Debunking the Prize Puzzle issue

[TLEberle]

After seeing the value of tonight's Prize Puzzle I went back and noted the value of prizes up for grabs:

Featured prize, a trip to Austria, Germany and Switzerland: $10,430
Chevy Sedan: $14,305
Prize Puzzle: trip to Costa Rica and Sony Camera: $6,197

So there y'are. Make of it what you will.

[Jeremy Nelson]

I don't know if you can debunk it, because whether it's $6,200 or $10,000, the prize puzzle is still the only guaranteed prize of the bunch.

[PYLdude]

That really doesn't debunk anything. While I don't believe that solving the prize puzzle automatically guarantees a win, you can't fully dismiss it as being a somewhat significant player in a game's outcome. Because more often than not, it is. (which is why I think it is really not worth having )

The other two prizes have to be landed on (twice in the latter case) and claimed in order to win

[TLEberle]

The gal who won tonight had quite a lot, including the car, so winning the Prize Puzzle just put her further ahead. It seems that the solver who wins round three goes on to win the game, but it would be interesting to see how often the margin of victory was less than that of the prize, and but for the prize puzzle the win would go to someone else.

[parliboy]

Yeah, if you're trying to debunk anything, do this:

1) Track every non-tossup round's winner, and how often the said winner gets to the bonus round.
2) Do that for a non-trivial number of shows, at least 2 or 3 months worth.
3) Come back and tell us that the winner of the prize puzzle doesn't go to the bonus round a statistically higher percentage than someone who wins a different round.

In fact, I'm gonna go over to "Buy a Vowel" and look at 2014-to-date right now, because why not.

[parliboy]

Continuing... I got you started by doing January's numbers.  After I saw them, I decided I didn't need to do February just yet.

In January, there were 23 aired shows.  The number of times each round's winner advanced to the bonus round follows:

Rd 1: 11 / 23 (48%)
Rd 2: 11 / 23 (48%)
Rd 3: 19 / 23 (83%)
Rd 4: 9 / 23  (39%)
Rd 5: 3 / 4 (75%)

There isn't enough data on Round Five with only four sample points; in fact, I think that the 3 / 4 is an aberration, since Round Five is always a speed-up round.  But as for the other four rounds, I think we've got enough data already to say, "Holy crap, this is skewed."  If you think differently, feel free to offer up competing numbers.

[pacdude]

This is solely anecdotal evidence, but:

[parliboy]

As an addendum:

In January, the prize puzzle round was the only time someone won exactly one round and won the game with it.  This happened three times in that month.

EDIT: _______ word.

[Matt Ottinger]

I'm once again confused as to exactly what everybody's point is.  The prize puzzle is a significant part of the game.  Often, the person who gets it wins.  Sometimes, the person who gets it loses.  Sometimes it makes the difference in the game and sometimes it does not.  Getting it makes you more likely to win, but does not assure it.  What exactly is being "debunked"?

[Mr. Armadillo]

The hypothesis that Wheel of Fortune is a game of skill, I think. 

As best as I can figure, people are complaining that the Prize Puzzle rewards not the best player but whoever is lucky enough to solve the third puzzle.  It reduces every other round to a level only slightly higher than the Super Password $100 puzzle, and people aren't okay with that.

[Matt Ottinger]

As best as I can figure, people are complaining that the Prize Puzzle rewards not the best player but whoever is lucky enough to solve the third puzzle.  It reduces every other round to a level only slightly higher than the Super Password $100 puzzle, and people aren't okay with that.

OK, the person who solves the Prize Puzzle is rewarded with a bonus that the other solvers don't get, and if that makes a difference in the game (which it must on a fairly regular basis) then that person didn't "deserve" to win because she didn't "earn" the titular prize.  Either that, or we have a problem with the game being weighted so that the big money is made at the end, which of course no other game show has ever done before.  Just trying to follow the arguments.

[MSTieScott]

Either that, or we have a problem with the game being weighted so that the big money is made at the end, which of course no other game show has ever done before.

For me, this is the reason, though I will slightly counter your argument with the fact that because the Prize Puzzle happens in round three, the viewer then has to sit through another toss-up, a round four, and occasionally a round five, all of which likely won't have an effect on the outcome of the game.

It's also partially a matter of perspective. If a contestant immediately makes the game a runaway after round one because they picked up the featured prize and the car on the titular Wheel of Fortune, that feels more "right" because they were lucky with the wheel. As opposed to them being lucky to have control when the solution to the round three puzzle becomes evident. (Also, one of these events only happens rarely while the other happens in what appears to be more than half of the episodes.)

(I also dislike the Prize Puzzle because it has forced the staff to come up with increasingly tortured phrases that refer to trip destinations they've offered dozens of times before. But that's a different discussion.)

[parliboy]

I think Armadillo has it about right, yes.

First of all, Matt, the big money isn't at the end.  Not even with the speed-up round.  They use a shorter puzzle, and they strip the wheel of its gimmick spaces.  For the January numbers, the round 4 winner won the game 40% of the time.  In other words, it was a slightly better predictor of winning than having a monkey fling poo at three colored targets.  So that needs to come right out.

Travis, I assume, is trying to debunk the size of the impact that the prize puzzle has in the game.  My response is that the winner of the prize puzzle wins 80% to 90% of all games, which is excessive for something that is in the middle of the show, not the end.

Lastly (and this is a big, big part for me), it's a mechanic that awards aversion to risk, rather than risk.  When your game is supposed to be about staking your bank every time you spin the wheel, and the winner is almost always the player who won the round that doesn't make you do that, it's an issue.  It means, in a nutshell, that you've changed the game itself.  Not just one round, but the whole game.

Let's restate the problem:

• For rounds 1, 2, and 4, you start with $0,  and hitting a bankrupt resets you to $0.
• For round 3, you start with $7,000, and hitting a bankrupt resets you to $7,000.

If the rule were stated that way, would it make sense?  Would it be in any way logical?  What is the functional difference between the way I express the rule and the way the show expresses it?

[TLEberle]

My response is that the winner of the prize puzzle wins 80% to 90% of all games, which is excessive for something that is in the middle of the show, not the end.

And my question to your answer (before this starts to become Who's On First) is that would the winner of round three win the game anyway?

If we assume that in order to be a decent player you have to be familiar with the world around you and the mental dexterity to spot phonemes and word chunks and to be able to predict what will or can't fill the blanks, that's not really a high bar of entry, is the winner of the round situational fortuitousness as opposed to good game play? I don't deny that the figure is skewed and that the Prize Puzzle has an outcome on the game; my contention is that (other than the anecdotes as presented) it isn't as big a factor as some think. If somebody won the game having won just round three, that would be surprising, but in my experience that isn't the case--they're also picking up toss-up money and other rounds too. (This plays into the runaway leader issue, but that's possibly another thread.)

Lastly (and this is a big, big part for me), it's a mechanic that awards aversion to risk, rather than risk.

Earlier in the week someone hit a costly bankrupt in round three; wiping out a prize, some cash, I think a wild card, and maybe a car/half a car. The next person in the queue solves for no money and picks up the trip. That's annoying to me, but I could also say that the player who spun once too early could have stopped and banked a huge stash. That doesn't ameliorate the problem that round three offers a bonus that incents players to sit on a smallish bankroll and solve as soon as they know the answer.

Let's not let Scott get lost in the shuffle either, the puzzles in round three are laughable.

[parliboy]

Travis, your question is a fair one, but it's too fuzzy to answer definitely as cold, hard fact.  Also, January isn't enough sample data for that specific of a question, but let's try anyway:

If we evaluate the prize puzzle as a separate round, and only look at round three for the rest of its value, what happens to the numbers?  Actually, they look like this:

Rd 1: 11 / 23 (48%)
Rd 2: 11 / 23 (48%)
Rd 3: 10 / 23 (43%)
Prize: 9 / 23 (39%)
Rd 4: 9 / 23  (39%)
Rd 5: 3 / 4 (75%)

Of the 23 games in January, 9 of them were decided by the prize puzzle.  (It was a quick glance, so +/- 1; but let's go with it.)  That means that the prize puzzle was, by itself, worth about an entire round.  Again, January by itself isn't enough data here.  But to put things into perspective, the big final segment that's supposed to decide the game?  The winner of that round also runs 9 / 23.

So picture a game of Family Feud where the values of the boards progress S/S/D/S.  That's not too far removed from what we have here.

But the true effect of the prize puzzle is going to be slightly higher, again because players in Rd 3 have less risk aversion than players in other rounds.  So it's not just what the players do that affects the game, but what the players don't do.

To address one of your other points, three of the 23 games were won by someone who won only one round.  Guess which one?