DoND 11/3

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Hastin\' post=\'201118\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:26 PM\']So, what we need is a show like User Account Control in the Windows 7 PDC build: Slow at the moments that are exciting, and fast when you couldn't give a crap.[/quote]
We have that.  It's called TiVo.

[tpirfan28]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201119\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:30 PM\']
[quote name=\'Hastin\' post=\'201118\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:26 PM\']So, what we need is a show like User Account Control in the Windows 7 PDC build: Slow at the moments that are exciting, and fast when you couldn't give a crap.[/quote]
We have that.  It's called TiVo.
[/quote]
True that, but here's the thing.  Strip the game down, and you get Monday's show, which was toilet water.  I want to get the opportunity to like or hate a contestant.  I want some suspense.  Which is what Monday's show was not.  Granted, the TiVo version you could watch some, then fast forward (I like the TiVo fast forward sound, FWIW...) through the shiat parts.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'201120\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:36 PM\']True that, but here's the thing.  Strip the game down, and you get Monday's show, which was toilet water.  I want to get the opportunity to like or hate a contestant.  I want some suspense.  Which is what Monday's show was not.  Granted, the TiVo version you could watch some, then fast forward (I like the TiVo fast forward sound, FWIW...) through the shiat parts.
[/quote]
I tend to agree with Chris that this might have been, at least a little, a sort of "in your face" response to criticisms that the game moves slowly.  It's fairly evident at this point that the producers are just coming up with whatever wacky extreme stunt they haven't tried yet, and maybe even trying some they passed on the first time.  It's desperation mode now as the prime time show seems to have just about run its course.

Still, consider this. 200 episodes in prime time is a pretty impressive accomplishment no matter what the genre.  Only a few dozen scripted shows in the history of television reached that mark, and in the modern era of game shows, I'm pretty sure only Millionaire did.  NBC learned a lesson from ABC's handling of Millionaire and nursed this baby about as well as anybody could.  It may have just run out of gas.

[GameShowFan]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201113\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:16 PM\']
[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'201110\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 05:04 PM\']I hope you understand me, because it's tough to describe. [/quote]
I understand the point you're trying to make.  Once again though, despite your words, you continue to look at the game purely as a mathematical exercise.  That's certainly one interesting way to approach looking at the show, but you insist on making that the only way to look at it, so that you come up with patently nonsensical comments like Deal being the wrong decision 99% of the time.

I'm not arguing with your math.  I understand it better than you think I do.  I disagree with your conclusions on how to play the game, as does every other rational person who reads them.
[/quote]

Mathematically speaking, he's absolutely right. How often has the Banker offered a deal value that meets or exceeds the expected value of the board? And don't count after-the-fact offers during the "Let's play the board out" part -- those deals can be inflated to drive up the Dramma (tm). I think you'll find the number of offers meeting my mathematical criteria easily approaches the original claim.

This game is all about utility of risk, which is summarizes as "Would you be happy walking out of here with $X?" I do find the later comment that neither millionaire would have taken their final Deal if they were against a clock to be specious at best. Not only is it mathematically correct to not take the offer, but in the case of the first millionaire, the second condition was also met -- that is, that player would likely have been happy walking home with $200K. (The second millionaire had way too much on the table to take the deal, not with a 3/4 shot at that moment in time of winning the million.)

The problem with analyzing this game is that while mathematics gives an excellent theoretical analysis, it has nothing to do with real life. A particular web site I like to visit, Wizard of Odds, shows this. While he does a good job of describing the deals versus Expected Value, (scroll down about 1/3 of the way) he allows his lack of knowledge of game shows to cloud his analysis in favor of the math. (Question #7 on this link.)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'GameShowFan\' post=\'201122\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 04:20 PM\']
The problem with analyzing this game is that while mathematics gives an excellent theoretical analysis, it has nothing to do with real life.[/quote]
This, this, a thousand times this.

[jybt]

[quote name=\'GameShowFan\' post=\'201122\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 06:20 PM\']

This game is all about utility of risk, which is summarizes as "Would you be happy walking out of here with $X?" I do find the later comment that neither millionaire would have taken their final Deal if they were against a clock to be specious at best. Not only is it mathematically correct to not take the offer, but in the case of the first millionaire, the second condition was also met -- that is, that player would likely have been happy walking home with $200K. (The second millionaire had way too much on the table to take the deal, not with a 3/4 shot at that moment in time of winning the million.)

[/quote]

I'm not denying that that exists, but that Speed Deal causes an arguably unfair distortion of utility of risk due to the lack of time to analyze the contestant's utility of risk. That is what I meant...

Would Ogi Ogas have decided to pull the trigger on his $500,000 question running against a 45-second timer? I don't think so...

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'201116\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 02:21 PM\']Speed Deal reminded me of User Account Control in Windows Vista: It felt like the Deal producers said "What? People are complaining about the show's pacing? They want a faster pace? Well, we'll SHOW them a faster pace! We'll make it so fast that they will never complain about the slow one again!" The faster pace was just as unwatchable as the snail's pace. It went way too fast to process what little game there actually is there, gave you none-nada-ZERO opportunity to develop any connection or interest in the contestants, and I made it one round into the second game, said "This is just underlining what a pile of crap this game is," zapped it from the Tivo, and fired up the Xbox.[/quote]The problem is that they gutted the wrong parts. From the beginning, a 40 minute game is possible, but they figure that most people who watch will sit through an hour of wheat to get to the chaff.

Cut the zoom-in on cases, the recap of "this is what happens if you open value $x/you want to stay away from the [big amounts]", and the offer prattling, and you get to a game that at least has a modicum of pacing.

I liked the idea, especially cutting out the phone calls, the stupid smack talk relayed from the "Banker", and the supporter bench obnoxiousness, but the game cannot be done satisfactorily in 15 minutes.

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201121\' date=\'Nov 5 2008, 03:48 PM\']Still, consider this. 200 episodes in prime time is a pretty impressive accomplishment no matter what the genre.  Only a few dozen scripted shows in the history of television reached that mark, and in the modern era of game shows, I'm pretty sure only Millionaire did.  NBC learned a lesson from ABC's handling of Millionaire and nursed this baby about as well as anybody could.  It may have just run out of gas.[/quote]I'd like to note for the record that falling from helicopters and eating of animal parts had a shelf life of six seasons. And the sixth season seemed to be throwing worms at the wall to see what would stick. If the time has run out on The Deal, I would not cry into my drink.