Author Topic: Playing for Points (Read 11084 times)

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #45 on:** August 13, 2004, 03:25:33 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:41 PM\'] Predictably, this led to at least one FJ round where nothing mattered to anyone once the leader made a 0 wager. [/quote]
I don't follow:
If the scores were...
1400-4200-3500, a 0 wager by the leader would be meaningless if the 2nd place player risked $701 or more.
If the scores were...
2000-17500-1000-Sure, it'd be meaningless, but it'd be just like the real show...so I don't see how its a problem.

clemon79 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 13, 2004, 11:30:12 AM »

[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Aug 13 2004, 12:25 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:41 PM\'] Predictably, this led to at least one FJ round where nothing mattered to anyone once the leader made a 0 wager. [/quote]
I don't follow:
[/quote]
it's not hard. Point is (heh), if you're playing R&RJ! for points then if the leader has a lock on the game, it doesn't matter if he wagers 1 point or 10,000, he's still going home with five large, whereas if they are playing for the cash in front of them (to borrow a much beloved term from $otC), a player who has the victory locked could still make it an even bigger payday with a big bet, which adds SOME interest to the wager, even if the game isn't in question.

Consider how many times Ken's had the game locked, but we all still sat rapt, wondering if this was the day he was gonna break the single-game record. Nobody would really care if the prize for doing so was the same as if he had stood pat.

uncamark · « **Reply #47 on:** August 13, 2004, 11:42:57 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Aug 12 2004, 10:41 PM\']I may have missed it somewhere, but it's important not to be distracted: The OP concerns points versus money. You can have meaningless rounds regardless of which way you play. About the only advantage to a monetary score is that rounds that would otherwise be meaningless can at least have some importance. Case in point: Rock & Roll Jeopardy. In its first season, score was kept in points, and the winner got $5,000 regardless of score. Predictably, this led to at least one FJ round where nothing mattered to anyone once the leader made a 0 wager. In the second season, the producers apparently saw the problem this created and had them play for dollars, as on the regular show.[/quote]
I suspect that Harry Friedman wanted the payouts to be just like the parent show (well, except for the $5,000 minimum to the champ), but VH1's budget in the first couple of seasons wouldn't permit it. After a while, Friedman got the channel to open the pocketbook and let them follow the regular rules.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #48 on:** August 14, 2004, 01:48:29 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 13 2004, 10:30 AM\'] [ I]f you're playing R&RJ! for points then if the leader has a lock on the game, it doesn't matter if he wagers 1 point or 10,000, he's still going home with five large, whereas if they are playing for the cash in front of them (to borrow a much beloved term from $otC), a player who has the victory locked could still make it an even bigger payday with a big bet, which adds SOME interest to the wager, even if the game isn't in question. [/quote]
Exactly. Incidentally, in the ToC that GSN recently aired, the scores from Day 1 of the finals were so far apart, and the scores entering FJ on Day 2 were so small that nothing anyone did in FJ had any bearing on how much they won. The third place player could not overtake the second-place player's total from Day 1 nor exceed the amount of money guaranteed for that spot. The second place player could not catch up to the leader's score from Day 1 nor exceed the guaranteed total for second place. Of course, no one has ever had enough in the ToC to even have a chance at topping that prize. As a result, that day's FJ was a complete and utter waste of time. (A pity, too, since I remember that I got it.)

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #49 on:** August 14, 2004, 12:56:29 PM »

Quote

The scoring systems on shows like Go!, Body Language, Password Plus, and Super Password are more comfortable with me than the bluffs and not winning by default on Hollywood Squares and Battlestars

That's the one thing that always bugged me about the original "Hollywood Squares". You couldn't win by default if it gave you three-in-a-row, but you could win by default if it gave you a five-square win. Huh?

The Bergeron version got it right...you ALWAYS have to earn the win yourself.

adamjk · « **Reply #50 on:** August 14, 2004, 01:02:24 PM »

Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?

ChuckNet · « **Reply #51 on:** August 14, 2004, 02:18:21 PM »

Quote

Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?

Right the 2nd time...on both the Marshall and Davidson versions, you could win by default if going for a 5-square win...this was originally the rule on Bergeron's version, but Whoopi complained about it after the situation occured on the 1st taped ep, so they changed it.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

gsnstooge · « **Reply #52 on:** August 14, 2004, 02:45:05 PM »

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:18 PM\']

Quote

Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?

Right the 2nd time...on both the Marshall and Davidson versions, you could win by default if going for a 5-square win...this was originally the rule on Bergeron's version, but Whoopi complained about it after the situation occured on the 1st taped ep, so they changed it.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
If Whoopi NEVER complained, then there would have been no telling if there was a "YOU FOOL!" I wonder if Whoopi was ever thinking about if the gameplay could be faster or slower when she complained about it.

gsnstooge · « **Reply #53 on:** August 18, 2004, 08:37:55 AM »

I am more of a "straight-forward-into-the-game" type of person. Which is probably why I do NOT like bluffs.

clemon79 · « **Reply #54 on:** August 18, 2004, 11:40:26 AM »

[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 05:37 AM\'] I am more of a "straight-forward-into-the-game" type of person. Which is probably why I do NOT like bluffs. [/quote]
Huh?

tommycharles · « **Reply #55 on:** August 18, 2004, 11:45:00 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 10:40 AM\'] [quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 05:37 AM\'] I am more of a "straight-forward-into-the-game" type of person. Which is probably why I do NOT like bluffs. [/quote]
Huh? [/quote]
You would rather see squares without any of the bluffs? Good lord that would be boring. The Bergeron version (particularly the 2nd year) was great at allowing enough time for jokes *and* still getting in enough game time.

gsnstooge · « **Reply #56 on:** August 28, 2004, 09:08:30 PM »

[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:45 PM\'] [quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:18 PM\']

Quote

Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?

Right the 2nd time...on both the Marshall and Davidson versions, you could win by default if going for a 5-square win...this was originally the rule on Bergeron's version, but Whoopi complained about it after the situation occured on the 1st taped ep, so they changed it.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
If Whoopi NEVER complained, then there would have been no telling if there was a "YOU FOOL!" I wonder if Whoopi was ever thinking about if the gameplay could be faster or slower when she complained about it. [/quote]
Maybe bluffs and NOT winning by default would have been on the MG-HS had Mark Goodson NOT been a perfectionist (sorry if this a while for a post like this).

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #57 on:** August 28, 2004, 09:20:24 PM »

[quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 09:08 PM\'] [quote name=\'gsnstooge\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:45 PM\'] [quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 14 2004, 01:18 PM\']

Quote

Was that on just the Davidson run, or was it used on both that and the original?

Right the 2nd time...on both the Marshall and Davidson versions, you could win by default if going for a 5-square win...this was originally the rule on Bergeron's version, but Whoopi complained about it after the situation occured on the 1st taped ep, so they changed it.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
If Whoopi NEVER complained, then there would have been no telling if there was a "YOU FOOL!" I wonder if Whoopi was ever thinking about if the gameplay could be faster or slower when she complained about it. [/quote]
Maybe bluffs and NOT winning by default would have been on the MG-HS had Mark Goodson NOT been a perfectionist (sorry if this a while for a post like this). [/quote]
Or perhaps Goodson just had the good sense to see that such a thing was a bad idea.

Author Topic: Playing for Points (Read 11084 times)

uncamark

adamjk

tommycharles