The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Blaq on June 01, 2004, 12:11:52 PM
-
As I just reported, (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4481\") French-Canadian game show Ultimatum has been cancelled. In its place, TVA will air a version of the NBC Twenty-One.
Since I may be a contestant on this Canadian version, I need your help. You see, I didn't like Twenty-One that much. As a result, not only do I only have a fuzzy memory of the rules, but I never bothered to consider strategies for the game.
1) I have been unable to find, on the Web, a full explanation of the rules. Even though there may be differences with the TVA version, I have to start somewhere, and the Maury Pauvich edition will have to do. Does anyone have a URL I can go to?
2) What's your analysis of the game? What strategies, pitfalls, etc. did you pick up while watching or, even better, playing it?
For suitable game shows, I sometimes expend considerable energy planning. (Just ask my game show partners about Lingo and Ultimatum! B^) With Twenty-One, I'm stumped. Thanks for your help.
-
[quote name=\'Blaq\' date=\'Jun 1 2004, 11:11 AM\'] 1) I have been unable to find, on the Web, a full explanation of the rules. Even though there may be differences with the TVA version, I have to start somewhere, and the Maury Pauvich edition will have to do. Does anyone have a URL I can go to?
2) What's your analysis of the game? What strategies, pitfalls, etc. did you pick up while watching or, even better, playing it?
[/quote]
Tim Loogaroo's rule sheet (http://\"http://loogslair.com/gameshow/rules/twenty1.html\")
I thought it was pretty decent, but it had a lot of problems.
The Second Chance was just an attempt to copy Millionaire's lifeline system. I also wondered why couldn't they just have a regular contestant pool, instead of the audience vote. How can you vote on someone you don't even know anything about? Then there were the payouts. $100,000 just for winning the first game? Even when they cut this back to $25,000, it was still way too much. Had they done like the original version, and pay a certain amount per point difference, it would've worked. I think they could've added a little more drama by deductting the new champs winnings from the current champ as well, added a little more risk.
It would've been a lot better if NBC: 1) had been satisfied with the Top 20 ratings, 2) kept it in one timeslot, and 3) had not been so desparate to get the biggest game show winner in history.
-
One of the criticisms of the show was that it was too easy to win huge suitcases of money. This complaint came from people who were not contestants. The show did produce a good number of modern-day "game show kings." If I were on the show I would go for the highest points possible, the questions weren't very difficult.
-
Charles -
Please do post anything you hear... I would love to try for a Quebec game show!!!
Cheers,
Ryan :)
-
Wait, if Canada's doing "21," won't that mean the end goal is something like 17, after the exchange rate?
...
We don't know if the questions will be drawn from People Magazine or my college calc textbook. I would say to gauge your famiiliarity with several topics, and keep that in mind.
If you get a chance, watch what your opponents do. I recall David Legler would almost always go for a 10 pointer, then a 9-point question. If anyone saw that, they'd go for 20 or 21. Then, of course, David would have to change his strategy, but it never came up.
If you think you can win the game in two turns, I say go for it. If not, change your strategy every game, so your opponents are caught off guard.
That's about all I got. I think that 21 would be a great show if done right. So far, that hasn't happened.
Calling Ben Tritle, can you back me up on any of this?
Travis
-
I'm sure Ben would attest to this but if you start with a question worth at least 7 points, you're basically allowing yourself to win the game in no more than 3 shots(7+7+7=21).
Or if you start with a question worth 8 points or higher, that forces your opponent to try to match or beat your score each time. A 10-pointer to start would be advantagious even if your opponent goes for a slighty lowered value question. A 9-pointer on the next turn means your opponent HAS to answer that question to stay alive if they have at least 1 strike against them.
-
Craig, I don't have a clue of anything you've said. Why would you "allow" yourself to win the game in any number of attempts. If I go for 11 points, and miss, that's one round out the window. You also seem to forget that your opponent WON'T EVER see your score until the end of the game, or watching a tape of the show. You can only plan your own strategy based on yourself, not what you hope/think/pray the other guy will do.
-Travis
-
I'm far from expert about the game...but even though the opponent's score is hidden, if you have seen enough games played beforehand, you can have a pretty good idea how your 1st opponent will play.
Example: Playing the fourth game on the episode I was on, EVERY contestant prior to that played for a ten point question. Based on that, I thought it reasonable to assume the champ I played would continue the trend when I played, which is in part why I thought it necessary to play for eleven. As it turned out, I was correct in my assumption, as I had 21 in two questions, while he shot for 20 in two.
My error in losing the next game was assuming the new challenger would play the exact same way...in fact she may have counted on the eventuality that I would miss. Instead of going for 20 in two, as I assumed she would, she went for 18 (9+9). I got my 10 point question right first, but missed the subsequent 11-pointer. Had she not chosen to stop the game after the second round, I thought about the possibility of stopping the game on 10 and chancing a miss on her part leaving her with 10 or less.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jun 2 2004, 08:56 PM\'] Craig, I don't have a clue of anything you've said [/quote]
that just about sums up a good chunk of his posts.... i read, re-read, and read his post a third time to see his 'strategy'...and i can't make heads or tails out of it...
-
Thanks for the initial replies. Now let me see if I've got it right...
Rule-wise, I'm still unclear on the details after reading Tim Loogaroo's page. Is the following correct?
ROUND 1
- Both players are given the category (no choice, right?), then the booths are isolated.
- Player A picks a point value from 1 to 11, graded by difficulty (and higher-value questions typically involve more than one answer)
- If A answers correctly, she gets the points; an incorrect answer does not deduct points, but gives A one strike.
- Three strikes and the game is immediately stopped, and the player is kicked off the show, handing their opponent victory in the process.
- Strikes are cumulative -- if a champion has accumulated two strikes during their stay, they are in sudden-death: their next incorrect answer will mean immediate elimination. There is no way to lose strikes.
- If three strikes haven't been reached, we isolate A and move to B; they pick a point value and answer the question.
ROUND 2
- Similar to round 1, except we now have the possibility that a player will reach 21 on their second question, winning the game. (Exception: If A gets 21 and B has at least 10 points, B is given the chance to play -- without any information that A has 21 -- in order to reach 21.)
- When the round is over, if one player has 21 and the other doesn't, the former wins the game.
- If both players have 21, a toss-up question determines the winner.
- If neither player has 21, the game continues:
- Once the question phase is over, each player gets asked (in isolation) whether they want to stop the game.
- If either answers "yes", the game is stopped and the highest scorer wins, regardless of who asked to stop.If both are tied, we play a tie-breaker toss-up.
- If neither player wants to stop, we move on to round 3.
ROUND 3
- Played exactly like round 2.
ROUND 4
- Played exactly like round 2, except there is no point in asking players if they want to stop -- the game will end at the end of this round regardless.
SECOND CHANCE
- Once per game, a player may call upon their Second Chance "lifeline" after hearing their question, but before answering. This summons a player's friend, who had been sequestered backstage, to confer with the player for a set amount of time. If a player answers incorrectly on a Second Chance, they lose two lifelines.
LIMITS
There is no limit to a champion's winnings or number of games. (This will apply next fall: it was confirmed in the TVA press release I uncovered B^)
QUESTIONS, AWARDS, BONUS GAME
There is no way to predict how much cash and/or prizes TVA intends to give away, and what the bonus game format will be. Similarly, we have no indication whether they will use straight-answer or multiple-choice, and how hard the questions will be.
__________
So, do I have all the rules right? Are there corrections?
Once we get the rules nailed down, I can comment on your strategies. Thanks again for your help.
-
Strikes are cumulative -- if a champion has accumulated two strikes during their stay, they are in sudden-death: their next incorrect answer will mean immediate elimination. There is no way to lose strikes.
Each new game the strikes are eliminated and you start with zero strikes, if I remember correctly. It wouldn't be fair for a champ to have a strike and the challenger to have none. Otherwise I think your understanding is fine.
-
[quote name=\'Blaq\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 11:18 AM\'] - Three strikes and the game is immediately stopped, and the player is kicked off the show, handing their opponent victory in the process.
[/quote]
This is the only error I see in your understanding of the rules. If a player gets his/her 3rd strike, that person is out. However, if his or her opponent has one or two strikes, it's possible that player might strike out on the next question so the game doesn't automatically end if the round isn't over. Maury Povich made a major boo-boo after someone struck out by telling the opponent (who had two strikes already) that she had just gotten strike three. So, of course, the guy took a 1-pointer and won the game.
-
SECOND CHANCE
- Once per game, a player may call upon their Second Chance "lifeline" after hearing their question, but before answering. This summons a player's friend, who had been sequestered backstage, to confer with the player for a set amount of time. If a player answers incorrectly on a Second Chance, they lose two lifelines.
If the player answers incorrectly on a Second Chance, they get two strikes.
-
[quote name=\'Blaq\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 11:18 AM\']
SECOND CHANCE
- Once per game, a player may call upon their Second Chance "lifeline" after hearing their question, but before answering. This summons a player's friend, who had been sequestered backstage, to confer with the player for a set amount of time. If a player answers incorrectly on a Second Chance, they lose two lifelines. [/quote]
Second Chance was the only "lifeline" offered on 21. As goongas said, an incorrect answer gave the contestant two strikes.
-
[quote name=\'Blaq\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 12:18 PM\'] ROUND 1
- Both players are given the category (no choice, right?), then the booths are isolated. [/quote]
No. Maury tells each player the category separately at the start of his/her turn. But you are right that is are no category choices.
BTW, games do not straddle between shows in the Y2K version. After two rounds, if there is not enough time for a third round, the game is automatically over and the leading player wins.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 04:32 PM\']
BTW, games do not straddle between shows in the Y2K version. After two rounds, if there is not enough time for a third round, the game is automatically over and the leading player wins. [/quote]
Technically, there was one straddled game. Early in the run, a show ended with the contestants tied at the end of the game. The next show saw the two players go back into the booths to play a tiebreak question.
-
That said, though, this is the kind of information Charles should take with a grain of salt, because who KNOWS how the Quebecois version of the show is going to handle such things.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 12:05 PM\'] [quote name=\'Blaq\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 11:18 AM\']
SECOND CHANCE
- Once per game, a player may call upon their Second Chance "lifeline" after hearing their question, but before answering. This summons a player's friend, who had been sequestered backstage, to confer with the player for a set amount of time. If a player answers incorrectly on a Second Chance, they lose two lifelines. [/quote]
Second Chance was the only "lifeline" offered on 21. As goongas said, an incorrect answer gave the contestant two strikes. [/quote]
But what if the player already had 2 strikes, then called the Second Chance, and missed THAT?
That means the player would get ONE more strike, for the total of 3, and be eliminated.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jun 6 2004, 05:49 PM\'] But what if the player already had 2 strikes, then called the Second Chance, and missed THAT?
That means the player would get ONE more strike, for the total of 3, and be eliminated. [/quote]
You're right, I believe I remember seeing it happen on occasion.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jun 6 2004, 03:49 PM\'] But what if the player already had 2 strikes, then called the Second Chance, and missed THAT?
That means the player would get ONE more strike, for the total of 3, and be eliminated. [/quote]
But it would go down in the official 21 record books as a four-strike game.
(Hey, if Kazuhiro Sasaki can strike out four guys in an inning, why not? Besides, it's either this or flaming GSG2K for another asinine post.)
-
Remember: on the French-Canadian Twenty One, there will only be three rounds per game, not four. Also, I tend to have a distinct advantage when buzzing-in is required. (See: Wizz, Une Paire d'As...)
Judging from what I read, and watching again the 2000 NBC premiere, it seems that:
"STRAIGHT" STRATEGIES
Three-question play:
- The safest strategy seems to be aiming for 21 in three questions. Getting 21 in two means having to correctly answer a 10 and an 11-pointer, quite a feat. If getting to 21 is the main objective, as opposed to aiming for a "good enough" score in case I or my opponent wants to stop, the chances are much, much higher by answering three average questions than two extra-hard ones.
- 7-7-7 is the evident choice, but one can then vary one's point choices depending on how safe one feels with the category. This way, if I answer a 9-point question on round one or two, that's two extra points which give me room to maneuver if I run into a bad category later in the game. It can also keep opponents off-balance, if future players get to watch tapings in progress and see how the champion plays. However, if I deviate too far from 7, I enter the "10 or 11" range where I might as well be going for a two-question play, no?
Two-question play: (i.e. stopping the game)
- If I'm given the opportunity to stop the game, it means my opponent has <21, and so do I.
- I assume I shouldn't even contemplate doing this if I don't have two right answers.
- Disadvantages include: the gamble associated with stopping; the unlikely chance that the game is tied. (I believe the chances of both players being tied at 21 after three questions are much higher than a N-point tie after two questions -- since I'm a quick buzzer-presser, a tie breaker is an interesting proposition)
"EXTRA" STRATEGIES
These are strategies that go beyond the strict rules of the game.
- Many times in the premiere episode, the sound was turned on in a player's booth while the audience was still clapping, presumably from the opponent's right answer! In a game based on secrecy, cluing in to this is a huge advantage, wouldn't you agree?
- Regarding this "clapping" thing: if I answer questions one and two correctly (assuming I have over 11 points combined), and I only hear fading clapping once for my opponent, should I assume they only have one right answer, and end the game right there and then?
If I don't hear clapping, either my opponent has given a wrong answer, or the director has done his job correctly.
- If I have the chance to watch the show before my tape date, I can start keeping statistics on gameplay, distribution of player totals after two and three rounds, etc. which can help me decide on the likelihood that my opponent has one or two wrong answers after two questions, if I can't depend on overheard clapping.
Again, your comments are much appreciated!
-
[quote name=\'Blaq\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 04:59 PM\']- Many times in the premiere episode, the sound was turned on in a player's booth while the audience was still clapping, presumably from the opponent's right answer! In a game based on secrecy, cluing in to this is a huge advantage, wouldn't you agree?
[/quote]
I seem to remember that in the US version, they piped in clapping to drown out the outside noise for a few seconds to take away such an advantage. I would guess that the Canadian version would do the same. The producers would want to assure a fair game, given the show's history.
-
Three-question play:
- The safest strategy seems to be aiming for 21 in three questions. Getting 21 in two means having to correctly answer a 10 and an 11-pointer, quite a feat. If getting to 21 is the main objective, as opposed to aiming for a "good enough" score in case I or my opponent wants to stop, the chances are much, much higher by answering three average questions than two extra-hard ones.
- 7-7-7 is the evident choice, but one can then vary one's point choices depending on how safe one feels with the category. This way, if I answer a 9-point question on round one or two, that's two extra points which give me room to maneuver if I run into a bad category later in the game. It can also keep opponents off-balance, if future players get to watch tapings in progress and see how the champion plays. However, if I deviate too far from 7, I enter the "10 or 11" range where I might as well be going for a two-question play, no?
Playing to the 18-20 range is equally valid two-question play, and probably safer than the play to 21. If you have 20, the worst you can do is tie if you get the chance to stop the game (and you should). If you have 19 and the chance to stop, the only way you lose is if your opponent has 20, and they'd beat you to the punch anyway.
With only three rounds though, one mistake means you go back to 2-round strategy, or you're too far away to have a shot to reach 21.
Two-question play: (i.e. stopping the game)
- If I'm given the opportunity to stop the game, it means my opponent has <21, and so do I.
- I assume I shouldn't even contemplate doing this if I don't have two right answers.
- Disadvantages include: the gamble associated with stopping; the unlikely chance that the game is tied. (I believe the chances of both players being tied at 21 after three questions are much higher than a N-point tie after two questions -- since I'm a quick buzzer-presser, a tie breaker is an interesting proposition)
Yes, yes, and maybe. I think it's guessing at the wind to try and predict what your opponent has going into that point, unless you know enough about their gameplay coming into the show. It's easier just to play your score, and always stop on 20 or 19. Unless the categories are REALLY out in left field, I wouldn't consider much lower than that. Any opponent that doesn't stop on 20 is an idiot, and is playing really tight if they don't stop on 19.
"EXTRA" STRATEGIES
These are strategies that go beyond the strict rules of the game.
- Many times in the premiere episode, the sound was turned on in a player's booth while the audience was still clapping, presumably from the opponent's right answer! In a game based on secrecy, cluing in to this is a huge advantage, wouldn't you agree?
- Regarding this "clapping" thing: if I answer questions one and two correctly (assuming I have over 11 points combined), and I only hear fading clapping once for my opponent, should I assume they only have one right answer, and end the game right there and then?
If I don't hear clapping, either my opponent has given a wrong answer, or the director has done his job correctly.
The US version played applause to the headphones in the booth no matter what happened to the other player. But who knows how they'll handle it? If you can glean an advantage from their poorly thought out execution, do it. Worked for Michael Larson... ;-D