CS8x Strategy

[SRIV94]

While I was never a huge fan of Eubanks CS (nothing personal to Bob, I just always preferred the Perry version), there does seem to be one radical strategic difference in game play which I've always wondered the rationale for.  And that is that CS86-89 contestants were very unlikely to freeze when faced with a bad card.

In the Perry version, an impetus was added to try to keep contestants from freezing in the form of the $500 bonus for running the board.  And that did make for some contestants taking the gamble.  However, with no such impetus in place for the Eubanks version, it seems that more often than not a contestant would take the gamble anyway (and more often than not be wrong).  And we weren't all that far removed from Perry's version having been on the air and people being able to see the strategies employed then (assuming that NBC actually carried the show in their market).

Class?

Doug

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Mar 13 2004, 09:45 PM\']While I was never a huge fan of Eubanks CS (nothing personal to Bob, I just always preferred the Perry version), there does seem to be one radical strategic difference in game play which I've always wondered the rationale for.  And that is that CS86-89 contestants were very unlikely to freeze when faced with a bad card.

In the Perry version, an impetus was added to try to keep contestants from freezing in the form of the $500 bonus for running the board.  And that did make for some contestants taking the gamble.  However, with no such impetus in place for the Eubanks version, it seems that more often than not a contestant would take the gamble anyway (and more often than not be wrong).  And we weren't all that far removed from Perry's version having been on the air and people being able to see the strategies employed then (assuming that NBC actually carried the show in their market).

Class?[/quote]
The easiest thing is say is that the contestants did what the coordinators told them to do--and if they suggested that they not freeze on a 6 or 10, the contestants could follow their lead.  Even so, it seems to me from my weekend viewings of "CS" with Eubanks that the players usually had enough sense to freeze on an 8 or a 9--however, even though 7's the mirror image of a 9 in Acey-Ducey, they would keep going on that card.

It would seem to me that freezing, outside of the obvious competitive advantage, would keep the game going forward faster than "Lower than an 8--JACK! [buzz]" and the other player goofing--repeat for two more questions until sudden death.  But I wasn't a contestant coordinator back then--and when I tried to get on the show back in the Jim Perry days, they showed me the door after the written test--so what do I know?  

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Mar 15 2004, 07:30 PM\'] [quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Mar 13 2004, 09:45 PM\']While I was never a huge fan of Eubanks CS (nothing personal to Bob, I just always preferred the Perry version), there does seem to be one radical strategic difference in game play which I've always wondered the rationale for.  And that is that CS86-89 contestants were very unlikely to freeze when faced with a bad card.

In the Perry version, an impetus was added to try to keep contestants from freezing in the form of the $500 bonus for running the board.  And that did make for some contestants taking the gamble.  However, with no such impetus in place for the Eubanks version, it seems that more often than not a contestant would take the gamble anyway (and more often than not be wrong).  And we weren't all that far removed from Perry's version having been on the air and people being able to see the strategies employed then (assuming that NBC actually carried the show in their market).

Class?[/quote]
The easiest thing is say is that the contestants did what the coordinators told them to do--and if they suggested that they not freeze on a 6 or 10, the contestants could follow their lead.  Even so, it seems to me from my weekend viewings of "CS" with Eubanks that the players usually had enough sense to freeze on an 8 or a 9--however, even though 7's the mirror image of a 9 in Acey-Ducey, they would keep going on that card.

It would seem to me that freezing, outside of the obvious competitive advantage, would keep the game going forward faster than "Lower than an 8--JACK! [buzz]" and the other player goofing--repeat for two more questions until sudden death.  But I wasn't a contestant coordinator back then--and when I tried to get on the show back in the Jim Perry days, they showed me the door after the written test--so what do I know?   [/quote]
 The one thing I never have been able to comprehend was the decision on a 5/Jack. Both are the "4th best" card in the deck. (Espicially in the Perry version), players routinely changed the 5; but rarely changed the jack.  My gut tell me its part of the "face card" mentality...but often that 5 turned to a seven.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Mar 15 2004, 11:30 PM\']The one thing I never have been able to comprehend was the decision on a 5/Jack. Both are the "4th best" card in the deck. (Espicially in the Perry version), players routinely changed the 5; but rarely changed the jack.  My gut tell me its part of the "face card" mentality...but often that 5 turned to a seven.[/quote]
Sure, it's the fourth best... of seven. If we're strictly talking mathematics here, changing a five or jack *is* the percentage play, as six ranks (2, 3, 4, Q, K, A) are better, and only five (6-10) are worse. That said, I personally wouldn't change either of them under normal circumstances. And I *certainly* wouldn't change one and not the other: contestants' love of jacks and fear of fives is without doubt my biggest CS pet peeve.

[Craig Karlberg]

Here's my CS strategy in terms of going on & freezing:

2,3,4,5 - Q,K,A :  Definitely call'em.

7,8,9:  Definitely freeze(or change if you won the question or earned the right to change it in the Money Cards).

5,6 - 10,J:  Borderline.  This is where your instincts take over.  The only thing to figure out is which cards will show up next against the stack.  If it's in your favor, call'em.  If not, freeze(or change) & hope that your opponent will suffer the consequenceses of their action.

[Ian Wallis]

The easiest thing is say is that the contestants did what the coordinators told them to do--and if they suggested that they not freeze on a 6 or 10, the contestants could follow their lead.

If the contestant coordinators did tell contestants not to freeze on a 6 or 10, I'm kind of surprised.  Isn't that the same as telling them how to play the game?  I always thought that maybe they were given some strategies and ideas on what to do in certain situations, but the decision on how to play was up to them.  If I was on that show and wanted to freeze on a 6 or 10, I'd do so even if the coordinators suggested not to - it's my money I'm potentially playing with, not theirs.  

5,6 - 10,J: Borderline. This is where your instincts take over. The only thing to figure out is which cards will show up next against the stack. If it's in your favor, call'em.

I always thought the 5s and Js were pretty good cards, but that's why Jim (and sometimes Bob) told the players to try to remember what's been played.  If you have a 10 and a lot of face cards have already come out, the odds are much better the next card will be lower and it's probably worth the risk.  If you've seen a lot of lower cards already, it would probably be a good idea to freeze as a high card is due sooner or later.

Another thing to consider is how many of the 52 cards will actually be played in an average match.  I'd be most games didn't go through more than 20 at the most.

[gameshowguy2000]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 03:56 AM\'] Here's my CS strategy in terms of going on & freezing:

2,3,4,5 - Q,K,A :  Definitely call'em.

7,8,9:  Definitely freeze(or change if you won the question or earned the right to change it in the Money Cards).

5,6 - 10,J:  Borderline.  This is where your instincts take over.  The only thing to figure out is which cards will show up next against the stack.  If it's in your favor, call'em.  If not, freeze(or change) & hope that your opponent will suffer the consequenceses of their action. [/quote]
 I agree with those strategies.

I mean, what are the odds of seeing an Ace after you call "lower than a King" or a Deuce after you call "higher than a 3"? Very slim.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 02:00 PM\'] [quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 03:56 AM\'] Here's my CS strategy in terms of going on & freezing:

2,3,4,5 - Q,K,A :  Definitely call'em.

7,8,9:  Definitely freeze(or change if you won the question or earned the right to change it in the Money Cards).

5,6 - 10,J:  Borderline.  This is where your instincts take over.  The only thing to figure out is which cards will show up next against the stack.  If it's in your favor, call'em.  If not, freeze(or change) & hope that your opponent will suffer the consequenceses of their action. [/quote]
I agree with those strategies.

I mean, what are the odds of seeing an Ace after you call "lower than a King" or a Deuce after you call "higher than a 3"? Very slim. [/quote]
 True but it happened often enough, especially on the 2001 version. I remember plenty of times seeing a 3/K going into the last Money Card, only for the 2/A to show up instead.

[ChuckNet]

True but it happened often enough, especially on the 2001 version. I remember plenty of times seeing a 3/K going into the last Money Card, only for the 2/A to show up instead.

As per Brad Francini, that actually happened a few times when CS was played at GSC7 in '97.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")