Author Topic: Three Jokers anamolies (Read 7007 times)

comicus · « **Reply #15 on:** August 03, 2013, 10:12:06 PM »

I would suspect that, in the name of keeping the prize budget as low as possible, that option wouldn\'t even be given to the contestant. Winning on three jokers = $500, the end.

Thunder · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2013, 12:37:40 AM »

If anybody ever missed any Joker\'s Wild questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.

PYLdude · « **Reply #17 on:** August 04, 2013, 12:41:25 AM »

If anybody ever missed any ~~Joker\'s Wild~~ B&E show questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.

Fixed.

TLEberle · « **Reply #18 on:** August 04, 2013, 02:21:23 PM »

If anybody ever missed any Joker\'s Wild questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.

Your stock rose three points just by saying this.

aaron sica · « **Reply #19 on:** August 06, 2013, 04:44:29 AM »

If anybody ever missed any Joker\'s Wild questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.

Especially the \"Over 80\" tournament where all the questions, IMHO, were either True or False or multiple choice

/Became depressing to watch when I realized most all the contestants were dead by the time I watched it (1997).

That Don Guy · « **Reply #20 on:** August 09, 2013, 10:00:00 PM »

If anybody ever missed any ~~Joker\'s Wild~~ B&E show questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.

Fixed.

There were a few that not everybody was expected to know. One that comes to mind (I think it was the winning question for the player who beat the syndicated version\'s biggest money winner, not including tournaments) was, \"In what state does Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman take place?\".

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #21 on:** August 09, 2013, 10:08:18 PM »

In it\'s day, the question wasn\'t too difficult. If you didn\'t watch MHMH, you probably watched Fernwood 2 Night.

KrisW73 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2013, 12:36:09 PM »

2) In tournament play, the player at the first podium spins 3 Jokers, gets it right and goes to $500. Meanwhile, the #2 player has $350 at the time this happens. Should that player then spin a triple and get it right, that would mathematically put them ahead at $550 and give them the win. But are 3 Jokers allowed to get trumped like this in the tournament?

I remembered a similar scenario during the $1M tournament - took me a little time to find it. If the player in position 1 spins three jokers then then the second player gets a chance to match the first spin.

Video (along with Jack\'s explanation of the amended rule at 6:30) is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GRw8KPubLeI&list=PLB63F91DA9F7C7583&t=391

parliboy · « **Reply #23 on:** August 12, 2013, 08:12:59 AM »

Hated that rule in tournament play. The game was already balanced in favor of the champion. Taking away the challenger\'s only advantage made it worse, and a tournament is not the time to do that.

clemon79 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 12, 2013, 11:36:01 AM »

Hated that rule in tournament play. The game was already balanced in favor of the champion. Taking away the challenger\'s only advantage made it worse, and a tournament is not the time to do that.

I\'m missing something. Why is it an advantage when they are merely insuring that both players get the same number of chances to spin?

TLEberle · « **Reply #25 on:** August 12, 2013, 12:09:44 PM »

As bad TV as it was to have somebody go from zero to 500 on the first turn, it would have been exponentially worse to not even let the second player have a go.

parliboy · « **Reply #26 on:** August 12, 2013, 05:22:46 PM »

Hated that rule in tournament play. The game was already balanced in favor of the champion. Taking away the challenger\'s only advantage made it worse, and a tournament is not the time to do that.

I\'m missing something. Why is it an advantage when they are merely insuring that both players get the same number of chances to spin?

Because same number of chances to spin wasn\'t enforced equally, but rather always to the champion\'s advantage. If the champion got to $500 on the challenger\'s turn, the champion wasn\'t required to spin. This was true even in the linked tournament, one example being the game that knocked out Hal Shear.

Remember, many Barry Enright games had a strong champions advantage. This rule change made it stronger in a time it should have been weakened.

clemon79 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 12, 2013, 05:36:57 PM »

That seems really ticky-tack, because if you force the champion to take that last spin, barring a natural triple (and why do you want a situation where you are rooting AGAINST a natural triple?), or three Jokers (which can\'t be stolen) you\'re gonna take a singleton or go off the board for $50 with a Joker and 99.5% of the time it\'s not going to matter.

(And I forget, are you obligated to take a natural pair or triple for its full amount? I know you don\'t have to with Jokers involved, but that\'s because ostensibly you can \"change\" the wild Joker to something that doesn\'t match.)

TLEberle · « **Reply #28 on:** August 12, 2013, 05:37:00 PM »

At which the champion takes something for less than the difference of his score and his opponent\'s, and instead of the game ending on a positive note, it now ends on a downer prove-out where no one cares that the challenger got to 450, because the champ is on 500 and ready to face the devil. Yes, that would be closer still to 100% parity, but it would also make for lousy television.

For posterity I will note that the single-player, general knowledge question format of Play the Percentages absolutely cornholed the returning champion as he would go second in each round, and players were not given equal turns; whoever reached 250 points would win the game.

parliboy · « **Reply #29 on:** August 12, 2013, 05:46:23 PM »

Yes... and I will note that unlike many of the B-E formats which were quite sound, the second format of Pt% was basically a hackneyed attempt to make use of space for a few more weeks, and was likely cobbeled together at a breakneck speed.