Reaching a dollar goal

[clemon79]

Even though he totally understood that it just meant taking four knees, he felt fairness demanded that those downs be played out.  I realize that's an extreme variation on what you two are talking about, but I've never had a chance to share that story before.

Except the analogy here is if the *second* team gets picked and the first team runs it back, Temple wants the first team to get a second set of downs because they might fumble themselves.

[That Don Guy]

To the best of my recollection, on "The Joker's Wild", if the challenger exceeded $500, and the champion got one final spin and spun 3 Jokers, and answered 1 question correctly, the champion would win $500.  I always disliked that personally.  If the game were tied in "overtime" say $800 to $800, the challenger gets a triple and answers right, then it's $1,000 to $800, then the champ spins 3 jokers and answers correctly, the champ won the game with only $500.  Hated that rule....

I wasn't crazy about that rule, but the situation was so rare that I find it hard to get worked up about it. It bothered me more that the game ended if the champion reached $500 on the challenger's question. I thought the champion should have to take a spin if it was possible for the challenger to catch up. (I understand why they didn't, though.)

There was also the rule where, if you got a natural triple in the bonus round, you won $1000, even if the amounts spun would have put you above $1000.

As for the "game ends if the champion answers the challenger's question" rule, you can always think of it as a balance for the "if the challenger gets three jokers and answers a question, even on the first spin, the champion does not get a final spin" rule.  (Then again, the champion did get a final spin in the tournaments.)

This discussion reminds me of the argument I had with a fellow over the college football overtime format.  It's unlikely, but possible, for the team that starts on defense to win in overtime by returning an interception for a touchdown.  He insisted that if that were to happen, the teams should still play the second part of overtime because the other side ought to have the same chance to do the same thing.  Even though he totally understood that it just meant taking four knees, he felt fairness demanded that those downs be played out.  I realize that's an extreme variation on what you two are talking about, but I've never had a chance to share that story before.

Actually, the NCAA does have a rule for a similar situation; if a team scores a touchdown on the last play of the game and is ahead by one or two points, they have to attempt the conversion (to allow for the possibility of the defense scoring two points), even if the offense just takes a knee to end the game.

[rjaguar3]

At least during the CBS run of The Joker's Wild, the rule was that if a player won the game with a 3 joker spin, the winner received the amount they had already accumulated, if more than $500.  Cf. the match between John King and Kathy Wechsler.

[davidhammett]

We've veered off into how games are ended between two players, specifically situations where one of the players seems to end up "favored."  To that end, I bring up a situation that happened on the second version of the Fox special Challenge of the Child Geniuses: Who Is the Smartest Kid in America?  In the final round between two players, you scored a point only when you answered a question correctly that your opponent just missed.  Player 1 got first crack at the first question, but the only person who could score a point on that question was player 2, and only if player 1 missed it.  The next question went to player 2 first, but the only one who could score was player 1.  The players alternated having first crack at the question, and 5 points won the game.  As it happened, after an even number of questions had been played, the score was 4-4.  Player 1 got his question, missed it, then player 2 got it right, at which point player 2 was declared the champion.

Should player 2 have received one more question, or was this a fair way to resolve the game?  Discuss.

[TLEberle]

Should player 2 have received one more question, or was this a fair way to resolve the game?  Discuss.

More egregious to me was the situation in the first episode. Three kids take it in turns to answer questions worth a point if right. The first two to score Some Amount move on to the Big Scary Final. There was no recourse for the kid in the third seat, who watched as the first two kids reached the finish line while third was a point behind and could have mounted a tie with a right answer.

[parliboy]

In fairness, the champion could also spin a natural triple and be forced to take a $200 question. And if the champion leads by $450 versus $500, he wouldn't be able to throw it at all. But I like to look at it as simply part of the champion's advantage, just as the three jokers rule is the challengers advantage, and move on.

Which is exactly how it should be looked at. No point in further complicating the matter. Besides, why would you force a player to answer a question for the full amount of the spin when they wouldn't have to do that in any other situation?

In a Natural Triple, you are required to take the full value. $200 is always mandated.

[parliboy]

Should player 2 have received one more question, or was this a fair way to resolve the game?  Discuss.

More egregious to me was the situation in the first episode. Three kids take it in turns to answer questions worth a point if right. The first two to score Some Amount move on to the Big Scary Final. There was no recourse for the kid in the third seat, who watched as the first two kids reached the finish line while third was a point behind and could have mounted a tie with a right answer.

Was seating random, or was it assigned based on previous performance?

[PYLdude]

In fairness, the champion could also spin a natural triple and be forced to take a $200 question. And if the champion leads by $450 versus $500, he wouldn't be able to throw it at all. But I like to look at it as simply part of the champion's advantage, just as the three jokers rule is the challengers advantage, and move on.

Which is exactly how it should be looked at. No point in further complicating the matter. Besides, why would you force a player to answer a question for the full amount of the spin when they wouldn't have to do that in any other situation?

In a Natural Triple, you are required to take the full value. $200 is always mandated.

Proof or Not Real. I was under the impression that a player was not required to take the full value of ANY question as long as more than one of the same category showed up.

[Adam Nedeff]

Proof or Not Real. I was under the impression that a player was not required to take the full value of ANY question as long as more than one of the same category showed up.

In the earliest days of the show when Jack used a series of graphics to explain the rule, he quite explicitly said a few times that in a natural triple, you HAD to play for the full value. If you spin with no Jokers and you get a single category and a pair, you have to play that single or $50 or you have to play that pair for $100. When you selected a category, you were committed to use whatever of that category appeared on the board.

Quick edit: This probably doesn't really qualify as proof, but I just checked my copies of the Milton-Bradley home games, and the rules to those games back this up.

[PYLdude]

I am fairly certain I saw a contestant take a category for $50 with multiples on the board.

[davidhammett]

Proof or Not Real. I was under the impression that a player was not required to take the full value of ANY question as long as more than one of the same category showed up.

In the earliest days of the show when Jack used a series of graphics to explain the rule, he quite explicitly said a few times that in a natural triple, you HAD to play for the full value. If you spin with no Jokers and you get a single category and a pair, you have to play that single or $50 or you have to play that pair for $100. When you selected a category, you were committed to use whatever of that category appeared on the board.
Quick edit: This probably doesn't really qualify as proof, but I just checked my copies of the Milton-Bradley home games, and the rules to those games back this up.

We may never resolve this entirely, especially since the game went through so many incarnations, especially in its earliest days.  That being said, I concur with Adam's (and others') assessment; the only time you could go for less than the "maximum" was when Jokers were involved, so that you could essentially make them something other than the desired category.

[clemon79]

I am fairly certain I saw a contestant take a category for $50 with multiples on the board.

Well, Proof or Not Real right back at you, then.

[PYLdude]

I am fairly certain I saw a contestant take a category for $50 with multiples on the board.

Well, Proof or Not Real right back at you, then.

Don't push it. Points above this conceded. Not everything requires the Lemon Touch.

[clemon79]

Don't push it.

Or else, um, what? You're the one who played the Proof Or Not Real card first.

[PYLdude]

Don't push it.

Or else, um, what? You're the one who played the Proof Or Not Real card first.

And I received my Proof after the fact. So, as I said, point conceded.