Make Your Mark Change - Good, Bad or Indifferent?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'196058\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:51 PM\']
I do concede that these instances would odds-on likely be rare, my concern is with them happening at all.[/quote]
But that's the *goal*, isn't it? Sometimes you guess the two prices correctly that make the third decision difficult, and sometimes you get the two prices that make the decision a slam-dunk. Seems to me it's the equivalent of burning a 50/50 on Millionaire and having the two leftovers be the right answer and the one you are SURE is wrong.

[tpirfan28]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196054\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:42 PM\']

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?, as two cash games for that amount offer up lesser prizes to walk away from a chance at the big kahuna. [/quote]
Never mind the fact that they could decide to roll out three different Mini Coopers for the game*, and suddenly make the game worth $60,000 over the current $7000-$10,000.  A threshold argument will never hold up.

*or any game for that matter.

[TroubadourNando]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196059\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:54 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'196058\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:51 PM\']
I do concede that these instances would odds-on likely be rare, my concern is with them happening at all.[/quote]
But that's the *goal*, isn't it? Sometimes you guess the two prices correctly that make the third decision difficult, and sometimes you get the two prices that make the decision a slam-dunk. Seems to me it's the equivalent of burning a 50/50 on Millionaire and having the two leftovers be the right answer and the one you are SURE is wrong.
[/quote]

I guess. I think now that the real question should be why the four prices can't be similar enough to eliminate such an event...but yeah, you're right. I'm just babbling.

Although, the more I think about it, almost any game can be 'dumbed' into winning something... I would love to know what the odds of winning, for instance, Triple Play are if you just answer randomly.

[JayDLewis]

4.2%, same as Golden Road (1/2 * 1/3 * 1/4 = 1/24)

[Mr. Armadillo]

[quote name=\'WhammyGuy28\' post=\'196024\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:58 AM\']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?
[/quote]
Because the $500 was concepted as a 'cost' to make the switch instead of as a 'bonus' for winning.  Even if that's what it effectively is, it's not the reason it exists, and it's entirely possible no one over there even considered it could be seen that way.  

That said, there's no real good reason for it not to be that way...but there's nothing particularly wrong with the current method.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'196066\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 05:43 PM\']Because the $500 was concepted as a 'cost' to make the switch instead of as a 'bonus' for winning.  Even if that's what it effectively is, it's not the reason it exists, and it's entirely possible no one over there even considered it could be seen that way.  [/quote]
But again (and I'm trying not to get too involved in this anymore), you're talking about what the original "concept" was, and in the first place you probably weren't in that production meeting to know for sure, and in the second place, whether the change strays from the original concept doesn't really affect whether the change itself makes the game better or worse.

[PYLdude]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'196067\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:45 PM\']
in the second place, whether the change strays from the original concept doesn't really affect whether the change itself makes the game better or worse.
[/quote]

Which is why I voted "no change." The game sucks either way.

[Steve Gavazzi]

First of all...PYLdude, you just like yelling at people.  I'm not going to dignify it by trying to respond to your posts.

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196039\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 01:34 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.[/quote]
Oh, come on, Chris.  You're not this stupid, and you know darn well I don't think you're this stupid, either -- you're just trying to bait me.  You and I both know full well that I already explained my stance in the other thread and that you intentionally ignored it because acknowledging it would have gotten in the way of your ability to snark at me.

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'196054\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:42 PM\']Fine. Why? Why is it fine and dandy at $10,000+, but No Can Do at $9,999 or lower?[/quote]
Again, you and I both know full well there's no hard and fast rule for when this is and isn't okay, and we both know that by asking someone to explain why there is, you're only baiting them to make a reply that you've already prepared a snarky rebuttal to.  This kind of thing needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.  Take Spelling Bee, for instance.  It offers a bailout of up to $5,000, but the prize in that game is something contestants are generally going to be tempted by, and if I'm not mistaken, the odds of winning are usually in their favor.  It does present the possibility of the contestant doing everything wrong and still winning, but the odds of that happening are so low that it's hardly worth worrying about.  Temptation has prizes that are supposed to get the contestant to consider quitting -- it's a hard game that just isn't going to be won all that often.  Let 'em Roll has flaws, but they're not all that glaring, because the game is usually set up to make it very unlikely that the contestant will only get one roll, and again, any bailout has to be weighed against the chance to win a car.  Pass the Buck does have some glaring flaws, because you can do all the pricing wrong -- which isn't that inconceivable -- and still win the car or an assload of money.  I understand that they had to change the original format -- in which you didn't get any turns for free -- because it was taking up too much time, but that doesn't mean the longer version didn't make for a better game.

The whole thing has a different feel to it, though, when you take the car out of the equation -- you're allowing the contestant to take money instead of risking it by playing for prizes they may very well not even want.  It works alright in Step Up, because every correct choice you make earns you more money -- but in Barker's Marker$, there's not really any incentive whatsoever to try to win the prizes if you don't really want them, and that, as you seem to enjoy stressing the importance of, does not make for very good television.

[TimK2003]

[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'196002\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 09:01 PM\']
Awarding a player just winning one's way on stage is not unhreard of. It is the basis of "Temptation." "Let 'em Roll" guarantees the player at least $500. I have no problem with the rule change.
[/quote]


I'm just curious to know if the value of the IUFBs which precede these "free money, win-or-lose" games is usually lower than other IUFBs which lead to other pricing games in which a loss = $0.

For example:

Contestants who come up to play Cliffhangers on average win a $2000 prize in Contestant's Row while
Contestants who now come up to play Make Your Mark on average win a $1000 prize in CR...Add the $500 automatic on-stage consolation prize, they are guaranteed to win a minimum of $1500 in cash & prizes which is now at or closer to the average value of each IUFB on the show.

If this is the case, then the producers have, or could, technically "split" the contestant's initial winnings between contestant's row and the stage, making the contestant and most viewers think they are earning free money when they really aren't.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196073\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 04:31 PM\']
Oh, come on, Chris.  You're not this stupid, and you know darn well I don't think you're this stupid, either -- you're just trying to bait me.[/quote]
I'm really not, and I'm not sure how I can make that any more clear.

This kind of thing needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

No, it really doesn't. If you're saying that you can look at one game and say "oh, it's okay there" and look at another and say "OH NOES NOT THERE", then there must be some kind of metric by which you are making that decision. I am simply asking you to clarify what that metric is, and explain your rationale for selecting that metric, which I think is a completely reasonable question considering all you have done today is rant at me about how I'm not interested in listening to you.

Take Spelling Bee, for instance.

As I said to Jason, bailout money <> consolation money. I am not discussing "bailout offers" here at all.

but in Barker's Marker$, there's not really any incentive whatsoever to try to win the prizes if you don't really want them,

So I posit this: if you have a contestant up on stage who is in a position to say "Naah, I'll take the $500 because I don't care about winning the game", then you either have a) a poorly-chosen contestant, or b) poorly-chosen prizes.

and that, as you seem to enjoy stressing the importance of,

...because it's the truth...

does not make for very good television.

Again, if the number of people who either a) tank the game or b) don't care about winning, just to walk off with $500, ends up being statistically significant, there are FAR bigger problems with the production than a few changes to game rules.

[chris319]

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'196041\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 10:38 AM\']
[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
[/quote]
For the love of Pete, the Make Your Mark problem is not that they're awarding $500 for doing nothing[/b], they're awarding $500 for losing the game[/b]. It is NOT[/i] the same as doing nothing, e.g. Switch?. If you can't get a handle on that advanced concept I frankly wonder why you're participating in this discussion.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'196079\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 05:33 PM\']
It is NOT[/i] the same as doing nothing, e.g. Switch?. If you can't get a handle on that advanced concept I frankly wonder why you're participating in this discussion.[/quote]
I ask myself that question often, actually.

And I wasn't aware that making a decision as to whether the prices were in the correct places was "doing nothing" in the first place.

[WhammyGuy28]

Solution: Make the $500 a bonus for making 3 correct marks without making a change.  Never have the contestant touch the money until that happens.  Dangle it when it comes time to choose to either go for it, or change a mark, but don't let the contestant hold it until when/if its revealed that they've made 3 correct marks without changes and win everything.  

Who's idea was it to let the contestant hold the $500 to begin with?  That was the real mistake all along IMHO.  This decision to let the contestant keep the $500 is irrelevant to that first mistake.  Therefore, IMO, allowing the contestant to keep the money changes nothing.

Looks to me like it ultimately it comes down to an opinion.  My opinion is the $500 should be a bonus prize, but the opinion of the folks running the game turned out to be that the $500 is a consolation prize that ensures the contestant will not win $0.  It's not the first time my opinion's deviated from the opinions of those who create stuff I see on TV, so I'm not losing any sleep over it, nor do I think the sky will fall and Price will die in a fire because of this change.

/I'm not the only one who thinks we are completely overthinking a pricing game here am I?

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'WhammyGuy28\' post=\'196085\' date=\'Sep 4 2008, 06:06 PM\']Looks to me like it ultimately it comes down to an opinion.  My opinion is the $500 should be a bonus prize, but the opinion of the folks running the game turned out to be that the $500 is a consolation prize that ensures the contestant will not win $0.  [/quote]Except it's not. It is the price to swap the final marker.

/I'm not the only one who thinks we are completely overthinking a pricing game here am I?

Not a bit.

[WhammyGuy28]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\']Except it's not. It is the price to swap the final marker. [/quote]

Yes, it's that too.  But it's now a consolation prize in case 'going for it' resulted badly.