New Money Tree on 1 vs 100

[tvmitch]

Minor tweak on episode three of 1 vs 100...the money tree has smaller denominations ($100, $250, $500, $1000, $1500, etc) on the way up to $10,000. Should make for a longer play time before bail outs.

[J.R.]

Would this be what we would call "Lo'Money"?

I liked the reduced money format, allows more questions to be played.

-Joe R.

[Joe Mello]

Not if they make the questions harder at the same point of the game, which is what I think they did for tonight's episode.  If that's the case, then it doesn't matter how the pay scale goes--1's will be heading for the hills left and right, but with less money.

[Matt Ottinger]

There's no question that there are pretty significant problems with the game.  It surprises me that they decieded the solution was to make the payouts smaller.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135889\' date=\'Oct 27 2006, 10:14 PM\']There's no question that there are pretty significant problems with the game.  It surprises me that they decieded the solution was to make the payouts smaller.[/quote]Especially when the conventional wisdom in the last seven years has been "If your game sucks, put a seven-figure prize on it and it'll sell."

The format is still broken like a three-year-old's stepped on train set, but I'll give them small propers for making it mildly more interesting.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'135890\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 01:21 AM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135889\' date=\'Oct 27 2006, 10:14 PM\']There's no question that there are pretty significant problems with the game.  It surprises me that they decieded the solution was to make the payouts smaller.[/quote]Especially when the conventional wisdom in the last seven years has been "If your game sucks, put a seven-figure prize on it and it'll sell."

The format is still broken like a three-year-old's stepped on train set, but I'll give them small propers for making it mildly more interesting.[/quote]
Yes, don't get me wrong.  A smaller-payout tree does improve the game ever-so-slightly, but in one of those ways that only nuts like us are supposed to care about.  The public at large, already used to seeing easy six-figure payouts, may be waiting a long time until the next one.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135889\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 01:14 AM\']
There's no question that there are pretty significant problems with the game.  It surprises me that they decieded the solution was to make the payouts smaller.
[/quote]

Seems to me that that's a side benefit (although, who knows, maybe it was just the result of a budget meeting).  I thought--hoped!--the point of the restructuring was to make the game more interesting by making players work harder for high payouts.

[cweaver]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'135874\' date=\'Oct 27 2006, 09:37 PM\']
Not if they make the questions harder at the same point of the game, which is what I think they did for tonight's episode.  If that's the case, then it doesn't matter how the pay scale goes--1's will be heading for the hills left and right, but with less money.
[/quote]

They appeared to be plenty hard for the second contestant in the game (definitely not for me watching at home, though).  Several times she expressed doubts about her (eventually correct) answer and I think even used a "help" in that situation.  So I have to believe the pressure of just being up there should count for something.  

Of course that thing about the final part of an expensive restaurant dinner would've locked me out.  But then again I know about Cobb salad (more on that later).

[cweaver]

Here's something I'm surprised no one has mentioned about last night's show:

SPOILER for anyone who hasn't watched his/her TiVo or tape or DVD:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The mob included three millionaires from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.  One was John Carpenter; the two others were a female I didn't recognize and a guy who looked a little like Joe Trela but I am not 100% sure.  Big surprise: they all three got eliminated surprisingly quickly.  Their on-camera reactions at being lit up in red were priceless and indicated they weren't overly thrilled.  

By the way I never got to say, when Ken Jennings got eliminated last week how classy and gracious he came off looking.  Way to go Ken.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'135912\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 11:19 AM\']
The mob included three millionaires from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.  One was John Carpenter; the two others were a female I didn't recognize and a guy who looked a little like Joe Trela but I am not 100% sure.  Big surprise: they all three got eliminated surprisingly quickly.  Their on-camera reactions at being lit up in red were priceless and indicated they weren't overly thrilled.  [/quote]
The woman is Nancy Christy, the syndicated (and first female) WWTBAM winner.  The other male is Kevin Olmstead, who won $2.18M during the progressive-jackpot era.  I know Kevin and I've met Nancy, both of whom are as pleasant and gracious people as you'd ever want to meet.  I can't speak for any of them, but after reading Ken's account of the taping, it would seem that they had plenty of reasons not to be "overly thrilled" besides missing a multiple choice trivia question.

[MrGameShow]

I think the 'twist' of this game that board members aren't taking into account is that unlike other game shows, even *IF* the contestant loses, it's not like the money goes down -- however much money is made by the contestant is coming out of the budget in one way or another.

Compared to say DOND, where the produ..I mean BANKER wants them to leave with less than the ideal amount of money, the smartest move for this show would be to make questions harder and the payouts smaller. This way the contestant gets confident, keeps going, and hits the wall on a tricky question. They also have not introduced the "take a percentage and run" rule, which makes the show not seem like a cakewalk. Yet, unlike the traditional game show where you could lose it all or go back to a 'safe haven', all that money is still technically WON by someone on that stage.

I'm a little surprized that the dutch format wasn't adapted for the US market, where you opt-out of a question by taking a cut in the money. In their version, you deplete your winnings by 25%, 50%, and 75% respecively, but the mob still gets cut down for a wrong answer. Each question was worth $50,000 divided by the number of mob members left in play [which would have been a "change the channel" moment for anyone saying "Aww dang, dere's MATH in dis show?"].

Something tells me we'll never see this more than once a week unless big changes are made.

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'MrGameShow\' post=\'135916\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 11:10 AM\']
They also have not introduced the "take a percentage and run" rule, which makes the show not seem like a cakewalk. Yet, unlike the traditional game show where you could lose it all or go back to a 'safe haven', all that money is still technically WON by someone on that stage.
[/quote]
According to this, they actually did but America never saw it.

Doug -- and the countdown to 2400 continues

[Timsterino]

[quote name=\'MrGameShow\' post=\'135916\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 12:10 PM\']
I
I'm a little surprized that the dutch format wasn't adapted for the US market, where you opt-out of a question by taking a cut in the money. In their version, you deplete your winnings by 25%, 50%, and 75% respecively, but the mob still gets cut down for a wrong answer. Each question was worth $50,000 divided by the number of mob members left in play [which would have been a "change the channel" moment for anyone saying "Aww dang, dere's MATH in dis show?"].

[/quote]

There is something like that in place and it is offered. However, they are not airing those unless it is taken. I assure you every contestant I saw taped was offered this as a way out.

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'Timsterino\' post=\'135932\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 02:23 PM\']
[quote name=\'MrGameShow\' post=\'135916\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 12:10 PM\']
I
I'm a little surprized that the dutch format wasn't adapted for the US market, where you opt-out of a question by taking a cut in the money. In their version, you deplete your winnings by 25%, 50%, and 75% respecively, but the mob still gets cut down for a wrong answer. Each question was worth $50,000 divided by the number of mob members left in play [which would have been a "change the channel" moment for anyone saying "Aww dang, dere's MATH in dis show?"].

[/quote]

There is something like that in place and it is offered. However, they are not airing those unless it is taken. I assure you every contestant I saw taped was offered this as a way out.
[/quote]

Which is going to make them look pretty stupid (IMHO), when they have to explain why 'this' contestant was offered a bonus out , compared to others who just walked without seeing the next question.

This production company sucks. Period.

[Gus]

This was the first episode to be taped, yes? The two that we saw before were the third and fourth to be taped, so we're acutlly going *back* in time a bit.