New show coming to Buzzr on February 17...

[Chuck Sutton]

On the Hollywood Squares, I wondered again yesterday what is actually the better strategy since you can lose a game on a wrong answer.

1) Trying to block and risk giving your opponent a win, or

2) Or try a square that if you get it right sets you up for a win when the opponent picks the square and gets it wrong.

[Casey]

My first thought (I only caught one of the episodes) was why was a MG semi-regular relegated to just playing Hollywood Squares?

[Scrabbleship]

My first thought (I only caught one of the episodes) was why was a MG semi-regular relegated to just playing Hollywood Squares?

They rotated the celebrities on a day-by-day basis. Even if you stacked a week full of MG regulars, each one would have to take at least one breather day only doing HS. I only caught the last episode last night, if someone who caught all four could run stats on who did just HS on a day-by-day basis for the week it'll be interesting to see if there were any trends.

[snowpeck]

My first thought (I only caught one of the episodes) was why was a MG semi-regular relegated to just playing Hollywood Squares?

They rotated the celebrities on a day-by-day basis. Even if you stacked a week full of MG regulars, each one would have to take at least one breather day only doing HS. I only caught the last episode last night, if someone who caught all four could run stats on who did just HS on a day-by-day basis for the week it'll be interesting to see if there were any trends.

Here's a list of which celebrities were held for the Hollywood Squares half for the whole week. Of note, Alison Arngrim played Match Game all five days and Phil Proctor played Match Game four out of five.
Monday: Tom Villard, Barbi Benton, Bill Daily
Tuesday: Jimmie Walker, Twyla Littleton, Phil Proctor
Wednesday: Skip Stephenson, Twyla Littleton, Bill Daily
Thursday: Tom Villard, Barbi Benton, Jimmie Walker
Friday: Skip Stephenson, Twyla Littleton, Bill Daily

[Casey]

Thanks!!  That definitely makes more sense.

[beatlefreak84]

On the Hollywood Squares, I wondered again yesterday what is actually the better strategy since you can lose a game on a wrong answer.

1) Trying to block and risk giving your opponent a win, or

2) Or try a square that if you get it right sets you up for a win when the opponent picks the square and gets it wrong.

This was something I was thinking of while watching the show as well.  And, based on my rudimentary thoughts and computations, it seems better to try and block.  Here's a scenario to illustrate:

Number the boxes on the board from 1 through 9, with 1 being the top left and 9 being the bottom right.  Assume, by way of argument, that X controls boxes 4 and 5, and O controls box 1.  Further, we assume that, for each question, the player has a 50% of getting it right, and each correct answer is independent of all others.

O really has two logical moves here:  (1) go for box 6 and the block, or (2) go for box 3 to try and set up for a win.

Notice that, in either case, X has a 50% chance of the win with box 6, either on his own, or with a miss from O.  So, let's see what happens to O in each case:

(1) O has a 50% chance of a successful block, forcing X to go elsewhere to try and establish a new winning path (likely box 7).

(2) O has a 50% chance of getting box 3, but then also needs X to miss box 6.  If this happens, then O has two paths to victory, but, by our assumptions, this is only a 25% chance.  Should O go for 3 and miss, then, even if X misses 6, box 7 can now give X the win.

The way I see it, O is counting on two questions in a row going his/her way in (2) for it to be a favorable outcome, but only needs one question going his/her way in (1), and the onus is now back on X to start over again.  Plus, regardless of what happens to X in box 7, O goes for box 3 and, if successful, now has two paths to victory anyway.  Thus, in (1), the ball is fully in O's court, and it's his/her game to lose at that point.  Otherwise, in (2), O is counting on an X miss.

So, in this scenario, it is definitely better for O to just go for the block, even with the risk of a miss and giving X the game.  Too many things need to go right for O to try any other strategy and have the outcome be better.

I tried designing other scenarios and pretty much came up with the same idea; namely, I don't see any competitive advantage (assuming the questions are 50-50 toss-ups) to not trying for the block.

That's my quickie argument for trying for the block, but, as HS is not a mathematical game, obviously, YMMV. 

/yes, I analyzed a game show that's been off the air for 36 years...
//wouldn't be the first time!

Anthony

[calliaume]

Okay.  But here's a scenario I saw in one of the episodes that aired this weekend:

___|_O_|___
___|___|___
_X_|___|_X_

It's O's turn. Do you take the center square and try to set up the dual implication pick for X, or go for the block with a 50/50 chance of losing the game, but setting up a possible win on the next turn if X misses?

It's a tougher game as a result of this change - and not necessarily a better one.

[chrisholland03]

It's been said several times before, but the fatal flaw here was a lack of appreciation for what made MG or HS work.  A lot of the banter felt like several side conversations going on at the same time, the result of literally throwing 6/9 random celebrities in a box with no guidance.  MG needed 2 anchor celebrities who could knock things off track strategically when things got too dry, and who could reign it back in when things got too sloppy.  HS needed the comedy sweeteners to keep the celebrities from rambling on all day, or swinging and missing wildly.   Celebrity positioning in both games was key, and they were placed seemingly randomly.

Rayburn was badly neutered here.  He came across very scripted, and didn't have anyone to use his schtick on.  Likewise, Bauman was relegated to playing traffic cop to the celebrities. 

Had they appreciated the essence of MG and HS, I think the net result would have been significantly different, even if that were the only change made.

[MSTieScott]

It just occurred to me that to the Match Game side of "what made Match Game work," they faced a couple of big problems:

1. They were starting from scratch, so they had to try to find a new panel chemistry. Match Game 73 had Richard Dawson as its one-liner ringer from the outset, but it took a while for them to discover the Brett/Charles chemistry that added a different type of levity. I'm going to assume that MGHS never found that chemistry. And even if they had, the only way to maintain it would be to have one or two additional regulars in the first half of the show every day, thereby limiting the participation of the other guest celebrities. (For maximum efficiency, Jon Bauman should have been part of that chemistry, but he was likely preoccupied with learning how to be a game show host.)

I acknowledge the counterargument that the current Match Game doesn't have any permanent regulars, yet it's in its fourth season now.

2. The '70s Match Game taped five (or six) half hours in a day, and it's a known fact that the social interaction (and alcohol) between tapings made the celebrities looser and more fun during the program. MGHS, on the other hand, had to power through five hour-long shows in a day -- I'm guessing that there was a real pressure to get everybody changed and ready for each subsequent episode. Possibly not much time to chat and have fun when the cameras weren't rolling. And probably not as much liquor, because I'm guessing Hollywood Squares doesn't work as well when the celebrities are inebriated.

Okay.  But here's a scenario I saw in one of the episodes that aired this weekend:

___|_O_|___
___|___|___
_X_|___|_X_

It's O's turn. Do you take the center square and try to set up the dual implication pick for X, or go for the block with a 50/50 chance of losing the game, but setting up a possible win on the next turn if X misses?

But does your question assume that O would definitely claim the center square? Because if O goes for the center and misses, they are well and truly screwed anyway. So in that situation, O should definitely play for the bottom center.

[JasonA1]

MGHS, on the other hand, had to power through five hour-long shows in a day -- I'm guessing that there was a real pressure to get everybody changed and ready for each subsequent episode.

Tapings for one show week were split over two days - most often (AFAIK) 3 shows on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. I'm sure there could have been variations; but in one schedule I've seen, the relative times they were in studio were 3 to 9 PM on Saturday and 1 to 5:00 PM on Sunday. That surely includes rehearsal/makeup/et al. All of this probably contributes to the odd bookings MGHSH seemed to get.

-Jason

[calliaume]

Tapings for one show week were split over two days - most often (AFAIK) 3 shows on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. I'm sure there could have been variations; but in one schedule I've seen, the relative times they were in studio were 3 to 9 PM on Saturday and 1 to 5:00 PM on Sunday. That surely includes rehearsal/makeup/et al. All of this probably contributes to the odd bookings MGHSH seemed to get.

I hadn't thought of this.  Those aren't particularly great times, and there's no great solution to that problem - unlike MG '7X, it's likely the Thursday/Friday shows were less interesting (going on a separate day altogether), rather than better.

Was Gene still flying out from New York (or Cape Cod) to do tapings? 

[JakeT]

As insignificant as it may have seemed to some and while the set was cool because of the video wall, I think part of the problem with this version was the optics...the original HS was eye-catching to the viewer because the celebs were in this monster tic-tac-toe board with lights surrounding each celeb and those spiral staircases going to the upper tiers...the MGHSH was more of a case of "Hollywood Panel"...it just didn't have the same feeling of playing giant tic-tac-toe as the original did...and the producers of the versions that followed must have agreed because they returned to the original big board configuration for those that followed...

The original HS board felt, for lack of terms, "classy" and the MGHSH celeb area just looked kinda cheap (flying upper-tier aside) and drab...

JakeT

[colonial]

I don't get Buzzr anymore, but all the talk about MG/HS (this may be the most excited fans have got over reruns of a show popping up on GSN or Buzzr since Marshall HS appeared on GSN) got me to check out some clips of MG/HS episodes on YT.

-- As MsTieScott noted, the MG portion desperately needed a comic regular or two to help the panel gel and make the whole format feel less scripted. I think the show did spot that problem when they started booking stand-up comics on a regular basis (Leno, Arsenio, Gallagher, etc.), and it seemed those comics sat on the MG panels all week. But it would have been wise to find two celebrities to fill the "Brett/Charles" void and have them sit as panel regulars with Jon (you could have them switch off as the center square for the HS portion as well).

-- Someone earlier mentioned that it seemed odd that an MG semi-regular (Bill Daily) was restricted to HS for one episode. I seem to recall a later episode where CNR was dealt the same fate, and he's arguably "Mr. Match Game". Producers should have been a bit wiser to the show's history and have them serve on the MG panel all week as, like the comics I mentioned above, they could have helped with getting the panel gel and feel a little more loose.

-- Rayburn just seemed miserable all around. He wasn't happy with MG being fused with HS, he hated being tied with Bauman (though he should have taken the high road instead of bash him left and right post-cancellation), and his performance at times came off as forced.

-- I felt bad for Jon. He seems like a decent guy, and I give him credit for trying to expand out of his "Bowzer" persona and become a star as himself. But he was extremely out of his element here  as a host, especially when he's facing the pressure of having big shoes to fill. While "Pop and Rocker Game" wasn't memorable, it was a better fit for Jon, given his music background and the fact he's the face of a fresh game, not a revival of an iconic program.

-- MG/HS reminds me a lot of Jim Lange's "Bullseye". Both were shows that I loved as a child, but when I go back to watch them today, I ask myself if I lacked a good deal of common sense back then. Like Bullseye, MG/HS had a lot of bells and whistles that I enjoyed -- the theme music, the back wall, the wall "opening up" for the hosts, the celebs walking out with their names in big letters in the back, the MG panel becoming the HS panel, etc. But, just like Bullseye, behind those bells and whistles is a weak format that doesn't hold up over time. And as JakeT noted, the look of the HS set is quite lame compared to the Marshall/Davidson/Bergeron versions. It came off more as someone putting on an HS tribute show on a cruise or convention than the "big event" the other versions felt like.


JD

[TimK2003]

If there was anything good that came out of the MGHS version, it was this -- unlike the later years of MG 7x, where there was heavy editing during the answer writing,  they left more of the deliberations in.

I know the heavy edits were made due to time restraints and to make room for selected questions with funny chatter, but it was frustrating when before I could think of a good answer at home, they already jumped to the contestant's answer.

[TLEberle]

Adding to James's thoughts: Mark Goodson was supposed to set the standard for game shows in terms of quality. Even if the show was a dud, it had a certain level of effort put into it and it would show in the final product. To me it seems that even if Mark hated the fact that both shows were more about the laughs than the game, and that HS wasn't really about the questions at all, that he would have done what was necessary to make it work. Instead it comes off as a potboiler place-holder.