Author Topic: Make Your Mark Change - Good, Bad or Indifferent? (Read 13324 times)

WhammyGuy28 · « **Reply #60 on:** September 04, 2008, 05:58:59 AM »

Has anyone wondered why the host doesn't just hold the $500 in his hand, then explain to the contestant that if they're right, they win the prizes and $500, but they can forfeit the $500 to change a mark, or they can not change anything and risk losing everything? Why does the contestant need to hold the $500 at any time during the game?

I always thought of the $500 as a bonus the contestant would win if he/she made 3 correct marks in the first try. If contestant was confident of the original picks, the $500 was risked. If not, surrender the $500 to be almost 100% sure the prizes will be won.

If the contestant only sees the $500 but never holds it until they win all the prizes and the $500, then this rule change never needed to happen. All the awkwardness of 'indian giving' would never have been an issue. Why isn't this the way they do it? Am I completely insane here?

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #61 on:** September 04, 2008, 08:32:10 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196016\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:21 AM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196014\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 09:00 PM\']And they're also both played for cars. Very different animals, both of them, than Barker's Marker$.[/quote]I utterly fail to see how the grand prize being a car has any bearing whatsoever on the original point of giving someone prizes for doing nothing in their game.[/quote]
Yes, you do. It's just that, as I already pointed out in the other thread that got locked after I did so, you don't want to acknowledge that anything I say might have some valid reasoning behind it.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #62 on:** September 04, 2008, 12:01:04 PM »

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'195996\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 06:59 PM\']Last season there was a playing of Make Your Mark where the last prize to be revealed was a luggage set, and the two possible prices were (something dramatically different like) $2,000 and $999. [/quote]Without having seen this episode, or knowing what the luggage in question is, I'm not sure what the point is. There is luggage that costs that much, so a contestant may absolutely be right in thinking that it was $2,000.

As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?

Mike Tennant · « **Reply #63 on:** September 04, 2008, 12:53:05 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'196034\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:01 PM\']As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?[/quote]Does the contestant win the can of Dinty Moore beef stew at the beginning of Golden Road?

clemon79 · « **Reply #64 on:** September 04, 2008, 01:34:00 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196027\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 05:32 AM\']
Yes, you do. It's just that, as I already pointed out in the other thread that got locked after I did so, you don't want to acknowledge that anything I say might have some valid reasoning behind it.[/quote]
In that other thread, I also invited you to state that reasoning and change my mind.

I see you're still more interested in taking pot-shots than you are in actually taking me up on that offer. Unfortunate, but it's not going to ruin my day either way.

However (and against my better judgment), that offer still stands. I invite you again to tell me why the value of the grand prize in a game suddenly validates consolation cash for losing. For a twenty-point bonus, you are invited to tell me exactly where that threshold is.

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #65 on:** September 04, 2008, 01:38:13 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'196034\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:01 PM\']
As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?
[/quote]
Hmm.

Switch (delare no switch and you've done nothing.)
Temptation
Make Your Mark

clemon79 · « **Reply #66 on:** September 04, 2008, 01:42:38 PM »

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196041\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 10:38 AM\']
Switch (delare no switch and you've done nothing.)[/quote]
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7695/failcw6.jpg

PYLdude · « **Reply #67 on:** September 04, 2008, 02:48:34 PM »

Hey Steve...

An overwhelming majority of people don't agree with you.

Don't you think it's time you gave up this vendetta you have? NO ONE CARES AS MUCH AS YOU DO.

Monarx · « **Reply #68 on:** September 04, 2008, 02:56:06 PM »

Would there be anything wrong with, instead of changing the rules, saying to the contestant something like, "...and if you are able to pick all three correct prices without switching, you'll receive a $500 bonus!" before asking for the contestant's choices?

clemon79 · « **Reply #69 on:** September 04, 2008, 04:10:34 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196044\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 11:48 AM\']
Hey Steve...[/quote]
As usual, you're not helping at all.

My offer was sincere.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #70 on:** September 04, 2008, 04:17:01 PM »

[quote name=\'Monarx\' post=\'196045\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 02:56 PM\']
Would there be anything wrong with, instead of changing the rules, saying to the contestant something like, "...and if you are able to pick all three correct prices without switching, you'll receive a $500 bonus!" before asking for the contestant's choices?
[/quote]

That would be a fine idea.

Re: Chris, I know I'm not Steve, but to play devil's advocate: in a game with a higher grand prize, some bribe money naturally enters the equation. If a contestant were just playing Let Em Roll for a car or nothing, it's considerably less fun than watching the tussle between another roll or $X,X00. Granted, a bulk of the contestant pool for TPIR would rather have "the car B0B!!!!111" than cash, but when we change the grand prize to a $5,000 trip to Atlanta, or expensive dining room furniture (see: tax burden), suddenly a couple hundred bucks doesn't look so bad. Spelling Bee has a bribe; as does Temptation, Pass the Buck...

For that arbitrary figure, apparently $10,000 seems to fit, as two cash games for that amount offer up lesser prizes to walk away from a chance at the big kahuna.

Looking at your question and previous posts, though, I would agree that to some extent, Let Em Roll is flawed. In all the other examples, the cash functions as a way out, rather than a flat-out "here ya go!" Perhaps a provision that your last roll can only be for the car, and produce no cash? Reeks of the Confusing Joe Public rule ("how come dey didn't get duh money duh second time?"), but makes sense from the gamesmanship standpoint. The risk to take the final roll is less than it should be, because the contestant can't go away empty handed.

Where I imagine Steve is coming from: the cash seemingly "given" to players in pricing games for a bigger prize is merely a function of making that game more interesting. Infusing cash into games for mediocre prizes does not stand to make them more interesting - it encourages some people to take the money, and makes for a worse game.

-Jason

PYLdude · « **Reply #71 on:** September 04, 2008, 04:24:07 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196051\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 03:10 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196044\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 11:48 AM\']
Hey Steve...[/quote]
As usual, you're not helping at all.

My offer was sincere.
[/quote]

I don't doubt it.

I'm speaking for myself here. This TPIR crap has been going on for three threads, and it's pretty obvious where people stand. 90 people don't agree with Steve's position.

If he doesn't want to get off the soapbox, that's his problem.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to respond to your offer.

clemon79 · « **Reply #72 on:** September 04, 2008, 04:42:08 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'196052\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:17 PM\']
Re: Chris, I know I'm not Steve,[/quote]
That's correct.

Quote

in a game with a higher grand prize, some bribe money naturally enters the equation.

Not talking about bribe money. Talking about money given to a player who flat-out lost their game.

Quote

For that arbitrary figure, apparently $10,000 seems to fit

Fine. Why? Why is it fine and dandy at $10,000+, but No Can Do at $9,999 or lower?

Quote

Looking at your question and previous posts, though, I would agree that to some extent, Let Em Roll is flawed.

Your opinion, which I respect your right to, and disagree with. And my point: I've never heard anyone complain about that particular "flaw" in the almost-nine-years Let 'Em Roll has been played, or in the 25-plus-years Money Game has been played. Only when it's OMG CHAAAAANGE to an established game have the Chicken Littles come out and pronounced the sky to be falling, which leads me to conclude that it's not the rule that people are having a problem with, but the change.

Quote

Perhaps a provision that your last roll can only be for the car, and produce no cash? Reeks of the Confusing Joe Public rule

Yes.

Quote

but makes sense from the gamesmanship standpoint.

For the 75th time: the goal is not to produce balanced gameplay. The goal is to produce entertaining television. Sometimes one follows the other. Sometimes it doesn't.

Quote

Infusing cash into games for mediocre prizes does not stand to make them more interesting - it encourages some people to take the money, and makes for a worse game.

So what's the lesser of two evils? People deciding to hold onto the cash a teeny bit more often than they like in return for making the game easier to understand and causing more winning and good feelings, or confusing the viewer by ripping the $500 out of a contestant's hand for seemingly no good reason? My argument's for the former.

clemon79 · « **Reply #73 on:** September 04, 2008, 04:45:08 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'196053\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:24 PM\']
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to respond to your offer.[/quote]
I assure you my breathing is quite regular. However, I want to make it clear that, despite Steve's blanket accusations, I am absolutely willing to listen to and consider an argument contrary to mine (provided, of course, that the courtesy is returned), and am even willing to change my opinion if that argument contains evidence sufficient to convince me.

But if he doesn't want to, I'm really fine with that too. So long as it's clear to everyone that the offer is out there.

TroubadourNando · « **Reply #74 on:** September 04, 2008, 04:51:43 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'196034\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 12:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'195996\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 06:59 PM\']Last season there was a playing of Make Your Mark where the last prize to be revealed was a luggage set, and the two possible prices were (something dramatically different like) $2,000 and $999. [/quote]Without having seen this episode, or knowing what the luggage in question is, I'm not sure what the point is. There is luggage that costs that much, so a contestant may absolutely be right in thinking that it was $2,000.

As for the main argument, aren't there several other games that have gone unmentioned that give contestants something for doing nothing?
[/quote]

I knew I explained it poorly. I really wish I remembered the exact detail of the playing, because it was without question *something* ridiculously obvious.

I do concede that these instances would odds-on likely be rare, my concern is with them happening at all.

Oh, and guys...we made it this far civilly, let's not mess it up now. (the closest I will come to soapboxing in this thread)