The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Twentington on December 01, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
-
In the Money Cards, did anyone ever make a wager that wasn't a multiple of 10? I would imagine there might have been a couple $x75 wagers from contestants who had $x50 going up to the Big Bet, but were there ever any "oddball" amounts like $101?
-
IIRC, by rule wagers had to be in multiples of $50, the only exception being if you were only betting half your bank that ended in -50 on the big bet.
-
IIRC, by rule wagers had to be in multiples of $50, the only exception being if you were only betting half your bank that ended in -50 on the big bet.
In the host tournament one of the players tries that, only to be smacked down by Jim.
Math with things ending only in -00 or -50 is easy to do in your head, or at least to have a guess at. I completely understand why they'd have such a rule, as opposed to allowing bets such as $683.
-
IIRC, by rule wagers had to be in multiples of $50, the only exception being if you were only betting half your bank that ended in -50 on the big bet.
Interesting. I'd never heard the rule mentioned, so I guess I never saw an ep where someone tried. (Nowadays, they'd edit it out.)
The only rationale I could see for a rule is if they're running the tally themselves. (In contrast, a J! contestant told Alex he was making a weird wager to mess with the scorekeeper. Alex said they'd enter it into the computer like any other number.)
-
The only rationale I could see for a rule is if they're running the tally themselves.
No, the rationale is obvious: it guarantees the total when the Big Bet rolls around is a nice round mathable-and-divisible-by-2 number, no more, no less. This also keeps Jim / Bob from having to do funky math (or relay a funky number if someone else is doing the math) when they are telling the player what the minimum Big Bet is.
It's simple, it keeps everything in nice round good-TV numbers for the folks at home, and the only people it affects negatively are the pedantic jackoffs who don't deserve the courtesy anyhow.
(And drawing a parallel between a light, fun gambling game like Card Sharks and The Ultimate Hardass Quiz that is Jeopardy! is one of the bigger apples-and-oranges comparisons I have ever seen.)
-
Had there been any contestant that had $50 going into the Big Bet and bet only half -- winding up with either $25 or $75? Seems like everyone I saw just bet the whole wad for a chance at a 3-digit payoff.
-
Had there been any contestant that had $50 going into the Big Bet and bet only half -- winding up with either $25 or $75?
I'm not sure they could...I suspect the $50 minimum bet from the rest of the game would supercede that.
-
It's simple, it keeps (And drawing a parallel between a light, fun gambling game like Card Sharks and The Ultimate Hardass Quiz that is Jeopardy! Is one of the bigger apples-and-oranges comparisons I have ever seen.)
Onky Connect perks its ears and takes offense at your description of Jeopardy!
-
Had there been any contestant that had $50 going into the Big Bet and bet only half -- winding up with either $25 or $75?
I'm not sure they could...I suspect the $50 minimum bet from the rest of the game would supercede that.
Most contestants, when guessing the card right before the Big Bet, either bet the whole thing or saved more than $50, so I couldn't imagine it even coming down to that.
-
It's simple, it keeps (And drawing a parallel between a light, fun gambling game like Card Sharks and The Ultimate Hardass Quiz that is Jeopardy! Is one of the bigger apples-and-oranges comparisons I have ever seen.)
Onky Connect perks its ears and takes offense at your description of Jeopardy!
Only Connect needs to get over its badass self, then. It's a marvelous, challenging puzzle game, but comparing it to Jeopardy is apples and...let's go with kumquats.
-
In the host tournament one of the players tries that, only to be smacked down by Jim.
I remember an episode in that tournament where Bill Cullen tries to bet something like $x25 before the Big Bet, Jim said something like "...you can't do that" and Bill replied "OK, I understand why".
That could be the same episode you're referring to.
-
Danged if I can find it, but I seem to recall a thread here where apparently Eubanks told a contestant that a lower-level row (bottom or middle) bet had to be in increments of 50.
-
The only rationale I could see for a rule is if they're running the tally themselves.
No, the rationale is obvious: it guarantees the total when the Big Bet rolls around is a nice round mathable-and-divisible-by-2 number, no more, no less. This also keeps Jim / Bob from having to do funky math (or relay a funky number if someone else is doing the math) when they are telling the player what the minimum Big Bet is.
It's simple, it keeps everything in nice round good-TV numbers for the folks at home, and the only people it affects negatively are the pedantic jackoffs who don't deserve the courtesy anyhow.
To me, your first point is a non-issue. Even on the big bet at the end, you could simply say that if you have an odd amount, the 50% requirement is rounded up. ($201 means the minimum bet is $101.) However, your second point is an excellent one. At best, weird wagers don't make the show more enjoyable.
-
To me, your first point is a non-issue.
Yet you agree with the second one? Um, that's all one point. Watching your host fumble with math or weird numbers is bad TV. That you're actually suggesting a rounding rule as an alternative to the incredibly-far-simpler way they chose to do it simply amazes me. And I'm hard to amaze anymore.
-
Watching your host fumble with math or weird numbers is bad TV.
Which is probably why it's not an issue on Jeopardy! when someone makes an oddball wager, since Trebek has shown to be extremely proficient at doing math in his head. ("You have $13,800 right now and you're the only one with money. You know, if you made this a True Daily Double, you could have $27,600." All without missing a beat.)
-
Watching your host fumble with math or weird numbers is bad TV.
Which is probably why it's not an issue on Jeopardy! when someone makes an oddball wager, since Trebek has shown to be extremely proficient at doing math in his head. ("You have $13,800 right now and you're the only one with money. You know, if you made this a True Daily Double, you could have $27,600." All without missing a beat.)
Yes, the example you gave involves a nice, even number. Try doing $12,339 in your head quickly without fumbling, there, Texas Instruments.
(And whose to say there isn't some kind of off-stage monitor displaying amounts?)
-
Try doing $12,339 in your head quickly without fumbling, there, Texas Instruments.
You mean $24,678?
/Done in my head using a combination of times tables, mental math and recognizing things like "40 minus one equals 80 minus two."
//Not hard.
-
Hardly on the spot, either, and I'll wager you weren't devoting a lot of clock cycles to other activities (like, say, hosting a game show) while you did it, either. Also, adding and multiplying are easier than division and subtraction.
-
Hardly on the spot, either, and I'll wager you weren't devoting a lot of clock cycles to other activities (like, say, hosting a game show) while you did it, either. Also, adding and multiplying are easier than division and subtraction.
All I have is my word. I was alphabetizing and collating payments while doing the math.
I remember watching the Grand Slam Grand Final with you, and being able to keep pace with the finalists on the mental math. But that's something I've been practicing for about 25 years, so I should be able to calculate a fifteen percent tip without my fellow diners looking at me as if I've just grown horns and a tail. And yet, that's most often the reaction.
/I am not implying that reciting the alphabet and looking for checks that don't have signatures on them is more difficult than hosting a nationally broadcast game show.
//Yes, there are scoreboards that are updated as the game rolls along.
///You thought Pat Sajak was able to tell players how much money was left to shop with just because of his mad skills? Haw.
-
///You thought Pat Sajak was able to tell players how much money was left to shop with just because of his mad skills? Haw.
Woolery, on the other hand, was a mathlete BOSS.
-
Wait until the Jeopardy! contestants start making their Final Jeopardy wagers in complex numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_numbers).
-
Woolery, on the other hand, was a mathlete BOSS.
I know this was just meant as a throwaway joke, but it struck me funny because I've heard stories (from one of our own members, who might share...) of Mr. Woolery's mad math skillz.
-
Yes, the example you gave involves a nice, even number. Try doing $12,339 in your head quickly without fumbling, there, Texas Instruments.
I'm sure Trebek can do even that without missing a beat.
I, on the other hand, make Dick Clark adding up Winner's Circle scores look like a supercomputer.
-
Woolery, on the other hand, was a mathlete BOSS.
I know this was just meant as a throwaway joke, but it struck me funny because I've heard stories (from one of our own members, who might share...) of Mr. Woolery's mad math skillz.
Umm...excuse me if my sarcasm meter is off, but was he really that good, or just the opposite?
-
I, on the other hand, make Dick Clark adding up Winner's Circle scores look like a supercomputer.
I cannot be the only one tired of your "I suck at everything :-(" mentality you have towards yourself.
-
Woolery, on the other hand, was a mathlete BOSS.
I know this was just meant as a throwaway joke, but it struck me funny because I've heard stories (from one of our own members, who might share...) of Mr. Woolery's mad math skillz.
Umm...excuse me if my sarcasm meter is off, but was he really that good, or just the opposite?
No, I'm sorry. The opposite, as I understand it.
-
Part of the reason Alex made his way to US television was because of his math skills. Way back when "The Wizard of Odds" started, Alex got the job over an American host because he could do the math on the fly.
-
Try doing $12,339 in your head quickly without fumbling, there, Texas Instruments.
(And whose to say there isn't some kind of off-stage monitor displaying amounts?)
If you're going to snark at someone's math skills, I'd just make sure your grammar is in order. That, or keep it short and simple.
-
No, I'm sorry. The opposite, as I understand it.
So we probably shouldn't expect him to save us that trillion quid?
-
Part of the reason Alex made his way to US television was because of his math skills. Way back when "The Wizard of Odds" started, Alex got the job over an American host because he could do the math on the fly.
Source, please? (Genuinely curious.)
-
Part of the reason Alex made his way to US television was because of his math skills. Way back when "The Wizard of Odds" started, Alex got the job over an American host because he could do the math on the fly.
Source, please? (Genuinely curious.)
CKLW radio interview with Mr. Trebek.
-
CKLW radio interview with Mr. Trebek.
Ah, the Big 8. Recent, or back in their top-40 heyday? (Or somewhere in between?)
-
CKLW radio interview with Mr. Trebek.
Ah, the Big 8. Recent, or back in their top-40 heyday? (Or somewhere in between?)
Around the early '80s during their "Rock N Talk" era.
-
I, on the other hand, make Dick Clark adding up Winner's Circle scores look like a supercomputer.
I was going to bring him up after Chris' remark that it's not fun to watch hosts struggle with math. It strikes me as odd, particularly since there was usually some banter before DC tallied the score, that someone didn't just write the total on a cue card. Does anyone know why they didn't?
-
Does anyone know why they didn't?
They thought it was funnier to watch Dick struggle with the numbers. And someone had the total written somewhere, in case Dick couldn't finish the job.
-
They thought it was funnier to watch Dick struggle with the numbers. And someone had the total written somewhere, in case Dick couldn't finish the job.
Except that's the point: he didn't struggle, which is why it wasn't painful. He did it authoritatively, knew he was gonna screw it up occasionally, and ate crow after the break. Simple.
-
I would imagine the contestant coordinators as well as the production company itself had all the rules written down for the contestants to review and sign off on. Somewhere it no doubt said "During the Money Cards round, your minimum bets are $50, and all bets must be made in $50 increments until the final card, the Big Bet, where you must wager at least half your money."
If a player had only $50 for the Big Bet (I don't recall this happening but then I've not seen every single episode of Card Sharks), they would only have to bet $25, as that is at least half of $50. As Jim would say "Minimum bets are $50 UNTIL you get to the top card..."
-
Actually, there was at least one occasion on the Perry Card Sharks where a contestant went to the Big Bet with only $50 and Perry said that they had to bet the whole $50.
-
If a player had only $50 for the Big Bet (I don't recall this happening but then I've not seen every single episode of Card Sharks), they would only have to bet $25, as that is at least half of $50. As Jim would say "Minimum bets are $50 UNTIL you get to the top card..."
It is also rather poor tactics to bet your entire bank save fifty bucks on that sixth card.
-
If a player had only $50 for the Big Bet (I don't recall this happening but then I've not seen every single episode of Card Sharks), they would only have to bet $25, as that is at least half of $50. As Jim would say "Minimum bets are $50 UNTIL you get to the top card..."
It is also rather poor tactics to bet your entire bank save fifty bucks on that sixth card.
Unless you have a reasonably small amount ($100-$200, for argument's sake) and want to guarantee leaving with money, even if that $25 is just cab fare.
-
Danged if I can find it, but I seem to recall a thread here where apparently Eubanks told a contestant that a lower-level row (bottom or middle) bet had to be in increments of 50.
This clip used to be in the webz somewhere... I remember it pretty vividly, anyhow. A contestant goes to make a $xx25 bid, to which Bob responds "Sure, you can do that. $xx25..." after which someone offstage swiftly corrects him, and he says "Oh, $50 increments," stating no one had ever tried that before, and that he didn't even know the rule existed.
-
I remember it pretty vividly, anyhow. A contestant goes to make a $xx25 bid, to which Bob responds "Sure, you can do that. $xx25..." after which someone offstage swiftly corrects him, and he says "Oh, $50 increments," stating no one had ever tried that before, and that he didn't even know the rule existed.
I wish I could say I was surprised.
-
If a player had only $50 for the Big Bet (I don't recall this happening but then I've not seen every single episode of Card Sharks), they would only have to bet $25, as that is at least half of $50. As Jim would say "Minimum bets are $50 UNTIL you get to the top card..."
It is also rather poor tactics to bet your entire bank save fifty bucks on that sixth card.
Unless you have a reasonably small amount ($100-$200, for argument's sake) and want to guarantee leaving with money, even if that $25 is just cab fare.
Right. If you have $5000 and you're about to play the sixth card, there's no real reason to bet $4950. Bet $4500, sure. That leaves you a decent bankroll to work with if things go pear shaped. But betting $4950 to leave that fifty bucks is silly. At that point, bet the farm. If you only have a hundred bucks, I'd say that things are so awful that I wouldn't quibble with leaving $50 back.