasn't a lot of breathing room.
How many contestants did they have? I counted at least two (was watching football at the same time). [/quote]
Four total, plus Howie's bet with the Banker--if they gave away $1M+, the Banker would have to jump into the 200th episode cake. If they didn't, Howie would jump. The show ended with cake frosting all over Howie after he dived into the cake.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'201100\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 03:19 PM\']
Four total, plus Howie's bet with the Banker--if they gave away $1M+, the Banker would have to jump into the 200th episode cake. If they didn't, Howie would jump. The show ended with cake frosting all over Howie after he dived into the cake.
[/quote]
However, there's just one problem with that bet..
How are you going to get four contestants who win $250,000 or more, or the equivalent average? Only 35 out of 252 contestants, before these four, had won 250K or more. And we need four in a row. It's just way too unlikely. The first three players only managed $250,000 in total...
Also, since it's speed deal, many contestants would freak out and take a 241K offer they wouldn't take if they had more time, and throw away a shot at significantly more.
-
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201101\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:32 PM\']How are you going to get four contestants who win $250,000 or more, or the equivalent average? Only 35 out of 252 contestants, before these four, had won 250K or more. And we need four in a row. It's just way too unlikely. The first three players only managed $250,000 in total...[/quote]
Yes, it was a sucker bet, if it was real. The show had no intention of putting the face of the banker out there.
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201101\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:32 PM\']Also, since it's speed deal, many contestants would freak out and take a 241K offer they wouldn't take if they had more time, and throw away a shot at significantly more.[/quote]
Or safely deal before blowing it all by taking one fatal step too far. As always, they might do better by going on and they might do worse. I doubt anybody on a regular game would be dissatisfied with a deal around $241K.
-
It would be an interesting experiment (at least to me) to try and conduct trials comparing contestant mentalities both with a clock and without.
/I'm betting the result would be that both sets of mentalities are vapid
//If I'm wrong, I'm jumping into my bed.
-
And now, some suggestions on tweaking the Speed Deal format:
1--Either the clock starts when Howie says "deal or no deal?" or they extend the time to 30 seconds. A couple of times Monday night he was eating up half the time iwth the recap.
2--Make running the clock out an automatic deal instead of an automatic no deal. Running the clock out should be ending the game, such as on this season's "WWTBAM." Of course, I realize they like stretching things out as much as possible and everyone either closed the cover or hit the button in time, but knowing that running out of time could mean possibly leaving with the first offer would make sure that there would be snap decisions.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201105\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 03:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201101\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:32 PM\']How are you going to get four contestants who win $250,000 or more, or the equivalent average? Only 35 out of 252 contestants, before these four, had won 250K or more. And we need four in a row. It's just way too unlikely. The first three players only managed $250,000 in total...[/quote]
Yes, it was a sucker bet, if it was real. The show had no intention of putting the face of the banker out there.
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201101\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:32 PM\']Also, since it's speed deal, many contestants would freak out and take a 241K offer they wouldn't take if they had more time, and throw away a shot at significantly more.[/quote]
Or safely deal before blowing it all by taking one fatal step too far. As always, they might do better by going on and they might do worse. I doubt anybody on a regular game would be dissatisfied with a deal around $241K.
[/quote]
Just remember, Matt, that when we ignore the utility of risk, Deal becomes the wrong decision 99.9% of the time. Let's look at a sample board again....225K or 1M vs. 3 small numbers.
If speed deal were to cause a normal No Deal to become Deal just in time, they would save 225K 1/4 of the time. However, if it were to change a Deal to a No Deal, one case further than originally intended, and pays off, the player saves 108K 3/4 of the time. Which means adding speed deal throws even more weight onto the No Deal side of the scale.
The $1,000,000 goal has no "utility of risk" as the contestants do, so it's just a game of points, and Deal loses more points than No Deal does, which is why it's a bad idea to combine the bet and speed deal due to the conflicting goals of the two institutions.
I hope you understand me, because it's tough to describe. :)
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'201109\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:01 PM\']
2--Make running the clock out an automatic deal instead of an automatic no deal. Running the clock out should be ending the game, such as on this season's "WWTBAM." Of course, I realize they like stretching things out as much as possible and everyone either closed the cover or hit the button in time, but knowing that running out of time could mean possibly leaving with the first offer would make sure that there would be snap decisions.
[/quote]
As if winning $1,000,000 wasn't difficult enough, and then we add the speed deal format....Jessica and Tomorrow, even though they had the courage to refuse the 561K and 677K, would never have done so in 20 seconds. The guys at Millionaire need to remove the question timer for the same reason...
Now you discourage continuation even further?
Plus, an intended Deal that becomes a No Deal is going to be less costly than an intended No Deal that becomes a Deal. Encourage the contestants to win as much as possible...
-
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201110\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 05:04 PM\']I hope you understand me, because it's tough to describe. :)[/quote]
I understand the point you're trying to make. Once again though, despite your words, you continue to look at the game purely as a mathematical exercise. That's certainly one interesting way to approach looking at the show, but you insist on making that the only way to look at it, so that you come up with patently nonsensical comments like Deal being the wrong decision 99% of the time.
I'm not arguing with your math. I understand it better than you think I do. I disagree with your conclusions on how to play the game, as does every other rational person who reads them.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201113\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:16 PM\']
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201110\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 05:04 PM\']I hope you understand me, because it's tough to describe. :)[/quote]
I understand the point you're trying to make. Once again though, despite your words, you continue to look at the game purely as a mathematical exercise. That's certainly one interesting way to approach looking at the show, but you insist on making that the only way to look at it, so that you come up with patently nonsensical comments like Deal being the wrong decision 99% of the time.
I'm not arguing with your math. I understand it better than you think I do. I disagree with your conclusions on how to play the game, as does every other rational person who reads them.
[/quote]
I'm saying that speed deal makes this game more of a pure mathematical exercise than it should be.
-
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201111\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 05:09 PM\']
Jessica and Tomorrow, even though they had the courage to refuse the 561K and 677K, would never have done so in 20 seconds. [/quote]
That's a statement of fact which is impossible to support. Besides, in an earlier post, you said that the speed element threw more weight to the "No Deal" side of things. That is clearly contradictory to this statement.
-
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201110\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 02:04 PM\']
Just remember, Matt, that when we ignore the utility of risk, Deal becomes the wrong decision 99.9% of the time.[/quote]
I hope you understand me, because it's tough to describe. :)
You're understood just fine. I think more people are incredulous that you continue to belabor this point on which you have already been pwned multiple times. (Not me, though. Nothing surprises me around here anymore.)
Speed Deal reminded me of User Account Control in Windows Vista: It felt like the Deal producers said "What? People are complaining about the show's pacing? They want a faster pace? Well, we'll SHOW them a faster pace! We'll make it so fast that they will never complain about the slow one again!" The faster pace was just as unwatchable as the snail's pace. It went way too fast to process what little game there actually is there, gave you none-nada-ZERO opportunity to develop any connection or interest in the contestants, and I made it one round into the second game, said "This is just underlining what a pile of crap this game is," zapped it from the Tivo, and fired up the Xbox.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'201116\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 02:21 PM\']
Speed Deal reminded me of User Account Control in Windows Vista: It felt like the Deal producers said "What? People are complaining about the show's pacing? They want a faster pace? Well, we'll SHOW them a faster pace! We'll make it so fast that they will never complain about the slow one again!"[/quote]
So, what we need is a show like User Account Control in the Windows 7 PDC build: Slow at the moments that are exciting, and fast when you couldn't give a crap.
-
[quote name=\'Hastin\' post=\'201118\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:26 PM\']So, what we need is a show like User Account Control in the Windows 7 PDC build: Slow at the moments that are exciting, and fast when you couldn't give a crap.[/quote]
We have that. It's called TiVo.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201119\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:30 PM\']
[quote name=\'Hastin\' post=\'201118\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:26 PM\']So, what we need is a show like User Account Control in the Windows 7 PDC build: Slow at the moments that are exciting, and fast when you couldn't give a crap.[/quote]
We have that. It's called TiVo.
[/quote]
True that, but here's the thing. Strip the game down, and you get Monday's show, which was toilet water. I want to get the opportunity to like or hate a contestant. I want some suspense. Which is what Monday's show was not. Granted, the TiVo version you could watch some, then fast forward (I like the TiVo fast forward sound, FWIW...) through the shiat parts.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'201120\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:36 PM\']True that, but here's the thing. Strip the game down, and you get Monday's show, which was toilet water. I want to get the opportunity to like or hate a contestant. I want some suspense. Which is what Monday's show was not. Granted, the TiVo version you could watch some, then fast forward (I like the TiVo fast forward sound, FWIW...) through the shiat parts.
[/quote]
I tend to agree with Chris that this might have been, at least a little, a sort of "in your face" response to criticisms that the game moves slowly. It's fairly evident at this point that the producers are just coming up with whatever wacky extreme stunt they haven't tried yet, and maybe even trying some they passed on the first time. It's desperation mode now as the prime time show seems to have just about run its course.
Still, consider this. 200 episodes in prime time is a pretty impressive accomplishment no matter what the genre. Only a few dozen scripted shows in the history of television reached that mark, and in the modern era of game shows, I'm pretty sure only Millionaire did. NBC learned a lesson from ABC's handling of Millionaire and nursed this baby about as well as anybody could. It may have just run out of gas.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201113\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:16 PM\']
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201110\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 05:04 PM\']I hope you understand me, because it's tough to describe. :)[/quote]
I understand the point you're trying to make. Once again though, despite your words, you continue to look at the game purely as a mathematical exercise. That's certainly one interesting way to approach looking at the show, but you insist on making that the only way to look at it, so that you come up with patently nonsensical comments like Deal being the wrong decision 99% of the time.
I'm not arguing with your math. I understand it better than you think I do. I disagree with your conclusions on how to play the game, as does every other rational person who reads them.
[/quote]
Mathematically speaking, he's absolutely right. How often has the Banker offered a deal value that meets or exceeds the expected value of the board? And don't count after-the-fact offers during the "Let's play the board out" part -- those deals can be inflated to drive up the Dramma (tm). I think you'll find the number of offers meeting my mathematical criteria easily approaches the original claim.
This game is all about utility of risk, which is summarizes as "Would you be happy walking out of here with $X?" I do find the later comment that neither millionaire would have taken their final Deal if they were against a clock to be specious at best. Not only is it mathematically correct to not take the offer, but in the case of the first millionaire, the second condition was also met -- that is, that player would likely have been happy walking home with $200K. (The second millionaire had way too much on the table to take the deal, not with a 3/4 shot at that moment in time of winning the million.)
The problem with analyzing this game is that while mathematics gives an excellent theoretical analysis, it has nothing to do with real life. A particular web site I like to visit, Wizard of Odds (http://\"http://wizardofodds.com/\"), shows this. While he does a good job of describing the deals versus Expected Value, (http://\"http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/tvgames.html\") (scroll down about 1/3 of the way) he allows his lack of knowledge of game shows to cloud his analysis in favor of the math. (http://\"http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/214\") (Question #7 on this link.)
-
[quote name=\'GameShowFan\' post=\'201122\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:20 PM\']
The problem with analyzing this game is that while mathematics gives an excellent theoretical analysis, it has nothing to do with real life.[/quote]
This, this, a thousand times this.
-
[quote name=\'GameShowFan\' post=\'201122\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:20 PM\']
This game is all about utility of risk, which is summarizes as "Would you be happy walking out of here with $X?" I do find the later comment that neither millionaire would have taken their final Deal if they were against a clock to be specious at best. Not only is it mathematically correct to not take the offer, but in the case of the first millionaire, the second condition was also met -- that is, that player would likely have been happy walking home with $200K. (The second millionaire had way too much on the table to take the deal, not with a 3/4 shot at that moment in time of winning the million.)
[/quote]
I'm not denying that that exists, but that Speed Deal causes an arguably unfair distortion of utility of risk due to the lack of time to analyze the contestant's utility of risk. That is what I meant...
Would Ogi Ogas have decided to pull the trigger on his $500,000 question running against a 45-second timer? I don't think so...
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'201116\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 02:21 PM\']Speed Deal reminded me of User Account Control in Windows Vista: It felt like the Deal producers said "What? People are complaining about the show's pacing? They want a faster pace? Well, we'll SHOW them a faster pace! We'll make it so fast that they will never complain about the slow one again!" The faster pace was just as unwatchable as the snail's pace. It went way too fast to process what little game there actually is there, gave you none-nada-ZERO opportunity to develop any connection or interest in the contestants, and I made it one round into the second game, said "This is just underlining what a pile of crap this game is," zapped it from the Tivo, and fired up the Xbox.[/quote]The problem is that they gutted the wrong parts. From the beginning, a 40 minute game is possible, but they figure that most people who watch will sit through an hour of wheat to get to the chaff.
Cut the zoom-in on cases, the recap of "this is what happens if you open value $x/you want to stay away from the [big amounts]", and the offer prattling, and you get to a game that at least has a modicum of pacing.
I liked the idea, especially cutting out the phone calls, the stupid smack talk relayed from the "Banker", and the supporter bench obnoxiousness, but the game cannot be done satisfactorily in 15 minutes.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201121\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 03:48 PM\']Still, consider this. 200 episodes in prime time is a pretty impressive accomplishment no matter what the genre. Only a few dozen scripted shows in the history of television reached that mark, and in the modern era of game shows, I'm pretty sure only Millionaire did. NBC learned a lesson from ABC's handling of Millionaire and nursed this baby about as well as anybody could. It may have just run out of gas.[/quote]I'd like to note for the record that falling from helicopters and eating of animal parts had a shelf life of six seasons. And the sixth season seemed to be throwing worms at the wall to see what would stick. If the time has run out on The Deal, I would not cry into my drink.