Author Topic: Betting Pool... (Read 8269 times)

tvmitch · « **Reply #30 on:** November 30, 2005, 02:19:58 PM »

I stand corrected! I think the endless GSN reruns of Dog Eat Dog have caused my belief in "contestantship" to decline rapidly! I don't have any personal beef with anyone about being a contestant, though...you'd have to pay me a lot more than $25K to play naked darts.

tvrandywest · « **Reply #31 on:** November 30, 2005, 02:21:57 PM »

[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 11:19 AM\']...you'd have to pay me a lot more than $25K to play naked darts.

[snapback]103552[/snapback]

[/quote]
Send a picture, and I'll give you an estimate!!!

Randy
tvrandywest.com

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #32 on:** November 30, 2005, 02:44:25 PM »

[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 06:22 AM\']To call DoND "braindead" suggests you're looking but not seeing, it's a show with hidden depth. Theory and strategy fans will have a field day (yes, really), and bank offers are pitched in such a way to encourage discussion [/quote]
All true, but that doesn't change the fact that as a contestant, the game requires absolutely no ability whatsoever to play, nor does it reward ability in any way. It's a blind guessing game. It's a slickly produced blind guessing game, and I get that as a viewer, it offers much in the way of gauging human behavior and decision making, and therefore may very well be an interesting program. But honestly, LMAD or Treasure Hunt (two shows that I'm not fond of) have more entertaining elements to them than this does.

As a theory and strategy fan, I was fascinated by the one episode I saw, but I don't see any way I'm going to be fascinated on a regular basis when it's just minor variations on the same thing. Still, I'm not about to guess the success or failure of the operation except to say that it's nearly impossible that they'll cancel it in the middle of its five-episode run.

Brig Bother · « **Reply #33 on:** November 30, 2005, 03:24:01 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 07:44 PM\']All true, but that doesn't change the fact that as a contestant, the game requires absolutely no ability whatsoever to play, nor does it reward ability in any way. It's a blind guessing game. It's a slickly produced blind guessing game, and I get that as a viewer, it offers much in the way of gauging human behavior and decision making, and therefore may very well be an interesting program. [/quote]

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Deal or No Deal is in many ways a blank canvas for the viewer to project themselves upon.

I think the nearest televisual equivilent of DoND is televised poker - I don't think that LMaD and Treasure Hunt are fair comparisons really from the descriptions I've read. They're games of dumb luck, this is a game of luck and decision making based on utility and the information you have presented to you.

There are countries where the show hasn't gone down too well - they tried it twice in Germany and neither were much of a success for example, so there's no guarantee that it will be a success for you. I'm wondering if here's anything to be learnt from the versions that haven't been a success?

The British version had a lot of naysayers when it began, but a lot of them have come round now.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 30, 2005, 03:30:58 PM »

[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 03:24 PM\']I think the nearest televisual equivilent of DoND is televised poker - I don't think that LMaD and Treasure Hunt are fair comparisons really from the descriptions I've read. They're games of dumb luck, this is a game of luck and decision making based on utility and the information you have presented to you.
[/quote]
"Door #1, or Door #2?" Dumb luck; yet you make a decision. I think Let's Make a Deal is the best way to compare it to; yet from the looks of things, is a step down.

I know people are going to tell me to shut up, and watch; but I would rather have another 13-week run of The $50,000 Climax then have a "studio" game show presented that is of seemingly poor quality.

TLEberle · « **Reply #35 on:** November 30, 2005, 03:39:28 PM »

Whether or not it's a good game is probably of little significance: I remember "Millionaire," "Greed" and "The Chamber" all being water cooler topics of conversation the night after the shows air.

Imagine if on night one, the player is left with a penny, $1,000 and $1 million. Up comes an offer of $340,000. I can just see people all over the country discussing the outcome on their work breaks the next day. Those who haven't seen the show will tune in to see what the fuss is about, and interest will build.

Then again, if night one has the final three as a penny, a dollar and $100, with a bank offer of $40, nothing can be done. ("Ooh, forty bucks. Lemme think about that. Howie, do you have the penny on you if that's what I win?")

The fact that the show has brought about so much discussion about it before it even airs is likely just what the suits at NBC want. Sure, it's all about expected value and so forth, but that can still make for an exciting game and exciting experience.

If the show paves the way for more game shows down the line, where's the bad?

Brig Bother · « **Reply #36 on:** November 30, 2005, 04:14:05 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 08:30 PM\']"Door #1, or Door #2?" Dumb luck; yet you make a decision. I think Let's Make a Deal is the best way to compare it to; yet from the looks of things, is a step down.

[/quote]

But you're missing the point entirely. The big decisions to be made are the choices as to whether to play on or not given the information presented to you, the amount you're being offered to quit the game on the basis of what you might have, the amount this money means to you as a person, at what point it's not worth risking any more and whether you might do anyway. The case opening is, in fact, relatively unimportant.

My point about comparing it to poker still stands because basically I've seen enough to know what I'm on about.

"Simple" does not mean "stupid".

clemon79 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 30, 2005, 04:56:13 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 12:30 PM\']"Door #1, or Door #2?" Dumb luck; yet you make a decision. I think Let's Make a Deal is the best way to compare it to; yet from the looks of things, is a step down.
[/quote]
Except LMAD is "take $500 or pick a door", where this is "take $500 or pick a door, but here's a chart of what's behind the doors so you can try to gauge whether that's a good deal or not."

But I don't expect you to see this, since you're so hellbent on being pissed at the world that you won't give this even a small chance.

Quote

I know people are going to tell me to shut up, and watch

Well, the former, maybe. Frankly, if you've decided you're going to hate it, I'd rather you didn't watch, because all you're going to do is filter out the bits you didn't like and harp on them, even if you have to go over the show frame-by-frame to find something.

Quote

but I would rather have another 13-week run of The $50,000 Climax then have a "studio" game show presented that is of seemingly poor quality.
[snapback]103558[/snapback]

Except the quality of the production does in fact look quite high, which history has shown can greatly aid a concept that doesn't have strong gameplay going for it. (A certain game show featuring little red monsters comes to mind.)

clemon79 · « **Reply #38 on:** November 30, 2005, 05:03:10 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 12:39 PM\']Sure, it's all about expected value and so forth, but that can still make for an exciting game and exciting experience.
[/quote]
And the haters are operating under the assumption that everyone can easily figure out what the expected value is at a moment's notice. I will go back to my standard argument of "if you can keep a cool head under TV lights, live pressure, and 47 other sources of adrenaline, and do that math, more power to you, but you better have actually BEEN in that situation before you raise your hand."

I read Bother's comment about how the bank offer is computed with much interest. I LIKE that it's not wholly a mathematical formula, that they leave some wiggle room in there based on how the Banker is gauging the emotions of the players and those with close ties to them. For me (and I'm only speaking for me), THAT will add some playalong factor to the show, watching and trying to figure out if the Banker is gonna try to lowball the player or sweeten the deal.

I'm excited. It's still not a game I would ever play on a Friday night for funsies, with no real money involved, but I think it's going to make for entertaining television. I just hope it catches on.

wheelloon · « **Reply #39 on:** November 30, 2005, 05:33:28 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 06:03 PM\']And the haters are operating under the assumption that everyone can easily figure out what the accepted value is at a moment's notice. I will go back to my standard argument of "if you can keep a cool head under TV lights, live pressure, and 47 other sources of adrenaline, and do that math, more power to you, but you better have actually BEEN in that situation before you raise your hand."

I read Bother's comment about how the bank offer is computed with much interest. I LIKE that it's not wholly a mathematical formula, that they leave some wiggle room in there based on how the Banker is gauging the emotions of the players and those with close ties to them. For me (and I'm only speaking for me), THAT will add some playalong factor to the show, watching and trying to figure out if the Banker is gonna try to lowball the player or sweeten the deal.

I'm excited. It's still not a game I would ever play on a Friday night for funsies, with no real money involved, but I think it's going to make for entertaining television. I just hope it catches on.

[snapback]103572[/snapback]

[/quote]
Well put. Kudos to you! You hit the nail on the head with that one. Those are exactly my thoughts on the show, I couldn't have put it any better.

Quite frankly, I'm pleased when I see ANY classic or new traditional game show formats that make it on the air, even if the game is based a lot on luck. And yes, a game show that is most dependent on luck can't make that point any more obvious then when the word LUCK is in their title, but PYL is just as fun and fresh to watch today as it was 20 years ago. I have optimistic thoughts for DOND. I'm also just *bleep* happy to see a new game show idea put back on network TV.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #40 on:** November 30, 2005, 09:09:00 PM »

My main worry is not that it's a dumb luck show--it's that it's a dumb luck show that lasts for an hour. More specifically, I've seen how much stretching and reiteration they did on Greed, Twenty One, and the like. Yeah, you've got to build suspense for the big decision, but Greed would build suspense on *anything*, just so long as it put off the next question until after the break/the next episode/the heat death of the universe.

Not that he intended this reaction, I'm sure, but when someone who worked on the show says:

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 01:44 PM\']Remember, this is a show that makes an hour out of what would be a three minute segment on TPiR or LMAD.[/quote]

...I worry.

But I will watch it, and see for myself.

NickS · « **Reply #41 on:** November 30, 2005, 11:58:10 PM »

I've been able to see some of the UK shows, and my take is that it's great drama. Will this be able to get the same drama? I don't know. I will say this -- that even with 250K on the line, it's up to the contestant when to make the deal, and there are some great episodes where timing and, in all bluntness, brass balls got some contestants more money than others. That is what is so fun about the show -- how far are you going to go -- and if you deal too early, how sheepish are you going to look if you gave away the big prize?

Granted, the pacing was a bit slow for the UK show, but I think Noel's done a fine job hosting the programme.