$ale

[golden-road]

I've been thinking about this, and I wanted to run it by you guys. The rule was that if a player lost the game, and didn't clear the Winner's Board, they would keep all WB earnings; the risk for the $50,000 comes in if all prizes are taken off. My question is this: in your opinion, were there any occasions in which it looked like a player was playing at less then their full potential? I'm not saying a blatant lack of effort; just a champion who was looking to lose so they wouldn't have to risk what they've won.

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'golden-road\' date=\'Aug 12 2005, 11:26 AM\']My question is this: in your opinion, were there any occasions in which it looked like a player was playing at less then their full potential? I'm not saying a blatant lack of effort; just a champion who was looking to lose so they wouldn't have to risk what they've won.

[snapback]93980[/snapback]

[/quote]
Wow.

Oy.

Sheesh.

Doug -- and the countdown to 1400 recontinues

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'golden-road\' date=\'Aug 12 2005, 11:26 AM\']The rule was that if a player lost the game, and didn't clear the Winner's Board, they would keep all WB earnings; the risk for the $50,000 comes in if all prizes are taken off. My question is this: in your opinion, were there any occasions in which it looked like a player was playing at less then their full potential? I'm not saying a blatant lack of effort; just a champion who was looking to lose so they wouldn't have to risk what they've won.

[snapback]93980[/snapback]

[/quote]
Well, you see, in this instance, the way to go would be to elect not to play the 11th game so you'd know the Winner's (Winners'?) Board cash and prizes were safe. You weren't forced to play the game where the stuff was risked.