Author Topic: Progressive Jackpots (Read 14216 times)

J.R. · « **Reply #45 on:** February 02, 2009, 04:31:55 PM »

Getting on TV/Meeting the host/Lifelong memories/Something to share friends, family, future generations with > Winning a prize

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207419\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:25 PM\']Why do that? Unless the car he would've had left was a complete and utter POS (Yugo)[/quote]
Honestly, POS or not, I'd much would rather have a car than a bunch of junk that I would end up refusing anyway after the tax bill comes in.

/Yeah, the car would have a tax burden too, but at least a car is much more useful than a curio cabinet.

PYLdude · « **Reply #46 on:** February 02, 2009, 04:37:14 PM »

[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'207435\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:31 PM\']
Getting on TV/Meeting the host/Lifelong memories/Something to share friends, family, future generations with > Winning a prize
[/quote]

Yes, but penalizing someone for unsuccessful trips to the bonus round < good television.

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207433\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:24 PM\']

Quote

I'm one of the non-shortage, so to speak, but there's no way in hell that I'd agree to be on a game show that reduces the potential prize I'd play for every time I went back if I was unsuccessful.

So you're in it for the money. Your choice, of course, but this should provide a pretty good illustration of why you've flamed out at the game-show auditions you've gone to.
[/quote]

And how, exactly, should that?

I'd love to hear the logic behind that.

clemon79 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 02, 2009, 04:48:26 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207436\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 01:37 PM\']
Yes, but penalizing someone for unsuccessful trips to the bonus round < good television.[/quote]
Nobody argued that it was, or even that it's a good policy. The statement being questioned was your own with regard to such a policy dissuading otherwise good contestants (see below) from wanting to play their game. Nothing else.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207433\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:24 PM\']
And how, exactly, should that?

I'd love to hear the logic behind that.[/quote]
Sure thing: Contestant coordinators want people who are excited about playing the game, who are energetic about playing the game, to the point where they would do it for free.

They do not want people who are in it for the Benjamins as a primary motive.

Any competent coordinator is gonna dismiss someone with your attitude in a plug second.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #48 on:** February 02, 2009, 04:59:25 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207436\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:37 PM\']Yes, but penalizing someone for unsuccessful trips to the bonus round < good television.[/quote]
Yes, and I don't know that anyone argued that point. All we're saying is that getting contestants for flawed shows is not a problem. Much less getting the contestants to agree to the rules, which again is just a ludicrous statement. Contestants HAVE to agree to the rules.

A lot of very smart people, including a lot of very smart game show fans who recognized the holes in the format, wanted to get on Crosswords just because it would be a fun and challenging game to play. As others have said, if money is your primary motivation, you're not likely to be selected as a contestant in the first place.

J.R. · « **Reply #49 on:** February 02, 2009, 05:01:09 PM »

You know, I would be OVERJOYED if I won "just" $10,000 cash on $20K Pyramid.

Would I be disappointed that I didn't get the advertised prize? Hell no. $10K would do so many good things for me (probably even more so in the 1970s) that it really wouldn't bother me.

Same thing on Super Password. Yeah, it would kinda suck that I didn't get a shot at $55,000 but $5000 would still be perfectly acceptable to me.

Don Howard · « **Reply #50 on:** February 02, 2009, 05:04:10 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'207423\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:03 PM\']
[quote name=\'fishbulb\' post=\'207418\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:22 PM\']Maybe this hasn't been mentioned because we're just assuming everyone knows it, but $20K Pyramid also reset the jackpot for each champion. First game was $10K, second $15K, and $20K after that.[/quote]
That also goes to the point about rewarding players who don't do as well. If you're the greatest Pyramid player in the world, then you win your first Winner's Circle and you "only" go home with $10,000. If you're not quite as good, you struggle and eventually win, for which you earn twice as much. Something about that struck me as wrong even in 1976. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it "unfair", just "wrong".
[/quote]
And downright wacky to boot. First of all, why would anyone suggest that be the way it should be? And secondly, why on earth would it be approved and become the way it was done for four and a half years? Just downright peculiar, the full business.
I also thought the $5000 for the first attempt and up to a total of $10000 on the second attempt on The $50,000 Pyramid and $10000 on the first and up to $25000 on the second attempt whether you won the top prize or not on your first Winner's Circle try of the day on The $25,000/$100,000 Pyramid was a bit bizarre. The only two trips per day Winner's Circle that made any sense to me was the way it was done on the 2002-04 version of Pyramid. $10000 on the first try. $15000 more on the second try only if you won the top prize the first time. I tend to think the first thing done in 1976 was to determine that the game as of mid-January would be called The $20,000 Pyramid and the end game retooling was worked around the title change.

PYLdude · « **Reply #51 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:11:33 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207437\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:48 PM\']
Sure thing: Contestant coordinators want people who are excited about playing the game, who are energetic about playing the game, to the point where they would do it for free.

They do not want people who are in it for the Benjamins as a primary motive.
[/quote]

Okay...still trying to see how that applies to my failures to get on a show considering money was not my primary concern...

chad1m · « **Reply #52 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:13:36 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'207438\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:59 PM\']A lot of very smart people, including a lot of very smart game show fans who recognized the holes in the format, wanted to get on Crosswords just because it would be a fun and challenging game to play. [/quote]I knew about the lame "play with your highest-scoring partner" on Million Dollar Password, and I went along with that anyway. I didn't think it would really matter in the long run, because I was super excited to potentially be a part of this hit primetime game show. The possibility of money was just whipped cream on the CBS sundae.

/Then again, look what happened..

BrandonFG · « **Reply #53 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:15:27 PM »

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'207446\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:13 PM\']
I knew about the lame "play with your highest-scoring partner" on Million Dollar Password, and I went along with that anyway.

/Then again, look what happened..

[/quote]
I can't recall...you won by "default", right, meaning you didn't play two full rounds? I think your episode perfectly illustrated the flaw in the rule.

chad1m · « **Reply #54 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:18:39 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'207447\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:15 PM\']I can't recall...you won by "default", right, meaning you didn't play two full rounds? I think your episode perfectly illustrated the flaw in the rule.[/quote]Right. I won 4 points receiving from Phil and 5 giving to him. At switch time, it was 9-7. My opponent April got 4, and receiving from Julie I got 5. The score was 14-11. April didn't get enough to pass my 14, so I was automatically declared the winner. (Even if she had gotten all 5, I couldn't have gotten enough points to surpass my 9 with Phil.)

clemon79 · « **Reply #55 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:26:00 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207445\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:11 PM\']
Okay...still trying to see how that applies to my failures to get on a show considering money was not my primary concern...[/quote]
Your words:

Quote

there's no way in hell that I'd agree to be on a game show that reduces the potential prize I'd play for every time I went back if I was unsuccessful.

Please to be sharing with the class how that isn't an illustration of money being a primary objective.

(At the minimum, moreso than the experience itself.)

PYLdude · « **Reply #56 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:46:12 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207449\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:26 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207445\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:11 PM\']
Okay...still trying to see how that applies to my failures to get on a show considering money was not my primary concern...[/quote]
Your words:

Quote

there's no way in hell that I'd agree to be on a game show that reduces the potential prize I'd play for every time I went back if I was unsuccessful.

Please to be sharing with the class how that isn't an illustration of money being a primary objective.

(At the minimum, moreso than the experience itself.)
[/quote]

Because it's an illustration of how the show is structured.

My primary concern, obviously, is the TV face time and putting myself out there for the world to see. Money is second.

No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.

[quote name=\'Matt O.\']
A lot of very smart people, including a lot of very smart game show fans who recognized the holes in the format, wanted to get on Crosswords just because it would be a fun and challenging game to play.
[/quote]

Guilty there.

[quote name=\'Joe R.\']
You know, I would be OVERJOYED if I won "just" $10,000 cash on $20K Pyramid.
[/quote]

As would I. But if I don't win it and get back there the next game, I would be a little peeved if I wasn't playing for at least the same pot going back. I play for $10,000, misfire, and then I get back and $2,500 has been taken out of the potential prize, it's a little bit of a buzzkiller.

Quote

Same thing on Super Password. Yeah, it would kinda suck that I didn't get a shot at $55,000 but $5000 would still be perfectly acceptable to me.

The point I think that people are missing is that I'm not criticizing the prize money in that case, just the structure of it. Which kind of baffles me considering that I thought I made that point pretty damn clear at the beginning.

clemon79 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:52:56 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207450\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:46 PM\']
Because it's an illustration of how the show is structured.[/quote]
...and we go back to: huh?

Quote

My primary concern, obviously, is the TV face time and putting myself out there for the world to see. Money is second.

Great. Where does "playing the game" and "enjoying the experience" fall on your spectrum?

Quote

No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.

Again, there seems to be little disagreement on this issue.

So maybe I'm not understanding: was your original comment meant to say that you would refuse to appear on such a show on principle? 'Cuz you're still talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

PYLdude · « **Reply #58 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:55:46 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207453\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:52 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207450\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:46 PM\']
Because it's an illustration of how the show is structured.[/quote]
...and we go back to: huh?
[/quote]

Sorry you don't get it.

Quote

Quote
My primary concern, obviously, is the TV face time and putting myself out there for the world to see. Money is second.
Great. Where does "playing the game" and "enjoying the experience" fall on your spectrum?

Since on my spectrum it goes hand in hand with the TV face time and without the game or the experience the primary objective cannot be achieved...that would be first.

Quote

Quote
No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.
Again, there seems to be little disagreement on this issue.

So maybe I'm not understanding: was your original comment meant to say that you would refuse to appear on such a show on principle?

As odd as that may seem, yes.

chad1m · « **Reply #59 on:** February 02, 2009, 06:56:56 PM »

Tiiiiiired of the arguiiiiiing.