The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: chad1m on August 31, 2010, 08:56:13 PM
-
A new video (http://\"http://www.priceisright.com/blog/entry/1511\") has been posted at the Price is Right's official website, with executive producer Mike Richards showing us some of the new features of the upcoming season, including the new game Pay the Rent and the remodeling of Plinko and 10 Chances. If you don't want to watch the video, feel free to click the images below:
Top of Pay the Rent (http://\"http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4921/64614270.jpg\")
Bottom of Pay the Rent (http://\"http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/1654/17319468.jpg\")
Pay the Rent's $100,000 sign (http://\"http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3096/56702201.jpg\")
The upgrade of 10 Chances (http://\"http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8666/41346832.jpg\")
The upgraded digits on 10 Chances (http://\"http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/254/59330256.jpg\")
Plinko's new upgrade (http://\"http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7341/37045272.jpg\")
Plinko's new dollar amounts (http://\"http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2645/43731532.jpg\")
Plinko's new stairs and railing (http://\"http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/104/93122397.jpg\")
I'm all for it. The lights around Plinko are interesting - emphasizing it being the show's "marquee game." I'll miss the backyard feel of 10 Chances, but the modern version looks spiffy.
-
Buzzerblog is saying that 10 Chances & Plinko will now be "elevated" for "more excitement"... what in the world does that mean? Rule changes?
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Brown\' post=\'246633\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 06:39 PM\']Buzzerblog is saying that 10 Chances & Plinko will now be "elevated" for "more excitement"... what in the world does that mean?[/quote]If you take elevated for what it means, my guess is that it will be played on a dais of some sort, instead of the rug thing that all the games are carted in on.
-
I think 10 Chances looks great! The old 70s lattice was a hot mess in HD, and the updated buttons didn't fit at all! It looks like they just added some flair to the prop, but it still looks good.
PLINKO changes look okay. I get those lights, but they really fill in the dead spots in HD. It looks good.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'246635\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 09:03 PM\'][quote name=\'Mr. Brown\' post=\'246633\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 06:39 PM\']Buzzerblog is saying that 10 Chances & Plinko will now be "elevated" for "more excitement"... what in the world does that mean?[/quote]If you take elevated for what it means, my guess is that it will be played on a dais of some sort, instead of the rug thing that all the games are carted in on.
[/quote]
According to the CBS press release (http://\"http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/cbs_entertainment/original/release?id=257&dpid=57&rid=25958\")
..."Plinko" and "Ten Chances," have been updated and enhanced to elevate game play excitement.
I read that as the excitement being elevated, not the games.
-
No no NO! This looks like utter shite and I'm NEVER watching again!!1!
(storms out)
(slams door)
-
(Okay I'm back)
They all look nice...I like the pastels in Plinko, and the dollar sign rails are a very nice touch...kinda classy. The new 10 Chances board will take a little getting used to, only because I'm so used to the red, white, and green, and the lattices...
Oh, and I love how they chopped off a 0 from the Million Dollar Spectacular lights... ;-)
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'246641\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 09:48 PM\']Oh, and I love how they chopped off a 0 from the Million Dollar Spectacular lights... ;-)[/quote]
Yeah. I did like the repurposing there.
Seeing all of the games that they've brought into the 21st century makes me realize just how badly they needed to start doing this years ago. (Partly because I would have preferred to do more with some of the game props than new paint and new lights if I wasn't trying to spread my budget over multiple updates over the course of a season.)
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'246642\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 11:27 PM\']Seeing all of the games that they've brought into the 21st century makes me realize just how badly they needed to start doing this years ago.[/quote]
If you never realized it, how necessary could it have been?
-
Love the new 10 Chances prop...and they managed to redo it without any major technical changes. The grey floor makes it look a little drab, bit heaven forbid they make it yellow or something.
Plinko doesn't look bad, although the floor lights look out of place. I really like the illuminated sign at the top of the board, though. Maybe all these new lights means that Plinko gets a dark intro this season?
Repurposing the $1 million sign was a great idea, and the lights go down in Pay the Rent's intro...dare I say it replaces Plinko as the game with the most intro fanfare? Well, since Mike Richards said it's the first game on the first new show, we'll see in the first 5 minutes.
Great changes all around, and I can't wait to see what other new graphical changes the show has in store.
EDIT- no surprise here, but the tears have been flowing at Golden Road since the video was posted. Half of them don't realize how outdated some of these games look, with Ten Chances being one of the main perpetrators.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'246643\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 10:36 PM\'][quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'246642\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 11:27 PM\']Seeing all of the games that they've brought into the 21st century makes me realize just how badly they needed to start doing this years ago.[/quote]
If you never realized it, how necessary could it have been?
[/quote]
It's a question of degree. I knew the games looked dated, but didn't realize just how dated they looked because they were familiar and it changed slowly. Once you have the new version, it gives you something to compare the older version to.
For an analogy: I know that my car is covered in dust and dirt, because it hasn't rained in over a month and I haven't washed it in that time. (True story.) I don't notice it getting dirtier because I drive it every day and there isn't that much more dirt on it on any given day than there was the previous day. But my failure to realize just how much grime had accumulated until after it's cleaned up doesn't mean that I don't need to wash it.
-
I still don't understand why Plinko doesn't get a long-overdue payout bump. Not in the center slot, mind you, but the other ones - $100 slots on the outside are about as outdated as $5 a point on Feud.
-
I think Plinko's fine in that regard. Where the lower amounts fail is Punch a Bunch, where $1,000 hardly stops anybody anymore.
-Jason
-
So I know this is awfully nitpicky, even for this board (well, maybe not for *this* board), but I'm really not liking the change from "Ten Chances" to "10 Chances". The rest of the set--fine. Maybe it's Mrs. Burke's 7th grade English class sticking in my mind, but having the number there looks...just odd to me.
-
Pay the Rent looks interesting. Can't wait to see how it plays out in about 3 weeks.
10 Chances: A very nice update. Blue's my favoritte coloe so this change will help. Having lighted buttons(or whatever they have that reveals the prices) makes it look pretty slick while the numbers look much more rounded than the old ones.
Plinko: Like the lights at the top. The railings on the stairs add a neat touch. Now if we just replace those darn $100 slots with $250 slots.
-
Bleech to Ten Chances. Looks crummy. I'm not sure why it used to have the lattice-red-green motif, but it looked different from any other game. This just looks boring, like the new Most Expensive set-up.
Another gripe with this and Temptation: Both had raised boards, sort of on stilts, and you could see under them. Then at some point they put a painted board there to block the view. That's fine, I guess, but if they're going to the trouble to make a new board, then they should design it differently, not with legs with a board stuck between them.
Pay the Rent looks good, though, except for the Ariel font on the LCDs.
-
Just noticed something on the new 10 Chances board--there's more room to the right of the 10th chance than there is on the left of the first. Might they be preparing to add an 11th Chance?
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'246659\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 10:58 AM\']Just noticed something on the new 10 Chances board--there's more room to the right of the 10th chance than there is on the left of the first. Might they be preparing to add an 11th Chance?[/quote]
That space has always been there, to accommodate the occasional player who can't manage to get the first two prices in ten chances; if prize #2 has to go to the tenth position, the car has to go somewhere.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'246651\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 12:48 AM\']I think Plinko's fine in that regard. Where the lower amounts fail is Punch a Bunch, where $1,000 hardly stops anybody anymore.
-Jason[/quote]
I Agree that the $100 space is rather cheesy, given there are two -0- slots - so why not bump up that lower prize a little.
The old risk-reward issue indeed with PaB - it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.
-Ryan
-
It's about time Ten Chances got an update! I was beginning to wonder if or when it was going to get a makeover. Plinko...meh.....not enough to get excited about, for me (you're mileage may vary). From what I've seen of Pay the Rent, I'm excited and can't wait to see it in action. BTW...nice re-use of the MDS sign! :-)
Mike Richards, please--get back BEHIND the camera, where the Producer belongs.
I just got done reading the thread at G-R, and it reminds me why I don't go there anymore. 'Nuff said.
-
[quote name=\'RyanCDN\' post=\'246664\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 09:44 AM\']it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.[/quote]
Only if you are applying pot odds. Which you can't.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'246657\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 09:46 AM\']Bleech to Ten Chances. Looks crummy. I'm not sure why it used to have the lattice-red-green motif, but it looked different from any other game.[/quote]
You say this like it's a good thing.
-
[quote name=\'RyanCDN\' post=\'246664\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 11:44 AM\']The old risk-reward issue indeed with PaB - it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.[/quote]
I have to disagree with you my transplanted fellow Canadian.
If you hit a $1,000 slip, always stop as there are always ~40 amounts less than $1K to "win."
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'246654\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 02:39 AM\']10 Chances: A very nice update. Blue's my favoritte coloe so this change will help.[/quote]Help what? The game won't be any easier.
/brick wall, I know.
-
Am I the only one who would've liked to see Ten Chances played on a Smartboard?
The changes are nice, btw.
-
For Plinko's new dollar amounts I was prepared to see:
$0
$5
$10
$0
$10,000
$0
$10
$5
$0
It would be consistent with the setups of late.
-
[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'246650\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 10:45 PM\']I still don't understand why Plinko doesn't get a long-overdue payout bump. Not in the center slot, mind you, but the other ones - $100 slots on the outside are about as outdated as $5 a point on Feud.[/quote]And it wouldn't have been so obvious had the top prize been increased to $10,000 each. The problem I have with Plinko isn't so much than you can win a few hundred dollars--that's possible with just a bad drop-- but when the producers are picking items deliberately so that the contestant will not get to play your "marquee game". There are all sorts of clever things that you can do to tart up the game, but when the producers decide that you're not going to get to play because they spent the budget elsewhere, I stop caring.
[quote name=\'mparrish11\' post=\'246665\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 10:43 AM\']From what I've seen of Pay the Rent, I'm excited and can't wait to see it in action.[/quote]I will bet cash on the line that the money grows $1,000-$5,000-$100,000 or some such. They play Golden Road all of three times last year, for a game that is really a one-in-twelve crapshoot to win the big prize. Does anyone really think that 1) the player has a snowball's chance at the top money or 2) that the consolation money is going to rival the top prize of Grand Game, Half-Assed or Punch-a-Bunch?
-
Dunno why, but the old Ten Chances board always used to remind me of a tote board at a horse track -- we'll it DID premiere during or shortly after the lattice-happy Celebrity Sweepstakes run.
And as far as the Plinko $0 money slots go, I say they should stay, if only for the reason to have a possibility of a contestant to get on stage and win absolutely nothing, which can still happen if said Plinko contestant can whiff on all 4 prizes and land the freebie chip into the $0 space.
I think all the pricing games need to have the possibility that every contestant could walk off the stage winning nothing but their IUFB. I know that even Money Game can never have a bona-fide loss because every contestant comes out of the game at least $100 richer. But even those games could theoretically be tweaked to where a contestant has to beat some sort of odds (Double Prices) or has to make some sort of decision that puts into risk what they may automatically win at the start (Temptation) in order to win something on stage.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'246699\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 07:50 AM\']And as far as the Plinko $0 money slots go, I say they should stay[/quote]
The earlier contention was about the $100 slots.
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'246699\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 07:50 AM\']I think all the pricing games need to have the possibility that every contestant could walk off the stage winning nothing but their IUFB. I know that even Money Game can never have a bona-fide loss because every contestant comes out of the game at least $100 richer. But even those games could theoretically be tweaked[/quote]
Changes like that would certainly make better games. I've said before that making the last roll in Let Em Roll all or nothing for the car would eliminate the lack of risk in going on, when you can easily roll up $2,000 for losing.
But, would doing things like that make the show more fun to watch? You could use that argument in the inverse, asking why Rat Race needs more than the car at stake. We only have one playing to go on, but the audience deflated when the car was lost. Does it generate any additional reaction (and to less tangible extension, ratings & revenue) for the contestant to have missed the car, but still win a $750 pair of headphones?
So going back: does it help the quality of the show to suddenly take away the $100-$300 a Money Game loser gets, or the less than ten an Any Number loser gets?
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'246700\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 11:51 AM\'][quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'246699\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 07:50 AM\']And as far as the Plinko $0 money slots go, I say they should stay[/quote]
The earlier contention was about the $100 slots.
[/quote]
I thought there was at least one post which wanted to abolish the $0 slots altogether. My bad.
So going back: does it help the quality of the show to suddenly take away the $100-$300 a Money Game loser gets, or the less than ten an Any Number loser gets?
I just used MG as an example of some of the games that are considered no-lose games. Back in the 70's, getting $100-200 in Money Game as a consolation for not winning the car would be considered a sizable secondary win (compared to a $4,000 car) for really doing nothing but picking numbers. Nowadays, the same consolation amounts (winning $200 v $18,000) in MG could now allow it to be grouped with Grand Game (winning only $10 or $100) or Any Number (winning between $0.12 and $9.87) as not necessarily "losses" but rather "klunk" money -- just as bad as not winning anything.
I am just not in favor of games that could guarantee you enough money right up front so, when paired with your IUFB, you can slide into the 3rd slot on the Big Wheel or the 1st slot in the Showcase simply by default when up to 5 other players have to take risks or have to beat odds to try to earn those same positions. Nowadays, I really don't see a guaranteed $100-200 pricing game making much of a difference between the top money winners...I just think you need to actually work for anything more than $250 offered on stage.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'246703\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 12:33 PM\']I am just not in favor of games that could guarantee you enough money right up front so, when paired with your IUFB, you can slide into the 3rd slot on the Big Wheel or the 1st slot in the Showcase simply by default when up to 5 other players have to take risks or have to beat odds to try to earn those same positions.[/quote]
Part of an argument Matt has been bringing up with regard to the new direction of Price deals with whether you consider the show a serious test of pricing skill, or a fun collection of guessing games. I don't so much fall in either camp, but I can at least see here that you're far too concerned with equity in a format where everybody's ticket to the "bonus round" is a giant wheel of numbers.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'246709\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 01:58 PM\']Part of an argument Matt has been bringing up with regard to the new direction of Price deals with whether you consider the show a serious test of pricing skill, or a fun collection of guessing games. I don't so much fall in either camp, but I can at least see here that you're far too concerned with equity in a format where everybody's ticket to the "bonus round" is a giant wheel of numbers.[/quote]
I love this comment so much.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'246710\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 04:11 PM\']I love this comment so much.[/quote]
Why don't you marry it then. :)
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'246723\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 04:10 PM\']Why don't you marry it then. :)[/quote]
Well, since you shot me down when I asked you to make me the happiest man in the world, I may have no choice. :)
-
Pay the Rent's introduction could have the most powerful introduction for a game since easily Super Ball!!. Love the idea of the $100,000 sign flying into a dimmed stage.
/G-R.net thread is making my head hurt
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'246703\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 12:33 PM\']I just used MG as an example of some of the games that are considered no-lose games.[/quote] I would say that if you ask someone who just "won" a hundred and twelve dollars at Money Game, or the piggy bank in Any Number, if they thought they lost, they're gonna say yes.
I am just not in favor of games that could guarantee you enough money right up front so, when paired with your IUFB, you can slide into the 3rd slot on the Big Wheel or the 1st slot in the Showcase simply by default when up to 5 other players have to take risks or have to beat odds to try to earn those same positions.
Huh? What if everyone wins their game? Someone still has to spin first. Can someone find some evidence to support the thing about the consolation money moving somebody up in the order?
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'246709\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 01:58 PM\']Part of an argument Matt has been bringing up with regard to the new direction of Price deals with whether you consider the show a serious test of pricing skill, or a fun collection of guessing games. I don't so much fall in either camp,[/quote]I don't think you can, really. (OK, I guess you could be all Serious Business, or Happy Fun Time over it, but you oughtn't.) There's also the show that we see on the screen, and the show that happens in the preparation, and the back end that most people don't know about. I think that the way things oughta be is that you put a great deal of effort into a final product where everyone is having fun, winning stuff and the atmosphere is frenetic and happy.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'246748\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 08:40 PM\']Huh? What if everyone wins their game? Someone still has to spin first. Can someone find some evidence to support the thing about the consolation money moving somebody up in the order?[/quote]
Doesn't matter; the IUFB invalidates his argument, anyhow. There's already an element of luck there you can't get rid of.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'246666\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 01:06 PM\'][quote name=\'RyanCDN\' post=\'246664\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 09:44 AM\']it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.[/quote]
Only if you are applying pot odds. Which you can't.
[/quote]
I'll stick my head on the block, then. Why can't you?
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'246751\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 11:20 PM\']I'll stick my head on the block, then. Why can't you?[/quote]
Sorry if I'm "taking" the answer from Chris, but I would assume because you can only play the game once and Pot Odds are meaningless on a single attempt.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'246751\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 09:20 PM\']I'll stick my head on the block, then. Why can't you?[/quote]
Because you only get to play the game one time. Pot odds only work when you are applying them to multiple iterations of the same event.
-
I call "JINX!" :)
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'246758\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 09:30 PM\']I call "JINX!" :)[/quote]
Wow, same time and everything.
Fair enough. Next time you're in Seattle, look me up, the Coke is on me. :)
/particularly if I'm at work
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'246666\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 02:06 PM\'][quote name=\'RyanCDN\' post=\'246664\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 09:44 AM\']it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.[/quote]
Only if you are applying pot odds. Which you can't.[/quote]
I'll play the Devil's Advocate. I'd risk $1000 (less, after taxes) for a one time only, over 10% chance at increasing your money at least 5-fold. It's a once-in-a-lifetime chance to risk a modest amount of money to win enough for a nice new car. If I'm a college student living off of ramen noodles, the situation might be different.
Signed,
"Moneybags" Klauss
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'246666\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 02:06 PM\'][quote name=\'RyanCDN\' post=\'246664\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 09:44 AM\']it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.[/quote]Only if you are applying pot odds. Which you can't.[/quote]
I'm with Klaussie. I get the difference between one try and dozens of tries, but I still don't see why the fact that you only get one try somehow invalidates the odds involved. There is a risk and there is a reward and there are, to some degree, calculable odds to help you make a decision. I don't see why all of that doesn't matter just because you don't get to play it again and again.
-
[quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'246792\' date=\'Sep 3 2010, 01:41 PM\']I'll play the Devil's Advocate. I'd risk $1000 (less, after taxes) for a one time only, over 10% chance at increasing your money at least 5-fold. It's a once-in-a-lifetime chance to risk a modest amount of money to win enough for a nice new car. If I'm a college student living off of ramen noodles, the situation might be different.[/quote]
Except this is my exact point: you're placing a value on the money based on your financial position in life, not based on a pure mathematical formula.
-
Huh? What if everyone wins their game? Someone still has to spin first.
Fourteen years after the fact, I'm still irked that I won Bonus Game and had to spin the Big Wheel before the contestant who won Bargain Game.
On the other hand, I'm 1,000 times more thrilled that I played Bonus Game instead of Bargain Game.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'246811\' date=\'Sep 3 2010, 10:47 PM\'][quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'246792\' date=\'Sep 3 2010, 01:41 PM\']I'll play the Devil's Advocate. I'd risk $1000 (less, after taxes) for a one time only, over 10% chance at increasing your money at least 5-fold. It's a once-in-a-lifetime chance to risk a modest amount of money to win enough for a nice new car. If I'm a college student living off of ramen noodles, the situation might be different.[/quote]
Except this is my exact point: you're placing a value on the money based on your financial position in life, not based on a pure mathematical formula.
[/quote]
If I'm basing my position on a pure mathematical formula, I know that the board has an average return, on any hole punched, of $1,280 not counting second chances. And from a utilitarian perspective, the risk is worth it.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'246853\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 02:10 AM\']If I'm basing my position on a pure mathematical formula, I know that the board has an average return, on any hole punched, of $1,280 not counting second chances. And from a utilitarian perspective, the risk is worth it.[/quote]
This sounds like something jybt would say.
-
Because you only get to play the game one time. Pot odds only work when you are applying them to multiple iterations of the same event.
c.f. the Monty Hall problem.
Back in the olden days one of the criteria for a pricing game was that the value of the prize(s) should not exceed those of the showcases. I'm sure that rule went out with Barker and Roger; I mention it here only for historical perspective.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'246855\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 01:58 AM\'][quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'246853\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 02:10 AM\']If I'm basing my position on a pure mathematical formula, I know that the board has an average return, on any hole punched, of $1,280 not counting second chances. And from a utilitarian perspective, the risk is worth it.[/quote]
This sounds like something jybt would say.[/quote]Not even close. Gene is saying that for him, punting the money is worth it to him because he would derive more utility out of the chance at more money than just the $1,000. Jvbt would say that the contestant failed in playing Punch-a-Bunch if he kept $1,000 because it is below the "expected value" of one P-A-B slip not counting extras, even if during the proveout it was discovered that the remaining slips were $50, $100, $50.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'246859\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 08:19 AM\']c.f. the Monty Hall problem.[/quote]
I believe what Mr. Lemon is saying is that choosing to take a gamble depends on more than just odds. Mostly, your own personal feeling about whatever risk you might be taking. In a game where you're already expected to make a choice (i.e. the Monty Hall problem), you might as well make the choice that yields the best odds and gives you the best chance to win.
In other words, if you're twice as likely (or ten times as likely, or a hundred times as likely) to win the game by doing 'A' instead of 'B', then you should do 'A'. Doing 'B' because "I'm only going to do it once, so the odds don't matter" makes no sense.
-
you might as well make the choice that yields the best odds and gives you the best chance to win.
Again:
Pot Odds are meaningless on a single attempt.
Pot odds only work when you are applying them to multiple iterations of the same event.
Unlike a casino, on a TV game show you get just one attempt. See the above two statements about pot odds.
Can you predict the outcome of a single coin flip? Neither can I. Can you predict the outcome of 100 coin flips? Yes: approximately 50 heads and 50 tails.
-
Pot Odds are meaningless on a single attempt.
This line is being seriously misused. A coin flip is one thing, that's 50/50 no matter what. If you're rolling a single die, and a million dollars was on the line, would you want to bet on the number '1' coming up, or would you want to bet on ANY of the numbers 2-6 coming up? If you're saying it doesn't matter because you're only going to make a single attempt, then your definition of "it doesn't matter" is seriously flawed.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'246865\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 08:14 AM\']I believe what Mr. Lemon is saying is that choosing to take a gamble depends on more than just odds. Mostly, your own personal feeling about whatever risk you might be taking. In a game where you're already expected to make a choice (i.e. the Monty Hall problem), you might as well make the choice that yields the best odds and gives you the best chance to win.[/quote]
Absolutely on both counts. I'm applying this solely to "stop and take the sure thing" versus "play on and possibly win more or less." If you are forced to make a choice between two discrete options, both with an uncertain outcome, that isn't a pot odds situation.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'246696\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 08:55 PM\']I will bet cash on the line that the money grows $1,000-$5,000-$100,000 or some such. They play Golden Road all of three times last year, for a game that is really a one-in-twelve crapshoot to win the big prize. Does anyone really think that 1) the player has a snowball's chance at the top money or 2) that the consolation money is going to rival the top prize of Grand Game, Half-Assed or Punch-a-Bunch?[/quote]
I don't put my money where my mouth as, as more often than not my foot ends up there, but I wouldn't be surprised to see PTR as a $10,000 game where the player has to choose between keeping the $10,000 or risking it for some relatively long shot (1 in 10 or so) at the million - similar to the $10,000,000 round in Power of 10.
(My idea for PTR, if it wasn't so close to Let 'Em Roll: have a set of five "red" dice, each with a 0 and five blanks, and four "blue" dice, each with a different number of sides with 0s (2, 3, 4, 5); price four items (e.g. Bonus Game or Plinko style), and for each win, replace a red die with a blue one (the one with the five 0s first, then the four, the three, and the two); roll the dice, take the ones showing 0, and put them next to a 1 to display the final amount won. Even if all four blue dice are won, there's only 1 chance in 64.8 of winning the $100,000, but about 1 chance in 7.5 of winning $10,000.)
(Somebody refresh my memory - what pricing game had the items with two prices, each of which was the other's digits reversed (e.g. $58 or $85)?)
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'246918\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 08:30 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'246696\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 08:55 PM\']I will bet cash on the line that the money grows $1,000-$5,000-$100,000 or some such. They play Golden Road all of three times last year, for a game that is really a one-in-twelve crapshoot to win the big prize. Does anyone really think that 1) the player has a snowball's chance at the top money or 2) that the consolation money is going to rival the top prize of Grand Game, Half-Assed or Punch-a-Bunch?[/quote]
I don't put my money where my mouth as, as more often than not my foot ends up there, but I wouldn't be surprised to see PTR as a $10,000 game where the player has to choose between keeping the $10,000 or risking it for some relatively long shot (1 in 10 or so) at the million - similar to the $10,000,000 round in Power of 10.
(My idea for PTR, if it wasn't so close to Let 'Em Roll: have a set of five "red" dice, each with a 0 and five blanks, and four "blue" dice, each with a different number of sides with 0s (2, 3, 4, 5); price four items (e.g. Bonus Game or Plinko style), and for each win, replace a red die with a blue one (the one with the five 0s first, then the four, the three, and the two); roll the dice, take the ones showing 0, and put them next to a 1 to display the final amount won. Even if all four blue dice are won, there's only 1 chance in 64.8 of winning the $100,000, but about 1 chance in 7.5 of winning $10,000.)
(Somebody refresh my memory - what pricing game had the items with two prices, each of which was the other's digits reversed (e.g. $58 or $85)?)
-- Don
[/quote]
Joker
-
[quote name=\'gwarman2005\' post=\'246919\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 05:31 PM\'][quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'246918\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 08:30 PM\'](Somebody refresh my memory - what pricing game had the items with two prices, each of which was the other's digits reversed (e.g. $58 or $85)?)[/quote]Joker[/quote]Thanks - I knew I was forgetting one...
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'246651\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 12:48 AM\']I think Plinko's fine in that regard. Where the lower amounts fail is Punch a Bunch, where $1,000 hardly stops anybody anymore.[/quote]Sorry for the bump, but someone contacted The Wizard (http://\"http://www.wizardofodds.com\"), a well-respected figure in the casino gaming world about this very topic.
With 2 or 3 punches left, he says you should give up any prize less than $5,000; but with only one punch left, quit with $1400 or more. View the full report here (http://\"http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/262\"), filled with data about expected wins with and without the second chance.
-
With 2 or 3 punches left, he says you should give up any prize less than $5,000; but with only one punch left, quit with $1400 or more.
Then, there is the guy, who during the Barker era, gave up $5000 to win the top prize of $10,000. Even Barker was stunned.
-
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'250291\' date=\'Nov 5 2010, 12:32 PM\']Then, there is the guy, who during the Barker era, gave up $5000 to win the top prize of $10,000. Even Barker was stunned.[/quote]
Proving the adage that fortune smiles on fools.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'250278\' date=\'Nov 5 2010, 05:16 AM\']Sorry for the bump, but someone contacted The Wizard (http://\"http://www.wizardofodds.com\"), a well-respected figure in the casino gaming world about this very topic.
With 2 or 3 punches left, he says you should give up any prize less than $5,000; but with only one punch left, quit with $1400 or more. View the full report here (http://\"http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/262\"), filled with data about expected wins with and without the second chance.[/quote]
The cut-off used to be about $1100 instead of $1400. That $25000 hole accounts for the small change. Only relevant in a second chance situation anyway.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'250278\' date=\'Nov 5 2010, 03:16 AM\'][quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'246651\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 12:48 AM\']I think Plinko's fine in that regard. Where the lower amounts fail is Punch a Bunch, where $1,000 hardly stops anybody anymore.[/quote]Sorry for the bump, but someone contacted The Wizard (http://\"http://www.wizardofodds.com\"), a well-respected figure in the casino gaming world about this very topic.
With 2 or 3 punches left, he says you should give up any prize less than $5,000; but with only one punch left, quit with $1400 or more. View the full report here (http://\"http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/262\"), filled with data about expected wins with and without the second chance.[/quote]That's terrific until the $1,000 from the third punch becomes $50, with no chance to improve that amount.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'250349\' date=\'Nov 6 2010, 11:35 AM\']That's terrific until the $1,000 from the third punch becomes $50, with no chance to improve that amount.[/quote]
Yeah, but if you're a professional gambler who lives every minute of his existence by pot odds, when that happens you shrug and figure you're gonna have a good night at the craps table to make up for it.
-
And from me, the refrain continues to be, "Some of us think it's worth the risk on the $1,000"
/ Manages my own Roth
// averaging 18% per year over the life of the account.
/// and I sold my Sirius XM too soon.