$ale of the Century: Winner's Board Question

[JonSea31]

I remember viewing Al McDonald's run of $ale of the Century from 1986 on YouTube (they're no longer prevalent - not sure if the uploader removed them on his own terms or if it was due to GSN/WorldWinner, but either way, I am glad I downloaded them while I did).

What I discovered during Al's second last playing of the Winner's Board was, there were two prizes remaining (car and $3,000), and there were only two numbers remaining.

What I'd like to ask is, was it normal to have only two numbers remaining to choose from on the champion's second last playing (regardless if the car or $10,000 was prevalent or not), meaning a 50/50 chance of winning something?  If so, I can see why matching prizes on the champion's second last playing would be pointless and would eat up unnecessary taping time.  Or, would the player require a match for the remaining two prizes (meaning 4 numbers for the champ to choose from on his/her second last playing)?

[clemon79]

What I'd like to ask

Then ask, for Glub's sake, man!

is, was it normal to have only two numbers remaining to choose from on the champion's second last playing (regardless if the car or $10,000 was prevalent or not), meaning a 50/50 chance of winning something?

Oh, you did.

Yes, this was standard operating procedure. No sense in going through the rigamarole for a binary choice.

[TLEberle]

From an episode out on the Tubes: if it was Car and Not Car, there were four panels to choose from. (Presumably if it was $10,000 and Something Else, the same would apply). For Car and $10,000 the win cards were removed and the champ chose from just the two panels.

[clemon79]

For Car and $10,000 the win cards were removed and the champ chose from just the two panels.

Guess I'm wrong then. Did the 10K need to be matched with a Win card as well?

Seems like a stupid idea at any rate: 25% of the time the player picks the Car first and the rest of the process is predetermined.

[TLEberle]

My guess is that in those early days that the 10k had to be matched with a win just like the car, but the show probably went through a thought process like you said and decided that at the final two if the car is left that the champ deserves a 50/50 shot at it.

[clemon79]

My guess is that in those early days that the 10k had to be matched with a win just like the car, but the show probably went through a thought process like you said and decided that at the final two if the car is left that the champ deserves a 50/50 shot at it.

Well, the thing is (and I haven't worked out the math), if it's Matchable Prize and Matchable Prize, then you might as well 50/50 that, too. So that leaves Car and Matchable Prize as the only scenario where the odds are affected by playing it out as opposed to making it a binary choice, and THAT scenario has the potential to be anticlimactic a little less than half the time. ('Cuz if the car is picked first or second, it's not getting won unless that first pick was the Win card.) Seems like it just makes more sense to 50/50 it across the board and eliminate those scenarios.

[PYLdude]

My question is why have the win cards on the board in the first place? It just seems a little superfluous for them to have even been there- why didn't they just have two car cards and two ten grand cards?

[clemon79]

My question is why have the win cards on the board in the first place? It just seems a little superfluous for them to have even been there- why didn't they just have two car cards and two ten grand cards?

Because you've now increased the odds of winning the car and the cash early on by a goodly bit. That costs money.

Plus, instant drama: "OMG the NEXT PRIZE you pick is what you're gonna win!!" There's a reason they fired up the timpani once it was hit.

[TLEberle]

If the car or money is revealed first, the probability of winning it is zero, which the producers don't mind. If a win card is turned over by a player on his first trip to the board, the odds of him winning a jackpot prize are two in however many panels are left.

Long shots are fun if they're hit once in a while, but they're long shots for a reason.

[PYLdude]

To me though the drama of the potential selection of the win card is cancelled out by the anti-climax possibility that exists if the car or the big money are chosen.

Not that it affects anything as per my enjoyment of the show but there's plenty of things I don't agree with on TV shows that I enjoy.

[clemon79]

To me though the drama of the potential selection of the win card is cancelled out by the anti-climax possibility that exists if the car or the big money are chosen.

'Cept is it really that anticlimactic? They're still gonna win something, it still might be pretty nice, and they still don't know what it is yet.

Also, again, the increased odds you want to introduce aren't free.

[PYLdude]

To me though the drama of the potential selection of the win card is cancelled out by the anti-climax possibility that exists if the car or the big money are chosen.

'Cept is it really that anticlimactic? They're still gonna win something, it still might be pretty nice, and they still don't know what it is yet.

But it won't be the car or the money. Hence the anti-climax.

[rjaguar3]

Also, when just the car and $10,000 are left, there is the possibility that, under the usual rules, all the cards will be revealed without the contestant winning anything (pick car and $10,000 first in either order).*  Removing the win cards and letting the contestant pick is an entirely sensible approach to avoid such a situation from arising.

*The situation I describe cannot happen when there is a prize appearing twice on the board.  If it has not already been won, at least one space with that prize remains unrevealed after all win cards have been selected.

[TLEberle]

But it won't be the car or the money. Hence the anti-climax.

And when those things happen (as seen in Al's run) Jim is professional enough not to get bogged down in it. Or even mention it, really.