The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: JasonA1 on October 14, 2011, 02:42:01 PM
-
What would happen on Twenty-One if either player elected to stop the game when the scores were tied?
-Jason
-
What would happen on Twenty-One if either player elected to stop the game when the scores were tied?
On Povich, I believe it initiated a sudden-death lockout question.
On Barry, if I remember my Quiz Show correctly, you started a new game with the $X-per-point stakes increased. (I want to say they doubled.)
-
On Povich, I believe it initiated a sudden-death lockout question.
Correct, select!
On Barry, if I remember my Quiz Show correctly, you started a new game with the $X-per-point stakes increased. (I want to say they doubled.)
My memory is that the per point stakes increased by $500 each time the pair tied. (Stempel/Van Doren play for $2,500 per point in their climactic final game, and you can't get to $2,500 by doubling.)
-
(Stempel/Van Doren play for $2,500 per point in their climactic final game, and you can't get to $2,500 by doubling.)
Having not seen the movie in over fifteen years, this is why I hedged my bets. :)
-
(Stempel/Van Doren play for $2,500 per point in their climactic final game, and you can't get to $2,500 by doubling.)
Having not seen the movie in over fifteen years, this is why I hedged my bets. :)
This wasn't from the film, this was from the real deal: the actual episode of their final game exists on the Youtubes. CVD wins by eight and takes down twenty grand.
EDIT: Realized later, Quiz Show exists in nine parts on the Youtubes as well.
-
(Stempel/Van Doren play for $2,500 per point in their climactic final game, and you can't get to $2,500 by doubling.)
Having not seen the movie in over fifteen years, this is why I hedged my bets. :)
This wasn't from the film, this was from the real deal: the actual episode of their final game exists on the Youtubes. CVD wins by eight and takes down twenty grand.
EDIT: Realized later, Quiz Show exists in nine parts on the Youtubes as well.
What's interesting about watching the actual game is that the "Marty" question is not the one that cost Stempel the game, like Quiz Show would have you think. It wasn't even in the ultimate round.
-
On Povich, I believe it initiated a sudden-death lockout question.
On Barry, if I remember my Quiz Show correctly, you started a new game with the $X-per-point stakes increased. (I want to say they doubled.)
I guess what I'm looking for is did anybody see it happen. I know both of the above circumstances happened when the game ended in a 21-21 tie from correct answers. But, on either version (and I know it's less likely on the original, since that was staged for most of its run), did any players choose to stop after round 2 while the scores were tied?
Wiki seems to imply that the game value increased on the Jack Barry version only when the game ended 21-21. The article also suggests that the game would end after five rounds (or categories) of questioning, which presents another opportunity for a non 21-21 tie.
-Jason
-
But, on either version (and I know it's less likely on the original, since that was staged for most of its run), did any players choose to stop after round 2 while the scores were tied?
I utterly fail to see why the rule would be applied any differently.
Wiki seems to imply that the game value increased on the Jack Barry version only when the game ended 21-21.
I'm too lazy today to find the stick-figure "Citation Needed" cartoon.
-
I guess what I'm looking for is did anybody see it happen. I know both of the above circumstances happened when the game ended in a 21-21 tie from correct answers. But, on either version (and I know it's less likely on the original, since that was staged for most of its run), did any players choose to stop after round 2 while the scores were tied?
On Povich, a 19-point tie happened once, and it was dealt with by sudden death. Can't vouch for the latter, but given that B&E wanted ties as much as possible, it seems, I have to think that's what they'd do.
-
I read in a book somewhere that 21 partway through its run (before Stempel's run) introduced a rule that if the game ended in a scoreless tie (presumably after 5 rounds of questions), both contestants won $100 and left the show.
-
I read in a book somewhere that 21 partway through its run (before Stempel's run) introduced a rule that if the game ended in a scoreless tie (presumably after 5 rounds of questions), both contestants won $100 and left the show.
"Focus groups show that nobody likes you. Here's $100. Please...leave now."
-
I suggest great care in ascribing validity to the details in "Quiz Show." There was lots of dramatic license.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
I suggest great care in ascribing validity to the details in "Quiz Show." There was lots of dramatic license.
Understood, but the basic concept of "per-point-goes-up-on-a-tie" was likely to carry over accurately.
-
did any players choose to stop after round 2 while the scores were tied?
On the '50s version I don't think it was so much the players' decision as it was Mr. Enright's.
-
I mean that's how I'd do it.
Why?
-
Hmm I always thought If the game was in a tie and any player elected to stop, was in a forfeit by default. Meaning <host mode> "both players are tied at 14, any player who decides to Stop the game . Quits the chance to continue and the game will be over for them!" </hm> I mean that's how I'd do it.
Approves (http://"http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-7/uwe-boll.jpg")
/holy bad television, Batman!
-
Hmm I always thought If the game was in a tie and any player elected to stop, was in a forfeit by default. Meaning <host mode> "both players are tied at 14, any player who decides to Stop the game . Quits the chance to continue and the game will be over for them!" </hm> I mean that's how I'd do it.
...Why?
-
I don't think you all should take someone who would do a <host mode> </host mode> schtick seriously.
Just saying.
-
I'll shoot.William feels that it is more fair that a person who stops the game prematurely be penalized if he is not actually in the lead. As it is, if a player has 20, he should always stop the game since he knows his opponent doesn't have 21. For that matter, a player with 19 is very likely to stop the game for similar reasons.This has the likely effect of promoting slightly more frequently complete games and slightly more tension in cases of ties scores. OTOH, it makes for bad TV to lose when tied like that.
-
Here's a question: since you consider stopping with a tie a forfeit by default, shouldn't you then consider stopping AT ALL a forfeit by default? No matter when you decide to stop, you're saying you don't want to play anymore, ergo...
-
No matter when you decide to stop, you're saying you don't want to play anymore, ergo...
Given that Gene was the one who came up with a reason and not Host Boy there, I'm inclined to give him a wide berth. Football teams are allowed to run out the clock without actually playing.
In the same wasy as "use all the tools you're allowed," I don't look at a declaration of Quitsies as waving the white flag, but like calling Tichu: you're so sure that you're going to win the round that you're willing to pay a severe penalty if the prove-out goes the other way. And that is exactly how it is on Twenty-one.
-
No matter when you decide to stop, you're saying you don't want to play anymore, ergo...
Given that Gene was the one who came up with a reason and not Host Boy there, I'm inclined to give him a wide berth. Football teams are allowed to run out the clock without actually playing.
In the same wasy as "use all the tools you're allowed," I don't look at a declaration of Quitsies as waving the white flag, but like calling Tichu: you're so sure that you're going to win the round that you're willing to pay a severe penalty if the prove-out goes the other way. And that is exactly how it is on Twenty-one.
Right, but there are no ties in determining who goes out when, in a hand of Tichu. But in 21, there can be a tie other than 21-21. Causing ties to go against the player who stopped the game isn't terribly unreasonable where the actual game is concerned. Just... like I said, I don't think it makes for good TV.
-
Well,... WHY THE HELL NOT!!
Notwithstanding that I really don't like being yelled at, it was established that your way would make for downright rubbish TV.
-
Incoherent rambling snipped
Wow. Someone has some SERIOUS maturity issues...
-
Sorry, I thought I was trying to be serious here.
You chose poorly. You cannot have an aneurysm over Michigan J. Frog and expect to be taken seriously.
-
Hmm I always thought If the game was in a tie and any player elected to stop, was in a forfeit by default. Meaning "both players are tied at 14, any player who decides to Stop the game . Quits the chance to continue and the game will be over for them!" I mean that's how I'd do it.
Oh don't even go there. I thought we dropped that.
Anyway I thought that there was a rule about losing on a tie by stopping if not One point higher than your opponent. I was explaining exactly what I was trying to say, nothing else. And Travis, I wasn't intending to yell at you. I was just explaining why my intentions for such rule.
Anyway can we get back on topic please ? Thank you.
-
And I wasn't intending to yell at you, just sating a point.
What point? You removed your post.
-
Yes, this made me sad. I wanted to see the full impact of the epic fail. And I saw Real Steel today, so rest assured, I know from epic fail.
-
What's interesting about watching the actual game is that the "Marty" question is not the one that cost Stempel the game, like Quiz Show would have you think. It wasn't even in the ultimate round.
In a way, it did - as Stempel himself once put it (I think it was used in the "Quiz Show Scandal" episode of PBS's The American Experience), "If I would have answered 'Marty', I would have won, and the world would have never heard of Charles van Doren."
-
What's interesting about watching the actual game is that the "Marty" question is not the one that cost Stempel the game, like Quiz Show would have you think. It wasn't even in the ultimate round.
In a way, it did - as Stempel himself once put it (I think it was used in the "Quiz Show Scandal" episode of PBS's The American Experience), "If I would have answered 'Marty', I would have won, and the world would have never heard of Charles van Doren."
Yep. Stempel had 16, and the Marty question was a fiver.
If it were me, I would have just answered it, especially at $2000 a point. The way I see it, NBC would have had to pay me, or else they would have had to reveal the whole sham. If Herb wasn't so concerned with staying in the public eye, he would have seen that.
-
If it were me, I would have just answered it, especially at $2000 a point. The way I see it, NBC would have had to pay me, or else they would have had to reveal the whole sham. If Herb wasn't so concerned with staying in the public eye, he would have seen that.
The irony is that going along wth it got him OUT of the public eye, at least for a little while.
-
Yep. Stempel had 16, and the Marty question was a fiver.
If it were me, I would have just answered it, especially at $2000 a point. The way I see it, NBC would have had to pay me, or else they would have had to reveal the whole sham. If Herb wasn't so concerned with staying in the public eye, he would have seen that.
If Messrs. Barry-Enright were to go for breach of contract, it would press the issue of "is this legal?" a whole lot sooner.
-
If Messrs. Barry-Enright were to go for breach of contract, it would press the issue of "is this legal?" a whole lot sooner.
You really think B & E would have sued Herb Stempel, saying in effect "Herb didn't answer the question the way he was instructed to?" They could have refused to pay him the prize money, but if I'm not mistaken, at that point he had signed an agreement that he would receive an amount less than that announced on the air.
-
Remembering a conversation I had moths ago with Chris Lemon about this topic, it goes back to why you would not want to equate "stopping the game" with "I quit!" or why a tie should break in favor of the person who didn't stop:
What if you're on 20? If the other guy has 21 you're cooked anyway and the game will be over. Worst case is a tie at that point. Sure, you could play another round, take your dopey 1 point question, reach 21 and the game would be complete, but that allows your opponent another chance to do the same. You lose zero by calling it good and comparing the scores at that point. You could extend that down to probably 17 or so, because a 4 point question should still be a lay-up, right? At 17 you run the risk of losing, and that risk isn't there at 20.
-
Since my memory of the Povich run is fuzzy, and I admit to being too lazy to Google it right now, was there a set point, where if so many rounds had been played without either a player ending the game voluntarily or else someone achieving a score of 21, the game would end anyway, with either whoever was leading being declared the winner, or a sudden-death lockout question played if the scores were tied at that moment?
-
Since my memory of the Povich run is fuzzy, and I admit to being too lazy to Google it right now, was there a set point, where if so many rounds had been played without either a player ending the game voluntarily or else someone achieving a score of 21, the game would end anyway, with either whoever was leading being declared the winner, or a sudden-death lockout question played if the scores were tied at that moment?
1) Yes.
2) Five rounds of questioning, or the expiry of time in the episode.
-
Since my memory of the Povich run is fuzzy, and I admit to being too lazy to Google it right now, was there a set point, where if so many rounds had been played without either a player ending the game voluntarily or else someone achieving a score of 21, the game would end anyway, with either whoever was leading being declared the winner, or a sudden-death lockout question played if the scores were tied at that moment?
1) Yes.
2) Five rounds of questioning, or the expiry of time in the episode.
Thank you Travis, and I am assuming from your response that the producers of the Povich series did not like to have games straddle. Is that correct?
-
Thank you Travis, and I am assuming from your response that the producers of the Povich series did not like to have games straddle. Is that correct?
I don't think liking ever entered into it. They just didn't, and there's at least one really good reason to make sure games don't carry over.
-
Thank you Travis, and I am assuming from your response that the producers of the Povich series did not like to have games straddle. Is that correct?
I don't think liking ever entered into it. They just didn't, and there's at least one really good reason to make sure games don't carry over.
I am assuming that you mean a viewer missing an episode and wondering why two completely different players are competing, as compared to the last show they watched. Now, if my guess is right, I know that soap operas and professional wrestling can get away with not completely tying up loose ends at the end of every episode, and for many years, game shows could do the same. Why not now?
-
Now, if my guess is right, I know that soap operas and professional wrestling can get away with not completely tying up loose ends at the end of every episode, and for many years, game shows could do the same. Why not now?
I believe the "good reason" Travis referred to had more to do with logistics of production rather than ratings. If they ended an episode in the middle of a game, they would have had to go to the trouble of keeping the contestants ignorant of each other's scores until the next show. Maybe not such an issue when the next episode tapes in 20 minutes, but if it's the last taping of the day, I don't think they would've been allowed to make them sleep in their isolation booths...
-
I believe the "good reason" Travis referred to had more to do with logistics of production rather than ratings. If they ended an episode in the middle of a game, they would have had to go to the trouble of keeping the contestants ignorant of each other's scores until the next show. Maybe not such an issue when the next episode tapes in 20 minutes, but if it's the last taping of the day, I don't think they would've been allowed to make them sleep in their isolation booths...
That was it. You must make 100% sure that neither player finds out what the other's score is. Or isn't. Ending the game after fewer rounds (or stretching/filling elsewhere) is easier.
-
I believe the "good reason" Travis referred to had more to do with logistics of production rather than ratings. If they ended an episode in the middle of a game, they would have had to go to the trouble of keeping the contestants ignorant of each other's scores until the next show. Maybe not such an issue when the next episode tapes in 20 minutes, but if it's the last taping of the day, I don't think they would've been allowed to make them sleep in their isolation booths...
That was it. You must make 100% sure that neither player finds out what the other's score is. Or isn't. Ending the game after fewer rounds (or stretching/filling elsewhere) is easier.
Ah... I forgot about that unique issue, in Twenty One's case.