The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Don Howard on January 30, 2009, 02:50:53 PM
-
Do they make you more excited about the vying for the grand prize or don't you give a damn?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'207224\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 02:50 PM\']
Do they make you more excited about the vying for the grand prize or don't you give a damn?
[/quote]
My preference would be to play for the maximum top prize every time. It seems a little unfair that someone can swoop in at the whim of a contestant coordinator and take the jackpot other people built up.
-
Progressive jackpots are also a little tougher on the prize budget than a fixed prize, since in essence, you're paying out the prize increment for every single contestant who plays.
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'207226\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 03:58 PM\']
Progressive jackpots are also a little tougher on the prize budget than a fixed prize, since in essence, you're paying out the prize increment for every single contestant who plays.
[/quote]
In most cases, yes, but there are also other ways to look at this issue. If the jackpot resets to the increment amount each time its won (as in Super Password), the budget amount is the same. If 5 people win the Super Password jackpot over Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs-Fri, they've given away $5k each time for a total of $25k. If the contestants miss Mon-Thurs and someone wins on Friday, they still give away $25k. With that and the Ca$hword, each full round of Super Password essentially costs the production company $6,600-$7,000, depending on how many main round puzzles are played.
-
[quote name=\'jmangin\' post=\'207227\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 01:18 PM\']
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'207226\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 03:58 PM\']
Progressive jackpots are also a little tougher on the prize budget than a fixed prize, since in essence, you're paying out the prize increment for every single contestant who plays.
[/quote]
In most cases, yes, but there are also other ways to look at this issue. If the jackpot resets to the increment amount each time its won (as in Super Password), the budget amount is the same. If 5 people win the Super Password jackpot over Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs-Fri, they've given away $5k each time for a total of $25k. If the contestants miss Mon-Thurs and someone wins on Friday, they still give away $25k. With that and the Ca$hword, each full round of Super Password essentially costs the production company $6,600-$7,000, depending on how many main round puzzles are played.
[/quote]
Proving nothing more than the fact that it makes the budget more predictable. You can do the progressive jackpot, in which case you pay the $5k for every round you play (In fact, you pay more than that, since non-winners get consolation money), or you can keep it at a set $5k, in which case you pay less than you otherwise would, since not everyone is going to win.
-
With Super Password, though, that $25k win doesn't include the several hundred dollars per day paid out for unsuccessful attempts. Compare to the progressives on shows like WordPlay or All Star Blitz.
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'207228\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 01:28 PM\']
Proving nothing more than the fact that it makes the budget more predictable.[/quote]
Exactly right, and I believe this was Jacob's point. (And, if you put a ceiling on the jackpot as SP did, you start saving money every time it doesn't pay out once it starts bumping up against the ceiling, but for the purposes of this discussion that isn't really relevant.)
That doesn't make it tougher on the budget; that makes it consistent. The budget is the budget. SP decided they could afford 25K in the end game per week. Now, they can either figure out how often their bonus game is won in a given week, divide 25K into that number, set their bonus prize amount accordingly, and pray the law of averages holds (and ask the TPiR MDS folks how well that works out), or they can set it up the way they did and know what the bill is gonna be every week.
I'm not a fan of progressives, but it's for aesthetic reasons. Financially it makes PERFECT sense to me.
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'207229\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 01:28 PM\']
With Super Password, though, that $25k win doesn't include the several hundred dollars per day paid out for unsuccessful attempts. Compare to the progressives on shows like WordPlay or All Star Blitz.
[/quote]
But you'd be paying that out whether you used a progressive jackpot or not, so that pretty much washes, I'd think.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207230\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 01:39 PM\']That doesn't make it tougher on the budget; that makes it consistent. The budget is the budget. SP decided they could afford 25K in the end game per week. Now, they can either figure out how often their bonus game is won in a given week, divide 25K into that number, set their bonus prize amount accordingly, and pray the law of averages holds (and ask the TPiR MDS folks how well that works out), or they can set it up the way they did and know what the bill is gonna be every week.
[/quote]
Ok, I'll buy that.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207230\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 03:39 PM\']
(And, if you put a ceiling on the jackpot as SP did, you start saving money every time it doesn't pay out once it starts bumping up against the ceiling, but for the purposes of this discussion that isn't really relevant.)
[/quote]
Was there actually a ceiling on SP's jackpot? I believe the highest won in one shot was $55,000, but I didn't think it was because of a ceiling (more like one smart person finally got in after 10 idjits played :) ).
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'207232\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 01:51 PM\']
Was there actually a ceiling on SP's jackpot? I believe the highest won in one shot was $55,000, but I didn't think it was because of a ceiling (more like one smart person finally got in after 10 idjits played :) ).[/quote]
Maybe there wasn't, if you can confirm a $55K hit. I was certain it topped out at $50K.
-
There is at least one $55k SP win on YouTube presently.
EDIT: here's one (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPe6TPE08A8\").
EDITED AGAIN: here's the other (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqxiXjHBIQY\").
-
[quote name=\'rigsby\' post=\'207235\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 02:06 PM\']
There is at least one $55k SP win on YouTube presently.
EDIT: here's one (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPe6TPE08A8\").
EDITED AGAIN: here's the other (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqxiXjHBIQY\").[/quote]
There you are then. My non-relevant aside is rendered even more non-relevant. :)
-
What about the way Hot Potato did it, by having the jackpot progress only for returning champions? That removed the "swooping in" part, though the jackpot never grew that high.
-
[quote name=\'rigsby\' post=\'207235\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 06:06 PM\']
There is at least one $55k SP win on YouTube presently.
EDIT: here's one (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPe6TPE08A8\").
EDITED AGAIN: here's the other (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqxiXjHBIQY\").
[/quote]
Interesting co-winky-dink that both $55K wins were won on the same ten letters.
Wasn't it on the 80s version of Treasure Hunt that each day the big check wasn't won that it would go up by $1,000, but would still cap off at $50K?
It seemed that Barris & Co. budgeteers didn't mind adding one G to the kitty each day the check was not won (it's far better than a potential $50K payout each day -- back to back wins @ $25K each), but why stop at $50K?
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'207239\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 07:33 PM\']
Wasn't it on the 80s version of Treasure Hunt that each day the big check wasn't won that it would go up by $1,000, but would still cap off at $50K?
[/quote]
Yes.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207234\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 04:58 PM\']
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'207232\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 01:51 PM\']
Was there actually a ceiling on SP's jackpot? I believe the highest won in one shot was $55,000, but I didn't think it was because of a ceiling (more like one smart person finally got in after 10 idjits played :) ).[/quote]
Maybe there wasn't, if you can confirm a $55K hit. I was certain it topped out at $50K.
[/quote]
The $50000 ceiling was for Alphabetics during the closing months of Password Plus. As far as I know, there was no ceiling for The End Game of Super Password. If there was, I don't recall it being mentioned. I did wonder what would happen if it reached $100,000 since there wasn't sufficient room for it on the readout.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'207239\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 07:33 PM\']
It seemed that Barris & Co. budgeteers didn't mind adding one G to the kitty each day the check was not won (it's far better than a potential $50K payout each day -- back to back wins @ $25K each), but why stop at $50K?
[/quote]
Probably because $50K was the biggest hit they were willing to take to their budget at any one time. Prize budgets don't carry over one week to the next, to the best of my knowledge - if you're under budget one week, that extra money doesn't get added to the prize budget the following week. So if the jackpot just kept growing for three months unabated, then you'd have to deal with the eventuality that someone's going to sock you for a $100K+ payday - which would probably put you in the red for a good long while. Capping the jackpot at $50K helps mitigate the shock to your finances that a jackpot win would cause while still generating the kind of excitement that a progressive jackpot is intended to create.
(Besides, considering that it would take five weeks to reach the maximum payout, they probably figured viewers would be less interested in the amount and more interested in just giving the damn thing away already.)
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'207224\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 11:50 AM\']Do they make you more excited about the vying for the grand prize or don't you give a damn?[/quote]Nope. I think they're a cheap way to generate excitement rather than having that excitement come from the game itself.
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'207237\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 03:57 PM\']What about the way Hot Potato did it, by having the jackpot progress only for returning champions? That removed the "swooping in" part, though the jackpot never grew that high.[/quote]I actually liked this way best of all, for precisely that reason. They're not "progressive jackpots" in the same sense, but I also liked the way that Jeopardy! 1978 and Sale of the Century's Big Money Game handled the bonus prize.
The worst offender of the lot? Lingo. At least on Scrabble you had the increment only 20% of the base prize, so you were still playing for at least $5,000 if you made it to the Bonus Sprint. But on Lingo, the one-ball jackpot may as well have been drawn randomly before each show, because it had no bearing on when you showed up.
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'207243\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 05:42 PM\']I did wonder what would happen if it reached $100,000 since there wasn't sufficient room for it on the readout.[/quote]My guess is that if the jackpot got anywhere near that level a throwaway bonus round would be cobbled together.
-
Blockbusters 87 also restarted the jackpot for each new player, but that system, albeit on a smaller scale, still rewards those who don't play well.
Player A goes on a John Hatten-like run and wins all ten of his gold runs. He takes home $50K in bonus round money. Player B loses his first nine runs, and wins the tenth. Not only does he win $50K, but he also gets the $4-7K in consolation money from the nine losses.
For me, shows should either offer the same cash/prize every time, or have a tiered bonus prize system like Hollywood Squares '03.
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'207306\' date=\'Jan 31 2009, 09:42 PM\']Player A goes on a John Hatten-like run and wins all ten of his gold runs. He takes home $50K in bonus round money. Player B loses his first nine runs, and wins the tenth. Not only does he win $50K, but he also gets the $4-7K in consolation money from the nine losses.[/quote] But here's the thing. If I'm on the show, I'm not going to torpedo my bonus round today in order so that I can increase my winnings from the $10,400 I win if I go 2-0 in the bonus to $11,000 or so if I win the next day. And the farther along this goes, the less likely I am that I'm going to say "Why yes! I'll take $500 today rather than $5,000."
For me, shows should either offer the same cash/prize every time, or have a tiered bonus prize system like Hollywood Squares '03.
I really dug the trip-$10k-car-$25k-world holiday setup from the last year of the most recent run of Hollywood Squares.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'207310\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 02:13 AM\']
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'207306\' date=\'Jan 31 2009, 09:42 PM\']Player A goes on a John Hatten-like run and wins all ten of his gold runs. He takes home $50K in bonus round money. Player B loses his first nine runs, and wins the tenth. Not only does he win $50K, but he also gets the $4-7K in consolation money from the nine losses.[/quote] But here's the thing. If I'm on the show, I'm not going to torpedo my bonus round today in order so that I can increase my winnings from the $10,400 I win if I go 2-0 in the bonus to $11,000 or so if I win the next day. And the farther along this goes, the less likely I am that I'm going to say "Why yes! I'll take $500 today rather than $5,000."
[/quote]
And besides, I think someone might say something if you ended up "torpedoing", for lack of a better term, and made it seem obvious.
(Not to mention the lack of guarantees in game shows, as anyone who's watched or played can attest to...)
For me, shows should either offer the same cash/prize every time, or have a tiered bonus prize system like Hollywood Squares '03.
I really dug the trip-$10k-car-$25k-world holiday setup from the last year of the most recent run of Hollywood Squares.
Meh, I thought the car-$25K-world trip-$50K-mystery was better...smacked of too cheap the last season.
I mean, downgrading is fine, but not so much as that.
-
$ale of the Century's Winner's Big Money Game had a bonus system where you start at $5K & it goes up by $1K each time you win sucessive matches up to $10K. On winning match #7, a car is at stake & then $50K on the 8th trip. However, if at any time a player fails to win the WBMG, s/he must win another match to try again at a particular level. I'm not sure but someone may've attempted the $50K prize during its run It's a good system to have when it was time to cut the strains on the budget back in 1988, but apparently, viewers weren't interested enough to keep the show going hence its demise in 1989.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'207315\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:01 AM\']
$ale of the Century's Winner's Big Money Game had a bonus system where you start at $5K & it goes up by $1K each time you win sucessive matches up to $10K. On winning match #7, a car is at stake & then $50K on the 8th trip. However, if at any time a player fails to win the WBMG, s/he must win another match to try again at a particular level. I'm not sure but someone may've attempted the $50K prize during its run It's a good system to have when it was time to cut the strains on the budget back in 1988, but apparently, viewers weren't interested enough to keep the show going hence its demise in 1989.
[/quote]
O...........................kay.................................
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'207315\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:01 AM\']
I'm not sure but someone may've attempted the $50K prize during its run
[/quote]
Rani {spelling could be wrong} White (bride of former $otC big winner Richard White) attempted and won the $50000 in April 1988.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207311\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 03:17 AM\']
And besides, I think someone might say something if you ended up "torpedoing", for lack of a better term, and made it seem obvious.
(Not to mention the lack of guarantees in game shows, as anyone who's watched or played can attest to...)
[/quote]
I distinctly remember a story about a Classic Concentration contestant who plowed through 6 of the necessary 7 matches in the bonus round and basically said "I'm going to stop here so I can win more prizes."
Three guesses as to how this story ends, and the first two don't count. (Hint: He lost the next game.)
Not a progressive jackpot, but still.
-
This may or may not sound odd, but I did not like the progressive jackpots on Super Password, or Now You See It 89, that helped keep the prize budgets in place by allowing for a set $5000 to be won per game...
I much rather preferred growing jackpots that awarded good play - that is, jackpots that start at $5,000 that went up $2,500 per game - like on Wordplay... which gave the potential for big jackpots after a few misses, but still rewarded more money for more frequent success...
-
With payouts like those on Blockbusters '87, or Whew! for that matter (win the bonus round and you're done), it's not so much that you're giving more money to contestants who are worse at the end game. Rather, the "problem" (if you think it is one, and I do somewhat) is that there's a point where the contestants are kicked out of the studio due to # of wins or amount of money won. Blockbusters players who are very good at the bonus round are, on average, going to have a better chance of sticking around for 30 or 40 consecutive games and winning tons of money than are the endurance types.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'207319\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 08:18 AM\']
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'207315\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:01 AM\']
I'm not sure but someone may've attempted the $50K prize during its run
[/quote]
Rani {spelling could be wrong} White (bride of former $otC big winner Richard White) attempted and won the $50000 in April 1988.
[/quote]
And Phil Cambry did it again in October...came up short.
Craig could've found it out...what with this big thing called the Internet and all...
Just remember this, though. (http://\"http://paxarcana.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ted_stevens_truck.jpg\")
-
I've never minded progressive jackpots - the day we eliminate being lucky in being in the right place at the right time from gameshows is the day we might as well all pack it in and go home.
The problem is what happens after a large uncapped Progjack (thanks) gets won and it goes back to the minimum. Schlag den Raab offers €500,000 a throw on a monthly basis which rollsover when it isn't won, but when it is won then €500,000 is still worth getting excited about. Does anyone know what the €1.8m jackpot on Passaparabola dropped to after it got won? If it's just €10,000 that's going to seem... rather disappointing.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207352\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:33 PM\']Craig could've found it out...what with this big thing called the Internet and all...[/quote]Anything can be found out using the internet.
I'm fairly certain you've asked a few questions in your time on the board, and I don't think anyone has hopped on your case for doing so.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'207397\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 07:06 AM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207352\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:33 PM\']
[/quote](snipped)
[/quote](snipped)
Aw geez, (you know the rest...);)
As for the topic, the best such jackpot implementation I've ever seen is Aussie Temptation's (I detest having to qualify this: why, FMNA, did you have to make our version such garbage?) Ten Right cash jackpot format. My ideal $ale of the Century revival would use this bonus format combined with the classic shopping endgame (theoretically an excellent champion could win over $1,000,000 without cheapening the spirit of the game as we know and love it).
-
[quote name=\'Tony Peters\' post=\'207405\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 08:28 AM\']
As for the topic, the best such jackpot implementation I've ever seen is Aussie Temptation's (I detest having to qualify this: why, FMNA, did you have to make our version such garbage?) Ten Right cash jackpot format.[/quote]
Personally, I liked the climbing money ladder in Ten In A Row better, but I understand how people might have thought it was broken, seeing as you bomb one at the end and you're screwed.
The Ten Right format with the climbing money ladder would have been ideal to me.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'207397\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 08:06 AM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207352\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:33 PM\']Craig could've found it out...what with this big thing called the Internet and all...[/quote]Anything can be found out using the internet.
I'm fairly certain you've asked a few questions in your time on the board, and I don't think anyone has hopped on your case for doing so.
[/quote]
Mark defending Karlberg. Wow. Never thought I'd see the day.
My point was that yeah, I'll ask a question, but I don't usually ask unless I can't find the info out somewhere else OR there's someone here with specific knowledge on what I want to know. Craig never seems to want to be bothered to do so.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'207237\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 03:57 PM\']
What about the way Hot Potato did it, by having the jackpot progress only for returning champions? That removed the "swooping in" part, though the jackpot never grew that high.
[/quote]
Maybe this hasn't been mentioned because we're just assuming everyone knows it, but $20K Pyramid also reset the jackpot for each champion. First game was $10K, second $15K, and $20K after that.
-
[quote name=\'fishbulb\' post=\'207418\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:22 PM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'207237\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 03:57 PM\']
What about the way Hot Potato did it, by having the jackpot progress only for returning champions? That removed the "swooping in" part, though the jackpot never grew that high.
[/quote]
Maybe this hasn't been mentioned because we're just assuming everyone knows it, but $20K Pyramid also reset the jackpot for each champion. First game was $10K, second $15K, and $20K after that.
[/quote]
I'm a little surprised someone didn't mention it...but hey.
I distinctly remember a story about a Classic Concentration contestant who plowed through 6 of the necessary 7 matches in the bonus round and basically said "I'm going to stop here so I can win more prizes."
Three guesses as to how this story ends, and the first two don't count. (Hint: He lost the next game.)
Karma's a bitch, I guess.
Why do that? Unless the car he would've had left was a complete and utter POS (Yugo) I couldn't grasp that concept.
-
[quote name=\'fishbulb\' post=\'207418\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 01:22 PM\']
Maybe this hasn't been mentioned because we're just assuming everyone knows it, but $20K Pyramid also reset the jackpot for each champion. First game was $10K, second $15K, and $20K after that.
[/quote]
Yeah, but on $20K Pyramid, didn't you retire after a Winner's Circle win? If so, then I would have inverted the money system, and given the $20K for a win the first time out, and then gone down from there. But then again, it's not my prize budget.
Or just keep both players on for the entire show, playing both WCs for $10K.
-
[quote name=\'fishbulb\' post=\'207418\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:22 PM\']Maybe this hasn't been mentioned because we're just assuming everyone knows it, but $20K Pyramid also reset the jackpot for each champion. First game was $10K, second $15K, and $20K after that.[/quote]
That also goes to the point about rewarding players who don't do as well. If you're the greatest Pyramid player in the world, then you win your first Winner's Circle and you "only" go home with $10,000. If you're not quite as good, you struggle and eventually win, for which you earn twice as much. Something about that struck me as wrong even in 1976. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it "unfair", just "wrong".
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'207422\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:54 PM\']
Yeah, but on $20K Pyramid, didn't you retire after a Winner's Circle win?
[/quote]
Yes.
If so, then I would have inverted the money system, and given the $20K for a win the first time out, and then gone down from there. But then again, it's not my prize budget.
And it's also the stupidest idea I've ever heard.
Why are you going to PENALIZE someone for going to the Winner's Circle and losing? That may be the worst possible thing you could do, and good luck getting contestants to agree to that.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207424\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 12:06 PM\']
and good luck getting contestants to agree to that.[/quote]
Huh?
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207419\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:25 PM\']Why do that? Unless the car he would've had left was a complete and utter POS (Yugo) [/quote]I think it was just for the reason he stated--he wanted to win more stuff, which obviously backfired.
I personally think Scrabble did it in one of the best ways, but it wouldn't compel me to watch more.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207427\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:19 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207424\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 12:06 PM\']
and good luck getting contestants to agree to that.[/quote]
Huh?
[/quote]
You're joking, right?
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207429\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:37 PM\']You're joking, right?[/quote]
No, he's not. Contestants agree to the rules of the game, whatever those rules are. If I wanted to play Pyramid, and the payouts got worse over time, I'd think to myself "wow, that's a screwy way to do it" but I'd still want to play. There isn't a shortage of contestants who want to be on game shows. "Getting them to agree" to the rules isn't an issue.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'207430\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207429\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:37 PM\']You're joking, right?[/quote]
No, he's not. Contestants agree to the rules of the game, whatever those rules are. If I wanted to play Pyramid, and the payouts got worse over time, I'd think to myself "wow, that's a screwy way to do it" but I'd still want to play. There isn't a shortage of contestants who want to be on game shows. "Getting them to agree" to the rules isn't an issue.
[/quote]
Well, then, I believe we differ.
I'm one of the non-shortage, so to speak, but there's no way in hell that I'd agree to be on a game show that reduces the potential prize I'd play for every time I went back if I was unsuccessful.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207431\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 12:50 PM\']
Well, then, I believe we differ.[/quote]
I am Jack's lack of surprise. :)
I'm one of the non-shortage, so to speak, but there's no way in hell that I'd agree to be on a game show that reduces the potential prize I'd play for every time I went back if I was unsuccessful.
So you're in it for the money. Your choice, of course, but this should provide a pretty good illustration of why you've flamed out at the game-show auditions you've gone to.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'207428\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:27 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207419\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:25 PM\']Why do that? Unless the car he would've had left was a complete and utter POS (Yugo) [/quote]I think it was just for the reason he stated--he wanted to win more stuff, which obviously backfired.
[/quote]
He needed only one more match and had about seven seconds to make it with just three numbers of the fifteen on the board. At this point, the oaf said, "I have to wait because I want some more PRIZES! (giggle) (clap)". He said a few more things along the same theme but I missed them because I was too busy saying, "You're an ass" and didn't feel like backing up to hear them. Alex did say that if he'd made the match, he'd have been in line for the Tournament Of Champions where he may have indeed won some more PRIZES!
The original rule was the champion wasn't retired until the fifth win, regardless whether a car or cars was won. That later changed to win a car and you're goneski.
These are the types of players who think they're bigger than the game (that annoying Wendy woman is another who comes to mind...I'd like to take a hot iron to the wench) who make me want to grab an axe and do some bludgeoning.
-
Getting on TV/Meeting the host/Lifelong memories/Something to share friends, family, future generations with > Winning a prize
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207419\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:25 PM\']Why do that? Unless the car he would've had left was a complete and utter POS (Yugo)[/quote]
Honestly, POS or not, I'd much would rather have a car than a bunch of junk that I would end up refusing anyway after the tax bill comes in.
/Yeah, the car would have a tax burden too, but at least a car is much more useful than a curio cabinet.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'207435\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:31 PM\']
Getting on TV/Meeting the host/Lifelong memories/Something to share friends, family, future generations with > Winning a prize
[/quote]
Yes, but penalizing someone for unsuccessful trips to the bonus round < good television.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207433\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:24 PM\']
I'm one of the non-shortage, so to speak, but there's no way in hell that I'd agree to be on a game show that reduces the potential prize I'd play for every time I went back if I was unsuccessful.
So you're in it for the money. Your choice, of course, but this should provide a pretty good illustration of why you've flamed out at the game-show auditions you've gone to.
[/quote]
And how, exactly, should that?
I'd love to hear the logic behind that.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207436\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 01:37 PM\']
Yes, but penalizing someone for unsuccessful trips to the bonus round < good television.[/quote]
Nobody argued that it was, or even that it's a good policy. The statement being questioned was your own with regard to such a policy dissuading otherwise good contestants (see below) from wanting to play their game. Nothing else.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207433\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:24 PM\']
And how, exactly, should that?
I'd love to hear the logic behind that.[/quote]
Sure thing: Contestant coordinators want people who are excited about playing the game, who are energetic about playing the game, to the point where they would do it for free.
They do not want people who are in it for the Benjamins as a primary motive.
Any competent coordinator is gonna dismiss someone with your attitude in a plug second.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207436\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:37 PM\']Yes, but penalizing someone for unsuccessful trips to the bonus round < good television.[/quote]
Yes, and I don't know that anyone argued that point. All we're saying is that getting contestants for flawed shows is not a problem. Much less getting the contestants to agree to the rules, which again is just a ludicrous statement. Contestants HAVE to agree to the rules.
A lot of very smart people, including a lot of very smart game show fans who recognized the holes in the format, wanted to get on Crosswords just because it would be a fun and challenging game to play. As others have said, if money is your primary motivation, you're not likely to be selected as a contestant in the first place.
-
You know, I would be OVERJOYED if I won "just" $10,000 cash on $20K Pyramid.
Would I be disappointed that I didn't get the advertised prize? Hell no. $10K would do so many good things for me (probably even more so in the 1970s) that it really wouldn't bother me.
Same thing on Super Password. Yeah, it would kinda suck that I didn't get a shot at $55,000 but $5000 would still be perfectly acceptable to me.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'207423\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:03 PM\']
[quote name=\'fishbulb\' post=\'207418\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 02:22 PM\']Maybe this hasn't been mentioned because we're just assuming everyone knows it, but $20K Pyramid also reset the jackpot for each champion. First game was $10K, second $15K, and $20K after that.[/quote]
That also goes to the point about rewarding players who don't do as well. If you're the greatest Pyramid player in the world, then you win your first Winner's Circle and you "only" go home with $10,000. If you're not quite as good, you struggle and eventually win, for which you earn twice as much. Something about that struck me as wrong even in 1976. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it "unfair", just "wrong".
[/quote]
And downright wacky to boot. First of all, why would anyone suggest that be the way it should be? And secondly, why on earth would it be approved and become the way it was done for four and a half years? Just downright peculiar, the full business.
I also thought the $5000 for the first attempt and up to a total of $10000 on the second attempt on The $50,000 Pyramid and $10000 on the first and up to $25000 on the second attempt whether you won the top prize or not on your first Winner's Circle try of the day on The $25,000/$100,000 Pyramid was a bit bizarre. The only two trips per day Winner's Circle that made any sense to me was the way it was done on the 2002-04 version of Pyramid. $10000 on the first try. $15000 more on the second try only if you won the top prize the first time. I tend to think the first thing done in 1976 was to determine that the game as of mid-January would be called The $20,000 Pyramid and the end game retooling was worked around the title change.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207437\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:48 PM\']
Sure thing: Contestant coordinators want people who are excited about playing the game, who are energetic about playing the game, to the point where they would do it for free.
They do not want people who are in it for the Benjamins as a primary motive.
[/quote]
Okay...still trying to see how that applies to my failures to get on a show considering money was not my primary concern...
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'207438\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 04:59 PM\']A lot of very smart people, including a lot of very smart game show fans who recognized the holes in the format, wanted to get on Crosswords just because it would be a fun and challenging game to play. [/quote]I knew about the lame "play with your highest-scoring partner" on Million Dollar Password, and I went along with that anyway. I didn't think it would really matter in the long run, because I was super excited to potentially be a part of this hit primetime game show. The possibility of money was just whipped cream on the CBS sundae.
/Then again, look what happened.. ;)
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'207446\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:13 PM\']
I knew about the lame "play with your highest-scoring partner" on Million Dollar Password, and I went along with that anyway.
/Then again, look what happened.. ;)
[/quote]
I can't recall...you won by "default", right, meaning you didn't play two full rounds? I think your episode perfectly illustrated the flaw in the rule.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'207447\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:15 PM\']I can't recall...you won by "default", right, meaning you didn't play two full rounds? I think your episode perfectly illustrated the flaw in the rule.[/quote]Right. I won 4 points receiving from Phil and 5 giving to him. At switch time, it was 9-7. My opponent April got 4, and receiving from Julie I got 5. The score was 14-11. April didn't get enough to pass my 14, so I was automatically declared the winner. (Even if she had gotten all 5, I couldn't have gotten enough points to surpass my 9 with Phil.)
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207445\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:11 PM\']
Okay...still trying to see how that applies to my failures to get on a show considering money was not my primary concern...[/quote]
Your words:
there's no way in hell that I'd agree to be on a game show that reduces the potential prize I'd play for every time I went back if I was unsuccessful.
Please to be sharing with the class how that isn't an illustration of money being a primary objective.
(At the minimum, moreso than the experience itself.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207449\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:26 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207445\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:11 PM\']
Okay...still trying to see how that applies to my failures to get on a show considering money was not my primary concern...[/quote]
Your words:
there's no way in hell that I'd agree to be on a game show that reduces the potential prize I'd play for every time I went back if I was unsuccessful.
Please to be sharing with the class how that isn't an illustration of money being a primary objective.
(At the minimum, moreso than the experience itself.)
[/quote]
Because it's an illustration of how the show is structured.
My primary concern, obviously, is the TV face time and putting myself out there for the world to see. Money is second.
No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.
[quote name=\'Matt O.\']
A lot of very smart people, including a lot of very smart game show fans who recognized the holes in the format, wanted to get on Crosswords just because it would be a fun and challenging game to play.
[/quote]
Guilty there.
[quote name=\'Joe R.\']
You know, I would be OVERJOYED if I won "just" $10,000 cash on $20K Pyramid.
[/quote]
As would I. But if I don't win it and get back there the next game, I would be a little peeved if I wasn't playing for at least the same pot going back. I play for $10,000, misfire, and then I get back and $2,500 has been taken out of the potential prize, it's a little bit of a buzzkiller.
Same thing on Super Password. Yeah, it would kinda suck that I didn't get a shot at $55,000 but $5000 would still be perfectly acceptable to me.
The point I think that people are missing is that I'm not criticizing the prize money in that case, just the structure of it. Which kind of baffles me considering that I thought I made that point pretty damn clear at the beginning.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207450\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:46 PM\']
Because it's an illustration of how the show is structured.[/quote]
...and we go back to: huh?
My primary concern, obviously, is the TV face time and putting myself out there for the world to see. Money is second.
Great. Where does "playing the game" and "enjoying the experience" fall on your spectrum?
No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.
Again, there seems to be little disagreement on this issue.
So maybe I'm not understanding: was your original comment meant to say that you would refuse to appear on such a show on principle? 'Cuz you're still talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207453\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:52 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207450\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:46 PM\']
Because it's an illustration of how the show is structured.[/quote]
...and we go back to: huh?
[/quote]
Sorry you don't get it.
My primary concern, obviously, is the TV face time and putting myself out there for the world to see. Money is second.
Great. Where does "playing the game" and "enjoying the experience" fall on your spectrum?
Since on my spectrum it goes hand in hand with the TV face time and without the game or the experience the primary objective cannot be achieved...that would be first.
No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.
Again, there seems to be little disagreement on this issue.
So maybe I'm not understanding: was your original comment meant to say that you would refuse to appear on such a show on principle?
As odd as that may seem, yes.
-
Tiiiiiired of the arguiiiiiing.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207454\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 03:55 PM\']
Sorry you don't get it.[/quote]
Don't be. I'm certainly not.
So maybe I'm not understanding: was your original comment meant to say that you would refuse to appear on such a show on principle?
As odd as that may seem, yes.
Odd? No. Still contradictory? Yep.
/sorry, Chad, I'm done.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207459\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 07:09 PM\']
Odd? No. Still contradictory? Yep.
[/quote]
Well, if I'm not gonna convince you your line of questioning is being conducted under false assumptions and pretenses then I never will.
/I too am done...I hope.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207450\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:46 PM\']No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.[/quote]Although it didn't involve returning champions--I'll assume you didn't care for Face the Music either?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'207461\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 07:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207450\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:46 PM\']No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.[/quote]Although it didn't involve returning champions--I'll assume you didn't care for Face the Music either?
[/quote]
I was trying to figure out if there was a show that diminished the jackpot as the game progressed. Good example. The "Championship Round" mounted tension nicely, and didn't reward players for using the extra clues, in this case, song titles.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'207461\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 07:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207450\' date=\'Feb 2 2009, 06:46 PM\']No show- NO SHOW- should have a bonus game where the potential pot you're playing for is reduced every time you fail to get it.[/quote]Although it didn't involve returning champions--I'll assume you didn't care for Face the Music either?
[/quote]
I guess I'm not done, since Mark completely WHIFFED on my point.
Since Face the Music's potential top prize remained the same no matter how many times you went back to play for it (meaning yes, Mark, returning champions), that's not relevant to my point.
If anything, Face the Music did a downward decline the right way. But no matter how many times you played the round the top prize ($10,000) never dropped. It just wasn't always that easy to WIN it, but they never made the starting value lower if you didn't get it the previous day, right?
(I didn't care for Face the Music entirely, but for other reasons.)