The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: wdm1219inpenna on May 20, 2012, 05:58:38 AM
-
I believe the rule is as follows:
If a player lands on the "Free Play" space, they can solve the puzzle at that moment, but if they are wrong, they do not lose their turn.
Suppose this happened. Can the player attempt to re-solve it, if they realized the error they had just made? If they goof again, and if I understand this correctly, then they would lose their turn.
Also, if there are any letters missing, why wouldn't a player select a consonant first? This way they'd score another $500 (or more depending on if it was a repeat).
Suppose there are nothing but vowels left, and the player doesn't want to spend $250 on a vowel. Could they be allowed to try to spin the "Free Play" space to get a free vowel? I guess I am somewhat "old school". I'd rather they just kept the dang "Free Spin" token. Heck, I still wish they would have kept the "Free Spin" space for at least the first 2 rounds.
-
I still wish they would have kept the "Free Spin" space for at least the first 2 rounds.
You DO realize there is a legitimate reason they scrapped the "Free Spin" space in favor of the single "Free Spin" token, right?
...To the best of my understanding, they scrapped the "Free Spin" wedge because too many players were getting "crafty" about their method of spinning the wheel, explicitly aiming for the "Free Spin" space just to get the token; they did that so, later on when they were having rotten luck with the wheel or were just out-and-out ignoring the Used Letter Board, they could turn in 5 or 6 tokens in rapid succession so as to perpetually keep their turn, and effectively "freeze out" either of the other two players from having any chance at the wheel or board...
...in my own personal opinion, that was too close to trying to cheat Merv Griffin Enterprises and NBC Television (later CBS Television) out of money and prizes, in similar fashion to how Paul Michael Larson absconded with $104,950 in cash, directly siphoned out of Carruthers Company's and CBS Television's collective bank accounts, with no legal recourse for them...
...and just like Press Your Luck deliberately upgraded their board-controller hardware just so they could run more lists of patterns for the board to operate by, and to prevent another "runaway player" like Larson; and I firmly believe Wheel of Fortune deliberately scrapped the "Free Spin" space to explicitly tilt the odds in favor of the house once more, lashing back against the crafty spinners...
..does this argument make sense to you at all?
/dead serious about my question of you understanding; I have in face-to-face conversations been outright told "don't use such big words, you sound like you're trying to patronize me"
-
More like talking down to me rather than patronizing.
-
...in my own personal opinion, that was too close to trying to cheat Merv Griffin Enterprises and NBC Television (later CBS Television) out of money and prizes, in similar fashion to how Paul Michael Larson absconded with $104,950 in cash, directly siphoned out of Carruthers Company's and CBS Television's collective bank accounts, with no legal recourse for them...
ab·scond/abˈskänd/
Verb:
Leave hurriedly and secretly, typically to avoid detection or arrest.
(of someone on bail) Fail to surrender oneself for custody at the appointed time.
Synonyms:
flee - escape - run away - elope - get away
This is where your argument, at least to me, falls completely apart. You are making the assertion that what Larson did was illegal, unethical, or that he tried to get away with something. Their game was flawed, and Larson took advantage of the flaw. To borrow from Mr. Ottinger, Words Have Meanings.
-
...in my own personal opinion, that was too close to trying to cheat Merv Griffin Enterprises and NBC Television (later CBS Television) out of money and prizes, in similar fashion to how Paul Michael Larson absconded with $104,950 in cash, directly siphoned out of Carruthers Company's and CBS Television's collective bank accounts, with no legal recourse for them...
ab·scond/abˈskänd/
Verb:
Leave hurriedly and secretly, typically to avoid detection or arrest.
(of someone on bail) Fail to surrender oneself for custody at the appointed time.
Synonyms:
flee - escape - run away - elope - get away
This is where your argument, at least to me, falls completely apart. You are making the assertion that what Larson did was illegal, unethical, or that he tried to get away with something. Their game was flawed, and Larson took advantage of the flaw. To borrow from Mr. Ottinger, Words Have Meanings.
Thank you for shoving me off my soapbox, that's what I needed this morning!
-
More like talking down to me rather than patronizing.
Right, getting dangerously close to Zach Horan territory, in any case...
-
More like talking down to me rather than patronizing.
Right, getting dangerously close to Zach Horan territory, in any case...
No, no, no. Zach was more of an arrogant, obnoxious know-it-all who knew the rules but didn't care, or knew just how to skirt the rules without incurring a penalty. Again, you'd have to do a lot to get close to his territory.
-
More like talking down to me rather than patronizing.
Right, getting dangerously close to Zach Horan territory, in any case...
No, no, no. Zach was more of an arrogant, obnoxious know-it-all who knew the rules but didn't care, or knew just how to skirt the rules without incurring a penalty. Again, you'd have to do a lot to get close to his territory.
Thank you, I just sent a letter Matt's way asking him to put me back onto "Moderated" status, for reasons I'm only comfortable sharing with Mr. Ottinger himself...
-
Thank you, I just sent a letter Matt's way asking him to put me back onto "Moderated" status, for reasons I'm only comfortable sharing with Mr. Ottinger himself...
Oh good lord.
-
Did I miss something here? How do you get from point A to point B like that?
-
Thank you, I just sent a letter Matt's way asking him to put me back onto "Moderated" status, for reasons I'm only comfortable sharing with Mr. Ottinger himself...
Oh good lord.
I didn't feel patronized at all, just a bit saddened that this topic went way off tangent, and the questions I posed about the Free Play space weren't answered is all :)
-
Can the player attempt to re-solve it, if they realized the error they had just made?
Yep.
If they goof again, and if I understand this correctly, then they would lose their turn.
Right.
Also, if there are any letters missing, why wouldn't a player select a consonant first? This way they'd score another $500 (or more depending on if it was a repeat).
Because vowels are often more plentiful and if your first turn in a round is on a Free Play, why not get a vowel since you're broke? There's also potential to use a multiple on a larger amount instead of $500.
Suppose there are nothing but vowels left, and the player doesn't want to spend $250 on a vowel. Could they be allowed to try to spin the "Free Play" space to get a free vowel?
No.
-
Suppose there are nothing but vowels left, and the player doesn't want to spend $250 on a vowel. Could they be allowed to try to spin the "Free Play" space to get a free vowel?
No.
God help me, but this actually raises a question for me. Is it specified what happens if a puzzle is down to only vowels and a player for whatever reason doesn't have the $250 to pay for one? I'm gonna guess they would be obligated to attempt to solve, even if they have no idea, since that is the only available option they can afford, yes?
-
Is it specified what happens if a puzzle is down to only vowels and a player for whatever reason doesn't have the $250 to pay for one?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they have to attempt a solve or just let time run out. It's a pretty rare position to be in nowadays, though.
-
Is it specified what happens if a puzzle is down to only vowels and a player for whatever reason doesn't have the $250 to pay for one?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they have to attempt a solve or just let time run out. It's a pretty rare position to be in nowadays, though.
Yeah, as I was typing it the pure obviousness of it became more and more, erm, obvious. Of the three options you have on your turn, two are free. If one of those is removed because of a lack of consonants and you can't afford the paid option, you do the other. No need to have a special rule about it or anything, it's all pieced together in other rules.
-
Could they be allowed to try to spin the "Free Play" space to get a free vowel?
Having not been on the show (hailing frequencies open!) I can't say for sure, but let's think about that. There is either a fair-to-middling chance or zero chance, depending on where you're at, that your spin will end badly and you look dumb for having done it.
In what universe is something where your ship is about nine times as likely to miss the harbor as opposed to coming in, make for good telly?
-
...in my own personal opinion, that was too close to trying to cheat Merv Griffin Enterprises and NBC Television (later CBS Television) out of money and prizes, in similar fashion to how Paul Michael Larson absconded with $104,950 in cash, directly siphoned out of Carruthers Company's and CBS Television's collective bank accounts, with no legal recourse for them...
That's because they had no legal recourse. Similar to someone who counts cards in blackjack. What you do is pay the man his money and tell him never to come back.
-
Yeah, as I was typing it the pure obviousness of it became more and more, erm, obvious. Of the three options you have on your turn, two are free. If one of those is removed because of a lack of consonants and you can't afford the paid option, you do the other. No need to have a special rule about it or anything, it's all pieced together in other rules.
It raises another question though, although this would be an incredibly unlikely, if not impossible, scenario. Say for whatever reason nobody has any money. It's at vowels only, so everyone can only try to solve. However, the puzzle is very vowel-heavy, and nobody has a clue. What now? Just keep on going around till something clicks?
-
It raises another question though, although this would be an incredibly unlikely, if not impossible, scenario. Say for whatever reason nobody has any money. It's at vowels only, so everyone can only try to solve. However, the puzzle is very vowel-heavy, and nobody has a clue. What now? Just keep on going around till something clicks?
My agent in the field tells me that each person takes a crack at solving, then it becomes a deadball, edited and replaced. And the contestant coordinators are tarred and feathered in the parking lot.
-
It raises another question though, although this would be an incredibly unlikely, if not impossible, scenario. Say for whatever reason nobody has any money. It's at vowels only, so everyone can only try to solve. However, the puzzle is very vowel-heavy, and nobody has a clue. What now? Just keep on going around till something clicks?
Really you might as well ask what would happen if a lightning bolt popped Vanna upside the head in the middle of a round, but I suspect two things would happen:
1) Upon realizing everyone was stumped, they'd toss out the puzzle and rerack the tape and
2) Some contestant coordinators and puzzle writers would be looking for new jobs.
-
My agent in the field tells me that each person takes a crack at solving, then it becomes a deadball, edited and replaced. And the contestant coordinators are tarred and feathered in the parking lot.
With the dopey contestants you often see on WOF these days, I honestly wouldn't be shocked if this actually happened a few times.
-
I still wish they would have kept the "Free Spin" space for at least the first 2 rounds.
You DO realize there is a legitimate reason they scrapped the "Free Spin" space in favor of the single "Free Spin" token, right?
...To the best of my understanding, they scrapped the "Free Spin" wedge because too many players were getting "crafty" about their method of spinning the wheel, explicitly aiming for the "Free Spin" space just to get the token; they did that so, later on when they were having rotten luck with the wheel or were just out-and-out ignoring the Used Letter Board, they could turn in 5 or 6 tokens in rapid succession so as to perpetually keep their turn, and effectively "freeze out" either of the other two players from having any chance at the wheel or board...
Philip Cousin told me not long ago that the producers now tell the players they CANNOT look directly at the wheel before they spin it... in other words, if it's evident that they are looking at the wheel to see how hard they have to spin it to get what they want, the player could be disqualified.
-
Philip Cousin told me not long ago that the producers now tell the players they CANNOT look directly at the wheel before they spin it... in other words, if it's evident that they are looking at the wheel to see how hard they have to spin it to get what they want, the player could be disqualified.
Who is Phillip Cousin? What is his source? Also, why would the producers be so anal about something like that?
Granted, I'm not supposed to do this at work either, but...
-
Cousin was on the show within the last year or so.
-
What's weird about WOF is there are so many "rules" that are never divulged to the home audience. Joe Sixpack is at home saying "why don't they aim for it." It's sorta like Supermarket Sweep where you can't just decimate the magazine rack or the meat department.
-
It's sorta like Supermarket Sweep where you can't just decimate the magazine rack or the meat department.
Incorrect. I specifically remember Johnny and Randy saying there was a limit of five.
-
[ who is Phillip Cousin? What is his source? Also, why would the producers be so anal about something like that?
Granted, I'm not supposed to do this at work either, but...
Considering he was just on the show last year and won over sixty grand, I think his source of actually being a contestant and seeing these things firsthand is legit, wouldn't you?
-
It's sorta like Supermarket Sweep where you can't just decimate the magazine rack or the meat department.
Incorrect. I specifically remember Johnny and Randy saying there was a limit of five.
True, but if there were, say, fifty pieces of meat on the rack, that would be decimating it, in the traditional sense.
-
Philip Cousin told me not long ago that the producers now tell the players they CANNOT look directly at the wheel before they spin it... in other words, if it's evident that they are looking at the wheel to see how hard they have to spin it to get what they want, the player could be disqualified.
That's like the PYL staff fixing the Larsen problem by making players turn away from the board while spinning. It's a stupid fix- "Hey! We know our wheel is beatable, so don't look!"- there are better ways to fix a predictable wheel.
-
I still wish they would have kept the "Free Spin" space for at least the first 2 rounds.
You DO realize there is a legitimate reason they scrapped the "Free Spin" space in favor of the single "Free Spin" token, right?
...To the best of my understanding, they scrapped the "Free Spin" wedge because too many players were getting "crafty" about their method of spinning the wheel, explicitly aiming for the "Free Spin" space just to get the token; they did that so, later on when they were having rotten luck with the wheel or were just out-and-out ignoring the Used Letter Board, they could turn in 5 or 6 tokens in rapid succession so as to perpetually keep their turn, and effectively "freeze out" either of the other two players from having any chance at the wheel or board...
Philip Cousin told me not long ago that the producers now tell the players they CANNOT look directly at the wheel before they spin it... in other words, if it's evident that they are looking at the wheel to see how hard they have to spin it to get what they want, the player could be disqualified.
That's either rather recent or I wasn't paying attention during briefing because I don't remember that.
-
Philip Cousin told me not long ago that the producers now tell the players they CANNOT look directly at the wheel before they spin it... in other words, if it's evident that they are looking at the wheel to see how hard they have to spin it to get what they want, the player could be disqualified.
Fine. Look at the wheel after this spin instead of before the next spin. Easy get-around.
[quote name='Modor']Incorrect. I specifically remember Johnny and Randy saying there was a limit of five.[/quote]
Five turkeys, five steaks, five chickens, five leg of lambs...etc.
-
Philip Cousin told me not long ago that the producers now tell the players they CANNOT look directly at the wheel before they spin it... in other words, if it's evident that they are looking at the wheel to see how hard they have to spin it to get what they want, the player could be disqualified.
Before or after he showed you an Ebay auction for a pair of slippers?
It's a stupid fix- "Hey! We know our wheel is beatable, so don't look!"- there are better ways to fix a predictable wheel.
Such as? Note that "lubing the shiat out of it so it spins a lot more" isn't a realistic option because it would significantly slow down the tempo of the show, and the response of "so, have them edit them down in post!" adds a bunch of post-production time, which translates to direct expense. (The Aussie Wheel was so lubed. It's really noticeable, and not in a great way.)
So I'm curious to know what your solution is that is better *and* doesn't incur additional expense.
-
Pardon me if I don't take the word of a known sociopath as gospel (make sure you don't look at the thing you're grabbing? What the hell sense does that make?), but I'd like to put this forward before everyone tries to solve a problem that may not exist: how often has "skillful spinning" been an issue? If it was an issue no one would ever land on Bankrupt or Lose-a-Turn, and the minimum spin value would be $500, because you'd be able to dodge anything that you didn't want. The wheel isn't ever going to be completely random because given where the pointer is and who is at bat, there's probably only a 1/4 to 1/3 area of the wheel that can reasonably be reached on the next spin.
-
It's sorta like Supermarket Sweep where you can't just decimate the magazine rack or the meat department.
Incorrect. I specifically remember Johnny and Randy saying there was a limit of five.
I've never been able to find out why contestants never did this. I know what you mean, Mark, but you also never saw contestants sweep their arm down the entire shelf of cold medicine, for example, which even given only five of each item, would still net some big bucks. I always assumed there was some vague notion they couldn't overrun an area.
-Jason
-
I've never been able to find out why contestants never did this.
I am pretty sure (of course, Randy would know for absolute certain) that there was a stiff penalty for a) taking over your allotment of five of a given item and/or b) dropping something on the ground and failing to pick it up and replace it / put it in your cart.
-
I am pretty sure (of course, Randy would know for absolute certain) that there was a stiff penalty for a) taking over your allotment of five of a given item and/or b) dropping something on the ground and failing to pick it up and replace it / put it in your cart.
A team was fined $25.00 per incident, though the fine was only mentioned by David in the cases where a team had gotten so little in the way of groceries that the charges would reduce their final sweep total.
How would you orchestrate that "you can't scorched earth an aisle" rule? "It's been thirty seconds, shoppers! Move on to another area." is kludgey as hell and difficult to enforce.
-
It's sorta like Supermarket Sweep where you can't just decimate the magazine rack
This was one of the things I always wondered about SS. Magazines are generally expensive for the amount of space and weight they'd take up in the cart, but I don't remember anybody ever going to them except to get the titles David asked for to get the bonus. Going strictly by the "limit of five" rule, I would've thought you could get pick up five copies of each title and it would be fine, so I presumed there might have been some unmentioned rule specifically limiting magazines more strictly than other items.
-
How would you orchestrate that "you can't scorched earth an aisle" rule? "It's been thirty seconds, shoppers! Move on to another area." is kludgey as hell and difficult to enforce.
I fail to understand why it would be a problem. The big-ticket items were placed all around the store for a reason.
Is it also possible that the limit was five of a certain *type* of item? As in, five cold remedies, five cough syrups, five ketchups, etc? I dunno that I would waste my time sticking in the medicine isle if I had to be absolutely certain I didn't just grab five (and ONLY five, and not spilling any) of a type of item I already had, thereby going $125 in the wrong direction.
-
Is it also possible that the limit was five of a certain *type* of item? As in, five cold remedies, five cough syrups, five ketchups, etc? I dunno that I would waste my time sticking in the medicine isle if I had to be absolutely certain I didn't just grab five (and ONLY five, and not spilling any) of a type of item I already had, thereby going $125 in the wrong direction.
That would make sense, because then you're incented to find the most expensive toothpaste or detergent or imported cheese or whatever. The other thing I thought of is that Announcerguy would always say "After (he gets) the limit of five, anything else won't count." You'd only get charged for dropping something or knocking over a cameraman; if you grabbed a sixth K-Y, you wouldn't lose $25, you just wouldn't get credited for that sixth of whatever you got. (My bad for any misdirection on my part there.)
-
You'd only get charged for dropping something or knocking over a cameraman
Is it a $25 price tag on a cameraman's head too? Bet they're glad to know they're worth the same as a spilled box of Froot Loops. :)
-
The other thing I thought of is that Announcerguy would always say "After (he gets) the limit of five, anything else won't count."
Now I'd really like Randy to chime in, because whether they said it on the show or not, I'm not sure I buy it. Because then there is ABSOLUTELY incentive to take extra hams or giant cheese wedges or whatever, since denying them to other players (assuming it's something like the cheese or the ham or whatever where you pretty much *need* to get your limit to win the game, and I'm guessing there were only fifteen or so of the really big items, just for space reasons) is just as good as getting them yourself.
-
The other thing I thought of is that Announcerguy would always say "After (he gets) the limit of five, anything else won't count."
Now I'd really like Randy to chime in, because whether they said it on the show or not, I'm not sure I buy it. Because then there is ABSOLUTELY incentive to take extra hams or giant cheese wedges or whatever, since denying them to other players (assuming it's something like the cheese or the ham or whatever where you pretty much *need* to get your limit to win the game, and I'm guessing there were only fifteen or so of the really big items, just for space reasons) is just as good as getting them yourself.
I'd like to hear from Randy on this too. For this exact reason, I'd have to think there'd be a penalty for taking too many, even if it's just negative the face value of the item.
-
Before or after he showed you an Ebay auction for a pair of slippers?
I lol'd hard.
/Got those too from him