The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Casey Buck on July 20, 2008, 08:02:03 PM
-
Corbinq27 from golden-road.net attended today's first taping of TPiR's 37th season (which will actually air the 2nd week of the season). Very few changes were made, but here's what did change:
-The set is the same as the Million Dollar Spectaculars, but with the white floor, instead of the reflective black floor.
-The Big Wheel bonus spins are now worth $10,000 for the green sections, and $25,000 for the dollar.
-For the first week of tapings, the "regular" Wheel spaces have a purple color to them, but will supposedly go back to normal at next week's tapings (according to Drew)
-The sides of the Wheel are also purple, with silver TPiR dollar signs.
Other than that, it sounds like everything was the same as usual, for now.
More info at: http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.0 (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.0\")
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'191458\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 08:02 PM\']
-The set is the same as the Million Dollar Spectaculars, but with the white floor, instead of the reflective black floor.
-The Big Wheel bonus spins are now worth $10,000 for the green sections, and $25,000 for the dollar.
[/quote]
Nice, although I see no problem with keeping the bonus spins the way they were.
I loved the checkerboard pattern from the MDS, so I think it works great for the daytime show, instead of the hypercycloids. A little too kitschy IMO, even by TPiR standards.
I'm guessing they haven't instituted the vid wall yet?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'191459\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 05:08 PM\']I'm guessing they haven't instituted the vid wall yet? [/quote]
No video wall, so far.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'191459\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 07:08 PM\']
Nice, although I see no problem with keeping the bonus spins the way they were. [/quote]
Well, considering what a bonus $10,000 got you back when the bonus spin was instituted, I think the change could be seen by some as a necessary one.
Nice to see that the majority of changes will be cosmetic, rather than gameplay.
-
...And the sky remained above Studio 33 as predicted.
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'191458\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 07:02 PM\']-The Big Wheel bonus spins are now worth $10,000 for the green sections, and $25,000 for the dollar.[/quote]
Do you know how much the initial "dollar on the nose" is worth?
-
-The Big Wheel bonus spins are now worth $10,000 for the green sections, and $25,000 for the dollar.
Oooh, Roger would never have stood for that. Good thing they fired him.</snark>
-The set is the same as the Million Dollar Spectaculars
He wouldn't have stood for that, either. If you stared at those hypocycloids long enough, the visage of Jay Wolpert appeared, but you got awfully dizzy in the process. And you had to be in the studio for it to happen. It doesn't work on TV.
but will supposedly go back to normal at next week's tapings (according to Drew)
Thanks for posting that. I think you just prevented a couple of suicides.
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'191458\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 08:02 PM\']
More info at: http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.0 (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.0\")
[/quote]
"Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later".
At least it's due to heavy traffic over there this time. $10K and $25K on the wheel for bonuses. Seeing how the five and ten thousand began, I believe, in 1978 this is far from a terrible move. Glad the fan base can all exhale now.
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'191458\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 07:02 PM\']-The Big Wheel bonus spins are now worth $10,000 for the green sections, and $25,000 for the dollar.[/quote]Worth noting, while I think it's way too much, it's actually under inflation rates...$10,000 in '78 (when the bonus spin was added) is $33,849 in 2007 dollars.
Their server dies all the time.
Glad to see the Spectacular set is making its way over to daytime. I wonder if the hypocloids had some sort of negative viewing effect in HD.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'191472\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 09:09 PM\']
I wonder if the hypocloids had some sort of negative viewing effect in HD.
[/quote]
They had a negative viewing affect in SD too - they were just plain ugly.
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'191458\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 08:02 PM\']
-The Big Wheel bonus spins are now worth $10,000 for the green sections, and $25,000 for the dollar.
[/quote]
And yet, those money amounts have been such a fabric of my life for these three decades.
By changing them, I feel as though I've lost a second illegitimate step-snail.
I need to work this out. I'll be in my room waxing my skiis.
-
I knew all the panicing and people saying the sky is falling was premature. :)
Justin
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'191472\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 06:09 PM\'][quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'191458\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 07:02 PM\']-The Big Wheel bonus spins are now worth $10,000 for the green sections, and $25,000 for the dollar.[/quote]Worth noting, while I think it's way too much, it's actually under inflation rates...$10,000 in '78 (when the bonus spin was added) is $33,849 in 2007 dollars.[/quote]Question, then: would you change the amounts, and if so to what? I really don't have a problem with this. After all, they must have come in under budget enough to make the change.
What I think is odd is that the game that least needed a money bump is the one that got one years ago (Plinko), and the one that could most benefit from one (Punch-a-Bunch) is still played for a top prize similar to that of Grand Game and 1/2 Off. And I don't have a problem with winning $10,000 for picking the four least expensive items on the counter, or lifting a box lid and being lucky.
-
Good news so far, but I'm not convinced we're out of the woods yet. We know Gas Money and the video wall are coming.
Cautious optimism is the best approach, I'd say. Roger wasn't fired for nothing...
-
[quote name=\'Seth Thrasher\' post=\'191473\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 06:12 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'191472\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 09:09 PM\']
I wonder if the hypocloids had some sort of negative viewing effect in HD.
[/quote]
They had a negative viewing affect in SD too - they were just plain ugly.
[/quote]
And you couldn't see Jay Wolpert's visage. What a rip.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'191490\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 09:49 PM\']
GWe know Gas Money and the video wall are coming.
[/quote]
We do? What's Gas Money?
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'191538\' date=\'Jul 21 2008, 03:30 PM\']What's Gas Money?[/quote]The newest pricing game, the last created by Roger Dobkowitz.
-
I wanted to wait to see what "changes" were in store before I passed judgment on this board. As I thought, it was...nothing.
I loved Roger as much as the next guy. I met him when I went to one of Bob's last six shows in 2007, when he wanted to see how long the lines were. He was cool, and I will miss his contributions on the show.
No matter what changes are made to the personnel, the set, or even the host, The Price is Right will always be The Price is Right. My only gripe (which is minor) is that Drew needs to add energy to his delivery...it's just too monotone.
An augmentation to the wheel prizes were in order, and I think the prize levels are just right. I'd make the first $1 worth $5,000, or even $2,500...but it's no big deal.
A video wall? I have expressed support for the wall since our days at the Invision board. I think it would do fine on the turntable. And keep this in mind, as well: they had a video wall during the 30th Anniversary Special in Vegas. Granted, it wasn't used for the show, but it was on the stage proper. It works when used correctly. I support its use on the turntable.
Let things be...I am sure everything will be just fine. As long as, in my opinion, the SCSD and the SC proper stay as it has been for the last few decades, then all will still be right for the world.
The Optimistic, Inquisitive One
-
I like the idea of a video wall too. I think it could be a fine replacement for games that are falling apart or decades old.
To those that have been there, isn't it true that many of the games look very worn out and scratched up close?
/Bonus Game's board dates back to the very first episode?
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'191566\' date=\'Jul 21 2008, 04:55 PM\']
To those that have been there, isn't it true that many of the games look very worn out and scratched up close?
/Bonus Game's board dates back to the very first episode?
[/quote]
I have all but the first two recorded in HD here on my computer. When I get some time, I'll upload images of some of the more "glaring" examples.
/Yes.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'191490\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 09:49 PM\']
Good news so far, but I'm not convinced we're out of the woods yet. We know Gas Money and the video wall are coming.
.
[/quote]
WoF survived the addition of a video wall in place of the red, yellow and blue scoreboards. Methinks TPiR will go on.
The wheel bonuses should have happened a long time ago, to be sure, and I echo the remarks on the MDS set being more pleasing to the eye. We'll possibly see the changes that had us up in arms earlier, but they'll probably be introduced a few at a time to make them more palatable. The show will go on.
-
I'm not sure I was interpreted correctly...
I merely mentioned Gas Money and the video wall just to show that there are still pending changes, positive or negative not withstanding. I'm actually quite excited for Gas Money, and for the video wall, once the initial surprise wore off, I became rather 'eh' to it.
My position on the general situation at this time is that neither the doomsayers nor their opposites can really call victory just yet, that is all. I'm hoping with everything I've got that my initial overreaction elsewhere was wrong.
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'191458\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 08:02 PM\']
-For the first week of tapings, the "regular" Wheel spaces have a purple color to them, but will supposedly go back to normal at next week's tapings (according to Drew)
[/quote]
I have a hard time believing they would have them purple for just a few shows and then change them back... because what's so special about this week's tapings if they're not week #1 of the new season? Either they decided at the last minute that the original wheel did actually look better, or perhaps that was just Drew's way of placating the crowd... my money is on the latter.
-
It's possible they got out the purple wheel and once they saw it in action in front of an audience they said "naaah"... After all, how many times did fonts change last season?
If this is true, it'll be strange seeing the purple wheel appear and disappear for a week.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'191581\' date=\'Jul 21 2008, 05:58 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'191490\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 09:49 PM\']
Good news so far, but I'm not convinced we're out of the woods yet. We know Gas Money and the video wall are coming.
.
[/quote]
WoF survived the addition of a video wall in place of the red, yellow and blue scoreboards. Methinks TPiR will go on.
The wheel bonuses should have happened a long time ago, to be sure, and I echo the remarks on the MDS set being more pleasing to the eye. We'll possibly see the changes that had us up in arms earlier, but they'll probably be introduced a few at a time to make them more palatable. The show will go on.
[/quote]
This pretty much sums up what I meant in my original post.
-
Why is introducing a new game a BAD thing?
It's not a bad thing, even if the game has been around for 32 years and the E.P. THINKS it's a new game ;-)
-
[quote name=\'davidhammett\' post=\'191616\' date=\'Jul 21 2008, 08:48 PM\']
I have a hard time believing they would have them purple for just a few shows and then change them back... because what's so special about this week's tapings if they're not week #1 of the new season? Either they decided at the last minute that the original wheel did actually look better, or perhaps that was just Drew's way of placating the crowd... my money is on the latter.
[/quote]
You know I'd rarely disagree with you, but you'd be wrong on this one. The Big Wheel has been a very interesting 'controversy' this week. It's going back to its "normal" look tomorrow afternoon.
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' post=\'191564\' date=\'Jul 21 2008, 04:44 PM\']
A video wall? I have expressed support for the wall since our days at the Invision board. I think it would do fine on the turntable. And keep this in mind, as well: they had a video wall during the 30th Anniversary Special in Vegas. Granted, it wasn't used for the show, but it was on the stage proper. It works when used correctly. I support its use on the turntable.
[/quote]
There's no way the video wall they tested last month could be used on the turntable. It's too big.
-
IIRC, Bonus Game, Clock Game and Five Price Tags are the oldest games using essentially the same boards/props as September 1972. The NCR cash register in Grocery Game's the same (and I suspect the table's the same, just repainted and reworked). (Three of the four light stanchions in Five Price Tags still show the shelves from the days they were used for Most Expensive, with the numbers plastered on the top.)
-
Any chance they'd put the video wall behind the audience, back where one of the lit-up TPIR signs is? They could use it for trips and for a groovy graphic treatment in the opening. They probably wouldn't use it for pricing games, then, and that's a good thing.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'191696\' date=\'Jul 22 2008, 02:07 PM\']Any chance they'd put the video wall behind the audience, back where one of the lit-up TPIR signs is? They could use it for trips and for a groovy graphic treatment in the opening. They probably wouldn't use it for pricing games, then, and that's a good thing.[/quote]Why, they could even put a model back there to show off a fur coat!
-
[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'191703\' date=\'Jul 22 2008, 02:38 PM\']
Why, they could even put a model back there to show off a fur coat!
[/quote]
I think I just heard Barker's head a'splode.
-
[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'191703\' date=\'Jul 22 2008, 01:38 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'191696\' date=\'Jul 22 2008, 02:07 PM\']Any chance they'd put the video wall behind the audience, back where one of the lit-up TPIR signs is? They could use it for trips and for a groovy graphic treatment in the opening. They probably wouldn't use it for pricing games, then, and that's a good thing.[/quote]Why, they could even put a model back there to show off a fur coat!
[/quote]
Even better ... show her on the video wall while wearing the fur coat!
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'191719\' date=\'Jul 22 2008, 02:52 PM\']
Even better ... show her on the video wall while wearing the fur coat! [/quote]
Now, let's not move too fast...
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'191567\' date=\'Jul 21 2008, 04:58 PM\']
I have all but the first two recorded in HD here on my computer. When I get some time, I'll upload images of some of the more "glaring" examples.
[/quote]
That would be most interesting. I was only lucky enough to catch a showcase showdown in HD. Surprised how good the Price crew was at shooting those, because even some real slick operations (Letterman, WWE, etc.) had trouble with framing shots when they switched to high-def.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'191770\' date=\'Jul 22 2008, 06:15 PM\']
Surprised how good the Price crew was at shooting those, because even some real slick operations (Letterman, WWE, etc.) had trouble with framing shots when they switched to high-def.
[/quote]
Well, considering BART shoots everything loose and wide, why wouldn't the framing be perfect for HD?
Josh
-
[quote name=\'joshg\' post=\'191820\' date=\'Jul 23 2008, 08:49 AM\']
Well, considering BART shoots everything loose and wide, why wouldn't the framing be perfect for HD?
[/quote]
Man, there's almost no end to the number of ways that sounds naughty.
-
"Man, there's almost no end to the number of ways that sounds naughty."
That's BART for you.
-
[quote name=\'joshg\' post=\'191820\' date=\'Jul 23 2008, 07:49 AM\']Well, considering BART shoots everything loose and wide, why wouldn't the framing be perfect for HD?[/quote]
Loose and wide?? Sounds like my first wife! Am I right people??!
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'191656\' date=\'Jul 22 2008, 05:28 AM\']
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' post=\'191564\' date=\'Jul 21 2008, 04:44 PM\']
A video wall? I have expressed support for the wall since our days at the Invision board. I think it would do fine on the turntable. And keep this in mind, as well: they had a video wall during the 30th Anniversary Special in Vegas. Granted, it wasn't used for the show, but it was on the stage proper. It works when used correctly. I support its use on the turntable.
[/quote]
There's no way the video wall they tested last month could be used on the turntable. It's too big.
[/quote]
They could hang it on a pipe and fly it behind door 1. It might cause the roof of studio 33 to cave in, but that's beside the point. I imagine it's pretty heavy.
-
"Interesting" article by the Perf on the subject. (http://\"http://tvgameshows.net/column.htm\") A snippet that I found mindboggling in his commentary/article:
Any of possibly four things will happen in the next year: (1) CBS will be satisfied with the daytime numbers and Carey's performance enough to renew it; (2) The show's numbers will not pass CBS's requirements and Price will be canceled; (3) CBS could drop the show as a network offering but give Fremantle the right to produce it for syndication with CBS Television Distribution handling the syndication sales; (4) Price will continue on CBS but with a new host in 2009-10. Regardless, those of us in good health will continue to wake up in the morning and put our clothes on the same way as we always have.
1, 2, and 3 all seem like logical options for the show (for some reason, #3 sounds like a deal so they could use 33 for a good deal)...but I would love to know what alternate universe he lives in if #4 is even a remote possibility.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'191938\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 11:35 AM\']
"Interesting" article by the Perf on the subject. (http://\"http://tvgameshows.net/column.htm\") A snippet that I found mindboggling in his commentary/article:
1, 2, and 3 all seem like logical options for the show (for some reason, #3 sounds like a deal so they could use 33 for a good deal)...but I would love to know what alternate universe he lives in if #4 is even a remote possibility.
[/quote]
Why would you think this? Seriously, I don't find it mindboggling at all.
Look at how Drew has dealt with the last month...giving interviews and quotes that largely assume he wasn't involved in change, and left in the dark during all of it - and not liking that position.
Drew has gone on record before to say that he doesn't need to work. "The Drew Carey Show" made him filthy rich. So what's to stop him from saying after his contract is up that he doesn't want to go on and host the show anymore?
As much as I think that #3 (the syndication route) will happen sooner rather than later, I think #4 is quite viable as well.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'191955\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 12:48 PM\']
Why would you think this? Seriously, I don't find it mindboggling at all.
[/quote]
I personally think that CBS would cancel the show before going on another hosting search, potentially another "new identity" with that person, etc. They would throw it onto Fremantle's hands by itself if they wanted to revive it in syndication with a new host. But then there's always that saying...you don't want to be the guy replacing the legend, you want to be the guy who replaces the guy who replaced the legend. Who knows. I do believe that it will wind up in syndication sooner rather than later.
Before all this happened, didn't Drew say that he was enjoying the job and having fun?
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'191955\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 11:48 AM\']
So what's to stop him from saying after his contract is up that he doesn't want to go on and host the show anymore?
[/quote]
And what's to say Fremantle will even renew his contract?
Playing Devil's Advocate...suppose, for a moment, they want someone who will just be the host and do what they're told without putting their foot down over drastic changes.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'191957\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 12:53 PM\']Before all this happened, didn't Drew say that he was enjoying the job and having fun?[/quote]
Having an enjoyable job doesn't mean there can't be problems.
While those 4 options certainly sound specific, all but one of them could describes the end-of-season scenarios for any game show and possibly some to most scripted shows: Renewal as-is, Renewal in a different direction, and cancellation.
-
[quote name=\'JayDLewis\' post=\'191961\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 01:24 PM\']
Playing Devil's Advocate...suppose, for a moment, they want someone who will just be the host and do what they're told without putting their foot down over drastic changes.
[/quote]
And a host who will gladly do the job for a fraction of the price, say $3-4 mil? Don't know who, but just sayin'.
Host makes money and gets notoriety, CBS saves over 50% of Drew's salary. Win-win, right? Or am I on that stuff that Mr. Mackey warned us about?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'191986\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 12:44 PM\']
And a host who will gladly do the job for a fraction of the price, say $3-4 mil? Don't know who, but just sayin'.
[/quote]
I know there are people here raising their hands...
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'191986\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 03:44 PM\']
And a host who will gladly do the job for a fraction of the price, say $3-4 mil? Don't know who, but just sayin'. Host makes money and gets notoriety, CBS saves over 50% of Drew's salary. Win-win, right? [/quote]
And I'm certain there's another Brady Bunch brother who'd like to take a crack at emceeing.
I'm for Barry Williams. And he can sing! It'll be like Bert Parks used to do.
Certainly, we can expect a Johnny Bravo showcase.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'191991\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 03:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'191986\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 03:44 PM\']
And a host who will gladly do the job for a fraction of the price, say $3-4 mil? Don't know who, but just sayin'. Host makes money and gets notoriety, CBS saves over 50% of Drew's salary. Win-win, right? [/quote]
And I'm certain there's another Brady Bunch brother who'd like to take a crack at emceeing.
I'm for Barry Williams. And he can sing! It'll be like Bert Parks used to do.
Certainly, we can expect a Johnny Bravo showcase.
[/quote]
http://www.itspakistan.net/fun/msnpics/johny_bravo.jpg (http://\"http://www.itspakistan.net/fun/msnpics/johny_bravo.jpg\")
Approves
-
Drew's (supposed) 8-figure salary comes up quite a bit. I wonder how much that number has changed, if at all, now that Po10 is kaput?
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'191938\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 10:35 AM\']
1, 2, and 3 all seem like logical options for the show (for some reason, #3 sounds like a deal so they could use 33 for a good deal)...but I would love to know what alternate universe he lives in if #4 is even a remote possibility.
[/quote]
(Sry, Chris, but I needed to chime in on this one.)
Ditto on #4 -- come 11 AM Eastern, it's ALWAYS been on all the TVs in the student union wherever I've worked or gone to school. How else does he explain all those 20-somethings showing up in droves for tapings? Barker understood why perfectly.
He also needs to re-think his time table on Drew being re-upped/the show being cancelled. He cited Leno above, and he was (I hate to say it) right about that. Even then, Leno's show still has strong overtones of Carson. He's also (I hate to say it again) right about Drew doing Barker's show in Season 36. Drew should be moving into his own in Season 37. I did find that his comfort level improved markedly as the season went on. I also remember posting in his earliest days that I was smiling at TPiR like I hadn't for years at the end of Barker's reign. Drew had/has work to do, but it's not nearly as much as The Perf thinks.
Overall, try again, Perfesser.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'191945\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 11:42 AM\']
/and I know he's reading this
//Hi, Steve!
[/quote]
Stosh, darling baby sweetheart. Garry Moore died in 1993; not 1973.
Alan Kalter intro'd Garry Moore during his pass-the-baton one-shot in 1977 on To Tell The Truth; not Bill Wendell.
Okay? Okay!
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'192020\' date=\'Jul 24 2008, 07:37 PM\']
Stosh, darling baby sweetheart. Garry Moore died in 1993; not 1973.
Alan Kalter intro'd Garry Moore during his pass-the-baton one-shot in 1977 on To Tell The Truth; not Bill Wendell.
Okay? Okay!
[/quote]
Don't confuse him more than he already is :-D
//ObGameShows: Joe Garagiola hosted To Tell The Truth after Garry Moore.
-
ClockGameJohn at golden-road.net announced (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7997.0\") that two pricing games will have rule changes starting next season:
-Punch a Bunch will have its top prize raised to $25,000 (with 1 $25,000 slip and 1 $10,000 slip; everything else remains the same).
John mentions further down in the thread that Roger was proposing on having a different (and better, IMO) take on increasing Punch-a-Bunch's top prize: getting rid of the $50, $250 slips, and $10,000 slips, then adding a bunch of $5,000 slips, making the decision to quit or go for $20,000 after getting the $5,000 more exciting.
-Check Game will have its win range changed from $5,000-$6,000 to $7,000-$8,000.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'192130\' date=\'Jul 26 2008, 12:06 AM\']
How did the margin of error not change? Higher starting value means that the contestant can write a bigger yet still reasonable check without worry of going over, no?
Therefore, more fallback and a greater margin of error.
[/quote]
I don't see where you're making the jump to a greater margin of error. The contestant can shoot for higher winnings and still have a chance, yes. But the margin of error is still $1,000.
-
In the $5K-$6K range, a player that writes a check for $2,500 meant the prize can be from $2,500-$3,500. With the new range($7K-$8K), that same $2,500 check may now yield a price anywhere from $4,500-$5,500 Of course if the prize is still say anywhere from $3K-$4K, then in order to meet that new range, the check has to be written for $4K. Whether higher value prizes will be offered or players writting checks for higher values under the new range will remain to be seen once Season 37 starts. It doesn't matter how you set the range values, the range will still be +/-$1K
As for Punch-A-Bunch, it's nice to see the top prize raised to $25K. IIRC, one of the MDSs my've offered that prize.
-
Avoiding the stuff about margins of errors just for a half of a second - let's approach another aspect. This really doesn't have thing one to do with writing larger checks - the checks will still hover in the $2500 range, give or take ~$500 on either side. Just as they have since they upped things in 1989.
The update to the game is designed, so I'm told anyway, to offer more expensive prizes. A $3000 prize in 2008 just isn't what it was in 1989, the last time they upped the range. $3,000 in 1989 money, per the inflation calculator (http://\"http://www.westegg.com/inflation/\"), was worth about $5,200 in 2007 - the last year available. An inflation of $2,200 and an increase in the range by roughly the same amount - that's not coincidence. It's just accounting for 20 years of inflation.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'192132\' date=\'Jul 26 2008, 12:11 AM\']
I'm done with this argument. It's become kinda obvious that I'm not going to convince you to see it another way.[/quote]
That's correct. Because everyone else would prefer to see it the correct way.
Look, the writing of the check in Check Game? Window dressing. Utter chrome. The actual goal of Check Game is this: Guess the price of a prize within $1,000 without going over. That doesn't change whether the range is $5,000 to $6,000 or $1,000,000 to $1,001,000.
Once you've made your guess, the rest of it is third-grade math, no more, no less.
/gee, this new leaf tastes teriffic!
-
If they're writing bigger checks now, does that mean they'll have to increase the size of the Check Game prop?
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'192122\' date=\'Jul 26 2008, 01:16 AM\']-Punch a Bunch will have its top prize raised to $25,000 (with 1 $25,000 slip and 1 $10,000 slip; everything else remains the same).
John mentions further down in the thread that Roger was proposing on having a different (and better, IMO) take on increasing Punch-a-Bunch's top prize: getting rid of the $50, $250 slips, and $10,000 slips, then adding a bunch of $5,000 slips, making the decision to quit or go for $20,000 after getting the $5,000 more exciting.
[/quote]
This is no surprise to me. None of the games for the past 36 seasons had you risk more than 4-figures at any time, and I wouldn't be unhappy if I kept it that way. (Although, if someone is bananas enough to risk $10K, it will be interesting to watch....hopefully)
If they're writing bigger checks now, does that mean they'll have to increase the size of the Check Game prop?
No
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'192147\' date=\'Jul 26 2008, 11:23 AM\']
(Although, if someone is bananas enough to risk $10K, it will be interesting to watch....hopefully)
[/quote]
I suppose that Dan Avila-in-training who gambled $5000 to win $10000 and advised the scared members of the studio audience to buy a dog might take the risk. As for me, as proof of my cowardice, I pull out the $1000 slip and I'm stoppin'.
-
Honestly, to me, Check Game seems to be somewhat tied by inflation---not as badly as Poker Game* was---but still. Once inflation makes Check's typical prize reach/top $10,000, you're offering a very good amount of money in addition to that. It probably could be fixed easily enough though.
The only problem I have with the (overdue) Punch upping is that the distribution is a little odd.
*-and one can legitimately argue that poker in a game show context doesn't work, but I think the issue was more Price-specific...eh.
-
What I think pyldude's point was (God help me) is that the relative error shrinks as the prices get bigger. To use Chris L.'s example, $1000 breathing room for a $5000 prize is a lot more generous than $1000 breathing room for a $1,000,000 prize.
\Pedantic and academic? You betcha.
\\I'll get off my podium now.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192226\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 09:18 AM\']
What I think pyldude's point was (God help me) is that the relative error shrinks as the prices get bigger. To use Chris L.'s example, $1000 breathing room for a $5000 prize is a lot more generous than $1000 breathing room for a $1,000,000 prize.
[/quote]
Okay, that's a little more fair.
But, that said, would we not all agree that the delta in margin of error between a $4000 prize and a $6000 one would be so small as to be nonexistent?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192234\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 12:47 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192226\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 09:18 AM\']
What I think pyldude's point was (God help me) is that the relative error shrinks as the prices get bigger. To use Chris L.'s example, $1000 breathing room for a $5000 prize is a lot more generous than $1000 breathing room for a $1,000,000 prize.
[/quote]
Okay, that's a little more fair.
But, that said, would we not all agree that the delta in margin of error between a $4000 prize and a $6000 one would be so small as to be nonexistent?
[/quote]
Let's just say you were dealing with prizes circa $4000 and will now deal with prizes circa $6000. The maximum relative error was 25% and is now 17%. I wouldn't go so far as to call is nonexistent. Admittedly, at first blush it did seem minute, but there you have it. The absolute error is the same, but the relative error has shrunk.
Another quick point of math: the next time they make a $2000 jump in the range ends, it will have less of an effect on the relative error, and even less the next time, and so on.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192226\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 09:18 AM\']
What I think pyldude's point was (God help me) is that the relative error shrinks as the prices get bigger. To use Chris L.'s example, $1000 breathing room for a $5000 prize is a lot more generous than $1000 breathing room for a $1,000,000 prize.
[/quote]
Well, dale_grass, you hit it. Because that was exactly my point.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192240\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 11:40 AM\']
Let's just say you were dealing with prizes circa $4000 and will now deal with prizes circa $6000. The maximum relative error was 25% and is now 17%. I wouldn't go so far as to call is nonexistent. Admittedly, at first blush it did seem minute, but there you have it. The absolute error is the same, but the relative error has shrunk.[/quote]
I knew you were going to say that. And so, I say this: You're not going to bid $1 on a prize whether it's a $4000 prize or a $6000 one. A lot of what you're counting towards that relative error simply isn't applicable because no idiot is going to bid that low. I still suggest it's not mathematically significant.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192248\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 03:00 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192240\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 11:40 AM\']
Let's just say you were dealing with prizes circa $4000 and will now deal with prizes circa $6000. The maximum relative error was 25% and is now 17%. I wouldn't go so far as to call is nonexistent. Admittedly, at first blush it did seem minute, but there you have it. The absolute error is the same, but the relative error has shrunk.[/quote]
I knew you were going to say that. And so, I say this: You're not going to bid $1 on a prize whether it's a $4000 prize or a $6000 one. A lot of what you're counting towards that relative error simply isn't applicable because no idiot is going to bid that low. I still suggest it's not mathematically significant.
[/quote]
Why would you bid $1 in Check Game? The relative error is found by taking the absolute error ($1000) and dividing by the actual value ($4000 or $6000). It doesn't matter who's playing the game. The farthest off you can be (and still win) is $1000, which is 25% of $4000 and 17% of $6000. (Actual percentages vary with actual price, obviously.) The contestant's breathing room has shrunk. Mathematically significant? I'll let the more statistically-inclined to rule.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192249\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 01:07 PM\']
Why would you bid $1 in Check Game?[/quote]
By "bid" I mean "guess the price of the prize." I'm removing all of the add-the-value-of-the-check chrome from the equation, because it simply doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
And that's my point. You wouldn't. You're gonna look at that $4000 prize and say "That has to be AT LEAST $2000." And you're going to look at that $6000 prize and say "That's gonna be at least $4000." The increase in prize values is going to cover the relative margin of error.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192249\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 04:07 PM\']
Why would you bid $1 in Check Game?[/quote]
To have Barker yell from his armchair "HISTORIC MOMENT!", then promptly call Roger at home to see if it really was the first time ever someone wrote a check for $1?
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'192253\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 01:38 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192249\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 04:07 PM\']
Why would you bid $1 in Check Game?[/quote]
To have Barker yell from his armchair "HISTORIC MOMENT!", then promptly call Roger at home to see if it really was the first time ever someone wrote a check for $1?
[/quote]
Well played.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192249\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 03:07 PM\']
Why would you bid $1 in Check Game? The relative error is found by taking the absolute error ($1000) and dividing by the actual value ($4000 or $6000). It doesn't matter who's playing the game. The farthest off you can be (and still win) is $1000, which is 25% of $4000 and 17% of $6000. (Actual percentages vary with actual price, obviously.) The contestant's breathing room has shrunk. Mathematically significant? I'll let the more statistically-inclined to rule.
[/quote]
Tthe only thing that has changed that means anything is the prize value, which means a winning contestant will take home between $6k and $7k in cash and prizes on this game. The argument has been on margin of error, which did not change. There remains a $1000 window, so the contestant's breathing room has not shrunk, nor has he gained any. It remains the same.
As Chris Lemon said (among others), it is a simple game of third-grade math: Figure out what the price of the prize is, and then write a check that will raise the prize package value to somewhere between $6,000 and $7,000, inclusive.
I don't see where this "relative error" has any significance at all in this case, but if someone can show that it has, let him or her do it, and we'll all learn something. The fact is that there was a $1,000 window before, and that value has not change with the increased prize value.
I wish someone had all-time win/loss statistics on this game so that we could run the numbers, and I do know that this is not the first time that this game has seen a change in the value of its prizes. That would help to settle this.
Meanwhile, I'm just going to tune into Season 37 and enjoy Check Game ... and all the others ... as I always have.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'192242\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 01:50 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192226\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 09:18 AM\']
What I think pyldude's point was (God help me) is that the relative error shrinks as the prices get bigger. To use Chris L.'s example, $1000 breathing room for a $5000 prize is a lot more generous than $1000 breathing room for a $1,000,000 prize.
[/quote]
Well, dale_grass, you hit it. Because that was exactly my point.
[/quote]
No, that was not your point, or at least not as it appeared in words. Your point was that the margin of error changed. It did not. The player had $1,000 with which to play before, and that did not change. I accept that you might have miswritten your intentions, but your term was "margin of error," which you claimed had changed, when it has not changed. When you deal with stats, you cannot substitute terms like you did. If you had used "relative error" in the first place, I don't think you would have found yourself in the frying pan as you did. I will welcome Dale's comments -- although I don't think this particular relative margin is going make a difference -- but I will also stick with my previous postings on this as far as the margin of error itself goes.
Welcome to the world in which I live ... I cannot go to an academic conference these days where there is not at least one pissing contest over which set of numbers ought to be used to do a particular piece of research. It never gets settled, and this one probably won't, either.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'192261\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 03:03 PM\']
If you had used "relative error" in the first place, I don't think you would have found yourself in the frying pan as you did.[/quote]
I still absolutely would have called bullshiat on him, because I hold fast that the change is statistically insignificant.
-
Coming this fall to Fox: Semantics. Watch contestants try to figure out why a container of gasoline is marked "inflammable" while the host steps from behind his lectern and onto his podium.
The absolute error (margin of error, window) involved is still $1000. The relative error has shrunk.
As for "breathing room," I wasn't using it synonymously with "window." I was using it as "comfort level at which a contestant can stab at the price and still feel hopeful to win." I'd feel safer having a $1000 window on a $6000 prize than on a $60,000 prize.
Another example of relative error: Let's say someone asked you to count the number of stars visible to the naked eye and how many pennies were in the shallow give-a-penny-take-a-penny dish at the local convenience store. If you were off by 5 in both cases, you'd be admired in the first and mocked in the second.
I'm not defending anyone's point, just the math involved.
\So help me if you harm the math!
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'192260\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 04:59 PM\']
As Chris Lemon said (among others), it is a simple game of third-grade math: Figure out what the price of the prize is, and then write a check that will raise the prize package value to somewhere between $6,000 and $7,000, inclusive.
[/quote]
The game (as pointed out earlier) is nothing more that guessing the price of the prize. Getting the prize/check combo into the range is a formality and the check amount stems directly from the contestant's guess. So, it boils down to the contestant guessing the price of the prize within $1000 without going over. As the price of the prize increases, that window becomes relatively smaller (see above posts).
-
Since this has apparently turned into an exercise in futile mathematics for some, it needs to be in the record that the range is actually $1,001, as both
$5,000 AND $6,000 $7,000 AND $8,000 are winning scores.
See here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zdCCjpR1q_w (http://\"http://youtube.com/watch?v=zdCCjpR1q_w\")
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'192269\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 05:45 PM\']
Since this has apparently turned into an exercise in futilen mathematics for some,
[/quote]
Fixed that for ya.
-
I was told there would be no math.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192268\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 03:41 PM\']
As the price of the prize increases, that window becomes relatively smaller (see above posts).
[/quote]
If the range increased from $5,000-$6,000 to $90,000-$91,000, I would absolutely concede your point.
It didn't.
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' post=\'192273\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 06:54 PM\']
I was told there would be no math.
[/quote]
Sadly, that's what 99.9% of TPIR contestants think. 'Twas the downfall of Hit Me.
/The one that ends in zero, dammit.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192268\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 05:41 PM\']
The game (as pointed out earlier) is nothing more that guessing the price of the prize. Getting the prize/check combo into the range is a formality and the check amount stems directly from the contestant's guess. So, it boils down to the contestant guessing the price of the prize within $1000 without going over. As the price of the prize increases, that window becomes relatively smaller (see above posts).
[/quote]
Right, I understood you completely in your first post. I find myself in agreement with Chris and others that we did not experience a massive adjustment in where the range falls. If we had, this relative margin of error you described might make a difference. With an increase of $2,000 on both the high and low ends, I don't think there will be a statistically significant difference to the overall results. Again, I'd love to see a full run-down on prior game stats for comparison.
Put another way, let's say I'm doing research on European voting patterns pre-1980, and I include all democracies west of the Iron Curtain. Then I do a follow-up a few years later that takes into account that Spain and Portugal are no longer dictatorships and that includes all other countries I used before. There would be an increase in the number of cases being studied, but the odds of my overall results changing from before is extremely low. I raise this because this has been done before.
Back to the Check Game, I'm certainly not attacking the math proper, but rather the statistical implications, as you invited earlier. PYLdude did not state his intentions in the way that he wanted the rest of the board to understand them, and then he got all defensive when we tried to let him know that the way he put it was both confusing at best and off-base at worst. I'm not going play board mod here, but I do hope he learns from this and won't repeat it.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192274\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 05:55 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192268\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 03:41 PM\']
As the price of the prize increases, that window becomes relatively smaller (see above posts).
[/quote]
If the range increased from $5,000-$6,000 to $90,000-$91,000, I would absolutely concede your point.
It didn't.
[/quote]
Our earlier conversation discussed prize values, not ranges. This is also based on the presumption that the ranges are increasing to compensate for rising prize values. A prize of $6000 with the $90,000-$91,000 range ($1000 window) is a lot easier to win than an $85,000 prize with the same range (still a $1000 window). Again, the range itself doesn't play into the math. The size of the window and value of the prize are the only two things to consider with relative error.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'192278\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 06:00 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192268\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 05:41 PM\']
The game (as pointed out earlier) is nothing more that guessing the price of the prize. Getting the prize/check combo into the range is a formality and the check amount stems directly from the contestant's guess. So, it boils down to the contestant guessing the price of the prize within $1000 without going over. As the price of the prize increases, that window becomes relatively smaller (see above posts).
[/quote]
Right, I understood you completely in your first post. I find myself in agreement with Chris and others that we did not experience a massive adjustment in where the range falls. Again, I'd love to see a full run-down on prior game stats for comparison.
I'm certainly not attacking the math proper, but rather the statistical implications, as you invited earlier.
[/quote]
I don't know what the statistical implications are. I think the question floating in the mist is "Will there be fewer Check Game wins as the result of the new range?" That I can't answer. Looking at past shows and what the actual difference between the contestant's total and $6000 would be a start.
\Someone want to get on that?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192274\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 05:55 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192268\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 03:41 PM\']
As the price of the prize increases, that window becomes relatively smaller (see above posts).
[/quote]
If the range increased from $5,000-$6,000 to $90,000-$91,000, I would absolutely concede your point.
It didn't.
[/quote]
Hang on, wait a minute. I think I see your point now. I got that one-track mind thing going on. From a math point, the numbers make a difference. But yeah, if the prize is a $6000 treadmill or a $7500 pepper grinder, the contestant will probably do just as well on either one.
\Is that it?
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192281\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 06:04 PM\']
I don't know what the statistical implications are. I think the question floating in the mist is "Will there be fewer Check Game wins as the result of the new range?" That I can't answer. Looking at past shows and what the actual difference between the contestant's total and $6000 would be a start.
\Someone want to get on that?
[/quote]
Answering that now is about as useful as asking when the video wall is going to appear (ducking!). We'll just have to watch it and see.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192281\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 07:04 PM\']I think the question floating in the mist is "Will there be fewer Check Game wins as the result of the new range?" That I can't answer.
[/quote]
That I think is what started this entire mess. My theory (which seems to be supported somewhere deep inside this thread) is that contestants will have more difficulty winning the game now, and this change was rather 'spontaneous' and not well thought through.
Thus the point of my post which some felt I needed to "get over."
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'192260\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 05:59 PM\']I wish someone had all-time win/loss statistics on this game so that we could run the numbers, and I do know that this is not the first time that this game has seen a change in the value of its prizes. That would help to settle this.[/quote]
I love when a question like this comes up and I actually have the resources to answer it.
Based on records that I would say are as close to accurate as you're gonna get when you're dealing with a 36-year run, Check Game has been played on the daytime show 554 times. It's been won 257 times and lost 300 times. (...yes, I know that doesn't add up. I'm working off of two different sets of stats here, at least one of which evidently has some mistakes. I'd bet the 554 count is more accurate than the 557, but I wouldn't know whether to take those three playings out of the wins or the losses.)
Anyway, the win range was $3,000-$3,500 up through the middle of Season 17. The game had a record of 15-17 that season, and I don't know which wins or losses fall under which range. It was 85-119 in Seasons 10 through 16 and 157-164 in Seasons 18 through 36.
EDIT: Come to think of it, if I shoot off an e-mail, I can probably get the records for Season 17 cleared up, too.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'192288\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 07:58 PM\']
It's been won 257 times and lost 300 times.[/quote]You know, for all the back and forth in the Barker era about people not understanding how to play the game (whether made up lack of understanding or not), that's a pretty good record for the game.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'192288\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 06:58 PM\']
Based on records that I would say are as close to accurate as you're gonna get when you're dealing with a 36-year run, Check Game has been played on the daytime show 554 times. It's been won 257 times and lost 300 times.
.
[/quote]
That's an N big enough to run the numbers, regardless as to the accuracy. Since we've been arguing about this to this length, I'm really tempted to run the stats. It will be interesting to see what will happen, once the new numbers begin to come into play. I will say it will probably take a couple of seasons worth of stats under the revised range to get anything useful.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192283\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 04:12 PM\']
Hang on, wait a minute. I think I see your point now. I got that one-track mind thing going on. From a math point, the numbers make a difference. But yeah, if the prize is a $6000 treadmill or a $7500 pepper grinder, the contestant will probably do just as well on either one.
\Is that it?[/quote]
Precisely so. Contestants are going to go on writing checks between $1000 and $3000, same as they always have, and sometimes they will win, sometimes they will lose.
MAYBE the game gets .01 percent harder. Oh noes.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192308\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 10:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192283\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 04:12 PM\']
Hang on, wait a minute. I think I see your point now. I got that one-track mind thing going on. From a math point, the numbers make a difference. But yeah, if the prize is a $6000 treadmill or a $7500 pepper grinder, the contestant will probably do just as well on either one.
\Is that it?[/quote]
Precisely so. Contestants are going to go on writing checks between $1000 and $3000, same as they always have, and sometimes they will win, sometimes they will lose.
MAYBE the game gets .01 percent harder. Oh noes.
[/quote]
And besides, wouldn't the general trend eventually adjust to the higher prices over time anyway?
Of course, I could be way off, as I wasn't around for the first upping of Check Game. This is just the impression I got the moment I read all of this.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192305\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 08:53 PM\']
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'192278\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 04:00 PM\']
I'm not going play board mod here, but I do hope he learns from this and won't repeat it.[/quote]
Are you new here?
[/quote]
Not necessary.
Perhaps I could've made my point better by choosing different words, but I still stick by it. Making the starting and end values $2000 higher in Check Game does not make the game harder. If anything, at best it may make it easier, if only slightly. At worst, there is no change to the difficulty of the game.
Whether that means more people will win it or not remains to be seen...as we've seen over the recent years, the average contestant on TPIR does not exactly possess good reasoning skills (re: that one guy from earlier this past season...is the video still here, considering that I have a now sudden urge to watch it?).
-
All this probability and math stuff is well and good, but you know that everything changes when Monty asks if you want to switch to another door.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192308\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 09:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'192283\' date=\'Jul 27 2008, 04:12 PM\']
Hang on, wait a minute. I think I see your point now. I got that one-track mind thing going on. From a math point, the numbers make a difference. But yeah, if the prize is a $6000 treadmill or a $7500 pepper grinder, the contestant will probably do just as well on either one.
\Is that it?[/quote]
Precisely so. Contestants are going to go on writing checks between $1000 and $3000, same as they always have, and sometimes they will win, sometimes they will lose.
MAYBE the game gets .01 percent harder. Oh noes.
[/quote]
I would argue the game gets 33.3% harder, because now the checks will be between $1000 and $4000, since I doubt the $2,000 increase in the range will lead to a strict $2,000 increase in the average prize (more likely $1,000-$1,500). Thus, your average check in that range wins 33.3% of the time instead of 50%, or in other words, 1/3rd of Check Game's wins disappear.
Alternately, here's the perspective I have (and the one I believe is more accurate). Let's say Check Game is played under the old rules for a trip. I'm not sure of the actual price (since trips can be so imprecise), but I can narrow it down to a $1,000 range. If I'm right about my range, I win every time.
Now, by your very own logic, that trip is 50% more expensive. (I'm using the comparison between a $4,000 prize and a $6,000 prize, which seems to be what everyone else is using.) Since the trip is 50% more expensive, I might only be able to narrow the trip to a 50%-larger range, or $1,500. In that range, I obviously don't win every time I'm right. Thus, Check Game has gotten measurably harder.
Probably not 33.3% harder, since the price of the trip would be weighted toward the center of my $1,500 range, but is it too unreasonable to assume that my estimation of a $6,000 trip is going to be 50% less precise than my estimation of a $4,000 trip?
-
Alright. Let's approach this from a slightly different angle.
Steve Gavazzi, are stats kept on what the ARP of the prizes have been in Check Game plays since the $5,000-$6,000 range has kicked in?
If so, from that, anyone who cares to crunch the numbers (I don't) can figure out what the low and high ends for a winning check were for each game, and then see how many of those fall outside of a statistical norm.
Then, at the end of this season, we can do the same with the playings of Check Game under the new range, and see if that statistical norm is significantly different.
My position, which I will not waver from, is that it won't be. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I will be.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192407\' date=\'Jul 28 2008, 12:01 PM\']Steve Gavazzi, are stats kept on what the ARP of the prizes have been in Check Game plays since the $5,000-$6,000 range has kicked in?[/quote]
If we really, really wanted to go through with this and were getting paid for it, I probably know enough people with stats that I could collect all the numbers...but no, not in one place that would be easy to look up.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'192412\' date=\'Jul 28 2008, 09:10 AM\']
If we really, really wanted to go through with this and were getting paid for it[/quote]
Lord knows I don't. I knew you guys kept some ridiculously detailed stats, so I figured those might be among them. No worries.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192407\' date=\'Jul 28 2008, 11:01 AM\']
Alright. Let's approach this from a slightly different angle.
Steve Gavazzi, are stats kept on what the ARP of the prizes have been in Check Game plays since the $5,000-$6,000 range has kicked in?
[/quote]
We do have the numbers from last season, at least.
$3,466
$3,000
$4,000
$4,138
$4,150
$3,199
$3,198
$3,756
$3,199
$3,048
$3,969
$3,598
$2,495
Looks like a check for exactly $2,000 would have won 10 of the 13 playings last season. I suspect the answer to whether a check for any specific number would win with that high a percentage over the entire Season 37 is 'no', but we shall see.
(Incidentally, Check Game was lost exactly 10 of those 13 playings.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192407\' date=\'Jul 28 2008, 11:01 AM\']
If so, from that, anyone who cares to crunch the numbers (I don't) can figure out what the low and high ends for a winning check were for each game, and then see how many of those fall outside of a statistical norm.
Then, at the end of this season, we can do the same with the playings of Check Game under the new range, and see if that statistical norm is significantly different.
My position, which I will not waver from, is that it won't be. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I will be.
[/quote]
Chris, good idea, but you need more cases to get any results that would be useful. That's not me; that's just how stats have to work. We're well into my day job here, so please trust me on this. That's why I wrote earlier that we would need at least a couple of season of stats with the new range for this to be of any use. Can we look at just S37 and get some ideas of where it's going? Sure, we can.
Seriously, if anyone is truly interested in doing this, please email me at jw_justice@hotmail.com (jw_justice@hotmail.com), and I'll let you know what I would need to run the numbers.
I do think you are right, Chris, that this new absolute range is not going to change anything worth all this bandwidth, but it has been fun, for what it's worth. :-)
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'192447\' date=\'Jul 28 2008, 12:45 PM\']
Chris, good idea, but you need more cases to get any results that would be useful. That's not me; that's just how stats have to work.[/quote]
I realize this, but in the absence of data, we gotta work with what we've got.
I do find it fascinating that if you throw out that set-up-to-lose $2495 (I don't think anyone goes into Check Game thinking they're gonna have to write a check for AT LEAST $2505), every other price in that list falls within a $1200 window. I didn't think it would be that close.
We're well into my day job here, so please trust me on this.
Dude, I'm not looking to get published. It's a game show.
-
Since I hate to leave something like this half-finished, Check Game appears to have been 13-17 in Season 17; in a happy coincidence, it looks like two of the three mistaken listings are in that year. It was 5-9 under $3,000-$3,500, giving that range a total record of 90-128, and 8-8 under $5,000-$6,000, giving that range a total record of 165-172.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'192430\' date=\'Jul 28 2008, 02:06 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'192412\' date=\'Jul 28 2008, 09:10 AM\']If we really, really wanted to go through with this and were getting paid for it[/quote]Lord knows I don't.[/quote]
Yeah, I don't, either. I'm just sayin'.
-
You know, I find myself actually looking forward to Season 37, albeit slightly. I have to admit a lot of this stuff has been overdue.
-
A partial image of the new wheel's look (which is not purple..don't know if that's been covered yet) is here (http://\"http://tastytumblr.com/post/44416878/price-is-right-wheel-spinin-it-like-its-hot\").
Looks very good, IMO.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'193189\' date=\'Aug 2 2008, 09:19 PM\']
A partial image of the new wheel's look (which is not purple..don't know if that's been covered yet) is here (http://\"http://tastytumblr.com/post/44416878/price-is-right-wheel-spinin-it-like-its-hot\").
Looks very good, IMO.
[/quote]
So, they changed the numbers on the wheel......why? They look just like the old version, but more safecracker-y.
Dunno what the whole point on that was. If you want to change the look of the show, then hey, it's your show, change the look of the show!
This new regime is just weird.
-
Nothing wrong with it, though. imo the wheel was due for a little freshening up anyway.
And at least it isn't the already-infamous Purple Wheel.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'193190\' date=\'Aug 2 2008, 09:24 PM\']Dunno what the whole point on that was. If you want to change the look of the show, then hey, it's your show, change the look of the show!
This new regime is just weird.[/quote]
I think it's change for sake of change. The staff has been presumably under a stiff regime of little-to-no-change, so seeing all these extraneous touch-ups doesn't seem that surprising.
To be honest, I could barely tell until I looked closely. I do like the chrome border with the lights off, though. Looks cool.
I guess we haven't talked about Gas Money (http://\"http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/gas-money-new-price-is-right-pricing-game/\") yet, either. I consider it.....interesting, I guess.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'193196\' date=\'Aug 2 2008, 11:03 PM\']
I guess we haven't talked about Gas Money (http://\"http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/gas-money-new-price-is-right-pricing-game/\") yet, either. I consider it.....interesting, I guess.
[/quote]
From the trio of descriptions I've heard, it essentially sounds like the inverse of the now-retired Joker, only played for a lot higher stakes.
-
Only on The Price is Right can you win $6,000 by being wrong three times. Oy.
/Or a new car for doing nothing more than choosing a number on the Pass the Buck board, I suppose.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'193190\' date=\'Aug 2 2008, 08:24 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'193189\' date=\'Aug 2 2008, 09:19 PM\']
A partial image of the new wheel's look (which is not purple..don't know if that's been covered yet) is here (http://\"http://tastytumblr.com/post/44416878/price-is-right-wheel-spinin-it-like-its-hot\").
Looks very good, IMO.
[/quote]
So, they changed the numbers on the wheel......why? They look just like the old version, but more safecracker-y.
Dunno what the whole point on that was. If you want to change the look of the show, then hey, it's your show, change the look of the show!
This new regime is just weird.
[/quote]
You ask "why?". I ask "If they're re-doing the rest of the wheel to look good in high-def, why not stick fresh numbers on that don't have 30 years' worth of accidental dents, scratches, etc.?"
They may not be exactly the same design, but the rest of the set is 2008's idea of how the 70s looked, not how the 70s actually looked.
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'193222\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 01:25 PM\']
You ask "why?". I ask "If they're re-doing the rest of the wheel to look good in high-def, why not stick fresh numbers on that don't have 30 years' worth of accidental dents, scratches, etc.?"
They may not be exactly the same design, but the rest of the set is 2008's idea of how the 70s looked, not how the 70s actually looked.
[/quote]
Not quite the point I'm trying to make. What I'm saying, is, the new bosses are obviously putting their own stamp on the show, yet that stamp seems to be exactly like the old stamp, with minor tweaks. It goes against all of the other rumours/innuendos that have TPIR shedding a LOT of it's former self.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'193205\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 01:42 AM\']Only on The Price is Right can you win $6,000 by being wrong three times. Oy.[/quote]
This is the same argument that was made against One Wrong Price, isn't it? I really don't think it's fair to say that someone is winning money for being wrong when the goal is "pick a wrong price" and they do so correctly.
I wonder if the price ranges are going to be similar to the ones used in Five Price Tags, and if so, what the historical record is on contestants picking the right price in that game with their first pick. Greater than 20%? Less? Between that, and all of the people who are surely not going to want to risk $6,000 in hand for what amounts to them to a coin flip, I'm not sure this game is going to have a win percentage much higher than the $1M win percentage on Deal. Which may be part of the idea, of course.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'193229\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 01:59 PM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'193205\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 01:42 AM\']Only on The Price is Right can you win $6,000 by being wrong three times. Oy.[/quote]
This is the same argument that was made against One Wrong Price, isn't it? I really don't think it's fair to say that someone is winning money for being wrong when the goal is "pick a wrong price" and they do so correctly.[/quote]No, not really. This isn't the example I was thinking of; I think Plinko is the most glaring example. You can blow all four prizes and still win $10,000.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'193260\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 04:31 PM\']No, not really. This isn't the example I was thinking of; I think Plinko is the most glaring example. You can blow all four prizes and still win $10,000.[/quote]As much as I don't like the "something for nothing," I'm OK with it because 1) it's not my money, and 1a) they can do whatever they damn well please with their budget, but more importantly
2) how dumb will it look when someone oh-fers the pricing portion and doesn't get to play the marquee game? You have this massive prop that everyone in the crowd goes wild for...and it goes back to the storage unit.
Lame.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'193229\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 11:59 AM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'193205\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 01:42 AM\']Only on The Price is Right can you win $6,000 by being wrong three times. Oy.[/quote]This is the same argument that was made against One Wrong Price, isn't it? I really don't think it's fair to say that someone is winning money for being wrong when the goal is "pick a wrong price" and they do so correctly.[/quote]I made no such argument about it: of the three prices, one is wrong, and you have to find it. End of rules.
The problem I have with Gas Money as written is that the second layer of rules is added on to give away the money. That layer of rules also allows someone who was initially wrong to win $6,000, even though he may not know that he was wrong that first time. If you're going to ask someone to pick the right price of a car, just do that, and be done with it. (Like Five Price Tags) Something in my brain just doesn't like it when you can be wrong from go and still win a pile of money like that.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'193292\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 10:54 PM\']
Something in my brain just doesn't like it when you can be wrong from go and still win a pile of money like that.[/quote]
But...you're not wrong. You're right about eliminating a wrong price.
-
Five Price Tags meets Trivia Trap...can't wait to see how this is gonna work.
Speaking of which, on Trivia Trap, they were paid to correctly identify wrong answers, so the players who knew the correct answer would have an advantage over those who blindly picked from the set. Same rules apply here: A player who knows the right price of the car has a better chance of taking the max than someone who goes based off picking blindly.
I have a question, though. Is it automatically going to be $1K for the first correctly guessed wrong price, $2K for the second, etc., or does each wrong price have a dollar amount attached to it?
-
tleberle wrote:
The problem I have with Gas Money as written is that the second layer of rules is added on to give away the money. That layer of rules also allows someone who was initially wrong to win $6,000, even though he may not know that he was wrong that first time.
In that case, don't have the contestant set aside any of the prices at the beginning. What you're left with is more or less a reworking of Grand Game, played for a car instead of cash.
-
According to this Variety (http://\"http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990000.html?categoryid=14&cs=1\") article, Mike Richards is your new co-exec. producer. He worked on Weakest Link and hosted Beauty and the Geek for the CW/B. It also states that he was considered for the hosting job last year as well...
Tyshaun
-
On Lucky Seven, if there is a dollar left over after buying the car, isn't it kind of insulting to tell the players to use the cash to buy what amounts to a mere thimblefull of gas? :)
-
I want to make a comment made in this article:
Many other shows in the daypart have been experiencing ratings declines as well.
The justification I'm told when Price's ratings are brought up is "Well, all of daytime is experiencing declines"
That's skirting the issue. If you had your wallet stolen, would you justify it by saying "Well, lots of other people get their wallets stolen"
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'193304\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 10:25 AM\']
According to this Variety (http://\"http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990000.html?categoryid=14&cs=1\") article, Mike Richards is your new co-exec. producer. He worked on Weakest Link and hosted Beauty and the Geek for the CW/B. It also states that he was considered for the hosting job last year as well...
Tyshaun
[/quote]
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/beauty-and-the-g...t/mike-richards (http://\"http://www.cwtv.com/shows/beauty-and-the-geek-4/cast/mike-richards\")
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'193314\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 11:45 AM\']
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'193304\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 10:25 AM\']
According to this Variety (http://\"http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990000.html?categoryid=14&cs=1\") article, Mike Richards is your new co-exec. producer. He worked on Weakest Link and hosted Beauty and the Geek for the CW/B. It also states that he was considered for the hosting job last year as well...
Tyshaun
[/quote]
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/beauty-and-the-g...t/mike-richards (http://\"http://www.cwtv.com/shows/beauty-and-the-geek-4/cast/mike-richards\")
[/quote]
Well, truthfully, I'm more impressed with him now than when I just thought he was a reality-show host who dabbled in producing more reality crap.
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'193313\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 11:43 AM\']That's skirting the issue. If you had your wallet stolen, would you justify it by saying "Well, lots of other people get their wallets stolen"[/quote]
I'm not sure that's a very good analogy. The simple fact of the matter is that fewer people are watching television, and that means rating declines are hapening to everybody. How much of the decline you want to attribute to that vs Drew vs fatigue over a 37-year-old game is a different matter, but it's fair when saying that TPIR ratings are down to say daytime ratings across the board are down.
-
[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' post=\'192080\' date=\'Jul 25 2008, 12:11 PM\']
I shall combat the media bias by always referring to him by his full name: James Todd Newton.
That's right, he lies about his first name and uses his middle!
[/quote]
This may be further down in the post, but Newton's father's name is Jim. He's a good guy who umpires many high school baseball games.
John Brocato
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'193322\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 12:52 PM\']
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'193314\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 11:45 AM\']
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'193304\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 10:25 AM\']
According to this Variety (http://\"http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990000.html?categoryid=14&cs=1\") article, Mike Richards is your new co-exec. producer. He worked on Weakest Link and hosted Beauty and the Geek for the CW/B. It also states that he was considered for the hosting job last year as well...
Tyshaun
[/quote]
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/beauty-and-the-g...t/mike-richards (http://\"http://www.cwtv.com/shows/beauty-and-the-geek-4/cast/mike-richards\")
[/quote]
Well, truthfully, I'm more impressed with him now than when I just thought he was a reality-show host who dabbled in producing more reality crap.
[/quote]
I'm.... lukewarm. He wouldn't have been my first choice, but I can think of worse..
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'193314\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 11:45 AM\']
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'193304\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 10:25 AM\']
According to this Variety (http://\"http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990000.html?categoryid=14&cs=1\") article, Mike Richards is your new co-exec. producer. He worked on Weakest Link and hosted Beauty and the Geek for the CW/B. It also states that he was considered for the hosting job last year as well...
Tyshaun
[/quote]
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/beauty-and-the-g...t/mike-richards (http://\"http://www.cwtv.com/shows/beauty-and-the-geek-4/cast/mike-richards\")
[/quote]
"The move comes about a month after Roger Dobkowitz left his duties as producer of the venerable gameshow, produced by FremantleMedia North America, (Daily Variety, July 7)."
Variety made it sound like it was Dob's decision to leave. Not only do they create their own language, they create their own version on how he left.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'193294\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 01:08 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'193292\' date=\'Aug 3 2008, 10:54 PM\']
Something in my brain just doesn't like it when you can be wrong from go and still win a pile of money like that.[/quote]
But...you're not wrong. You're right about eliminating a wrong price.
[/quote]
This thread is making me nostalgic for "It Pays to Be Ignorant"!
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'193347\' date=\'Aug 4 2008, 08:06 PM\']
"The move comes about a month after Roger Dobkowitz left his duties as producer of the venerable gameshow, produced by FremantleMedia North America, (Daily Variety, July 7)."
Variety made it sound like it was Dob's decision to leave. Not only do they create their own language, they create their own version on how he left.
[/quote]
Variety is slipping..back in the day they would have said....."move comes two fortnights after Roger Dobkowitz ankled as showrunner of veteran gamer. Skein is produced by FremantleMedia North America"
-
Here's an ET interview (http://\"http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-price-is-rights-secret-winner/3248018304\") with Drew about the Plinko incident, on the set of the Season 37 premiere.
-
Well, if Fremantle ever buys Universal from NBC....
-
Variety is slipping..back in the day they would have said....."move comes two fortnights after Roger Dobkowitz ankled as showrunner of veteran gamer. Skein is produced by FremantleMedia North America"
It needs a tortured reference to the "Eye network".
-
Three Strikes changes (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.msg114797#msg114797\")
Apparently first digit is given free, and all three strikes are in the bag again. I would advise not scrolling down from that post, as there's some real "OMGWTF" posts.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'193550\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 07:23 PM\']
Three Strikes changes (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.msg114797#msg114797\")
Apparently first digit is given free, and all three strikes are in the bag again.[/quote]
That's......bizarre. They've pretty much set the game back 20 years. If it's to make the game faster, I can sorta understand, but still.....bizarre.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'193553\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 08:02 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'193550\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 07:23 PM\']
Three Strikes changes (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.msg114797#msg114797\")
Apparently first digit is given free, and all three strikes are in the bag again.[/quote]
That's......bizarre. They've pretty much set the game back 20 years. If it's to make the game faster, I can sorta understand, but still.....bizarre.
[/quote]
I can't really think of another reason (besides speeding it up) for the change, unless they suddenly plan to offer $100,000 cars on it.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'193553\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 05:02 PM\']
That's......bizarre. They've pretty much set the game back 20 years. If it's to make the game faster, I can sorta understand, but still.....bizarre.[/quote]
I wtf'd.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'193562\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 09:03 PM\']Dare I float the notion we're going into "change for the sake of change" soon? I mean, 3 Strikes DID take a long time to play, but still...
[/quote]
Again I'm left with the question about how big a deal this really is. I mean, every single one of you recognize that the changes speed the game up. Doesn't it seem likely that's the reason they did it?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'193563\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 09:33 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'193562\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 09:03 PM\']Dare I float the notion we're going into "change for the sake of change" soon? I mean, 3 Strikes DID take a long time to play, but still...
[/quote]
Again I'm left with the question about how big a deal this really is. I mean, every single one of you recognize that the changes speed the game up. Doesn't it seem likely that's the reason they did it?
[/quote]
I do agree, but if you think about it, there's little you can really do to *guarantee* this game goes quicker. By its design it is a long game. You can push it towards being quicker by changing the rules (as we see now) but ultimately, it's still possible for someone to pull the same number and repeatedly screw it up, just less likely.
Eh, you're right, it could be worse. Maybe it's the "what could happen next" thoughts sneaking into my mind again... but eh. I'll give them that the changes so far have been mostly good except for the early-on wheel debacle.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'193565\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 09:45 PM\']
I'll give them that the changes so far have been mostly good except for the early-on wheel debacle.[/quote]
Which they recognized and addressed quickly. Yet no matter what, you guys continue to start from the position that they can't possibly know what they're doing, and each positive change can only mean that the next one must be the worst one ever.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'193566\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 09:57 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'193565\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 09:45 PM\']
I'll give them that the changes so far have been mostly good except for the early-on wheel debacle.[/quote]
Which they recognized and addressed quickly. Yet no matter what, you guys continue to start from the position that they can't possibly know what they're doing, and each positive change can only mean that the next one must be the worst one ever.
[/quote]
Not....quite the context I wanted to put it in, but touché nevertheless. I freely admit that I totally underestimated things at the start, and I was wrong about Mike Richards (or at least as wrong as one can be before seeing his work) too.
And yes, they did get the wheel problem resolved with admirable speed. No doubt about it. I guess my only real standing criticism of it is why they saw the need to bring the copy wheel from Vegas for only one or two shows...
EDIT: Okay, I thought about it more, and I realized that I'm being totally off-base with my thoughts on the 3 Strikes change. Last year I actually found myself actually expecting it to be *retired* by now because of how long it took... so if making the game harder is what it takes to lower that time, so be it. It's a necessary evil.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'193565\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 06:45 PM\']Eh, you're right, it could be worse. Maybe it's the "what could happen next" thoughts sneaking into my mind again... but eh. I'll give them that the changes so far have been mostly good except for the early-on wheel debacle.[/quote]Some of us are working from the position that making Three Strikes a faster game isn't a bad thing. And the "what happens next" thoughts are nothing more than a slippery slope argument.
Wait until they actually DO something bad before you throw them under the bus.
-
What I have yet to figure out is why everyone is so wound up about the game going back to its original format.....
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'193572\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 10:46 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'193565\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 06:45 PM\']Eh, you're right, it could be worse. Maybe it's the "what could happen next" thoughts sneaking into my mind again... but eh. I'll give them that the changes so far have been mostly good except for the early-on wheel debacle.[/quote]Some of us are working from the position that making Three Strikes a faster game isn't a bad thing. And the "what happens next" thoughts are nothing more than a slippery slope argument.
Wait until they actually DO something bad before you throw them under the bus.
[/quote]
Wait, I don't believe I specifically said making 3 Strikes faster in and of itself was bad (of course, knowing my luck I probably did) And I was trying to get across that I was dismissing the "what happens next" notion, but I guess I didn't convey myself properly. No biggie, no harm.
I guess my...failure with words also twisted up my attempt to try and compliment them for impressing me and proving me mostly wrong. This is so frustrating and embarrassing...
What I have yet to figure out is why everyone is so wound up about the game going back to its original format.....
The more extreme opinions are probably fueled not by the 'three strike chips' element but the notion of giving the first digit for free, which was only used (to my knowledge) on the Doug Davidson version... (I know I'm probably wrong in regards to 3 Strikes +, but I just don't know how they handled five digits with that)
-
[quote name=\'isucgv\' post=\'193574\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 10:50 PM\']What I have yet to figure out is why everyone is so wound up about the game going back to its original format.....[/quote]
I think the issue is that it's the original format for 4-digit 3 Strikes -- not the 5-digit version, which for the last 17 years or so has routinely offered some of the most expensive cars on the show and is supposed to be hard.
And yes, I realize that putting back the second and third strikes will take care of the difficulty...but there's still something about it that just rubs me the wrong way. It should make the game time faster, though -- I want to say 3 Strikes was timed a minute shorter than 3 Strikes +.
-
G-R.net confirms that this season, the show will be including Rich in some of the Showcases.
http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.345 (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.345\")
-
[quote name=\'xavier45\' post=\'193602\' date=\'Aug 7 2008, 11:11 AM\']
G-R.net confirms that this season, the show will be including Rich in some of the Showcases.
http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.345 (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=7906.345\")
[/quote]
Noooo! I don't like changes.
-
[quote name=\'isucgv\' post=\'193574\' date=\'Aug 6 2008, 09:50 PM\']
What I have yet to figure out is why everyone is so wound up about the game going back to its original format.....
[/quote]
With perfect pricing, the 'new' rules would decrease the probability of winning by a full 20%, from 62% to 42%. If we assume the contestants are guessing randomly, though (which is much closer to being accurate)...I'm sure the probabilities narrow considerably (read: the difference will be much less noticable than 20% would be), but damned if I'm going to do the math on THAT calculation.
That said...yeah, I really don't get it either.
-
Guess what? 3 Strikes just got even worse.
According to Marc Green at golden-road.net (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=8214.0\"), after just one (apparently anticlimatic) playing of the 3 strike chips/first digit free format, it's now 1 strike chip/first digit free. Needless to say, it has now become much easier to win, which means it won't be played for luxury cars anymore.
As tpirfan28 elegantly put it:
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5757/strk4failis1.jpg (http://\"http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5757/strk4failis1.jpg\")
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'194200\' date=\'Aug 15 2008, 02:48 PM\']
Guess what? 3 Strikes just got even worse.
According to Marc Green at golden-road.net (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=8214.0\"), after just one (apparently anticlimatic) playing of the 3 strike chips/first digit free format, it's now 1 strike chip/first digit free. Needless to say, it has now become much easier to win, which means it won't be played for luxury cars anymore.
As tpirfan28 elegantly put it:
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5757/strk4failis1.jpg (http://\"http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5757/strk4failis1.jpg\")
[/quote]
3 Strikes played for Chevy Aveos? Interesting.
/sarcasm
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'194200\' date=\'Aug 15 2008, 02:48 PM\']
Guess what? 3 Strikes just got even worse.
According to Marc Green at golden-road.net (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=8214.0\"), after just one (apparently anticlimatic) playing of the 3 strike chips/first digit free format, it's now 1 strike chip/first digit free. Needless to say, it has now become much easier to win, which means it won't be played for luxury cars anymore.[/quote]That's seems kind of reactionary. Will they at least play it more often, since it doesn't take as long and won't hurt the budget as much? And does that mean that another game will take it's place as part of "The Big Three"? If so, I'd suggest Temptation.
-
[quote name=\'KrisW73\' post=\'194206\' date=\'Aug 15 2008, 02:36 PM\']
3 Strikes played for Chevy Aveos? Interesting.
/sarcasm
[/quote]
They don't have Chevy Aveos anymore. For much the same reason they do have Hondas now, occasionally.
-
I wish they would just go ahead and retire 3 Strikes already.
-
Thought the first: Wasn't 3 Strikes regularly NOT played for expensive cars in its first years?
Thought the second: 4 numbers with 1 strike chip isn't THAT much easier than 5 numbers with 1 strike chip, especially since the first number is usually much easier to place. I don't see why they can't still play for more expensive cars, at least occasionally.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194243\' date=\'Aug 15 2008, 10:19 PM\']
Thought the first: Wasn't 3 Strikes regularly NOT played for expensive cars in its first years?
Thought the second: 4 numbers with 1 strike chip isn't THAT much easier than 5 numbers with 1 strike chip, especially since the first number is usually much easier to place. I don't see why they can't still play for more expensive cars, at least occasionally.
[/quote]
Isn't the first number pretty much trivial anyway? There never seem to be more than two good options for it unless the contestant is really out of it in regards to having a range.
I think the....letdown?....coming off this is just because we're used to 3 Strikes as a high-end game after so long.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194243\' date=\'Aug 15 2008, 10:19 PM\']Thought the first: Wasn't 3 Strikes regularly NOT played for expensive cars in its first years?[/quote]
Yes, but given that the last time it happened was June of 1993, I'm not sure how important that really is.
-
Ack, this change kind of sucks, but it sounds like it could be for a budget reason too. Even though it will probably be played more often. We'll have to see what the win loss record is with the new format.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194253\' date=\'Aug 16 2008, 12:01 AM\'][quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194243\' date=\'Aug 15 2008, 10:19 PM\']Thought the first: Wasn't 3 Strikes regularly NOT played for expensive cars in its first years?[/quote]Yes, but given that the last time it happened was June of 1993, I'm not sure how important that really is.[/quote]
Well, that's why I made it a thought and not a counterpoint to anyone's argument.
I do think there's a distinction to be made between thinking that 3 Strikes lost a little of its luster with this move and/or thinking that it might look cheap, as compared to "Cadillacs Cadillacs Cadillacs! If the car price starts with a 1, my day is ruined!" I am aiming, as it were, at the latter group.
-
I for one won't mind the four digit version again. And I don't mind the lesser cars, 3 Strikes was indeed played for lesser cars for years, why shouldn't it work here?
Also, other games give away the first number for free (and if this has been said already, apologies...), so what's the problem?
-
People can't accept it because its one more change.
I hope the first car they play for is a Chevrolet Aveo.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194346\' date=\'Aug 17 2008, 02:42 PM\']
People can't accept it because its one more change.
I hope the first car they play for is a Chevrolet Aveo.[/quote]
Heck, you want to REALLY freak them out? Don't play it for a car at all.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194352\' date=\'Aug 17 2008, 03:10 PM\']Heck, you want to REALLY freak them out? Don't play it for a car at all.[/quote]They should play it for a huge jar of jellybeans, like at the fair.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'194354\' date=\'Aug 17 2008, 02:17 PM\']
They should play it for a huge jar of jellybeans, like at the fair.
[/quote]
Yeah, but unless Jelly Belly actually pays for the plug, we'd get subjected to crap like "Jelly Beans make a delicious snack time treat!"
-
[quote name=\'Seth Thrasher\' post=\'194361\' date=\'Aug 17 2008, 04:21 PM\']
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'194354\' date=\'Aug 17 2008, 02:17 PM\']
They should play it for a huge jar of jellybeans, like at the fair.
[/quote]
Yeah, but unless Jelly Belly actually pays for the plug, we'd get subjected to crap like "Jelly Beans make a delicious snack time treat!"
[/quote]
What next...
"A new car!" (pause for reaction) "This new car will get you to and from where you want to go!"
/The above is tongue-in-cheek
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194246\' date=\'Aug 15 2008, 10:32 PM\']
Isn't the first number pretty much trivial anyway?
[/quote]
I say no. It adds an additional element of fun to the game. Playing along at home is what gets people hooked on a show. Screaming at your TV saying "It's not a 2, dumbass!" is why people watch. 'I can do better than they can.'
Many times a 3, 4, or 5 are used and most times, any could be possible.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194243\' date=\'Aug 15 2008, 09:19 PM\']
Thought the second: 4 numbers with 1 strike chip isn't THAT much easier than 5 numbers with 1 strike chip, especially since the first number is usually much easier to place. I don't see why they can't still play for more expensive cars, at least occasionally.
[/quote]
I was bored of the Olympics this evening and had nothing better to do, so I wrote a simulator. In the simulator, guesses are random but no digit/position guess is repeated. Over a few million trials, I got:
5 digits, 1 strike ("old" format): 33% of games won
4 digits, 1 strike ("new" format): 44% won
5 digits, 3 strikes (never played, I think): 13% won
4 digits, 3 strikes (the original format, recently revived for one playing): 21% won
So the new probability is about 1/3 higher than it used to be. It's too bad it's apparently a part of the general "car game" rotation because an expected value of $16,000 per playing (a $48,000 car every third time under the old rules), would still work out to a pretty nice $36,000 car with the new win percentage.
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'194453\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 12:33 AM\']5 digits, 3 strikes (never played, I think)[/quote]
On the contrary, played for about 15 years.
-
If this is true, this is probably the most brainless move yet. Source (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php?topic=8248.0\")
As I understand it, when playing Make Your Mark, the $500 now has little to do with game play.
If the contestant loses, they will still keep the $500.
Basically, if you play Make Your Mark, you win $500 minimum. This once again takes away an integral part of the game.
The $500 was given up if the contestant decided to change the marker after two prices were revealed.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'194489\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 11:38 AM\']
The $500 was given up if the contestant decided to change the marker after two prices were revealed.[/quote]I don't remember: before, if you decided not to switch and failed, did you still get the five hundy?
I wonder if that's what they're doing now, but it still costs you the $500 to make the switch.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194491\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 02:42 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'194489\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 11:38 AM\']
The $500 was given up if the contestant decided to change the marker after two prices were revealed.[/quote]I don't remember: before, if you decided not to switch and failed, did you still get the five hundy?
I wonder if that's what they're doing now, but it still costs you the $500 to make the switch.
[/quote]No switch + marker in wrong spot in the olden days meant you also lost the $500.
No switch + marker in the wrong spot now means you keep the $500.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'194493\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 11:46 AM\']
No switch + marker in the wrong spot now means you keep the $500.[/quote]
My question is: what happens when you switch and a marker is in the wrong spot? Do you keep the $500 then? Because, if so, that makes the OP's statement patently false.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194495\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 12:05 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'194493\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 11:46 AM\']
No switch + marker in the wrong spot now means you keep the $500.[/quote]
My question is: what happens when you switch and a marker is in the wrong spot? Do you keep the $500 then? Because, if so, that makes the OP's statement patently false.
[/quote]
Because I'm not 100% sure what you mean, here are all the outcomes...
Correctly leave the marker alone = prizes and $500
Correctly move the marker = prizes, no $500
Incorrectly leave the marker alone = no prizes, no $500
Incorrectly move the marker = no prizes, no $500
-
The $500 was essentially a bonus for picking out the 3 right prices on the first try.
-
While I liked the old Make Your Mark rules (you could literally see the thought "but I can't give up $500 that's in my greedy little hands!" written on so many contestants' faces), I don't think it's an integral part of the game--that is, there's nothing wrong with the new rules, and no one would have batted an eye had they been the rules from day one.
I do think it's not the best move, however, to give contestants a cash safety net, even one as small as $500, in a non-car game. If they were trying to give me a hovercraft and a gumball machine, for instance, I'd be telling Drew not to switch the last price before they even revealed the first two.
(I originally wrote "pinball machine", a prize which would actually have me paying attention.)
-
I am not struck by the feeling that this was thought out very well.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194534\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 07:20 PM\']
I'm not asking about *then.* I know how it worked then. I want to know what the rule is *now.*
'Cuz it sounds like the Chicken Littles over at G-R are getting all riled up saying "the least you can win is $500 now!!!!!!111!!!" when that doesn't sound like it's the case at all, if you still have to fork it over to make the switch.
[/quote]
I do not know yet...and that really wasn't that clear on that post. If the $500 still has to be sacrificed for the switch, then it's a odd change. If the $500 isn't even dealt with in the switch, then it's definitely a WTF change.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'194535\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 07:55 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194534\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 07:20 PM\']
I'm not asking about *then.* I know how it worked then. I want to know what the rule is *now.*
'Cuz it sounds like the Chicken Littles over at G-R are getting all riled up saying "the least you can win is $500 now!!!!!!111!!!" when that doesn't sound like it's the case at all, if you still have to fork it over to make the switch.
[/quote]
I do not know yet...and that really wasn't that clear on that post. If the $500 still has to be sacrificed for the switch, then it's a odd change. If the $500 isn't even dealt with in the switch, then it's definitely a WTF change.
[/quote]
If it is still used to buy the switch on the third mark....then what IS the change? I'm actually a fan of this game and I still get the feeling I'm missing something.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194454\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 12:00 AM\']
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'194453\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 12:33 AM\']5 digits, 3 strikes (never played, I think)[/quote]
On the contrary, played for about 15 years.
[/quote]
D'oh. For some reason, when I posted last night, I was convinced that they hadn't ever played that way, but now I remember that they did. The dismal win rate with five digits and three strikes is probably why it got to be a luxury car game in the first place.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194534\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 06:20 PM\']
'Cuz it sounds like the Chicken Littles over at G-R are getting all riled up saying "the least you can win is $500 now!!!!!!111!!!" when that doesn't sound like it's the case at all, if you still have to fork it over to make the switch.
[/quote]
I have to imagine the $500 bribe only applies if you don't change. The new regime over at Studio 33 may be changing things for sake of change, but I don't think they're going to start handing out money just for making it up on stage. (EDIT: It's my interpretation that the only change is that if you don't switch and hace the third marker wrong, you keep the $500 now, but lost it before.)
Then again, there are currently at least two games where it's impossible to win absolutely nothing (Let 'Em Roll and Any Number) and it would take a monumental act of stupidity not to win the two-digit prize in Ten Chances.
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'194543\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 07:19 PM\']
Then again, there are currently at least two games where it's impossible to win absolutely nothing (Let 'Em Roll and Any Number) and it would take a monumental act of stupidity not to win the two-digit prize in Ten Chances.
[/quote]
Money Game would also count. Either you're gonna win a couple hundred bucks or the car (or possibly both).
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'194543\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 05:19 PM\']
(EDIT: It's my interpretation that the only change is that if you don't switch and hace the third marker wrong, you keep the $500 now, but lost it before.)[/quote]
That is my interpretation as well.
Which is a long way from "Basically, if you play Make Your Mark, you win $500 minimum."
-
I do wonder why the change was made, but at worst it's just a little bit convoluted. Not a biggie.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194545\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 07:55 PM\']
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'194543\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 05:19 PM\']
(EDIT: It's my interpretation that the only change is that if you don't switch and hace the third marker wrong, you keep the $500 now, but lost it before.)[/quote]
That is my interpretation as well.
Which is a long way from "Basically, if you play Make Your Mark, you win $500 minimum."
[/quote]
And to me, this makes for a better risk/reward scenario than "you can give up your $500 to switch, or still have a 50/50 shot at losing it anyway." Makes sense to me, and I don't get what all the huffing and puffing is about.
/the $500 in hand, or chance at a hot tub, wine rack, and cotton candy maker?
//putting that cash as deep into my pocket as possible
-
I never did understand why this wasn't the rule from the game's beginning.
-
[quote name=\'HYHYBT\' post=\'194572\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 12:43 AM\']
I never did understand why this wasn't the rule from the game's beginning.
[/quote]
Because it shouldn't be a standard practice to award $500 for making your way onto the stage. Why should someone win $500 for losing?
-
[quote name=\'HYHYBT\' post=\'194572\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 12:43 AM\']I never did understand why this wasn't the rule from the game's beginning.[/quote]
Because the money wasn't intended as a bargaining chip. It was a bonus for getting everything right on your first try. If you thought you didn't have the last marker in the right place, the only logical choice was to give up the money -- because if it was indeed wrong, you'd already lost the money, anyway.
Under these new rules, if you aren't sure what the last price is, you can just keep the marker where it is and walk away with $500...and if you happen to win in the process, so much the better. It's ridiculous.
-
Ah! So in essence, the $500 now is considered a "consolation bailout". Sodboy has a point in that the $500 may be nicer than some of the prizes offered, but in theory, it's nothing more than a "hand-out" on a non-switch that can be incorrect. It's awkward, & it's totally unnecessary.
-
I am COMPLETELY flabbergasted. Really. I shouldn't be, but I am.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194576\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 11:18 PM\']
Because it shouldn't be a standard practice to award $500 for making your way onto the stage. Why should someone win $500 for losing?[/quote]
(See Roll, Let 'em.)
/god not more CHANGE
//I can't handle CHANGE
///if a bum asks me for spare CHANGE I'll go insane
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194582\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 04:44 AM\']
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194576\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 11:18 PM\']
Because it shouldn't be a standard practice to award $500 for making your way onto the stage. Why should someone win $500 for losing?[/quote]
(See Roll, Let 'em.)
[/quote]
Great point. So we're encouraging flaws now?
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194583\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:40 AM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194582\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 04:44 AM\']
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194576\' date=\'Aug 19 2008, 11:18 PM\']
Because it shouldn't be a standard practice to award $500 for making your way onto the stage. Why should someone win $500 for losing?[/quote]
(See Roll, Let 'em.)
[/quote]
Great point. So we're encouraging flaws now?
[/quote]
Why is it a flaw?? Are you going to turn down $500 if somebody offers it to you?? Besides, they don't keep the money if they change the marker and they're wrong.
-
To all people complaining about Make Your Mark, I'd like to point out the following from the show's perspective:[list=1]
- Some products awarded are not provided by the manufacturers.
- Those not provided by the manufacturer cost the show money.
- This change allows them to put up three prizes purchased by the show and have it effectively be cheaper to play. Why? Because people are more likely to go for it if they keep the $500 anyway.
- A rule that appears to make the show more generous while actually saving it money is a good thing.
-
While everyone here is bickering about the paltry sum of a guaranteed $500 in Make Your Mark, I'm surprised that nobody as of yet has even mentioned the game in which you pretty much walk into at least $3000 worth of goods as soon as you step on to the stage -- Temptation (:The All Original Rossi-Free Car Game).
If you compare MYM to that game, getting $500 just for playing is nothing.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'194590\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 08:49 AM\']
While everyone here is bickering about the paltry sum of a guaranteed $500 in Make Your Mark, I'm surprised that nobody as of yet has even mentioned the game in which you pretty much walk into at least $3000 worth of goods as soon as you step on to the stage -- Temptation (:The All Original Rossi-Free Car Game).
[/quote]
Good point, but at least with Temptation there is still the chance you walk away with zilch.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194583\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:40 AM\']Great point. So we're encouraging flaws now?[/quote]Why is a consolation prize a flaw?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194593\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 08:09 AM\']
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194583\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:40 AM\']Great point. So we're encouraging flaws now?[/quote]Why is a consolation prize a flaw?
[/quote]
When the consolation prize is comparable to the prizes you're offered, it's a flaw. $500 vs. a car is fine. $500 vs. three IUFB prizes that the contestant might not even want is something else.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194583\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 02:40 AM\']
Great point. So we're encouraging flaws now?
[/quote]
(See Game, Money.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194596\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:30 AM\']
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194583\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 02:40 AM\']
Great point. So we're encouraging flaws now?
[/quote]
(See Game, Money.)
[/quote]
Wait, so you mean to tell me you don't think Money Game could be improved thusly?
"You've got $136 so far. You can take that and quit now, or you can play on for the car. If you don't get the other half of the car, though, you lose everything."
/sarcasm, folks
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'194594\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:24 AM\']When the consolation prize is comparable to the prizes you're offered, it's a flaw. $500 vs. a car is fine. $500 vs. three IUFB prizes that the contestant might not even want is something else.[/quote]Isn't that more of an indictment of the prize coordinator, rather than the new format?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194600\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 12:11 PM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'194594\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:24 AM\']When the consolation prize is comparable to the prizes you're offered, it's a flaw. $500 vs. a car is fine. $500 vs. three IUFB prizes that the contestant might not even want is something else.[/quote]Isn't that more of an indictment of the prize coordinator, rather than the new format?[/quote]
What do you want 'em to do -- play the game for $22,000 worth of prizes?
In general, the more prizes a non-car game offers, the lower their average price is going to be.
-
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'194597\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 08:49 AM\']
Wait, so you mean to tell me you don't think Money Game could be improved thusly?[/quote]
I got your sarcasm, but the point I am making is twofold: one, that not only is there a precedent for consolation money in TPiR games, but there is a THIRTY-FIVE-PLUS-YEAR precedent, and it happens to be one of the more highly-regarded games on the show.
(And according to this (http://\"http://www.westegg.com/inflation/\"), guess how much $100 (and I don't think $100 is an unreasonable estimate for Money Game losers over time) in 1972 dollars is worth today?)
Oh, and two, that the fanb0is really need to get the hell over this.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194605\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:04 PM\']
Oh, and two, that the fanb0is really need to get the hell over this.[/quote]
They will -- as soon as the next game gets changed.
/You notice we're not talking about Three Strikes anymore.
//The pattern here is remarkably predictable.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194607\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:12 AM\']
They will -- as soon as the next game gets changed.[/quote]
Clearly I'm working from a far more global definition of "this" than you are. :)
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194603\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 09:40 AM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194600\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 12:11 PM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'194594\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:24 AM\']When the consolation prize is comparable to the prizes you're offered, it's a flaw. $500 vs. a car is fine. $500 vs. three IUFB prizes that the contestant might not even want is something else.[/quote]Isn't that more of an indictment of the prize coordinator, rather than the new format?[/quote]
What do you want 'em to do -- play the game for $22,000 worth of prizes?
In general, the more prizes a non-car game offers, the lower their average price is going to be.
[/quote]
This.
$20,000 in prize(s) can justify a consolation prize. $5,000 cannot.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194605\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:04 PM\']
Oh, and two, that the fanb0is really need to get the hell over this.
[/quote]
But Syd fired THE DOB!! He's ruining the show!
/I will not watch anymore
//until the new season starts
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'194609\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:15 AM\']
$20,000 in prize(s) can justify a consolation prize. $5,000 cannot.[/quote]
You gotta be kidding me.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194607\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:12 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194605\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:04 PM\']Oh, and two, that the fanb0is really need to get the hell over this.[/quote]They will -- as soon as the next game gets changed.
/You notice we're not talking about Three Strikes anymore.[/quote]
Who's to say the next game to get changed won't be 3 Strikes? They've already messed with it twice in two playings.
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'194609\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 12:15 PM\']
$20,000 in prize(s) can justify a consolation prize. $5,000 cannot.
[/quote]
Somebody, hand me a facepalm, stat.
/New on the Punchboard: 5 $10,000 slips and a boatload of zeroes
//Did I mention the new all-or-nothing Race Game?
///Ditto on Switcheroo, if the car's under $20K
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194616\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:03 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194607\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:12 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194605\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:04 PM\']Oh, and two, that the fanb0is really need to get the hell over this.[/quote]They will -- as soon as the next game gets changed.
/You notice we're not talking about Three Strikes anymore.[/quote]
Who's to say the next game to get changed won't be 3 Strikes? They've already messed with it twice in two playings.
[/quote]And if they do, so freakin what! The core concept of the game is still there.
Next up: The flippy boxes on Bargain Game become electronic monitors.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194628\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 03:32 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194616\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:03 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194607\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:12 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194605\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 01:04 PM\']Oh, and two, that the fanb0is really need to get the hell over this.[/quote]They will -- as soon as the next game gets changed.
/You notice we're not talking about Three Strikes anymore.[/quote]Who's to say the next game to get changed won't be 3 Strikes? They've already messed with it twice in two playings.[/quote]And if they do, so freakin what! The core concept of the game is still there.[/quote]
So you seriously think it's wise for a pricing game to have different rules every time they play it? 'Cause you just implied that that's hunky-dory.
(...Did I just say "hunky-dory?")
-
I'm wondering if the next change isn't gonna be something along the lines of dropping 15 seconds on Race Game or something wonky with Triple Play.
-
Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.
Perhaps the game will just go away anyway, and this will all be moot.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']
Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.
Perhaps the game will just go away anyway, and this will all be moot.
[/quote]
Okay....'why' was the Make Your Mark change implemented?
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 02:04 PM\']
Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]
No, it really wouldn't. Because what you people don't seem to pick up on is that the average viewer DOESN'T CARE. If the average viewer even notices (and 99.999% of the time, they don't), they see a rule change that, frankly, makes a good bit of sense.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'194631\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 02:57 PM\']
I'm wondering if the next change isn't gonna be something along the lines of dropping 15 seconds on Race Game or something wonky with Triple Play.
[/quote]
Also, Golden Road will be played for increasingly large jars of cookies.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194577\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 02:40 AM\']Because the money wasn't intended as a bargaining chip. It was a bonus for getting everything right on your first try. If you thought you didn't have the last marker in the right place, the only logical choice was to give up the money -- because if it was indeed wrong, you'd already lost the money, anyway.[/quote]This part has been sticking in my craw. If this money (as you say) was intended to be a bonus, why didn't they present it as such? Why not say "If you get all three right on your first try, not only do you win all three prizes BUT I'll give you $500 as well for being a good shopper"? Then after they make their three guesses, you ask for the bell or buzzer. If it's a bell, fantastic. If it's a buzzer, they change one to win all three. That sounds more straightforward than all this bonus nonsense.
Under these new rules, if you aren't sure what the last price is, you can just keep the marker where it is and walk away with $500...and if you happen to win in the process, so much the better. It's ridiculous.
Yes, your statement is ridiculous. When do you see contestants truly try to lose the games? If they don't switch the marker, couldn't it just be...because they think they're right? They might still switch if their friends in the audience tell them to.
I don't believe this change will lead to fewer wins. In fact, I think it'll be won more than ever. It seemed that every time a contestant was about to change a marker in this game, Bob or Drew would remind them that they'd lose the $500 and they'd have second thoughts. Now, there's no such barrier.
I would have made another change to this game, actually. I think it could use a split screen. One box on the contestant. Another on the model and prize. One each on the remaining two tags.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194648\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 03:28 PM\']
It seemed that every time a contestant was about to change a marker in this game, Bob or Drew would remind them that they'd lose the $500 and they'd have second thoughts. Now, there's no such barrier.[/quote]
I'm going to ask the class again, because we don't seem to have this straight. Under the NEW RULES (NOT the old rules. THE NEW ONES), how much cash money does the contestant win in the following situations. One of them, I actually know and will furnish:
Does not switch, wins: $500
Does not switch, loses: ?
Switches, wins: ?
Switches, loses: ?
Really, we need to get this down in black and white, definitively, because some people (and maybe "some people" includes "me") aren't getting it.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194649\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 06:39 PM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194648\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 03:28 PM\']
It seemed that every time a contestant was about to change a marker in this game, Bob or Drew would remind them that they'd lose the $500 and they'd have second thoughts. Now, there's no such barrier.[/quote]
I'm going to ask the class again, because we don't seem to have this straight. Under the NEW RULES (NOT the old rules. THE NEW ONES), how much cash money does the contestant win in the following situations. One of them, I actually know and will furnish:
Does not switch, wins: $500
Does not switch, loses: ?
Switches, wins: ?
Switches, loses: ?
Really, we need to get this down in black and white, definitively, because some people (and maybe "some people" includes "me") aren't getting it.
[/quote]
The impression I have is that if you keep the mark you'll get the money, and if you switch you won't.
/is bored with the overuse of 'fanb0is' but does agree this change is really minor
-
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'194647\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 06:22 PM\']
Also, Golden Road will be played for increasingly large jars of cookies.
[/quote]
Make 'em Mrs. Fields, and you'll hear no complaints from me. ;)
-
[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'194660\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 08:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'194647\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 06:22 PM\']
Also, Golden Road will be played for increasingly large jars of cookies.
[/quote]
Make 'em Mrs. Fields, and you'll hear no complaints from me. ;)
[/quote]
Can't exactly pay for a spot right now, sadly. (http://\"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/bs_nm/mrsfields_bankruptcy_dc\")
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'194665\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 08:30 PM\']
[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'194660\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 08:01 PM\']
Make 'em Mrs. Fields, and you'll hear no complaints from me. ;)
[/quote]
Can't exactly pay for a spot right now, sadly. (http://\"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/bs_nm/mrsfields_bankruptcy_dc\")
[/quote]
RICH: "These chocolate chip cookies always make for a tasty treat!"
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194648\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 06:28 PM\']I don't believe this change will lead to fewer wins. In fact, I think it'll be won more than ever. It seemed that every time a contestant was about to change a marker in this game, Bob or Drew would remind them that they'd lose the $500 and they'd have second thoughts. Now, there's no such barrier.[/quote]
If it leads to more wins, it's only gonna be a fluke caused entirely by contestants having all the markers in the right spots to begin with (which, statistically, is actually less than likely). It's a three-prize game -- a category of game which is usually gonna feature prizes a contestant is going to be less interested in than $500 in cash. If all they care about is the money, there is absolutely NO reason to move the marker, regardless of whether or not you think it's in the right place.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194628\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 12:32 PM\']And if they do, so freakin what! The core concept of the game is still there.[/quote] The "core" of the game is Double Prices meets Monty Hall Problem.
If these changes were made out of any rational basis (the game wasn't producing enough winners, enough excitement, confusion on someone's part, or any of a heap of reasons) then it would make sense. Make Your Mark made sense as it was. There's no reason to change the rules this far downstream, when the game was plugging along just fine before.
It seems like many of the changes so far have been 1) random, 2) "because we can," and 3) greenlit by an EP who has no earthly clue what he's doing, and seeing which spaghetti strands will stick to the wall.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194683\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:59 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194682\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:49 PM\']Make Your Mark made sense as it was.[/quote]So what? It still does.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. I still haven't heard a good explanation -- or even a bad explanation -- for how it makes sense to give any contestant who doesn't care about the prizes $500 just for getting onstage.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194683\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 07:59 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194682\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:49 PM\']Make Your Mark made sense as it was.
[/quote]So what? It still does. Pick up the pieces and move on with your life already.[/quote]I really resent that. I'm trying to add some reasoning and logic to the discussion here, and I'm treated as if I'm some sort of defective who can't deal with change.
Neither are true, and that was utterly uncalled for on your part.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194682\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:49 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194628\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 12:32 PM\']And if they do, so freakin what! The core concept of the game is still there.[/quote] The "core" of the game is Double Prices meets Monty Hall Problem.
If these changes were made out of any rational basis (the game wasn't producing enough winners, enough excitement, confusion on someone's part, or any of a heap of reasons) then it would make sense. Make Your Mark made sense as it was. There's no reason to change the rules this far downstream, when the game was plugging along just fine before.
It seems like many of the changes so far have been 1) random, 2) "because we can," and 3) greenlit by an EP who has no earthly clue what he's doing, and seeing which spaghetti strands will stick to the wall.
[/quote]
This pretty much sums up how I feel, though I think the 3 Strikes change was done in good intentions but just didn't work on the first attempt.
I honestly do want to find some reason to like this... but no matter how much I think, I just can't understand what prompted it. If I understood that, I'd be a-ok.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194684\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:00 PM\']
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194683\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:59 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194682\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:49 PM\']Make Your Mark made sense as it was.[/quote]So what? It still does.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. I still haven't heard a good explanation -- or even a bad explanation -- for how it makes sense to give any contestant who doesn't care about the prizes $500 just for getting onstage.
[/quote]It isn't any worse than Step Up then, is it?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194684\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:00 PM\']I still haven't heard a good explanation -- or even a bad explanation -- for how it makes sense to give any contestant who doesn't care about the prizes $500 just for getting onstage.[/quote]
Why would anybody NOT want to win the prizes?? Even if they don't want them, they can still sell them. Have you ever heard of anybody deliberately trying to lose a game???
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194684\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:00 PM\']
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194683\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:59 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194682\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 10:49 PM\']Make Your Mark made sense as it was.[/quote]So what? It still does.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. I still haven't heard a good explanation -- or even a bad explanation -- for how it makes sense to give any contestant who doesn't care about the prizes $500 just for getting onstage.
[/quote]
They're already getting merchandise which ranges from just below that to two, three, or sometimes four, times that just for getting onstage.
What's your point?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194687\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:13 PM\']It isn't any worse than Step Up then, is it?[/quote]
Yes. The key difference in Step Up is that even if you don't care about the prizes, you win more money every time you don't quit and go on to make another correct guess. You can get $3,000 if you win the game, versus only $500 if you quit at the first possible opportunity.
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194690\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:18 PM\']Why would anybody NOT want to win the prizes?? Even if they don't want them, they can still sell them. Have you ever heard of anybody deliberately trying to lose a game???[/quote]
Yes. I've seen episodes where I'm pretty darn sure somebody intentionally overbid on the second showcase so that they wouldn't have to win prizes they didn't want.
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'194692\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:21 PM\']They're already getting merchandise which ranges from just below that to two, three, or sometimes four, times that just for getting onstage.
What's your point?[/quote]
If they don't want the prizes in Barker's Marker$, do you really think they're gonna be any less indifferent about the Item up for Bids?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194687\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:13 PM\']
It isn't any worse than Step Up then, is it?
[/quote]
No, but you left out a key element---"worse than Step Up" is not possible.
/is shot
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194693\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:28 PM\']I've seen episodes where I'm pretty darn sure somebody intentionally overbid on the second showcase so that they wouldn't have to win prizes they didn't want.[/quote]
I've seen contestants pass big showcases because they already won a car etc., but purposely blowing a bid? I don't think so. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average contestant.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194698\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:38 PM\']I've seen contestants pass big showcases because they already won a car etc., but purposely blowing a bid? I don't think so. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average contestant.[/quote]
It doesn't happen very often at all, and I can't think of any specific examples right now, but yes, I have seen it. And we're gonna see it in Barker's Marker$, too, if the explanation ends up boiling down -- and it will -- to "If you leave the marker where it is, you'll win $500 no matter what happens, but if you move it and you're wrong, you won't win anything."
...and how is intentionally losing prizes you don't want "stupid?"
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194682\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 09:49 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194628\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 12:32 PM\']And if they do, so freakin what! The core concept of the game is still there.[/quote] The "core" of the game is Double Prices meets Monty Hall Problem.[/quote]I was actually referring to the complaints directed at 3 Strikes....and how is intentionally losing prizes you don't want "stupid?"
Because you look like a ninny. Win the game, then forfeit the prizes.
If getting to the showcase is important to you, potentially forfeiting a better spot in the lineup would be foolhardy too.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194703\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:05 AM\']Because you look like a ninny. Win the game, then forfeit the prizes.[/quote]
Why bother when you can guarantee yourself $500 without even trying?
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194703\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:05 AM\']If getting to the showcase is important to you, potentially forfeiting a better spot in the lineup would be foolhardy too.[/quote]
True -- but are you really gonna be thinking about that in the middle of your pricing game, especially if Drew's just told you how you can win $500 without doing anything?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194702\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 08:49 PM\']
2.) It's not my fault that five segments of the show have received a total of eight separate changes -- most of them either badly thought-out or completely asinine -- in a period of less than two months.[/quote]
Are you *really* classifying "you can take $500 and walk" as EITHER badly thought-out OR completely asinine? Really really?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194707\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:31 AM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194702\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 08:49 PM\']2.) It's not my fault that five segments of the show have received a total of eight separate changes -- most of them either badly thought-out or completely asinine -- in a period of less than two months.[/quote]Are you *really* classifying "you can take $500 and walk" as EITHER badly thought-out OR completely asinine? Really really?[/quote]
Yes, and I'm completely dumbfounded by the fact that you and so many others aren't.
But of course, I'm sure you'll just blow it off by calling me a fanb0i without actually bothering to explain why I'm wrong.
-
Isn't this like Temptation where you could "take the gifts and leave or go for the car, but if you have one number wrong you lose the gifts and you lose the car." Why didn't everyone take the gifts?
/only a casual price viewer.
-
(Showing up late to the party as always!)
I actually started reading from the point that tpirfan28 (sorry, don't know your name) posted the rule change, and I'm seeing things from a few angles. I think parliboy and sodboy made the most valid points, esp. the former's point of this saving the show money in the case of products they still go out of pocket for. This seems less like a change on GP, as opposed to a change for the sake of the budget. However, ClockGameJohn referred to a reason for the change, and since Connecti-Matt's question, I haven't seen an answer...
And honestly, until I read Wikipedia and Brad Francini's page about 20 minutes ago, I had no idea about how the $500 offer even worked. Although the idea of a buy-in to see if you've won is very intriguing, I see no harm, nor foul in what's a minor rule change. Except for the prize levels, is it really any different than someone potentially taking home $7,500 on the first shot in Let 'Em Roll? Sorry, but when I'm staring down $4- or $5,000 in prizes I have no use for and could care less about what they cost, I'm taking the five Benjamins and preparing my wheel-spinning strategy.
And as big of a game show fan as I am, I would never would've recognized a difference were I not a member of this forum. I'm pretty sure Henrietta Homemaker will give two brown nuggets about it either.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194705\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 11:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194703\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:05 AM\']Because you look like a ninny. Win the game, then forfeit the prizes.[/quote]
Why bother when you can guarantee yourself $500 without even trying?[/quote]You didn't read the first part of my argument, I see. Are you willing to guarantee yourself $500 at the expensive of looking like a complete asshat?
-
Well THAT'S certainly going to promote civil discourse.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194722\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 02:32 AM\']
Well THAT'S certainly going to promote civil discourse.[/quote]Perhaps I should have worded it better. When I said 'asshat' I didn't mean Steve in particular...just any contestant on the show.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194723\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:43 AM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194722\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 02:32 AM\']
Well THAT'S certainly going to promote civil discourse.[/quote]Perhaps I should have worded it better. When I said 'asshat' I didn't mean Steve in particular...just any contestant on the show.
[/quote]
Then yeah, you definitely should have worded it better, because that's not how I interpreted things at all. :) Hopefully the clarification cut things off at the pass. :)
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'194720\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 02:45 AM\']Sorry, but when I'm staring down $4- or $5,000 in prizes I have no use for and could care less about what they cost, I'm taking the five Benjamins and preparing my wheel-spinning strategy.[/quote]
...which is exactly why the game is broken now. The format was never intended to provide such an option, and as you yourself just said, there is now no incentive to bother playing it if you don't want the prizes.
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194721\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 03:24 AM\']You didn't read the first part of my argument, I see. Are you willing to guarantee yourself $500 at the expensive of looking like a complete asshat?[/quote]
What makes you so sure a contestant wouldn't do exactly that? You act like there's never been anyone on that program before that we've ridiculed for being "a complete asshat."
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194727\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 08:05 AM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194708\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:32 AM\']But of course, I'm sure you'll just blow it off by calling me a fanb0i without actually bothering to explain why I'm wrong.[/quote]Well, you are a fanb0i, and it has been explained to you several times. I don't know how anyone can make it any clearer.[/quote]
But that's the thing -- it hasn't been explained. Or rather, it has now, but the explanation provided ended up confirming my point -- that there is now no incentive whatsoever to even pretend you're interested in the prizes if you don't want them, because you can just sleepwalk through the game until the bailout point and ride off into the sunset with your money.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194731\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 07:30 AM\']
Or rather, it has now, but the explanation provided ended up confirming my point -- that there is now no incentive whatsoever to even pretend you're interested in the prizes if you don't want them, because you can just sleepwalk through the game until the bailout point and ride off into the sunset with your money.[/quote]
But if the contestant had any sense, there wasn't before.
Remove the $500 from the equation. Assume the prizes are three things I don't care to have cluttering up my already-cluttered apartment. Further assume that following the reveal of the first two marks, I think that in order to win, I need to move the third mark. Two options arise:
a) If I think I can I easily flip them for enough post-tax profit that it's worth my time and effort to do so, I make the move.
b) If I don't, I shrug and leave it be, because I'm coming out ahead that way.
The injection of $500 to what is easily a $2K+ tax liability is not going to change that decision one iota.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194731\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 10:30 AM\']What makes you so sure a contestant wouldn't do exactly that? You act like there's never been anyone on that program before that we've ridiculed for being "a complete asshat."[/quote]Show some conclusive proof that a contestant has gone on stage, disliked their prizes and thrown the game. An interview. A blog post. Something. Anything. Otherwise, your whole argument is shot, IMO.
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194735\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:10 PM\']
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194731\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 10:30 AM\']What makes you so sure a contestant wouldn't do exactly that? You act like there's never been anyone on that program before that we've ridiculed for being "a complete asshat."[/quote]Show some conclusive proof that a contestant has gone on stage, disliked their prizes and thrown the game. An interview. A blog post. Something. Anything. Otherwise, your whole argument is shot, IMO.
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!
[/quote]
He didn't make the stage, but he surely wasn't pulling an Herman Edwards (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15572\")
/Why don't we just get the game sacked and move on, anyway?
-
I would like to weigh in here, but first I would like either Steve or ClockGameJohn or anyone else who actually, absolutely KNOWS what the new rules are to explain them one more time, and how they differ from the old rules. Too many people are giving their "impressions" and those are getting in the way of the facts.
For the purposes of continuing this thread civilly, any more references to "asshat" or any permutation of "fanboy" will be dealt with harshly.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194740\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:32 AM\']
I would like to weigh in here, but first I would like either Steve or ClockGameJohn or anyone else who actually, absolutely KNOWS what the new rules are to explain them one more time, and how they differ from the old rules. Too many people are giving their "impressions" and those are getting in the way of the facts.[/quote]
Seconded. I tried to get this earlier in the thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16006&view=findpost&p=194649\"), and never got a response. I am fairly certain I understand the differences, but I would love an authoritative summary.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194735\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 11:10 AM\']YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME![/quote]
I agree. Even if I didn't like the game and/or the prizes offered, I would still genuinely try to win. The glory of being a "pricing game winner" with the chance at being the "showcase winner" on TPIR would last a lot longer than a daybed.
-
I understand Steve's point.
One would hope that a contestant who didn't want the prizes would at least play to win them anyway (with the intent on refusing them, along with their tax burden, after the taping), if for nothing else than to give themselves a more advantageous position in the spinning order.
But walking out with $500 cash might register in some people's heads as a priority due to the instant gratification and guaranteed reward, relatively small though it may be.
-
[quote name=\'ChrisLambert!\' post=\'194759\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 04:04 PM\']
I understand Steve's point.
One would hope that a contestant who didn't want the prizes would at least play to win them anyway (with the intent on refusing them, along with their tax burden, after the taping), if for nothing else than to give themselves a more advantageous position in the spinning order.
But walking out with $500 cash might register in some people's heads as a priority due to the instant gratification and guaranteed reward, relatively small though it may be.[/quote]
I was pretty sure I understood Steve's point too, but I wasn't going to say anything until I had the rules absolutely, positively explained, something that still doesn't appear to be happening.
As I understand it, I don't really see how this is any different than Spelling Bee (where you're given two cards outright) or Temptation, two games that give you something for nothing, and then let you either keep it or risk it for something bigger. In both cases, if you walk away, you've done absolutely nothing to earn what you get. And in both those cases, they give you a lot more than $500. The only difference I see is that it's somewhat more likely that the player would want a car than three medium-sized prizes, but as we discussed back in February (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14854\"), even that isn't a guarantee.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'194758\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:40 PM\']
The glory of being a "pricing game winner" with the chance at being the "showcase winner" on TPIR would last a lot longer than a daybed.
[/quote]
But is said glory worth a couple grand to the gub'ment come April 15th? That's the thing for me. Yes, if it all comes free and clear, absolutely, I'm with you. But if it's something I REALLY REALLY don't want (Where the hell am I gonna put a gazebo in my apartment? Out on the porch? I can barely fit a Hibachi out there. And a gazebo isn't going to flip readily at all.)
Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability? Because if so, then Joe's argument instantly becomes 137% more valid.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 04:10 PM\']But is said glory worth a couple grand to the gub'ment come April 15th? That's the thing for me. Yes, if it all comes free and clear, absolutely, I'm with you.[/quote]
Let me clarify: I would try to win any game I was given, but all the prizes would be refused. I'm more interested in the "thrill of victory" than the physical rewards.
Does that make more sense?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:10 PM\']
Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright?[/quote]
Yes.
Price Tidbit #4037: I believe trips are two different prizes...you can take both airfare and hotel, refuse airfare, refuse hotel, or refuse both.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 04:10 PM\']
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'194758\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 12:40 PM\']
The glory of being a "pricing game winner" with the chance at being the "showcase winner" on TPIR would last a lot longer than a daybed.
[/quote]
But is said glory worth a couple grand to the gub'ment come April 15th? That's the thing for me. Yes, if it all comes free and clear, absolutely, I'm with you. But if it's something I REALLY REALLY don't want (Where the hell am I gonna put a gazebo in my apartment? Out on the porch? I can barely fit a Hibachi out there. And a gazebo isn't going to flip readily at all.)
Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability? Because if so, then Joe's argument instantly becomes 137% more valid.
[/quote]
That's the thing...there are THREE prizes in Make Your Mark. What are the odds that all three of them are gonna be crap you don't want? If nothing else, you can refuse the other two and just take that pinball machine you've always had your eye on (or know you can resell for three grand).
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:10 PM\']Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability? Because if so, then Joe's argument instantly becomes 137% more valid.[/quote]
Never played TPIR, but in general yes, of course, they can't make you take a prize. However, there's not a lot of time to think it through. If it's anything like my experience (twice), you're signing something right after the show that says whether or not you accept the prize(s).
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194766\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:10 PM\']Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability? Because if so, then Joe's argument instantly becomes 137% more valid.[/quote]
Never played TPIR, but in general yes, of course, they can't make you take a prize. However, there's not a lot of time to think it through. If it's anything like my experience (twice), you're signing something right after the show that says whether or not you accept the prize(s).
[/quote]
Random aside: don't some shows offer a cash substitute of some value (not always equal) if you don't want the prize(s)? This is probably just Let's Make A Deal's stipulations about refusing Zonks confusing me, but still...
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194766\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 04:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:10 PM\']Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability? Because if so, then Joe's argument instantly becomes 137% more valid.[/quote]
Never played TPIR, but in general yes, of course, they can't make you take a prize. However, there's not a lot of time to think it through. If it's anything like my experience (twice), you're signing something right after the show that says whether or not you accept the prize(s).
[/quote]
I believe Stan Blits mentioned in passing in his book last year that some contestants can and do pass on their prizes.
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'194765\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 02:42 PM\']
If nothing else, you can refuse the other two and just take that pinball machine you've always had your eye on (or know you can resell for three grand).[/quote]
Absolutely. But I would burn in a firey hell with nothing but an iPod full of Judy Tenuta bits before reselling that pinball machine. :)
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194766\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 02:44 PM\']
However, there's not a lot of time to think it through. If it's anything like my experience (twice), you're signing something right after the show that says whether or not you accept the prize(s).[/quote]
Sure, but it's a pretty big no-brainer to figure out that I'm not putting an above-ground swimming pool in my apartment. :) I was just confirming that I can pick and choose as to what prizes I would actually like to keep. :)
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194735\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:10 AM\']YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME![/quote]"Two million dollars, Drew." (Yeah, I realize that was from Contestant's Row, and not onstage, but the point still holds: that a contestant chose to repeatedly pass up his chance to get onstage because he'd rather do his shtick.)
As much as it might bother some, TPIR has become an hour-long theme park ride with a three day long line to get in. People are crazy-happy just to be called to Contestant's Row, and pricing game losers say "I still get to spin the wheel!" even if they lost a car. It's less about playing the game, and more the experience of the show, and being part of the institution. Showcase winners who have won roomfuls of furniture squeal with delight because they won, not because of what they won.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194740\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:32 AM\']For the purposes of continuing this thread civilly, any more references to "asshat" or any permutation of "fanboy" will be dealt with harshly.[/quote]This brings to mind a town meeting whose origin I can't recall, but they were discussion the invasion of multinational corporations that kicked out "small town businesses." The meeting leaders declared it against the rules to name "Wal*Mart" or to say "big box stores." (So much for free speech.) Shall I call the more voracious fans "special friends of the show," even though we all know what I mean?
The problem isn't one of nomenclature at all. There isn't a spectrum, where someone on the left hasn't ever heard of the show, and those on the right have all the tapes, the memorabilia, has been umpteen times, records the show and the statistics, to the point where it invades the person's life uncontrollably. It's possible to enjoy the show for what it is, an exciting hour of giving away stuff. It's possible to enjoy the show in dissecting the games, knowing what is played where, in what order, for what prizes, and how often. And it's possible to enjoy the show without being a total nutcase.
I really don't like it when I try to inject something of substance into the discussion, and get completely dismissed as someone who can't handle change. I should be able to say "Golly, I liked it the old way" without having the OH NOES! CHANGE!! meme whipped out right away.
/Liked the old Punch-a-Bunch reveal with the turntable and the big "$10,000" sign, for one.
//And yet I still get eight hours of sleep per night.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194774\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 07:20 PM\']Random aside: don't some shows offer a cash substitute of some value (not always equal) if you don't want the prize(s)? This is probably just Let's Make A Deal's stipulations about refusing Zonks confusing me, but still...[/quote]
In general, don't go expecting a cash substitute. The show would have to have a reason of its own not to want to deliver on the prize you won. Usually, that would be because it was a gag prize. Not only LMAD, but the original Bill Cullen TPIR offered silly prizes on camera, with a cash substitute, sometimes a hefty one, usually ready after the show. There's a famous story (Bob Stewart is still in the middle of telling it at the Beverly Garland hotel...) about a player on TPIR winning an elephant and refusing the $4000 cash offer.
But on today's TPIR, if you don't want a prize, they're not going to buy it back from you at ANY price. There's just no reason for them to do that.
-
Where's my elephant? WHERE'S MY ELEPHANT? (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Gets_an_Elephant\")
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194781\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:29 PM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194735\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:10 AM\']YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME![/quote]"Two million dollars, Drew." (Yeah, I realize that was from Contestant's Row, and not onstage, but the point still holds: that a contestant chose to repeatedly pass up his chance to get onstage because he'd rather do his shtick.)[/quote]
But the sort of person you're talking about here is going to do his thing no matter what the rules to Make Your Mark are. The real questions seem to be 1) how many people won't play this game because they've got $500 in their pocket and that's plenty, and 2) how important that really is. I personally think the answers are "not many" and "not much" for the reasons I stated earlier.
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194781\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:29 PM\']This brings to mind a town meeting whose origin I can't recall, but they were discussion the invasion of multinational corporations that kicked out "small town businesses." The meeting leaders declared it against the rules to name "Wal*Mart" or to say "big box stores." (So much for free speech.) Shall I call the more voracious fans "special friends of the show," even though we all know what I mean?[/quote]
There's a monumental difference between some weird Orwellian effort to manipulate language and telling people who have already used derogatory comments to knock it off. What I'm saying is that you can make your point without using disparaging terms.
Besides, your story reeks of "urban legend".
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194760\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 04:46 PM\']As I understand it, I don't really see how this is any different than Spelling Bee (where you're given two cards outright) or Temptation, two games that give you something for nothing, and then let you either keep it or risk it for something bigger. In both cases, if you walk away, you've done absolutely nothing to earn what you get. And in both those cases, they give you a lot more than $500.[/quote]
One difference here, I believe, is that to continue playing either Spelling Bee or Temptation, you must gradually give up all of your consolation (in the former) or risk immediately giving up all of your consolation (in the latter). In the new Make Your Mark, leaving the last marker alone now lets you proceed to the "end" of the game without risking your "lesser" prize.
I actually agree with Steve et al.'s reasoning that this skews the game a bit (a BIT) towards being less interesting . . . but I disagree that there's going to be a rash of contestants ignoring the game and clutching their $500. Most of the time, there's going to be at least one interesting prize, and even when there's not, I've seen a lot of contestants put a lot of effort into winning (for instance) an electric car that they obviously are not dying to own.
I also agree that making a lot of little changes at once is not the most heartening news for any game show . . . but, you know, life goes on. I thought Donnymid made a mess of the Winner's Circle, my favorite game show segment ever, but it was never worth getting seriously riled over.
Finally, it would not shock me if this particular change was actually due to the potential (or actual) aggravation of a losing contestant complaining that "you gave me $500, you let me keep it, you can't take it back now!" Barker certainly failed to explain that clearly on enough occasions.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194782\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:38 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194774\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 07:20 PM\']Random aside: don't some shows offer a cash substitute of some value (not always equal) if you don't want the prize(s)? This is probably just Let's Make A Deal's stipulations about refusing Zonks confusing me, but still...[/quote]
In general, don't go expecting a cash substitute. The show would have to have a reason of its own not to want to deliver on the prize you won. Usually, that would be because it was a gag prize. Not only LMAD, but the original Bill Cullen TPIR offered silly prizes on camera, with a cash substitute, sometimes a hefty one, usually ready after the show. There's a famous story (Bob Stewart is still in the middle of telling it at the Beverly Garland hotel...) about a player on TPIR winning an elephant and refusing the $4000 cash offer.
But on today's TPIR, if you don't want a prize, they're not going to buy it back from you at ANY price. There's just no reason for them to do that.
[/quote]
That was pretty much what I thought. Thanks.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194785\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 10:04 PM\']
One difference here, I believe, is that to continue playing either Spelling Bee or Temptation, you must gradually give up all of your consolation (in the former) or risk immediately giving up all of your consolation (in the latter). In the new Make Your Mark, leaving the last marker alone now lets you proceed to the "end" of the game without risking your "lesser" prize.[/quote]
This is what I've been trying to get someone to explain to me for at least three pages now.
So, the new deal is that if you have $500 and you don't want to switch, even if you're wrong, you still get to keep the $500. Whereas before, if you didn't switch and you were wrong, you lost everything including the $500. OK, I can see how this falls a little more clearly into the "money for nothing" column, but I really don't see how as a result of this pretty subtle change, we're going to get a rash of people who just don't care, or who would lose on purpose. In fact, I don't see the latter at all.
-
The way I understand things -- and I could be wrong, but I'm confident enough that I'm not to risk putting my foot in my mouth -- the new rules state that if you leave the third marker where it is and lose, you still win the $500, whereas before, you wouldn't have won anything.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:10 PM\']Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability?[/quote]
Yes, you can...but if even you had to ask about it, I don't think the odds of your average contestant thinking of it in the middle of their game are all that great.
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194785\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 10:04 PM\']I actually agree with Steve et al.'s reasoning that this skews the game a bit (a BIT) towards being less interesting . . . but I disagree that there's going to be a rash of contestants ignoring the game and clutching their $500.[/quote]
That's very true. But the fact remains that they took a format that wasn't broken and...well...broke it, and I have a feeling the change was probably made without anyone involved in the decision even realizing that fact. Regardless of how likely it is to actually occur, I don't see why we should be in favor of changes like this that weaken a solid set of rules.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194788\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 07:18 PM\']
The way I understand things -- and I could be wrong, but I'm confident enough that I'm not to risk putting my foot in my mouth -- the new rules state that if you leave the third marker where it is and lose, you still win the $500, whereas before, you wouldn't have won anything.[/quote]
Then I did understand it from the get-go, and I stand by all of my previous statements.
Yes, you can...but if even you had to ask about it, I don't think the odds of your average contestant thinking of it in the middle of their game are all that great.
I agree. But then I don't think the average Price contestant is going to think one second about tax liabilities until they find out the hard way. Which means they're not gonna tank their game either.
But the fact remains that they took a format that wasn't broken and...well...broke it,
This is not fact, this is opinion. Specifically, your opinion that this change is "broken" when I think a lot of people around here happen to feel quite the opposite way, and I personally have yet to see an argument that changes my mind about that.
I don't see why we should be in favor of changes like this that weaken a solid set of rules.
I don't see where it weakens the rules. At all. At. All.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194788\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 10:18 PM\']That's very true. But the fact remains that they took a format that wasn't broken and...well...broke it, and I have a feeling the change was probably made without anyone involved in the decision even realizing that fact. [/quote]
Except that I can very easily see the logic behind the idea that you "pay" to change the marker, and if you choose NOT to "pay" to change the marker, then you "keep" the money. That makes sense.
We've started dropping "broken" around here the same way people drop "jump the shark" because it sounds like a nice phrase. I'd say they took something that wasn't broken and...just changed it. I'd even go so far as to say it's an arbitrary change for a game that didn't really need to be changed. But if this "new" rule was how the game premiered, I don't think I'd look at it and say it was a broken game.
-
Matt O. nailed it. Bad? No. Trivial? Very.
I just wish I knew what prompted it.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194791\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 11:05 PM\']I just wish I knew what prompted it.[/quote]
Sounds like a Drew Carey thing. Word is it was his idea to award $500 per correct answer during Half Off.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194790\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 11:02 PM\']Except that I can very easily see the logic behind the idea that you "pay" to change the marker, and if you choose NOT to "pay" to change the marker, then you "keep" the money. That makes sense.[/quote]That's the mindset I've had since the start of this. If anything, I think this set of rules is more straightforward than the ones it started with, or at least presented better.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194783\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 06:43 PM\']
Where's my elephant? WHERE'S MY ELEPHANT? (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Gets_an_Elephant\")
[/quote]
It's the "Monty Hall Problem Part Deux".
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194794\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 11:37 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194790\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 11:02 PM\']Except that I can very easily see the logic behind the idea that you "pay" to change the marker, and if you choose NOT to "pay" to change the marker, then you "keep" the money. That makes sense.[/quote]That's the mindset I've had since the start of this. If anything, I think this set of rules is more straightforward than the ones it started with, or at least presented better.[/quote]
And I would still argue that presenting the original rules more clearly would have been a better solution to that than changing them was.
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194792\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 11:16 PM\'][quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194791\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 11:05 PM\']I just wish I knew what prompted it.[/quote]Sounds like a Drew Carey thing. Word is it was his idea to award $500 per correct answer during Half Off.[/quote]
I don't really care who came up with it. Drew Carey is perfectly capable of having bad ideas -- for instance, awarding people $500 for telling him which of two ~$50 items has the wrong price on it.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194872\' date=\'Aug 22 2008, 05:48 PM\']I don't really care who came up with it. Drew Carey is perfectly capable of having bad ideas -- for instance, awarding people $500 for telling him which of two ~$50 items has the wrong price on it.[/quote]
Giving contestants little extra cash is a "bad idea"? It's not like it's $5,000 or anything.
What will you say when you become a contestant and play Half-Off? "Drew, that bonus is a bad idea. I don't want the $500."
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'194879\' date=\'Aug 22 2008, 07:19 PM\']
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'194878\' date=\'Aug 22 2008, 06:10 PM\']
What will you say when you become a contestant and play Half-Off? "Drew, that bonus is a bad idea. I don't want the $500."
[/quote]
I'm sure he won't.
Which makes him, for among other things continuing this argument long after he lost it, a hypocrite.
I know, never let facts get in the way of a good snark.
[/quote]
Speaking of hypocrites who continue arguments long after they lose them...
I don't think it has anything to do with hypocrisy, but it doesn't really do anything to improve the game. If you had to risk what you won, I could see a purpose to the cash bonus. (I wouldn't like it, either.)
It's very much the "mo' money syndrome" that people complain about all the time.
It was Drew's first, of many, stamps on the show.
-
I just don't see $1500 max as "Mo' Money". (Does anyone know if a win + three correct guesses means $10,000 or $11,500?)
If it was $50,000... sure, I'd agree.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'194884\' date=\'Aug 22 2008, 07:35 PM\']
(Does anyone know if a win + three correct guesses means $10,000 or $11,500?)
[/quote]
$11,500.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'194884\' date=\'Aug 22 2008, 07:35 PM\']
I just don't see $1500 max as "Mo' Money". (Does anyone know if a win + three correct guesses means $10,000 or $11,500?)
If it was $50,000... sure, I'd agree.
[/quote]
$1,500 isn't alot of money, but it's giving away money just to give it away. The prizes are your true winnings for the correct selection; I don't see the need to attach money to it.
And yes, the sign should be changed to the highly popular "$11,500."
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194887\' date=\'Aug 22 2008, 06:56 PM\']
$1,500 isn't alot of money, but it's giving away money just to give it away. The prizes are your true winnings for the correct selection; I don't see the need to attach money to it.
And yes, the sign should be changed to the highly popular "$11,500."
[/quote]
It's not necessary, per se, but it sure doesn't hurt anything. Doing some quick mental calculations...15 playings of Half-Off last season, let's say two correct SP's per game...that's $15,000. Which means one showcase per year gets downgraded from 'Ford Mustang' to 'trip to Weedville and a pack of smokes'.
Small price to pay if it makes Drew happy.
/not to mention jimlange
//of course, anything would have made him happy on that stage
-
It's no harder, but the change will make simpletons more likely to keep the cash instead of switching the markers.
Since switching wins 75% of the time if you're choosing at random (which most simpletons do, pretty much), this means the game will be won less often.
-
He was referring to the Check Game changes, not Make Your Mark.
-
Trying to reply to several pages’ worth at once, so by all means ignore any redundancies…
Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.
It might, or it might not. Depends on what the reason is, and if anyone knew, it’d be posted by now.
No, it doesn't. I still haven't heard a good explanation -- or even a bad explanation -- for how it makes sense to give any contestant who doesn't care about the prizes $500 just for getting onstage.
Because you didn’t know they wouldn’t want to win or you wouldn’t have called them down in the first place. Given contestants who want to win the game, the new rule seems more natural. Given contestants who don’t want to win the game, almost any game on the show is spoiled…
Why would anybody NOT want to win the prizes?? Even if they don't want them, they can still sell them. Have you ever heard of anybody deliberately trying to lose a game???
It happens, but it’s very rare. Of course, Make Your Mark is different than, say, Push Over, in that there’s an incentive to make the “wrong” choice (any other game, you can simply play to win anyway, and decline the prize, but it was really there all along even though the odds weren’t as good. Someone who doesn’t want the prizes doesn’t want them, and would probably take the slightly-better-than-1:4 chance at the cash anyway.
Yes. I've seen episodes where I'm pretty darn sure somebody intentionally overbid on the second showcase so that they wouldn't have to win prizes they didn't want.
It’s different in the showcases; there, deliberately losing is simply being generous to your opponent.
And we're gonna see it in Barker's Marker$, too, if the explanation ends up boiling down -- and it will -- to "If you leave the marker where it is, you'll win $500 no matter what happens, but if you move it and you're wrong, you won't win anything."
If they choose to say it like that, then of course it will be a change for the worse. But then that would be a matter of poor *presentation*, not a game flaw. Then again, I always enjoyed “Let’s Make a Deal”.
You didn't read the first part of my argument, I see. Are you willing to guarantee yourself $500 at the expensive of looking like a complete asshat?
The only way you (or the game) would look bad is if you *say* you’re leaving it because you don't want the prizes. If you instead say you think it’s right the way it is, or just that you don’t want to swap, you at worst look like you’ve made a mistake. And how much does it really matter if someone loses on purpose as long as it looks like they were trying?
there is now no incentive to bother playing it if you don't want the prizes.
…AND THERE NEVER WAS. Under the old rule, did you get anything besides the prizes you didn’t want anyway for switching? No. The only way you had a chance at anything else was if you stuck by your original choice. Which is still true; only your odds are improved.
Ignoring what the rules have actually been the last umpteen years, if the $500 were earned in some way (say, a Secret X/Pathfinder style SP), would you then prefer the rest of the game under the new rules or the old?
-
Why in the hell is adding the cash bonus to 1/2 off a bad thing? The game sucked as it was created originally--"Hey, you got all 3 prices right; but you aren't lucky. Enjoy your $11 foot massager".
I've concluded that a certain segment of the population just can't accept change. Move on, people.
$1,500 isn't alot of money, but it's giving away money just to give it away. The prizes are your true winnings for the correct selection; I don't see the need to attach money to it.
So I take it, you don't care for Pass the Buck either, then?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194923\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 04:28 AM\']Why in the hell is adding the cash bonus to 1/2 off a bad thing? The game sucked as it was created originally--"Hey, you got all 3 prices right; but you aren't lucky. Enjoy your $11 foot massager".[/quote]
I don't get the luck argument. Half of the games have at least some element of luck - Plinko, Cover Up, Switcheroo, Squeeze Play, Pick A Number, Golden Road, Three Strikes, Dice Game, Secret X, Lucky 7, Punchboard, Bonkers, etc etc etc.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194923\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 04:28 AM\']
So I take it, you don't care for Pass the Buck either, then?
[/quote]
Truthfully, no. It is a game with several significant flaws. That said, I still don't like games being changed and/or retired.
The point being made is that you have a chance to win $10,000. Perfect pricing doesn't guarantee a win in Punch a Bunch or Plinko, so what's the need for 1/2 Off? I mean, all those chips could fall into the 0 slot, so wouldn't it make sense to award someone $500 for each chip they win?
After all, we don't want anyone unhappy, right?
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194930\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 07:27 AM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194923\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 04:28 AM\']Why in the hell is adding the cash bonus to 1/2 off a bad thing? The game sucked as it was created originally--"Hey, you got all 3 prices right; but you aren't lucky. Enjoy your $11 foot massager".[/quote]
I don't get the luck argument. Half of the games have at least some element of luck - Plinko, Cover Up, Switcheroo, Squeeze Play, Pick A Number, Golden Road, Three Strikes, Dice Game, Secret X, Lucky 7, Punchboard, Bonkers, etc etc etc.
[/quote]
If you know the price exactly, there's no luck element in several of the games you mention.
However, even in Half Off, if you get all three prizes right, there's still a 50% chance you win no cash, which is the big reason I dislike the game. (I also dislike Secret X, and I'm probably the one person who doesn't like Plinko either.)
If you want to have a cash bonus, one way to go about it would be to have the $10,000 in one box, and something like $500 in another box. If you get all three prizes right, you're guaranteed the $500, since it will be in one of the two boxes remaining. (Not that this is a perfect solution, of course.)
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194931\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:05 AM\']
That said, I still don't like games being changed and/or retired.[/quote]
Well, there you go then. This is exactly what the people on the other side of your argument have been saying. You simply don't like it when they change a game. If you go into the argument with that as your starting position, then I'm sure you'll be able to find evidence to support your argument. That's what Debate Club is all about, being able to argue a position regardless of what the position is. It's also how the legal system and talk radio works. You have a position because it's the position you want or need to have and then fit the evidence to that opinion.
Objectively, I'm looking at these minor changes on Three Strikes, Make Your Mark and Half-Off, and I ask myself whether anybody would consider the game "broken" if those were the rules when it premiered. And so far, I haven't found any that fail that simple test.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194944\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:52 AM\']Objectively, I'm looking at these minor changes on Three Strikes, Make Your Mark and Half-Off, and I ask myself whether anybody would consider the game "broken" if those were the rules when it premiered. And so far, I haven't found any that fail that simple test.[/quote]
In the cases of 3 Strikes and 1/2 Off? No. The games have been changed for the worse, but they're not broken.
In the case of Barker's Marker$? Hell yes.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'194943\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:41 AM\']
...and I'm probably the one person who doesn't like Plinko either.)[/quote]Nosir. I also dislike Plinko. Too much blind-assed luck for me.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194944\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:52 AM\']
Objectively, I'm looking at these minor changes on Three Strikes, Make Your Mark and Half-Off, and I ask myself whether anybody would consider the game "broken" if those were the rules when it premiered. And so far, I haven't found any that fail that simple test.
[/quote]
I find Three Strikes' rule changes pretty major. One playing had a higher strike to number ratio, and another made the game "too easy" to play for luxury cars.
Check Game's change? Inflation.
Punch and Bunch and Make Your Mark? Bizarre, but I understand.
Half Off? Eh.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'194923\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 04:28 AM\']
Why in the hell is adding the cash bonus to 1/2 off a bad thing? The game sucked as it was created originally--"Hey, you got all 3 prices right; but you aren't lucky. Enjoy your $11 foot massager".
[/quote]
Chiming in here for the first time.
Am I the only one who thinks that giving money away as a consolation prize is wrong? I mean, I get that you want to give them something for not winning the big prize, but isn't that the point of the one-bid prize won on contestants row?
I always, since day one of the show, looked at the pricing game as a bonus. Either win it or lose it, but that's that. You want to give away small prizes for partial wins on "Any Number", "Race Game", "Step Up", heck, even give away the grocery products plugged? Fine. But once you throw in money for "1/2 off" just because you weren't lucky in picking a correct number, then it loses something in the process.
Which is why , yes, I think in the hell addding the cash bonus to 1/2 off a bad thing. And I don't think the game sucked as it was created orignally. My Consolidation of Suck (tm) goes to "More or Less".
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'194943\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:41 AM\']
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'194930\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 07:27 AM\']I don't get the luck argument. Half of the games have at least some element of luck - Plinko, Cover Up, Switcheroo, Squeeze Play, Pick A Number, Golden Road, Three Strikes, Dice Game, Secret X, Lucky 7, Punchboard, Bonkers, etc etc etc.
[/quote]
If you know the price exactly, there's no luck element in several of the games you mention.[/quote]
Well that's never going to happen, so there is always luck involved in those games.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194948\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 09:29 AM\']
In the case of Barker's Marker$? Hell yes.[/quote]
You have yet to successfully back up this statement in any fashion that isn't ad verecundiam.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'194964\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 12:24 PM\']
And he probably never will.[/quote]
Weenie words. You know better.
I am absolutely willing to give consideration to an argument that isn't some flavor of "This is broken because I say it is, and I'm a Price expert so it must be true."
And I'm not going to say "and that will never happen" or "but he's not capable of one" because I don't believe that to be true. I will simply leave it at that and let his future actions dictate the necessity of further discussion.
So perhaps it's best to move on, because he just doesn't Get It.
You've been quite the Thread Cop of late.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194931\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:05 AM\']The point being made is that you have a chance to win $10,000. Perfect pricing doesn't guarantee a win in Punch a Bunch or Plinko, so what's the need for 1/2 Off? I mean, all those chips could fall into the 0 slot, so wouldn't it make sense to award someone $500 for each chip they win?[/quote]
Well, if you're going to make arguments based on what is and isn't guaranteed, I can't disagree. But a whole heck of a lot of contestants get to walk away from a Punch-a-Bunch loss with $500 or $1,000, and a whole heck of a lot of contestants get to walk away from a Plinko loss (aka "from Plinko") with a couple thousand dollars.
So if one's argument is, rather, "our other luck-based cash games have a bit of a cushion for when things don't go well for the contestant, and 1/2 Off doesn't, and maybe we should change that", it looks quite a bit different to me.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194968\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 01:51 PM\']Well, if you're going to make arguments based on what is and isn't [/quote]I think much of the barrier here is that there are different ways to perceive all of the different outcomes. For one, I never looked at the "pricing game" part as a bonus, or the one-bid prize as the "consolation prize" if you lose the car or cash. But it's a valid way to look at things. For every position that someone can take pertaining to the show, there's a just as reasonable way to look at it from another angle.
If those who have their heels in the trenches were willing to back away from their preconceived notions and say "I never thought about it that way," we'd be a lot farther along.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194969\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 05:45 PM\']If those who have their heels in the trenches were willing to back away from their preconceived notions and say "I never thought about it that way," we'd be a lot farther along.[/quote]
Very well said (the rest of it too).
I don't even think you have to go that far. Just "I see your point". As always around here, the problem is that people are expressing things in extremes. And often, completely ignoring what the other side is saying.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194973\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 03:16 PM\']
I don't even think you have to go that far. Just "I see your point".[/quote]
The problem is that, around here, "I see your point" often isn't good enough; it has to be appended with "and I agree with it" or "and you're an authority so I feel no need to challenge you to defend it."
-
I defer to Matt, just wanting to add that if the fringes on both sides calmed down, I think we could all agree that the debates over the technical aspects of the games that we've had lately HAVE been pretty interesting and informative.
-
Just so everyone is aware, there probably will be a new Liberty Medical commercial during the show, featuring our good buddy Wilford Brimley and a catchy tune. I saw it earlier today.
Because of this change, I refuse to watch the show now.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194968\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 04:51 PM\']Well, if you're going to make arguments based on what is and isn't guaranteed, I can't disagree. But a whole heck of a lot of contestants get to walk away from a Punch-a-Bunch loss with $500 or $1,000, and a whole heck of a lot of contestants get to walk away from a Plinko loss (aka "from Plinko") with a couple thousand dollars.[/quote]
Let's look at the issue with 1/2 Off offering a 50/50 chance at $10,000 for perfect pricing. If we changed it to say "You win $10,000 if you correctly price these 3 sets of prizes" would that seem reasonable? I, of course, say not.
That's just part of the game. We all know each game offers different odds, each has it's own niche. I do not disagree.
I am a traditionalist, perhaps because I feel I understand the show and the reasons behind it. Much like some of the people here, someone [at the Production Company/CBS/Fremantle] thinks they can make a remarkable change to a show and it will be successful. The fact is, the show has been successful for decades.
There have been people who have wanted to get their paws on the controls for many years, and couldn't until Barker/Dobkowitz were gone. Now there is more freedom.
Changing the rules to 3 Strikes...twice in two weeks -- whereas the rules were just fine before the changes. Some people won, some people lost.
What exactly are we accomplishing besides confusion?
Trust me when I say that what we see on TV in the beginning of Season 37 will be generally what the viewing audience is used to. Behind the scenes, not so much. I just worry when it starts to spill over.
-
Wouldn't a change in the contestant selection process help matters as well? Choose people who would be happy to win a washing machine, rather than those who would have no use for one?
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194982\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:35 PM\']
Changing the rules to 3 Strikes...twice in two weeks -- whereas the rules were just fine before the changes. Some people won, some people lost.
[/quote]
Sorry John, I gotta disagree respectfully here. I certainly do see your point, but I think something had to be done in some regard to shorten the playing time of 3 Strikes. Only five playings last season, despite being for luxury cars, is two or three too low. I doubt that if they just reduced the stakes without changing something in the rules that it would have increased the game's playing rate anyway.
I just disagree with giving the first number... I think something better could have been done.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194982\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 05:35 PM\']
perhaps because I feel I understand the show and the reasons behind it.[/quote]
And it's statements like this that are a HUUUUUGE part of the problem, because it demonstrates the pomposity that allows discussions to get out of hand to start with.
The show serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to attract pairs of eyeballs that will sit and watch the commercials for diabeetus supplies and mobility scooters.
I'm going to repeat that: diabeetus supplies and mobility scooters. And that life insurance that Trebek pimps. Those are the people buying the majority of the ad time the last several years.
That is NOT the sign of a show that is at the height of its success.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194985\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:47 PM\']
I think something had to be done in some regard to shorten the playing time of 3 Strikes. Only five playings last season, despite being for luxury cars, is two or three too low.[/quote]
But it was a budgetary issue, not a timing issue. Drew's first season started off (rightfully) with loads of wins. Three Strikes (just as Triple Play and Golden Road) saw no more than 6 playings for the Season -- quite simply because the beginning of the year was front loaded.
Having said that, yes, 3 Strikes does take an insanely long time to play -- but there are things that can be done (hosting) that could speed it up.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194987\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 09:49 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194985\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 08:47 PM\']
I think something had to be done in some regard to shorten the playing time of 3 Strikes. Only five playings last season, despite being for luxury cars, is two or three too low.[/quote]
But it was a budgetary issue, not a timing issue. Drew's first season started off (rightfully) with loads of wins. Three Strikes (just as Triple Play and Golden Road) saw no more than 6 playings for the Season -- quite simply because the beginning of the year was front loaded.
Having said that, yes, 3 Strikes does take an insanely long time to play -- but there are things that can be done (hosting) that could speed it up.
[/quote]
Ah, I was unaware at how far-reaching the budget issues were. I stand corrected on that front.
I guess we just disagree on what can be done about 3 Strikes...
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194962\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 03:11 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194948\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 09:29 AM\']In the case of Barker's Marker$? Hell yes.[/quote]You have yet to successfully back up this statement in any fashion that isn't ad verecundiam.[/quote]
Chris, honest to God...the only conclusion I can draw from this statement is that you don't want me to have a point. Even though I've provided reasoning to back up my case, you've decided to ignore all of it and just accuse me -- in Latin, no less, and I had to look up what the hell you were saying I'd done -- of not doing so in the hopes that it will make you sound smarter than me. And the sad thing is, it's pretty damn hard to fight something like that, because all I can do is repeat what I've already said, and then you'll just go on to ignore it again...and that eventually leads to you winning the argument not necessarily because you were right, but because the other person got sick of talking to someone who's deliberately not listening to them. And that's probably what's gonna happen here, too, because as much as I hate to admit it, that's a pretty damn effective way of making someone get tired of a thread.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194992\' date=\'Aug 23 2008, 11:29 PM\']And the sad thing is, it's pretty damn hard to fight something like that, because all I can do is repeat what I've already said, and then you'll just go on to ignore it again...and that eventually leads to you winning the argument not necessarily because you were right, but because the other person got sick of talking to someone who's deliberately not listening to them. And that's probably what's gonna happen here, too, because as much as I hate to admit it, that's a pretty damn effective way of making someone get tired of a thread.[/quote]
Steve, believe me when I say that you're not nearly the only person in this thread who's made points you feel have been ignored.
But you're right that this has devolved into Last Poster Standing. At this point, everybody's pretty entrenched into their positions and nobody's going to be changing anybody else's mind. I'm sure that the argument will come up again before too long, but it will have to do so in a new thread. This one's done now.