Card Sharks 6/26

[whewfan]

Did anyone notice that the show's theme music was much more audible on this airing? Perhaps Fremantle listened and somehow fixed it so that the audience noise didn't overpower the theme? That being said, I think while it's a revamp a la the Pyramid theme, it's better to have that than to have something entirely different.

I still have issues with the show's pacing. This particular show had a nice Money Cards win, but I think the sluggish moments ruin the excitement instead of making it more exciting. IMO the "slow reveals" should only be for the middle of the road cards, not aces or deuces.

I kind of wonder if the contestants are encouraged to have the game use up all 5 questions. This game showed the potential of a contestant winning a game without having to play her cards at all, and having her opponent lose on his play of the cards, but that didn't happen. I do like expanding the game to 10 cards, but I also think a 2 out of 3 match would work quite well, with maybe 3 questions per round in the first two rounds and only one question for the tiebreaker. This only adds one question to the overall game, plus one more if a tiebreaker is necessary. It can be done.

[Loogaroo]

I kind of wonder if the contestants are encouraged to have the game use up all 5 questions.

I don't think any casting director is telling the contestants very much beyond basic strategy (2/3/K/A are good cards, 7/8/9 are bad). And even if they did, no contestant in their right mind is going to freeze on a 2/A with one card left.

I do like expanding the game to 10 cards, but I also think a 2 out of 3 match would work quite well, with maybe 3 questions per round in the first two rounds and only one question for the tiebreaker. This only adds one question to the overall game, plus one more if a tiebreaker is necessary. It can be done.

If the contestants are struggling to run the board with five questions, three questions isn't going to make it any easier unless you shrink the board.

I actually really like the 10-card, one-game format. In the original version, you could play small ball and just creep across the board one card at a time. Or conversely, you could go on a 2-A-K-3 run and totally smoke out your opponent with them barely having an opportunity to speak. This works because both players are getting ample opportunity to play the game out, and the card play is a lot more impactful because you have to go out on a limb a few times during the game or else you'll have 8 cards left at Sudden Death. You can't just freeze the first time you see a dangerous card.

[parliboy]

I kind of wonder if the contestants are encouraged to have the game use up all 5 questions.

I don't think any casting director is telling the contestants very much beyond basic strategy (2/3/K/A are good cards, 7/8/9 are bad). And even if they did, no contestant in their right mind is going to freeze on a 2/A with one card left.

About that...

I do like expanding the game to 10 cards, but I also think a 2 out of 3 match would work quite well, with maybe 3 questions per round in the first two rounds and only one question for the tiebreaker. This only adds one question to the overall game, plus one more if a tiebreaker is necessary. It can be done.

If the contestants are struggling to run the board with five questions, three questions isn't going to make it any easier unless you shrink the board.

This works because both players are getting ample opportunity to play the game out, and the card play is a lot more impactful because you have to go out on a limb a few times during the game or else you'll have 8 cards left at Sudden Death. You can't just freeze the first time you see a dangerous card.

Here's what I want to know at the end of the series: how many times does somebody elect to play after the fifth question rather than pass?  I worry it doesn't make for good TV if the answer is "none of the times".

[PYLdude]

My main issue with the front game is its length. Even if it's only one game to a win, I find myself relatively disengaged by it being 10 cards. Am I too used to the way things were? Maybe. But I still thing it's a slog and whatever dramatic factor there might be in someone making quick work of their cards gets lost in the fog.

The one thing I did enjoy, even though I really didn't feel I would, was the Money Cards structure. For some reason the one change per game rule works better here than it did on the original series. My major problems? The tie equals loss rule (never felt this was right) and the prop chips (cornball as can be).

Can't say I'll be sticking around for too many episodes.

[Loogaroo]

Interesting. So does this mean that my "nobody should ever freeze on a 2/A with one card to go" assertion would actually be a good play in certain circumstances?

I also appreciate that someone's finally quantified the "keep or change" strategy for the 5/J. That always felt like a "good enough" card to keep, but obviously the numbers dictate otherwise.

[Otm Shank]

I'm not a fan of adding chrome to a classic format, but I wonder if it would be fun to add a simulator graphic in the corner of the screen. Maybe instead of being persistent throughout the gameplay, it could be displayed when there is a tough decision on whether to freeze — "our simulator says to freeze 76.4% of the time" — or whenever a contestant forges ahead when there is a >50% favorability to freeze. I have a sense that its overuse would be distracting, but I think when the game gets to the critical stages, it might be a fun little addition, particularly to have a rolling win percentage displayed on a sudden-death run of the cards.

Again, I am leery about my own idea, but it might just work.

[tvwxman]

Love that Card Sharks is back - love the format changes. HATE The pacing. It's too slow. They could pick up the pace and fit an entire 3rd game in there in one hour if they wanted to.

The pacing is enough for me to scan through a show - which is never a good sign.

(Same goes for the new Press Your Luck).

[TLEberle]

Love that Card Sharks is back - love the format changes. HATE The pacing. It's too slow. They could pick up the pace and fit an entire 3rd game in there in one hour if they wanted to.

The pacing is enough for me to scan through a show - which is never a good sign.

(Same goes for the new Press Your Luck).

The problem for me is similar--rather than playing as many three-question five or seven-card games as they can in the half hour, the show sacrifices any sense of excitement with a slow as molasses front game and a plodding Money Cards where because the stakes can be so enormous that every wager must be explained in great detail, chips fiddled with and then we must wait while Joel throws to a dealer who waits interminably to turn over the next card.

The size of the arena precludes Joel from being able to handle the host business other than whatever happens at home base. I don't out and out hate the format changes as such but it does feel like rather than three faster games in an hour the aim was to do as little as possible twice.

[MSTieScott]

While we have a digression into card-calling strategy, I have a question for those who are more mathematically inclined than I am:

Suppose the contestant starts the Money Cards with a base card of a 6. I'll say "Change it!" at the screen while one of my friends will say that they should bet low and save their change for later. We will then get into a non-heated argument about when is the best time to change the card.

My stance is that it's always better to change as soon as you see a middle-of-the-road card. If the change card is good, then the odds are that you'll make more money earlier -- if the cards that immediately follow are also good, then that means you'll have more money to bet and win early on. If another middle-of-the-road card shows up later on down the line, then just take the minimum bet and save what you already have.

My friends' stance is that you want to save your change for later in the game when you already have a lot of money and want to give yourself the best possible chance to double it near the end of the game.

(Of course, both stances assume that the change card will improve your position. If the change card is an 8, then it's all moot.)

Is there merit to my friends' argument that I'm not seeing? I would think that especially on this version, when the contestant isn't even required to take the Big Bet, it's always better to make money early than to assume the ability to change would be more beneficial later on (what if all of the remaining cards turn out to be great?).

Incidentally, do we know what happens if a contestant on this version hasn't changed a card by the time they get to the Big Bet? Are they allowed to change their card before deciding whether to make a bet, or do they have to make the decision to play before seeing what their change would be?

[PYLdude]

Love that Card Sharks is back - love the format changes. HATE The pacing. It's too slow. They could pick up the pace and fit an entire 3rd game in there in one hour if they wanted to.

The pacing is enough for me to scan through a show - which is never a good sign.

(Same goes for the new Press Your Luck).

Well put.

I did enjoy the first half of the Press Your Luck hour. Classic PYL, done well. But the bonus round does not need to be a part of.the show. It's structured poorly, the personalized prizes are annoying as all hell, and if you're going to increase the cash values you gotta increase the risk and add more whammies to the board too. And to me? The extra spins seem superfluous even if in the long run they serve a purpose (you just don't immediately pick up on it).

[mrchips]

Incidentally, do we know what happens if a contestant on this version hasn't changed a card by the time they get to the Big Bet? Are they allowed to change their card before deciding whether to make a bet, or do they have to make the decision to play before seeing what their change would be?

I would favor the latter, if only to parallel the sudden-death rule that the controlling player must elect to play before changing.

[Casey]

But the bonus round does not need to be a part of.the show. It's structured poorly, the personalized prizes are annoying as all hell ...

I guess as a counterpoint, my partner and I both like the personalized prizes, and a coworker who knows I like game shows watched the new Press Your Luck (he was familiar with the old one) and specifically mentioned that they had personalized prizes for the contestant in the bonus round and liked that part, so there's that. Different strokes I guess.

[Kevin Prather]

I think the bonus round is a reasonable price to pay in order to get PYL Classic on the air. The first half is untainted PYL, with no attempts to shoehorn in any gimmicks.

[rebelwrest]

The problem for me is similar--rather than playing as many three-question five or seven-card games as they can in the half hour, the show sacrifices any sense of excitement with a slow as molasses front game and a plodding Money Cards where because the stakes can be so enormous that every wager must be explained in great detail, chips fiddled with and then we must wait while Joel throws to a dealer who waits interminably to turn over the next card.

The size of the arena precludes Joel from being able to handle the host business other than whatever happens at home base. I don't out and out hate the format changes as such but it does feel like rather than three faster games in an hour the aim was to do as little as possible twice.

This came to me recently.  Back in the days of continuous game show production, you were only allowed to tape a few weeks at a time because of studio schedules.  However, this gave producers the opportunity to fix problems that didn't show up during the original taping or makes changes because of valid criticism for the next set of episodes.  I love that we have game shows coming back as viable regular programming for networks, but the whole season of "Card Sharks" is in the can and cannot be changed.  Unless there is some massive reedit to remove most of the dramatic pauses and fit more game into an episode (but that does mean fewer episodes), we are stuck with the same complaints until next summer if it's renewed.

I've also developed an automatic response to learning that Scott St. John will be producing one of my favorite game shows.  It's pretty much the exact sound that Charlie Brown makes when he misses kicking the football.

[Unrealtor]

While we have a digression into card-calling strategy, I have a question for those who are more mathematically inclined than I am:

Suppose the contestant starts the Money Cards with a base card of a 6. I'll say "Change it!" at the screen while one of my friends will say that they should bet low and save their change for later. We will then get into a non-heated argument about when is the best time to change the card.

I spent a couple hours poking at this problem and came to the conclusion that I can't think of a good way to figure out the answer to whether it's better to change early or wait until later without doing a lot of computations. (On a related note, today I learned that there are about 5 billion possible outcomes from the Money Cards when you just look at combinations of seven cards and whether/where/to what one of the first six is changed.)

If you take wagering out of it and only look at the probability of improving your current card and not having a worse card further down the line, the math says that you should change a 7, 8, or 9 any time, a 6 or 10 only on the last two cards, and a 5 or J only on the Big Bet. If I simulate a very simple wagering strategy by saying that you wager nothing on an 8, everything on a 2 or ace, and everything else somewhere in between based on the probability of a correct call if I go with the odds, I get that the expected outcome is always better if you change anything from a 5 to a jack.