You Deserve It flub: dollar amounts revealed beforehand!

[clemon79]

They apparently had a problem with pattern memorization with Second Chance on ABC.

Which surprises me, because that board looked like it behaved FAR closer to true-random than the PYL one did, and moved a hell of a lot faster. (Actually, I always thought that was a good example to point to to explain why pseudo-random is a better choice for TV than true-random is, so I'm especially surprised to find out it wasn't.)

If I was going to write a randomizer for the PYL board today, following the S&P rule that every square must be hit once before repeating, I'd probably make sure some conditions were satisfied in each generated sequence before clearing it for use...something along the lines of "adjacent squares can appear no more than twice in a sequence" and "at least three times the next square must be at least six away" or something like that. (And the most obvious one: the next sequence may not start with the last square in the sequence before it.) Some rules that still allow for random generation while preserving the "bounce" that made it look good on TV.

[Ian Wallis]

Which surprises me, because that board looked like it behaved FAR closer to true-random than the PYL one did, and moved a hell of a lot faster. (Actually, I always thought that was a good example to point to to explain why pseudo-random is a better choice for TV than true-random is, so I'm especially surprised to find out it wasn't.)

I know we've discussed it in a couple of other previous threads, but I still have a hard time believing this really happened.  Everyone knew of the PYL incident and it was widely talked about in game show circles, but I really think the Second Chance incident is an urban myth.  I'm quite certain *someone* would have remembered seeing it despite the show's short run, or there would have been some article about it somewhere...or maybe even Bill Carruthers recounting the similar earlier incident when discussing Larson, but no.

If I'm wrong I can accept it, but I'd love to see some sort of proof.

(And the most obvious one: the next sequence may not start with the last square in the sequence before it.)

Which actually did happen frequently.  You can always tell because the light seems to hold on that square just a bit longer than normal.

[Blaq]

I really think the Second Chance incident is an urban myth.

I don't know about this incident you're referring to, but I have a clear memory of discovering a pattern on the Second Chance board, without even a VCR to help me out. There was a square close (next?) to the big-money square, which would flash twice about a half-second apart; a split-second after the second flash, the big-money square would light up. I should check out some online videos to verify this.


Charles

[chris319]

Now, didn't PYL use a single pattern which ran in a loop for each game, but there were several patterns which were changed between games? And this pattern had to light up each square at least once before repeating? Given the technology of the day, they could have generated a new pattern for each game, incorporating the heuristics Chris L. described. The pattern needn't have repeated, either. They could have kept generating random numbers on the fly for as long as the game lasted.

It is possible that PYL used recycled electronics from Second Chance which was done in the '70s when there were no PCs to speak of, so none of this would have been achievable without upgrading the electronics to be under PC control. It is also possible that Carruthers wanted the board slowed down to make it easier for the audience to read the prize descriptions.

[clemon79]

IIRC, the board changed randomly between five or so sequences, so in a single spin, if you waited a while, you'd see, say, sequence 2, and then when that ran it's course it would jump to sequence 4 and execute that, then do sequence 1, then back to 2, etc. Larsen figured out how to tell when a "right" sequence was running early enough to watch for a certain light and hit the button, by which time it jumped to one of the safe (as in, all additional spins or Big Bucks) squares.

The fix was to expand that five or so sequences to a whole bunch more. I think Chris is right in that the board, while electronically-driven, was not PC-driven.

[Kevin Prather]

According to the Big Bucks documentary, Larsen looked intently at box 2. After it lit up, he saw where it went next and knew what pattern he was on based on that. There were 4 patterns he seemed to use (Cue Horan mode):

2-12-1-9-4
2-11-17-7-4 (waiting 4 more bounces gets you to the upper right corner, also a good box with 700+, Go Back 2 to BB, and PAC)
2-9-18-16-13-3-5-11-7-4
2-10-16-8 (Lands on small bucks + a spin)

The 5th pattern, which Larsen doesn't seem to use, gets you to Box 8 with ease.

2-4-12-17-8

[Jeremy Nelson]

I really think the Second Chance incident is an urban myth.

I don't know about this incident you're referring to, but I have a clear memory of discovering a pattern on the Second Chance board, without even a VCR to help me out. There was a square close (next?) to the big-money square, which would flash twice about a half-second apart; a split-second after the second flash, the big-money square would light up. I should check out some online videos to verify this.


Charles

The Second Chance board was a pattern. If I remember reading correctly, it was one pattern, but with 64 "moves" in the sequence. I would moreso have a hard time believing the Second Chance myth because the board moves so darn fast. It would require not only a great memory to remember the pattern under such pressure, but prime hand-eye coordination to stop the board precisely as well. But then again, without changing slides, you'd only have to pay attention in the sequence to where the devils AREN'T, rather than finding the only two safe squares.

On a new PYL, why not set the pattern to random number generator, with the only set rule being that every number must come up at least once in every 25 pulls (I.e. selecting any string of 25 consecutive spaces in a board sequence, every number should come up)

I think Chris is right in that the board, while electronically-driven, was not PC-driven.

The Big Bucks documentary showed some sort of console that ran the patterns, so yes, that is correct. If the pattern selection was random, that was done manually, since there were buttons on that console to change the board pattern.

[chris319]

They probably had the patterns burned into an EPROM.

Another thing they could do to trip up pattern memorizers is to introduce a delay into all three plungers. Sometimes it's on, sometimes it's off, at random. The delay would have to be longer than the period one box is on.

BTW, who was in charge of daytime at CBS when they put on PYL?

[Jeremy Nelson]

Another thing they could do to trip up pattern memorizers is to introduce a delay into all three plungers. Sometimes it's on, sometimes it's off, at random. The delay would have to be longer than the period one box is on.

But then you have no sense of control when you're hitting the button. As someone playing a game for potentially a whole lot of money, I'd appreciate it if the board stops when I hit my plunger. Otherwise, you have a lot of people crying shenanigans. AND you're switching up the delay speed? If this is happening during the game, that's a definite no-no.

Even if it is consistent (i.e. producers telling players that for this taping day, the plunger has a half second delay when stopping the board), that may work on the speed of a Second Chance pattern, but there will be a VERY noticeable gap if the light bounces at PYL speed.

[clemon79]

On a new PYL, why not set the pattern to random number generator, with the only set rule being that every number must come up at least once in every 25 pulls (I.e. selecting any string of 25 consecutive spaces in a board sequence, every number should come up)

Because under that rule it is theoretically possible for:

• The same number to come up eight consecutive times
• The light to simply advance one space each time, ad nauseum
• Ping-ponging back and forth between two numbers, again for up to eight flashes

Stop me any time, because I can keep going for a while.

The "bounce" effect they had was aesthetically pleasing. You want to maintain that. It is possible, but not absolutely trivial, to maintain that in a randomized fashion. I would posit that any attempt to do so in one single rule either a) fails due to lack of thinking it out (as above), or b) is so restrictive so as to not really be all that random.

[clemon79]

But then you have no sense of control when you're hitting the button. As someone playing a game for potentially a whole lot of money, I'd appreciate it if the board stops when I hit my plunger. Otherwise, you have a lot of people crying shenanigans. AND you're switching up the delay speed? If this is happening during the game, that's a definite no-no.

Yeah, the first time someone hits the button, the delay kicks in, and it bounces to a Whammy, someone at home is going to notice it and smell a rat. And even if the production comes clean and says "Yeah, we have this random delay that comes up sometimes to prevent another Michael Larsen," well, now the folks at home know that hitting the button isn't *really* hitting the button. And at that point, why bother having the button?

[Dbacksfan12]

BTW, who was in charge of daytime at CBS when they put on PYL?

Per a 1994 TV guide article, Michael Brockman

[Unrealtor]

But then you have no sense of control when you're hitting the button. As someone playing a game for potentially a whole lot of money, I'd appreciate it if the board stops when I hit my plunger. Otherwise, you have a lot of people crying shenanigans. AND you're switching up the delay speed? If this is happening during the game, that's a definite no-no.

Yeah, the first time someone hits the button, the delay kicks in, and it bounces to a Whammy, someone at home is going to notice it and smell a rat. And even if the production comes clean and says "Yeah, we have this random delay that comes up sometimes to prevent another Michael Larsen," well, now the folks at home know that hitting the button isn't *really* hitting the button. And at that point, why bother having the button?

ISTR that it was not uncommon for the slide projectors to appear to switch after someone had hit the button (presumably just due to the time it took for the bulbs to warm up/cool down). If anyone complained about that, it wasn't judged to be a big enough problem to fix.

[clemon79]

ISTR that it was not uncommon for the slide projectors to appear to switch after someone had hit the button (presumably just due to the time it took for the bulbs to warm up/cool down). If anyone complained about that, it wasn't judged to be a big enough problem to fix.

Point taken, but I think the bouncing light is more tightly tied to the button, as it were.

[Jeremy Nelson]

But then you have no sense of control when you're hitting the button. As someone playing a game for potentially a whole lot of money, I'd appreciate it if the board stops when I hit my plunger. Otherwise, you have a lot of people crying shenanigans. AND you're switching up the delay speed? If this is happening during the game, that's a definite no-no.

Yeah, the first time someone hits the button, the delay kicks in, and it bounces to a Whammy, someone at home is going to notice it and smell a rat. And even if the production comes clean and says "Yeah, we have this random delay that comes up sometimes to prevent another Michael Larsen," well, now the folks at home know that hitting the button isn't *really* hitting the button. And at that point, why bother having the button?

ISTR that it was not uncommon for the slide projectors to appear to switch after someone had hit the button (presumably just due to the time it took for the bulbs to warm up/cool down). If anyone complained about that, it wasn't judged to be a big enough problem to fix.

There were times where the slide would have already started fading and segueing into the replacement, but the slides never did a full rotation after the button was hit. That's part of the mechanics of the board. I suppose they could have used TV screens and made the whole operation cost a whole lot more, but either way, it's still different than putting a delay on the buzzers. The slides still changed quick enough where a fade out/fade in was a non issue.