Rules flaws, etc...

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'209256\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 02:10 PM\']
3) You'd be playing an entirely different game than your partner was playing, and you'd go down in flames. (Possibly what you entailed with #1)[/quote]
Absolutely correct.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'209257\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 05:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'209256\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 02:10 PM\']
3) You'd be playing an entirely different game than your partner was playing, and you'd go down in flames. (Possibly what you entailed with #1)[/quote]
Absolutely correct.[/quote]
Even in MDP we saw clue givers trying to string together a phrase out of their individual clues, oblivious to the fact that their partner was processing each clue individually.  Didn't one poor fool try "Duke" and "Blue" as clues for "Devil"?

[chad1m]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'209260\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 05:14 PM\']Even in MDP we saw clue givers trying to string together a phrase out of their individual clues, oblivious to the fact that their partner was processing each clue individually.[/quote]We did and I even exercised it with "Miss", "America".  It managed to work in that instance, though.

[Robert Hutchinson]

I believe that "one clue, one response" was in effect in Alphabetics when Password Plus began, wasn't it? During the disastrous round with Carol Burnett, I distinctly recall her telling her partner to "just say anything" after about 5 seconds of silence.

[Casey]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'209267\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 05:37 PM\']
I believe that "one clue, one response" was in effect in Alphabetics when Password Plus began, wasn't it? During the disastrous round with Carol Burnett, I distinctly recall her telling her partner to "just say anything" after about 5 seconds of silence.
[/quote]
I was just going to say something similar.  One of the celebrities on one of the episodes I saw recently (must have been the weekend run) even stated something about how that rule had been modified to allow them to give clues without requiring a response from the contestant.

[alfonzos]

Celebrity Sweepstakes started as a three-player game and then became a two-player game. A contestant started with $20 and could bet $2, $5 or $10 on which celebrity could answer a trivia question correctly. The flaw was if a contestant ended a round with no money both contestants were given $20 to continue the game. The result was that every bet was for $10 because the contestants would just get their money back if they were wrong twice. The producer's solution was restrict bets to $2 if a player's score was $10 or less. My solution would have been to start the contestants with $19.

[DJDustman]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'209193\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 12:22 AM\']
The three-question final round on the early episodes of Sale of the Century.
[/quote]

I always thought this could have been extremely exciting if the show doubled each question to $10.

[fishbulb]

I would call this a flaw, since it made the game much less compelling:
Having no returning champions on Whammy! often destroyed the strategy at the end of the game.  On PYL, if one player had a high total and the other player couldn't likely catch up, but had a spin left, there was still an incentive for the player that was trailing to pass their spin, since they could at least come back the next day.
On Whammy!, if one player had $250 and the other $10,000, the $250 player would still sometimes pass their last spin, making them look extremely petty.  I remember seeing this happen (not with those exact amounts, but you get the idea.)

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'DJDustman\' post=\'209282\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 07:09 PM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'209193\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 12:22 AM\']
The three-question final round on the early episodes of Sale of the Century.
[/quote]

I always thought this could have been extremely exciting if the show doubled each question to $10.
[/quote]
Yeah, but only for round three.

[WhirlieBird74]

One of the biggest flaws ever in a game show was Phil Gurin's 'Weakest Link'.  You could be one of six (or eight, on the Anne Robinson version) players who is always the strongest link, and the other people (whom I dub 'Weakest Finks') vote him/her out.

If Phil Gurin is reading this, here is my solution to this flaw, if you decide to churn out new shows for GSN:  At the end of every question round, the person dubbed the 'Strongest Link' has immunity, and cannot be voted out that round.  In case of a tie vote, the 'SL' then decides whom to get rid of.  When the game gets down to three players, only the 'Strongest Link' votes whom to get rid of (as the other two votes will instantly cancel out), leaving the two players in the final round.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'WhirlieBird74\' post=\'209294\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 08:19 PM\']One of the biggest flaws ever in a game show was Phil Gurin's 'Weakest Link'.  You could be one of six (or eight, on the Anne Robinson version) players who is always the strongest link, and the other people (whom I dub 'Weakest Finks') vote him/her out.[/quote]
No, that's a gameplay dilemma.  Would you rather win or make money?

The only instance where this could be a flaw is the 2nd season of Syndie Link.  There was no real reason for the best player to be in the final unless the contestants were even dumber than advertised.

[BillCullen1]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'209048\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 03:54 AM\']
All the versions of High Rollers had a flaw that stuck out like a sore thumb, it would lead to an automatic gane over.  That being if a player leaves a 1 on the board, game ends right then & there though it's more common in the Big Numbers round than the main game.  That's why it's always a good idea to discard the 1 as quickly as possible to avoid that flaw.
[/quote]

I do believe that Alex and Wink made it a point of telling the contestants that they must roll both dice at all times, so "Get rid of that pesky one if you can" or words to that effect. Obviously you can't control the dice, not without getting in trouble, anyway.

[BillCullen1]

[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' post=\'209042\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 01:46 AM\']
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'209038\' date=\'Feb 28 2009, 01:02 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'209037\' date=\'Feb 27 2009, 09:51 PM\']

[/quote]
They were referring to the One-And-Done way of handling contestants in the 70s. If you get a bad celeb, too bad.
[/quote]

I remember. I recall thinking that "The $25,000 Pyramid," which ran concurrently in syndication one night a week, was in a way preferable because the two contestants got to stay for the entire show, and each got a chance to play opposite each celebrity - it seemed more even-handed that way.

As for the daily "$10,000 Pyramid," I always felt sorry for the contestants whenever Peter Lawford showed up, because he was such a poor player. But I also remember a young man who was such a powerhouse, he kept winning round after round, even though he was saddled with Lawford half the time. And finally, the young man won the Pyramid after something like a dozen tries, much to the joy of the other contestants who were slated to follow him.
[/quote]

On Cullen's Pyramid, the contestant was with the same celeb for both games, so if you got partnered with Lawford or Shatner, too bad. The 80s version fixed this. But I remember on one Cullen $25K, Lawford won both games for his contestant. Debralee Scott had just literally gotten in from the airport and was a little "loopy" for lack of a better term.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'209348\' date=\'Mar 2 2009, 03:15 PM\']Obviously you can't control the dice, not without getting in trouble, anyway.[/quote]Why would this be against the rules?  If someone was able to set the dice, without altering them, how could that "get someone in trouble"?

There are a few, very few, people that are able to set and control dice without cheating.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'209350\' date=\'Mar 2 2009, 12:34 PM\']
If someone was able to set the dice, without altering them, how could that "get someone in trouble"?[/quote]
Same way that whip shots, drop shots, and blanket rolls are illegal at a craps table: They just are.

There are a few, very few, people that are able to set and control dice without cheating.

By definition, that number is "none." Any reputable casino is gonna give you the heave-ho if they catch you trying to control the dice roll. Any casino that does not is not a casino you want to be wagering your money at, because who knows what else they're letting dice and card mechanics get away with.