$ale question

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'JRaygor\' post=\'188070\' date=\'Jun 12 2008, 05:40 PM\']
/Yet, didn't the $otC staff refer to her as "spooky"?[/quote]
Indeed.  My taping was not too long after she had appeared, and despite her success, she was described (and frankly, ridiculed) by the coordinators as the kind of contestant they didn't want.

Incidentally, "Spooky Old Alice" was the term George Gobel used to describe his wife in his routines.  No idea whether that's coincidental, but "spooky" does seem to be an odd choice of adjective.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'188067\' date=\'Jun 12 2008, 01:34 PM\']Yes, but a better champion would have purchased all the instant bargains every time and also had enough every day to win the game.  Part of the gimmick of $ale is that you can buy luxurious items for very little money.  She never took advantage of that.
[/quote]I reject your thesis as flawed. The fact that she held her nerve, fought off the temptation or just plain wanted to win the lot and get the hell out doesn't lessen her accomplishments, one of which was averaging $108 per game. Your definition of "a better champion" doesn't work, because it doesn't make any sense. She reached the pinnacle of Sale-dom. There's nothing more. Next you'll tell me she should have tried to find the prize tiles on the Fame Game board, instead of the Fame Game bucks, because it would have pumped up her final total.

The gimmick is that you have that opportunity, not that you're forced to. That's why it's called Temptation down under. Do you take the luxurious prize you're offered, or tough it out and go for the big prize at the end?

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'188072\' date=\'Jun 12 2008, 03:06 PM\']Indeed.  My taping was not too long after she had appeared, and despite her success, she was described (and frankly, ridiculed) by the coordinators as the kind of contestant they didn't want.[/quote]This seems really really wrong on their part. Never mind that you have to be the best of the best to win the lot, but to knock her and say "Don't do this!" seems doubly cruel.

[Jimmy Owen]

In Australia, it was "Temptation."  In the US, it was called "$ale of the Century"  The whole idea was to buy things.  If the player in the lead is never gonna buy anything, you might as well skip those segments and put in more questions.

After a day or two of continual "no sales", it might have been interesting to offer Alice a car or a major prize during the Instant Bargain.  I wonder what she would have done.

[J.R.]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'188105\' date=\'Jun 12 2008, 11:29 PM\']The fact that she held her nerve, fought off the temptation or just plain wanted to win the lot and get the hell out doesn't lessen her accomplishments[/quote]
Which wasn't as easy as it sounded. I believe, in her last two days, Perry would sometimes offer as much as $2000 in *cash* to get Alice to cave in and she held strong. To turn down that kind of money, which back then was quite the serious sum, was courageous in my opinion.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'188105\' date=\'Jun 12 2008, 09:29 PM\']
This seems really really wrong on their part. Never mind that you have to be the best of the best to win the lot, but to knock her and say "Don't do this!" seems doubly cruel.[/quote]
Except their job is to make good TV, not get strategically wise players. People buying Instant Bargains is better TV than someone turning down thing after thing.

That said, seeing as Alice's cash jackpot was very likely more than one of those coordinators make in a year, I gotta think she had the last laugh.

[Jay Temple]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'188111\' date=\'Jun 13 2008, 12:01 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'188105\' date=\'Jun 12 2008, 09:29 PM\']
This seems really really wrong on their part. Never mind that you have to be the best of the best to win the lot, but to knock her and say "Don't do this!" seems doubly cruel.[/quote]
Except their job is to make good TV, not get strategically wise players. People buying Instant Bargains is better TV than someone turning down thing after thing.[/quote]
But if all your players have the same strategy, good or bad, it makes for even worse TV.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'188113\' date=\'Jun 12 2008, 10:15 PM\']
But if all your players have the same strategy, good or bad, it makes for even worse TV.[/quote]
I don't follow you. How so?

[Stripey]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'188113\' date=\'Jun 13 2008, 01:15 AM\']
But if all your players have the same strategy, good or bad, it makes for even worse TV.
[/quote]
I get what you're saying -- viva variety -- although I'm not sure that Sale would really have been that much worse off sans Alice.

I think the "if everyone has the same strategy" issue, however, is exactly why the coordinators would be spooked by Alice (not in a "spooky" sense, but in an "is she going to mess up our game?" sense). With the benefit of retrospect, Alice was an interesting one-time aberration, but if I were a contestant producer on the show at the time, I would have some concern that she would be a trendsetter. She took the "temptation" element out of the equation entirely. OK, that's fine as a one-time outlier, but if her style of play became the norm, the show would lose its central conceit. Not much fun in the long run. If I'd been in the contestant coordinators' shoes, I'd be anti-Alice, too. As a viewer, I thought she was fantastic.

[joker316]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'188113\' date=\'Jun 13 2008, 01:15 AM\']

But if all your players have the same strategy, good or bad, it makes for even worse TV.
[/quote]
It's one thing to have the strategy...it's another to execute the strategy. Not every player is like Alice (obviously, then there would be no point to the IB's). Alice was interesting to watch in that she set her goals and went for them. No IB's or other distractions. Nothing fazed her and she won her way. Nothing wrong with that. It was different than say, Mark DeCarlo's winning the floor, and IMO just as entertaing.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'188111\' date=\'Jun 12 2008, 10:01 PM\']Except their job is to make good TV, not get strategically wise players. People buying Instant Bargains is better TV than someone turning down thing after thing.[/quote]For sure. But saying whether or not it made for good television is different than "She didn't play the game I think it should be played, so she's not as good a champion." Your position is defensible and correct.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'188213\' date=\'Jun 13 2008, 08:20 PM\']
But saying whether or not it made for good television is different than "She didn't play the game I think it should be played, so she's not as good a champion."[/quote]
Yes. But when you're a contestant coordinator, those statements are precisely the same. When they're saying someone was a "good contestant," they could give three tin ones whether they were actually skillful at the game or not. To them, a "good contestant" is one who makes good TV, no more, no less. Their monetary success is immaterial to the coordinator.

[Jimmy Owen]

My contention is that a player who picks up the instant bargains and the lot will go home with more prizes than someone who just picks up the lot.  If that can be refuted, maybe I'll change my mind about it.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'188233\' date=\'Jun 14 2008, 05:55 AM\']
My contention is that a player who picks up the instant bargains and the lot will go home with more prizes than someone who just picks up the lot.  If that can be refuted, maybe I'll change my mind about it.
[/quote]
While true, that doesn't necessarily make them a "better" champion, which was your original contention. If it's not something you genuinely want, all that $10 is buying you is a tax burden.

[toetyper]

ok lets do the math. her record as is

6 days -$141.206

now, back then IBs were usually 5-10-15. thats 30  BUCKS A DAY ; lets say she  buys every IB   that would mean  she would have to win 2 or 3 more days taking more risks to pad her total so itll look like

9 days- $170.000

worth it? i say HELL  NO

GET IN GET THE CASH GET OUT

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'188233\' date=\'Jun 14 2008, 08:55 AM\']My contention is that a player who picks up the instant bargains and the lot will go home with more prizes than someone who just picks up the lot.  If that can be refuted, maybe I'll change my mind about it.[/quote]
This is true. But a player that picks up the instant bargains and then loses the game on day 8 will go home with fewer prizes than someone who just picks up the lot in 6 days.