Author Topic: Pulling a "Larsen" on WoF... (Read 19530 times)

clemon79 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 01, 2003, 02:10:12 AM »

[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 10:28 PM\'] It flabbergasts me that casinos are able to discriminate against blackjack players for counting cards, effectively making it against the rules to use your brain. Astounding. [/quote]
In case you haven't figured it out yet, a casino is a private institution. Which means NOBODY has a God-given right to play there. They can refuse service to anyone they want. You don't like that a casino won't let you count? Take your business elsewhere?

What? You're saying they ALL act like that? Gee. Shame.

Nope, you don't have to like a rule, but you do have to follow it, and you might as well accept it.

What's funny is that we've recently had a thread here about the \"casting\" of contestants which has done a pretty good job of bursting the bubble for those of us who thought that it WAS actually possible to get a chance on a game show if you didn't have The TV Look. Well, now you're being told that not only are you gonna LOOK like the producers want you to look, but you're gonna PLAY THE GAME the way they want you to, too. What's the difference?

Vegas doesn't want card counters, and Hollywood doesn't want Wheel-finessers. Same concept. Live with it.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #31 on:** August 01, 2003, 04:41:01 AM »

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 06:00 PM\']Here are some scenarios. Let's say that all players get stuck in the second round... for the remainder of the show.

1) They'll stop tape, tell the contestants to cut it out and reshoot the round again.
2) They'll keep going until time runs out.[/quote]
Watch me digress . . .

Wasn't an entire second round edited out of a show once, eight or ten years ago? They went right from the end of the first round to Pat standing in front of the puzzle board, explaining that there were technical problems or time problems or something, announcing who won and how much they won, and throwing to commercial.

I know I'm not crazy. (On this particular point.)

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #32 on:** August 01, 2003, 09:44:27 AM »

Quote

An interesting topic, yes. However, we are talking about a man who became so obsessed with winning on a game show. He also paid a great price for his actions.

Hardly. He won a bunch of money and gained (at the time) a small amount of notoriety, which he probably loved. He certainly had some troubles in his life and made some bad choices, but by no means did he \"pay a great price\" for his PYL actions. It was quite possibly the highlight of his entire life.

Quote

Pulling a \"Larson.\" This is not something anyone is aspiring to. Correct? Pull a \"Claven\" instead. At least you get to keep your dignity.

Huh? To \"pull a Claven\" (a reference to the fictional Cheers mailman losing on Jeopardy) means to let your ego so overwhelm your logic and common sense that you make a spectacularly stupid and embarrassing mistake that costs you lots of money. There's very little dignity in that.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #33 on:** August 01, 2003, 12:38:52 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 10:59 PM\'] What a perfectly idiotic argument.

The POINT of the Wheel on WOF is that it is supposed to be a mechanism of CHANCE. (So's the one on Price, in fact, but to a somewhat lesser degree.) Spinning the Wheel is not a game of skill. It's the Wheel of FORTUNE, as in luck. (Or money. I suppose. Prolly both definitions were considered when they came up with the name.)

You start letting people try to finesse the thing, you are completely violating the spirit of the game, and making a mockery of it, in my opinion. [/quote]
Press Your Luck was a game of chance. Michael Larsen finessed the board to win $109,237*. Did that violate the spirit of the game, or did that just make it more exciting? for me, the latter.

Sure if somebody did finess the wheel, they'd later have to make changes to the wheel, like make it tighter, or looser, but they wouldn't be up in arms about how the guy has totally gone against what the show is about.

Basically, what I'm saying is, like PYL, WoF is beatable. While it ain't easy, it is beatable. And without a rule against it, someone could go on, and maybe use round 1 as a warm-up to get a real feel for the wheel, (ok. that one went less than 1 time around, let's go a little harder.....That went more than 1 time around, spin it softer.....Bulls-eye.), then use the rest of the rounds to totally clean up.

Of course they can't win millions, but they could reach upwards of $100,000, couldn't they?

* = I read somewhere he only won $109,237, but was credited with winning $110,237 because of a scoreboard screw-up.

clemon79 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 01, 2003, 04:22:09 PM »

[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 09:38 AM\'] Press Your Luck was a game of chance. Michael Larsen finessed the board to win $109,237*. Did that violate the spirit of the game, or did that just make it more exciting? for me, the latter.
[/quote]
There is no question that Larsen't win was entertaining television. But not because it was a good game - far from it. It ws interesting in that he was doing what was thought to be impossible. There is also no question that his actions ABSOLUTELY violated the spirit of the game.

Quote

Basically, what I'm saying is, like PYL, WoF is beatable.

And I'm saying, so the hell what?

The only reason PYL was beaten was because the Carruthers people made a mistake and assumed it wasn't possible. If they thought it was, you can bet yer ass that they would have had a rule in place forbidding it, based on how they were scrambling like hell to find something to that effect after Larsen had done the deed to avoid paying him, and based on how they immediately redid the board to make damn sure it never happened again.

Whether a game show IS beatable on its surface, without rules forbidding it, doesn't mean it SHOULD be beaten. Neither the producers of PYL nor those of WOF wanted their shows beaten, but only WOF took the precaution to make sure it doesn't happen.

Being beaten makes for a memorable moment, but an expensive one. Game show producers aren't out to make expensive moments. If they want to augment the rules of their game to protect themselves and their prize budget from some jerkoff who wants to make a mockery of the game to win a stack of dough, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

drmusic_99 · « **Reply #35 on:** August 01, 2003, 06:34:55 PM »

Part of what makes any game show more exciting is the illusion that a game is beatable. That's why watching people spin a wheel is a lot more exciting than if they just used a random number generator.

If the object of the game is to win the most money, and you win money first by spinning a wheel to see how much your guess is worth, then it's ANTITHETICAL to the spirit of the game to explicitly state contestants are not allowed to try to spin a particular amount.

With Press Your Luck, if they wanted the contestants' selections to be random, they should have MADE the stupid board random in the first place, all the while preserving that ILLUSION that contestants' reflexes have anything to do with it.

clemon79 · « **Reply #36 on:** August 01, 2003, 07:23:12 PM »

[quote name=\'drmusic_99\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 03:34 PM\'] Part of what makes any game show more exciting is the illusion that a game is beatable. [/quote]
It is?

Quote

That's why watching people spin a wheel is a lot more exciting than if they just used a random number generator.

It is?

Quote

then it's ANTITHETICAL to the spirit of the game to explicitly state contestants are not allowed to try to spin a particular amount.

If your first two statements are true, then this is certainly the logical conclusion, but I don't see a shred of evidence to convince me yet of the former.

Quote

With Press Your Luck, if they wanted the contestants' selections to be random, they should have MADE the stupid board random in the first place,

Here's what the producers want:

1) They want the board to LOOK random, which is different than truly BEING random. A truly random bouncing light would be unpleasing to the eye on TV. The light bouncing in a seemingly-random pattern hither and yon on the board makes for a much prettier shot than a truly random light that might get stuck in one corner for a few bounces. Hence, they developed a set of patterns that appear to the average yokel to look random, which is plenty good enough for most people.

2) They want the contestants to THINK that said light truly is random, and therefore hit the button at a random time, without thinking about patterns or anything like that. This is a realistic thought because 99% of the planet thinks that (1) is actually a truly random pattern, and of that remaining 1%, who would bother to try to figure out the patterns they came up with? Isn't five sequences plenty? (Well, no, it wasn't. But hindsight being 20/20, it seems plausible.)

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #37 on:** August 01, 2003, 07:35:43 PM »

I remember back in the day when Chuck would do the \"Final Spin of the Day\" , he would aim for the biggest money wedge. Somehow it doesn't seem right that there should be a rule on a game show that forbids someone to amass the most money, but, as has been stated, it's their game.

PeterMarshallFan · « **Reply #38 on:** August 01, 2003, 07:56:29 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 03:41 AM\'] [quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 06:00 PM\']Here are some scenarios. Let's say that all players get stuck in the second round... for the remainder of the show.

1) They'll stop tape, tell the contestants to cut it out and reshoot the round again.
2) They'll keep going until time runs out.[/quote]
Watch me digress . . .

Wasn't an entire second round edited out of a show once, eight or ten years ago? They went right from the end of the first round to Pat standing in front of the puzzle board, explaining that there were technical problems or time problems or something, announcing who won and how much they won, and throwing to commercial.

I know I'm not crazy. (On this particular point.) [/quote]
I'm likely falling for a hoax, but I read on ATGS a while back that the puzzle was \"Vanna's Pregnant\" and right after the show she had a miscarriage, so it was cut to the scene you reference.

GSFan · « **Reply #39 on:** August 01, 2003, 08:16:58 PM »

Quote

He certainly had some troubles in his life and made some bad choices, but by no means did he \"pay a great price\" for his PYL actions. It was quite possibly the highlight of his entire life.

I am no moral judge, but if it were me, I would consider having much of my winnings stolen and losing my marriage quite a price to pay for a little notoriety.

You could be right, Matt. Appearing on PYL may have been the best thing that ever happened to Michael Larson.

Quote

To \"pull a Claven\" (a reference to the fictional Cheers mailman losing on Jeopardy) means to let your ego so overwhelm your logic and common sense that you make a spectacularly stupid and embarrassing mistake that costs you lots of money.

I did not realize a \"Claven\" was such a spectacular mistake. Enough GSN, I'm switching to Nick at Nite.

David

drmusic_99 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 01, 2003, 08:17:20 PM »

[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 06:56 PM\'] I'm likely falling for a hoax, but I read on ATGS a while back that the puzzle was "Vanna's Pregnant" and right after the show she had a miscarriage, so it was cut to the scene you reference. [/quote]
I'm not saying this isn't true, but let's say it is. How did they get the show to fill a half-hour, if one full round was cut, and the show was originally taped to fill the standard half-hour?

drmusic_99 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 01, 2003, 08:21:05 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 06:23 PM\'] 2) They want the contestants to THINK that said light truly is random, and therefore hit the button at a random time, without thinking about patterns or anything like that. This is a realistic thought because 99% of the planet thinks that (1) is actually a truly random pattern, and of that remaining 1%, who would bother to try to figure out the patterns they came up with? Isn't five sequences plenty? (Well, no, it wasn't. But hindsight being 20/20, it seems plausible.) [/quote]
Call it a double illusion. They want to preserve the myth of randomness, and at the same time, let people think they can still use their reflexes to stop it when they see it land on a desirable spot (impossible, unless you know the pattern.) Otherwise, why not just stop it at a random time? Why let the contestant control when it stops?

PeterMarshallFan · « **Reply #42 on:** August 01, 2003, 08:41:36 PM »

[quote name=\'drmusic_99\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 07:17 PM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 06:56 PM\'] I'm likely falling for a hoax, but I read on ATGS a while back that the puzzle was "Vanna's Pregnant" and right after the show she had a miscarriage, so it was cut to the scene you reference. [/quote]
I'm not saying this isn't true, but let's say it is. How did they get the show to fill a half-hour, if one full round was cut, and the show was originally taped to fill the standard half-hour? [/quote]
I didn't see the episode, but I assume either more commercials were inserted or an extra round was put in.

clemon79 · « **Reply #43 on:** August 01, 2003, 09:51:52 PM »

[quote name=\'GSFan\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 05:16 PM\'] I did not realize a "Claven" was such a spectacular mistake. Enough GSN, I'm switching to Nick at Nite.
[/quote]
That's 'cuz everyone around here was apparently too busy with 2-2-freakin'-7 to be watching Cheers.

Seriously, if you ever get a chance to catch that episode, do it, it (especally the epilogue) truly is one of the great moments in sitcom history.

clemon79 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 01, 2003, 10:01:13 PM »

[quote name=\'drmusic_99\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 05:21 PM\'] Call it a double illusion. They want to preserve the myth of randomness, and at the same time, let people think they can still use their reflexes to stop it when they see it land on a desirable spot (impossible, unless you know the pattern.) [/quote]
But I don't buy that. They want them to hit the button when it \"feels\" right, so you bounce the light just slow enough for such a \"feeling\" to be able to exist.

Y'ever see Second Chance? That light FLEW around the board. Wasn't nearly the same effect.

Quote

Otherwise, why not just stop it at a random time? Why let the contestant control when it stops?

Because it looks better. Bottom line.