Contestants Without Strategies

[gameshowcrazy]

I don't think anyone on Lingo ever thought about doing this.  If you draw the ? Ball, do NOT pick the number that immediately gives you a Lingo because even though you get the points right away, you also pass control to your opponents.  If you're a good solver, keeping control gives you the chance to rack up the points and keep the game away from your opponents until you eventually hit that Lingo.  The exception for this would be late in the game.

I saw this at least once. I think our very own Lobster (where's he been?) did it.

The other part of this Lingo strategy is that it puts your Lingo into round 2 where the value is higher as two Lingos a game is less likely anyway (unless you're on a team that is REALLY good at the game).

[MikeK]

AFAIK Barker never explicitly mentioned it, which sometimes got on my nerves.  It's either a rule that contestants must follow, or it's not.  No reason to keep it like a nuclear secret.  Same goes for Drew, but my bigger complaint is that he so obviously hates hosting that game.

Barker might not have mentioned such a rule on camera.  However, at a TPiR taping I was at 10 years ago, Barker mentioned off-camera after a Ten Chances playing that the contestant must not know about "the rule" without specifying that each price ends in zero.  Said contestant only won the first prize.

[SRIV94]

Was the "rule" in place from playing #1?

Not that I recall.

That's my sense too.  Which would probably explain why Barker never made a point of it--a game show host would rarely if ever explain a specific strategy for a game (especially if the strategy changes over time); theoretically it's up to you to figure out the strategy.

[gameshowcrazy]

About a year ago there was a similar thread regarding strategies and I posted about three different strategies I would employ as a Jeopardy contestant.  Wow, so many jumped down my throat to tell me it was akin to cheating as the game wouldn’t be pure if I did these things.

Sorry, but if there isn’t a rule against something, that’s not my fault; and if I’m on the show, I intend to play to win.

[clemon79]

About a year ago there was a similar thread regarding strategies and I posted about three different strategies I would employ as a Jeopardy contestant.  Wow, so many jumped down my throat to tell me it was akin to cheating as the game wouldn’t be pure if I did these things.

Sorry, but if there isn’t a rule against something, that’s not my fault; and if I’m on the show, I intend to play to win.

Was this on the Jeopardy board? I was unable to find the post here and I'm curious.

[SRIV94]

About a year ago there was a similar thread regarding strategies and I posted about three different strategies I would employ as a Jeopardy contestant.  Wow, so many jumped down my throat to tell me it was akin to cheating as the game wouldn’t be pure if I did these things.

Sorry, but if there isn’t a rule against something, that’s not my fault; and if I’m on the show, I intend to play to win.

Was this on the Jeopardy board? I was unable to find the post here and I'm curious.

Maybe this is what he's referring to.

[clemon79]

Maybe this is what he's referring to.

Well, maybe, but that's one, and he was claiming "about three." It's also nowhere in the area code of "akin to cheating," it's just pointless.

[Brian44]

Was the "rule" in place from playing #1?

Not that I recall.

The "rule" was pretty much in place around Season 8 or 9 for the second prize and the car, though some of the first prizes still ended in 5 until Season 25 or 26.

[Brian44]

I don't recall a strategy for Cover Up. Someone once told me that they'd throw the first number to guarantee a third chance,

The last time I remember someone intentionally using the strategy was in 1997. As a substitute teacher, I showed TPIR to the class and they were mathematically able to explain to me by how much the contestant increased his odds.

but then there's the off chance that they miss everything else and screw themselves out of a second chance, let alone a third.

When was the last time we had a wipeout in this game? I know it's happened.

[TimK2003]

I always wince when a TPIR pricing game (like One Right Price, Pick A Number,...) offers a PAIR of identical items (like motorbikes) and they choose a price that ends with an ODD number.

Another common ignored strategy of the past was on The Joker's Wild, when the contestant (especially a challenger) would be leading in the scoring with either $400 or $450.  They spin a double or triple and choose the full amount instead of the minimum amount needed to reach $500.

[SRIV94]

Maybe this is what he's referring to.

Well, maybe, but that's one, and he was claiming "about three." It's also nowhere in the area code of "akin to cheating," it's just pointless.

True that.

Maybe he misremembered.  

[SRIV94]

Another common ignored strategy of the past was on The Joker's Wild, when the contestant (especially a challenger) would be leading in the scoring with either $400 or $450.  They spin a double or triple and choose the full amount instead of the minimum amount needed to reach $500.

There's an argument to be made either way.  Get it wrong, and the champion could catch up big time, or win.  Get it right, though, and depending on what the champion has could force him to have to get three Jokers to even have a chance to win.  (Assuming no Mystery or Fast Forward categories to skew the scoring.)

[clemon79]

Get it right, though, and depending on what the champion has could force him to have to get three Jokers to even have a chance to win.

I strongly suspect Tim may have misremembered who goes first, or else he wouldn't have called out the challenger in particular. Clearly he was shooting for the other-guy-doesn't-get-last-licks situation.

[dscungio]

I don't think anyone on Lingo ever thought about doing this.  If you draw the ? Ball, do NOT pick the number that immediately gives you a Lingo because even though you get the points right away, you also pass control to your opponents.  If you're a good solver, keeping control gives you the chance to rack up the points and keep the game away from your opponents until you eventually hit that Lingo.  The exception for this would be late in the game.

I saw this at least once. I think our very own Lobster (where's he been?) did it.

I just watched Lobster's game on YouTube.  He did not get the chance to do this, but his opponents stumbled into it.  According to his blog, they had never seen the show before.  When they drew a ? Ball and had two numbers for a Lingo, they inadvertently picked a different number, only later realizing their mistake of not scoring a Lingo right away in order to tie the game.  They then lost control while solving the final word of the round.

Lobster even mentions this hold-off-on-the-Lingo strategy in his blog.


/I guess you could say they...
//[puts on sunglasses]
///...dropped the ball.
////YEEEAAAAHHHH!!!




Dean
(I apologize for that.)

[Casey]

I always wince when a TPIR pricing game (like One Right Price, Pick A Number,...) offers a PAIR of identical items (like motorbikes) and they choose a price that ends with an ODD number.

It is very possible for 2 identical items to have an odd price.  Suppose a motorcycle has an MSRP of  $1999.49.  2 x 1999.49 = $3998.98.  Rounded to the nearest dollar = $3999.  What I am not sure of is:  Would they take the total of the 2 items and then round to the nearest dollar? Or would they round each individual item's MSRP and then add them together for the prize package total?