The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: toetyper on March 03, 2010, 10:04:10 AM
-
youre a syndication executive; your job is to screen pilots of game shows and make comments about them; you get a dvd of a new show called 'wheel of fortune'
the show you see is the evolved show that the real you sees every night.
you have to write a paragraph or 2 and give constructive criticism.
.
G
-
This sounds like more like a writing assignment than a discussion post.
My Thoughts:
That Pat guy might be good for a late-night gig.
-
Theme song is uninspired, and there's too much on the wheel. Done.
-
[quote name=\'Hastin\' post=\'236746\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 08:39 AM\']This sounds like more like a writing assignment than a discussion post.[/quote]
Indeed. I suggest toetyper go first.
-
Two paragraphs? In this day and age, lucky if you get 2 sentences. And they are:
1) What exactly is the purpose of that "old woman" to the production?
2) How can we incorporate more "stunts" into the show -- i.e., risk all your front game winnings for the bonus, eliminate one contestant at the end of each act, having contestants perform additional "challenges", drop sloppy things on contestants that hit bankrupt -- to broaden its appeal?
(Remember, you asked for a television executive's POV.)
-
Put all those letters on a crossword grid.
Give definitions for clues.
Have a "spoiler" who can win everything with one answer.
Give away prizes of trips to Pismo Beach.
Get a soap actor to host.
Sounds like a sure-fire hit.
-
1.) The audience isn't loud enough.
2.) Does this show really need an announcer?
-
One of the things Sajak used to say in interviews about the show's accessibility is how easily someone who'd never seen it before could immediately understand what was going on. Despite all the flash and spice that some purists dislike, that's still more or less true today. It's also got better play-at-home value for the masses than any other show on television, and it's slickly produced.
So yeah, except for the fact that you've got a 64-year-old host and a 53-year-old model, I think an executive would be crazy not to see what a great show this is.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'236769\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 03:00 PM\']One of the things Sajak used to say in interviews about the show's accessibility is how easily someone who'd never seen it before could immediately understand what was going on.[/quote]Couldn't this be said for most successful game shows? It's the old Goodson rule of being able to describe the concept in a sentence (or something to that effect). While we may have our cult favorites like Whew!, the average viewer can't keep up with all those rules, especially if he tuned in after the host's explanation.
-
One of the things Sajak used to say in interviews about the show's accessibility is how easily someone who'd never seen it before could immediately understand what was going on.
It's HANGMAN for goodness' sake. Remember the mid-80s when there were four versions of hangman on the air?
1. Wheel of Fortune
2. Scrabble
3. Million-Dollar Chance of a Lifetime
4. Headline Chasers
-
[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'236773\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 04:08 PM\']While we may have our cult favorites like Whew!, the average viewer can't keep up with all those rules, especially if he tuned in after the host's explanation.[/quote]
My favorite along those lines are the Three on a Match episodes we have. It's late in the run, and Bill doesn't explain a thing. Show that to friends who've never seen the game before, and watch their heads asplode.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'236780\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 02:22 PM\']My favorite along those lines are the Three on a Match episodes we have. It's late in the run, and Bill doesn't explain a thing. Show that to friends who've never seen the game before, and watch their heads asplode.[/quote]
Take a look at this article from the September 8, 1972 Life Magazine (http://\"http://books.google.com/books?id=WlUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA17&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false\"): "Three on a Match is so complicated--their tic-tac-toe had to go into systems analysis to figure out why it hates itself..." Funny, as a child I had no trouble figuring out Three on a Match. Explaining it to my gramdmother was a completely different matter.
-
Chuck left the Wheel and we're are hiring a weatherman?!?!?
Charles Atkins
-
WARNING: This is a long post, and is meant only in fun -- you say "Let's Pretend", I say "... Okay."
youre a syndication executive; your job is to screen pilots of game shows and make comments about them; you get a dvd of a new show called 'wheel of fortune'
the show you see is the evolved show that the real you sees every night.
you have to write a paragraph or 2 and give constructive criticism.
As an executive with many years in the television business, I must admit that I have never seen a show quite like Wheel of Fortune. While the format is simple and easy to understand (I found myself playing along with the puzzles), I have a few issues I'd like to bring up:
* Personnel -- Main emcee Pat Sajak appears to be somewhat bored, as if he would rather be elsewhere. He appears to be "going through the motions", as it were. Assistant Vanna White acts fake as well, with what appears to be too much makeup and a trivial use (the puzzle-board is electronic). Announcer Charlie O'Donnell is a veteran of the field, but his contributions here sound almost as if they were pre-recorded for repetition where necessary.
* Set -- Very sparse, with not much in the way of decorations. The large wheel is colorful and nice to look at, although the notes sent with the DVD claimed that the green center was at one point to be used for insert shots during the credits.
* Budget -- Appears to be focused on trips, with the rest being cash. The notes showed beautiful, full-color pictures of the wheel's layouts for each round -- I noticed that 1) Top dollar is always next to a "Bankrupt" space, and 2) No amounts, outside of top dollar, use four digits. In addition, I noticed that items picked up from the wheel during gameplay (such as the trip in Round 1) were not returned to play if they were not won.
* Atmosphere -- Dark and somewhat moody; too many games on the air today use this approach. The constant clapping also got on my nerves after the first three minutes of gameplay. The theme music is extremely generic and immediately forgettable.
* Other --
1) The "Million-Dollar Wedge", according to the notes, is extremely difficult to win; granted, winning such an amount should be difficult, but hitting a "Bankrupt" space after winning the round in which the wedge was picked-up should not lose that wedge (this contradicts the official rules, as detailed in the notes). When figuring in the fact that the wedge is not returned to play if it is lost, this makes the game somewhat anti-climatic.
2) Halfway through the show, the announcer mentioned that the "Spin I.D." winner also received $50,000 cash if they were an active "Sony Card" holder; this seemed unfair to the in-studio contestants, who had far less to win in the main-game portion.
3) The notes claimed that $1,000 was added to the amount landed upon in the "Final Spin" because pre-pilot "tests" had led to several "runaway games". This said, I noticed after the DVD had finished that the lowest amount is $1,300 -- aside from landing on the top amount, this may in turn lead to more "runaway" games.
4) The cost for "buying a Vowel" is $250, which is lower than the wheel's minimum of $300; this invariably led to several "impulse buys", with no emphasis on strategy. The notes stated that an early idea was to use a wedge entitled "Buy A Vowel", but that it was discarded when it had caused problems in pre-pilot tests.
5) The prizes in the Bonus Round are all cash amounts ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 (plus one worth $100,000). The notes stated that the puzzle's difficulty changed according to the budget and the amount landed upon, then implied that this was not true and the difficulty in fact rested entirely upon the current mood of producer Harry Friedman. If the implication is true, then that is a very unfair thing to contestants.
So in summary, while the format is decent, not much else is. I'm sorry, but with the aforementioned flaws I am afraid that we cannot pick up Wheel of Fortune for distribution. As per company policy, we shall retain both the DVD and the notes should we decide to pick up the show at a later date. Thank you for your consideration.
-Daniel J. Lawrence; President, DB Enterprises Inc.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'236807\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 08:12 PM\']but with the aforementioned flaws I am afraid that we cannot pick up Wheel Of Fortune for distribution. As per company policy, we shall retain both the DVD and the notes should we decide to pick up the show at a later date. Thank you for your consideration.
-Daniel J. Lawrence; President, DB Enterprises Inc.[/quote]Wow, you'd really pass on Wheel of Fortune.
(Are we assuming that the show is completely new at this point and hasn't been on the air for EIGHT YEARS as a proven daytime winner?
-
(Are we assuming that the show is completely new at this point and hasn't been on the air for EIGHT YEARS as a proven daytime winner?
Why not? The show itself thinks it began in 1983!
(For the record, I was making my response as if the show had never been on television before.)
-
If I was watching it today for the first time, while Vanna may be eye candy (open for discussion), she's useless on the show. Toss-up is a button mash fest and takes away from whatever flow the show may have, and put less gimmicks on the wheel or gimme the biggest gimmick to grab my attention (nowadays there should be a permanent $20k space on the wheel (cheap bastards don't understand inflation)). While I'm at it, gimme some other DVD to watch.
IMO, WOF went stale on me over 15 years ago. I only now see it for Pat Sajak's receding hair line.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' post=\'236816\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 09:46 PM\']Toss-up is a button mash fest and takes away from whatever flow the show may have, g hair line.[/quote]Says the guy who can't even spell the name of a meat product correctly in his own handle. Remind me not to have you over for Prototype Night at Casa de Eberle.
-
[quote name=\'SFQuizKid\' post=\'236782\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 04:34 PM\']Take a look at this article from the September 8, 1972 Life Magazine (http://\"http://books.google.com/books?id=WlUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA17&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false\")[/quote]
Jee-zoydz, that writer is one snotty bitch! (I was gonna write something nastier than that, but this forum is a family show.)
-
Wow. Just...wow. But here's what I'd write.
Who the heck is this Pat Sajak? Weathermen don't make good game show hosts. How about we contact Chuck Woolery instead and see if he wants the job.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' post=\'236816\' date=\'Mar 4 2010, 12:46 AM\'](nowadays there should be a permanent $20k space on the wheel (cheap bastards don't understand inflation)).[/quote]I think they understand inflation perfectly. I question whether you do.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' post=\'236816\' date=\'Mar 4 2010, 12:46 AM\'](nowadays there should be a permanent $20k space on the wheel (cheap bastards don't understand inflation)).[/quote]
Until you realize that one good letter call could cost the producers over $100,000. The show gives away enough money per half hour (honestly TOO much IMO).
As for the show, it's hard to say how I'd judge the show in its current format, assuming it's a brand new show with no history. I mean, I still long for the heyday that (IMO) ended sometime around 1995. But if I had to go into it blindly, I suppose I'd say that it's too much going on, and that the Toss-Ups and constant sponsors are unnecessary. Not to mention I'd question why it's necessary to give away $1 million (or $100,000 for that matter) for playing Hangman.
I'd also question the writing for some of the puzzles.
-
Let's pretend Harry Friedman was stuck with only Jeopardy and Hollywood Squares and wasn't hired to foray into other games (Pyramid, WOF...) to try to keep them fresh. Instead, the games are kept more classic and simple... then we wouldn't have needed to have this thread...
/$20,000 space though? Good lord, if and when his forays end, I think we have found his replacement!!!!! ;)
-
Query (as the pretending continues): How many of our number would be in an uproar if it was announced that WOF would end after this season?
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' post=\'236816\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 09:46 PM\'](nowadays there should be a permanent $20k space on the wheel (cheap bastards don't understand inflation))[/quote]
God, I missed you.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' post=\'236816\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 09:46 PM\'](nowadays there should be a permanent $20k space on the wheel (cheap bastards don't understand inflation))[/quote]
Say hello to my good friend. (http://\"http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif\")
($5000 in 1983 is ~$10,000 today, FWIW.)
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'236808\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 11:22 PM\']Wow, you'd really pass on Wheel of Fortune.[/quote]
I've been lucky enough in life to actually have a boss who was an executive at NBC in the 1970s, and who, by his own admission, was vocal about passing on the show when it was presented to them. His recollection: "I sat there, I watched it, and I thought to myself, 'they're spinning a wheel and playing Hangman...this must be a joke.'"
-
[quote name=\'Adam Nedeff\' post=\'236915\' date=\'Mar 4 2010, 08:36 PM\']His recollection: "I sat there, I watched it, and I thought to myself, 'they're spinning a wheel and playing Hangman...this must be a joke.'"[/quote]
This while playing Tic-Tac-Toe with celebrities in giant squares was damn near the biggest hit the network had? Hypocrite. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'236916\' date=\'Mar 4 2010, 11:41 PM\'][quote name=\'Adam Nedeff\' post=\'236915\' date=\'Mar 4 2010, 08:36 PM\']His recollection: "I sat there, I watched it, and I thought to myself, 'they're spinning a wheel and playing Hangman...this must be a joke.'"[/quote]
This while playing Tic-Tac-Toe with celebrities in giant squares was damn near the biggest hit the network had? Hypocrite. :)
[/quote]
Damn the tic-tac-toe...I wanna know what he thought about a game show with even less game play than Wheel, yet featured a giant pinball machine. ;-)
-
I've been lucky enough in life to actually have a boss who was an executive at NBC in the 1970s, and who, by his own admission, was vocal about passing on the show when it was presented to them. His recollection: "I sat there, I watched it, and I thought to myself, 'they're spinning a wheel and playing Hangman...this must be a joke.'"
That's not why I'd pass on it -- I passed because certain aspects are cheap, fake, and unfair.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'236948\' date=\'Mar 5 2010, 02:59 PM\']That's not why I would pass on it -- I passed because certain aspects are cheap, fake, and unfair.[/quote]
Game Shows. Serious Business.
How exactly is it "unfair"?
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'236948\' date=\'Mar 5 2010, 04:59 PM\']That's not why I would pass on it -- I passed because certain aspects are cheap, fake, and unfair.[/quote]
Regarding unfair, it's hard to find very many successful game shows that were perfectly fair. If "Jeopardy!" was fair, there would be no Daily Doubles and every answer would have the same value. If "The Price is Right" & "Let's Make a Deal" were fair, they wouldn't be "The Price is Right" or "Let's Make a Deal" anymore.
-
[quote name=\'Adam Nedeff\' post=\'236968\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 02:13 AM\']Regarding unfair, it's hard to find very many successful game shows that were perfectly fair.[/quote]
Nail --> head. This point took a heckuva long time to drill into my skull, but once I got it, the game show part of my brain got stronger. For instance: in the first "season" or so of my college show, I tried way too hard to make a fair game happen in the confines of one TV segment. After such considerations made us run long, my mind shifted to "what's fun in X minutes?" Which is what a good game show should be at the bare minimum.
Although there is a way to be "unfair" and still get my goat. The British version of Keynotes had a scoring system by which winning the third and final round was all one needed to do to win (scoring of £30, £60 and £120). That isn't "3rd game is worth $1000" on Hollywood Squares. That's "my two-year old son is wondering why the third round is worth so much damn money."
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'236964\' date=\'Mar 5 2010, 08:02 PM\'][quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'236948\' date=\'Mar 5 2010, 02:59 PM\']That's not why I would pass on it -- I passed because certain aspects are cheap, fake, and unfair.[/quote]
How exactly is it "unfair"?[/quote]
Rolf's reign as host lasted only a few months? ;-)
-
Before we go too far down this "unfair" road, the producer of Words Have Meanings would like to remind everyone that there's a difference between "fair" and "equitable". "Unfair" is a dangerous word to throw around game shows.
What Adam and Jason are referring to are the format elements common to all game shows (in varying degrees, of course) that make them entertaining television programs as opposed to standardized tests. Yes, when the first three rounds are all worth one point, and round four is worth four points, that's a stupid, lazy design, but nevertheless, it is "fair".
I'm having a harder time understanding what Daniel thinks is "unfair" about Wheel of Fortune, but it seems to revolve around his problem with certain very specific rules (losing the Million Dollar Wedge when you hit a BANKRUPT) or game elements. He's also insinuating some things about the difficult of the bonus puzzles that I do not believe are based on fact.
-
[quote name=\'Adam Nedeff\' post=\'236968\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 12:13 AM\']Regarding unfair, it's hard to find very many successful game shows that were perfectly fair. If "Jeopardy!" was fair, there would be no Daily Doubles and every answer would have the same value.[/quote]
I like to say that if J's tournaments were fair, they'd use one board for all five games the first week, and one board for all three semifinal games. That, if I may say, is the definitive example of the disconnect between "fair" and entertaining.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'236979\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 07:56 AM\']I like to say that if J's tournaments were fair, they'd use one board for all five games the first week, and one board for all three semifinal games. That, if I may say, is the definitive example of the disconnect between "fair" and entertaining.[/quote]That's closer to balance than fairness. Unfair would be where one person's button was unplugged because a stagehand had money riding on the game.
-
[quote name=\'Adam Nedeff\' post=\'236915\' date=\'Mar 4 2010, 11:36 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'236808\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 11:22 PM\']Wow, you'd really pass on Wheel of Fortune.[/quote]
"I sat there, I watched it, and I thought to myself, 'they're spinning a wheel and playing Hangman...this must be a joke.'"
[/quote]
He missed the true brilliance of the idea--it's Hangman with entire phrases, not just single words.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'236997\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 01:09 PM\'][quote name=\'Adam Nedeff\' post=\'236915\' date=\'Mar 4 2010, 11:36 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'236808\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 11:22 PM\']Wow, you'd really pass on Wheel of Fortune.[/quote]
"I sat there, I watched it, and I thought to myself, 'they're spinning a wheel and playing Hangman...this must be a joke.'[/quote]
He missed the true brilliance of the idea--it's Hangman with entire phrases, not just single words.[/quote]
Actually he missed the obvious brilliance of the idea: everybody's played Hangman.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'237004\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 04:45 PM\']Actually he missed the obvious brilliance of the idea: everybody's played Hangman.[/quote]
Yeah... but how about winning $$ for playing hangman? That's like winning a game of "go fish" and I get a boatload of cash for using a small % of cranium (and others, all of their cranium).
Do you have any 3's? :)
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' post=\'237008\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 07:02 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'237004\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 04:45 PM\']Actually he missed the obvious brilliance of the idea: everybody's played Hangman.[/quote]
Yeah... but how about winning $$ for playing hangman? [/quote]Good job on missing the point entirely.
If someone could have made a decent gameshow around "Go Fish", I suspect it would have at least made it to air--everyone knows how to play it. Same with hangman.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' post=\'237008\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 04:02 PM\']Yeah... but how about winning $$ for playing hangman?[/quote]
You're right, of course...a television program where people can win money for playing a relatively simple game? It would never work.
/really, have you learned nothing?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'236977\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 09:38 AM\']I'm having a harder time understanding what Daniel thinks is "unfair" about Wheel of Fortune, but it seems to revolve around his problem with certain very specific rules (losing the Million Dollar Wedge when you hit a BANKRUPT) or game elements. He's also insinuating some things about the difficult of the bonus puzzles that I do not believe are based on fact.[/quote]
From my prospective, it seems Daniel's issue with WOF is the fact it isn't this button down, ultra-serious trial of competition discipline. He seems to be rather bothered by all the glitz and glamor of the game.
Has the show gone a bit overboard with it? Yeah. But it's still a pretty enjoyable game.
/It's also amusing to see someone, who I am assuming is 20 judging by their handle, talking like a middle aged seasoned veteran producer, complete with a "copyrighted" company.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'236977\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:38 AM\']He's also insinuating some things about the difficult of the bonus puzzles that I do not believe are based on fact.[/quote]
two words
UTAH JAZZ
my problem was the catergory; proper name
-
[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'237017\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 06:26 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'236977\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:38 AM\']He's also insinuating some things about the difficult of the bonus puzzles that I do not believe are based on fact.[/quote]two words
UTAH JAZZ
my problem was the catergory; proper name[/quote]I hate to make you bring out your Power Pad so soon, but what was improper about the name "Utah Jazz"?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'237018\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 09:32 PM\'][quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'237017\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 06:26 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'236977\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:38 AM\']He's also insinuating some things about the difficult of the bonus puzzles that I do not believe are based on fact.[/quote]two words
UTAH JAZZ
my problem was the catergory; proper name[/quote]I hate to make you bring out your Power Pad so soon, but what was improper about the name "Utah Jazz"?
[/quote]
utah jazz IS NOT a proper name
its a NICKNAME for a group of PEOPLE in an ORGANIZATION
any of those wouldve been better
but still.;.those letters.........ugh
-
[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'237023\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 06:48 PM\']utah jazz IS NOT a proper name[/quote]
You are so wrong here, it isn't even funny.
-
[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'237023\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 08:48 PM\']utah jazz IS NOT a proper name
its a NICKNAME for a group of PEOPLE in an ORGANIZATION[/quote]
How do you figure that "Utah Jazz" is not a proper name? It's a collective proper noun that defines a specific thing (in this case, a team) and it appears to be the team's proper name, so I don't see how you can define it as a nickname.
-
I'm having a harder time understanding what Daniel thinks is "unfair" about Wheel of Fortune, but it seems to revolve around his problem with certain very specific rules (losing the Million Dollar Wedge when you hit a BANKRUPT) or game elements.
My point was that, if a Prize wedge is picked up off the Wheel, it isn't returned to play in the following round should that contestant land on Bankrupt or not solve the puzzle. It robs the other contestants for a chance at those prizes.
He's also insinuating some things about the difficult of the bonus puzzles that I do not believe are based on fact.
Some of the Bonus Round puzzles have been rather hard -- ZYZZX ROAD, JURY BOX, words that will only get the "ES" at the end uncovered, puzzles that have an unnecessary "A" in front of them (like A PUZZLE PIECE), words that are randomly grouped together, and puzzles that are miscategorized. Some Bonus Round puzzles just aren't meant to be won, Matt.
From my prospective, it seems Daniel's issue with WOF is the fact it isn't this button down, ultra-serious trial of competition discipline. He seems to be rather bothered by all the glitz and glamor of the game.
Has the show gone a bit overboard with it? Yeah. But it's still a pretty enjoyable game.
I don't want it to be a serious game -- it doesn't work like that. I just want the show to have that same kind of feeling that it did in the Chuck/Susan days -- nice atmosphere, good budget for the era, returning champs...
That is not to say that I totally hate the show -- I'm just sad to see it so far from its origins.
/It's also amusing to see someone, who I am assuming is 20 judging by their handle, talking like a middle aged seasoned veteran producer, complete with a "copyrighted" company.
Taking the title of this discussion -- "Let's Pretend" -- to a logical conclusion. :)
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 07:11 PM\']My point was that, if a prize wedge is picked up off the Wheel, it is not returned to play in the following round should that contestant A) land on Bankrupt or B) not solve the puzzle. It robs the other contestants for a chance at those prizes.[/quote] Then the other contestants should have spun the prize wedge first. That is not "unfair", that is "a rule you don't like."
Some of the Bonus Round puzzles have been rather hard -- ZYZZX ROAD, JURY BOX, words that will only get the "ES" at the end uncovered, puzzles that have an unnecessary "A" in front of them (like A PUZZLE PIECE), words that are randomly grouped together, and puzzles that are miscategorized. Some Bonus Round puzzles just aren't meant to be won, Matt.
The bonus round is being played for piles of cash and cars. It should not be a cakewalk. If you see THING/PERSON, and you see that leading single blank, you can mentally fill it in with a blank. Again, that isn't a case of fairness, that's just something you don't care for. I don't care for them either, but I don't complain about their fairness.
I submit that any bonus puzzle can be won with proper letter selection and good alphabet management. Just because some bonus round players choose to do the armpit fart instead of some critical thinking doesn't make it unfair, or make the puzzle not meant to be won.
21, actually. And that was just me taking the title of this discussion -- "Let's Pretend" -- to a logical conclusion. :-)
And you have much to learn yet.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:11 PM\']It robs the other contestants for a chance at those prizes.[/quote]They were already robbed when the space was lifted off. Once it's up, it doesn't need to go back down.
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:11 PM\']ZYZZX ROAD[/quote]...I do believe you are confusing the discarded puzzles thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19057&view=findpost&p=230101\") with reality.
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:11 PM\']puzzles that have an unnecessary "A" in front of them (like A PUZZLE PIECE)[/quote]If it is in a category like "thing", it should be insanely obvious what that "unnecessary" space is going to be.
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:11 PM\']and puzzles that are miscategorized.[/quote] Like what? A jury box is a thing.
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:11 PM\']nice atmosphere[/quote]Seems like a nice atmosphere to me. Generally, a place where everyone is smiling and money is being tossed around willy nilly has a good atmosphere.
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:11 PM\']good budget for the era[/quote]You don't think a show with a $25,000 minimum bonus prize that contestants OFTEN exceed in the maingame has a good budget?
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:11 PM\']That is not to say that I totally hate the show[/quote]Sure coulda fooled me.
-
The bonus round is being played for piles of cash and cars. It should not be a cakewalk. If you see THING/PERSON, and you see that leading single blank, you can mentally fill it in with a blank. Again, that isn't a case of fairness, that's just something you don't care for. I don't care for them either, but I don't complain about their fairness.
I agree on that it shouldn't be a cakewalk, but some puzzles are pretty obscure. And yes, you can mentally fill in a missing "A" (or "I", such as in I GIVE UP), but contestants seem to pick the "A" because they hope it'll be somewhere else -- and sometimes, it isn't.
I submit that any bonus puzzle can be won with proper letter selection and good alphabet management. Just because some bonus round players choose to do the armpit fart instead of some critical thinking doesn't make it unfair, or make the puzzle not meant to be won.
Yes, any puzzle can be won if the contestants are savvy, but it seems that some contestants are not picked for their brains. I will say, however, that the latter is happening far less often.
And the "armpit fart" thing made me smile. :)
ZYZZX ROAD
...I do believe you are confusing the discarded puzzles thread (http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,19057.msg230101.html#msg230101) with reality.
No, ZYZZX ROAD was actually a puzzle.
nice atmosphere
Seems like a nice atmosphere to me. Generally, a place where everyone is smiling and money is being tossed around willy nilly has a good atmosphere.
The atmosphere I meant was the living room-esque feel that the old 1970s-80s shows had. Commercialism has really eaten out a lot of the show's time, which cuts down on the interaction.
You don't think a show with a $25,000 minimum bonus prize that contestants OFTEN exceed in the maingame has a good budget?
Some cars in the Bonus Round have actually been worth less than $25,000. And the budget has been lowered -- why else would the Jackpot be moved to Round 1 and all four-digit spaces slapped next to a Bankrupt?
That is not to say that I totally hate the show
Sure coulda fooled me.
Some people hate The Price Is Right as it is now, but they still watch it. Again, I don't totally hate the show -- my "hatred" is very small compared to my love for it -- but I just don't like certain things it does. I can still watch the show without complaining, but I can't stop playing along. ;)
And you have much to learn yet.
As do we all, Travis. :)
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237040\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:58 PM\']No, ZYZZX ROAD was actually a puzzle.[/quote]
While I would certainly accept proof that I'm wrong, I find that impossible to believe.
Meanwhile, the fact that some bonus puzzles are harder than others is certainly true. There was a suggestion in your earlier complaints -- deliberate or otherwise -- that Harry Friedman made his decision about puzzle difficulty based on how much money the contestant was playing for at that moment.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'237051\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:25 PM\']There was a suggestion in your earlier complaints -- deliberate or otherwise -- that Harry Friedman made his decision about puzzle difficulty based on how much money the contestant was playing for at that moment.[/quote]
This sounds like a job of regressing the probability of winning the bonus round against the amount the contestant is playing for. Stand by...
-
But here's the thing -- some $100,000 puzzles have been pretty easy, and some $25,000 puzzles have been hard. Typically, the amount landed on should correspond to the puzzle's difficulty (a $100,000 puzzle should be much harder than a $25,000 one).
Of course, there's the possibility that the Bonus Round puzzle would be the same regardless of what is landed on. In that case, the first sentence above can and does apply.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237079\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 01:10 PM\']But here's the thing -- some $100,000 puzzles have been pretty easy, and some $25,000 puzzles have been hard. Typically, the amount landed on should correspond to the puzzle's difficulty (a $100,000 puzzle should be much harder than a $25,000 one).
Of course, there's the possibility that the Bonus Round puzzle would be the same regardless of what is landed on. In that case, the first sentence above can and does apply.[/quote]
The fact is that the Bonus Puzzle IS the same regardless of what is landed on. If you don't believe that's true, or you think it's unfair, I doubt there's going to be a way of talking you out of it, but you're wrong in both cases.
-
Sorry, Matt.
-
For Dan88's edification, here are the results:
From 9/14/09 to 3/5/10, the bonus round has been played 125 times and won 52 times. The distribution is as follows:
$25,000: 15 solves/39 attempts
$30,000: 19/46
$35,000: 10/23
$40,000: 1/2
$45,000: 0/1
$50,000: 2/6
Cars: 5/8
Excluding the cars from consideration (as they have no fixed value, and if lost, no announced value in the recaps), we can compute the expected number of wins at each level by multiplying the probability of a bonus round win by the number of attempts at that prize level.
$25,000: 15 solves/16.22 expected
$30,000: 19 solves/19.14 expected
$35,000: 10 solves/9.57 expected
$40,000: 1 solve/0.83 expected
$45,000: 0 solves/0.42 expected
$50,000: 2 solves/2.5 expected
We therefore compute a chi-squared value of 0.66 on 6-1=5 degrees of freedom, which is not significant at the 5% level. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the bonus round difficulty is correlated with the prize amount.
-
Math is hard, let's kill orcs.
-
[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'237097\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 04:35 PM\']We therefore compute a chi-squared value of 0.66 on 6-1=5 degrees of freedom, which is not significant at the 5% level. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the bonus round difficulty is correlated with the prize amount.[/quote]
If that was supposed to be deliberately obtuse for comedic effect, then I apologize for not getting the joke, but frankly, I'm a pretty smart guy, and I have no idea what you're saying.
"Fail to reject the null hypothesis"? Really?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'237100\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 04:56 PM\']"Fail to reject the null hypothesis"? Really?[/quote]
Want me to send you my college stats book, Matt?
I took 58 credit hours of math in college and MY head is spinning.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'237100\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 03:56 PM\'][quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'237097\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 04:35 PM\']We therefore compute a chi-squared value of 0.66 on 6-1=5 degrees of freedom, which is not significant at the 5% level. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the bonus round difficulty is correlated with the prize amount.[/quote]
If that was supposed to be deliberately obtuse for comedic effect, then I apologize for not getting the joke, but frankly, I'm a pretty smart guy, and I have no idea what you're saying.
"Fail to reject the null hypothesis"? Really?
[/quote]
It was not intended for comedic effect. I'm a math major, and I realize that I used statistics jargon, and I apologize. So I'll explain.
We are hypothesis testing:
H0 (null hypothesis): The bonus round conversion rate is not dependent on the value of the puzzle. In other words, # of wins = p * # of attempts for constant p.
H1 (alternate hypothesis): The bonus round conversion rate does depend on the value of the puzzle. That is, Dan is right.
I chose the standard 5% level of significance, which basically means that I am willing to accept rejecting a true null hypothesis 5% of the time. Therefore, we will reject the null hypothesis if and only if there is a less than 5% chance that results as or more extreme than the results we obtained could occur by chance if the null hypothesis is true.
To conduct our hypothesis test, we compute a chi-square statistic based on the data. We then look at the test statistic and determine the probability that we could get results as or more unlikely due to chance. In our case, our statistic theoretically comes from a chi-square distribution with five degrees of freedom. Statistical tables tell us that there is a 5% chance that a random variable sampled from this distribution will be greater than 11.07. Therefore, there is more than 5% chance that a random variable sampled from this distribution will be greater than our test statistic, 0.66. Therefore, it is highly likely that the result is due to chance. We therefore fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is a fancy way of saying we don't have enough evidence to prove that the bonus round conversion rate does depend on the value of the puzzle.
-
Did you ever consider trying out for the position of Countdown model when it was vacant?
/I'm going to assume you know what you're talking about. Never took much of a liking to detailed math.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'237103\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 04:18 PM\']Did you ever consider trying out for the position of Countdown model when it was vacant?
/I'm going to assume you know what you're talking about. Never took much of a liking to detailed math.[/quote]
No, but I did appear on ESPN's telecasts of the 2003 and 2004 National Mathcounts competition.
http://www.ascehawaii.org/wiliki/wiliki0604.pdf (http://\"http://www.ascehawaii.org/wiliki/wiliki0604.pdf\")
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'237103\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 06:18 PM\']/I'm going to assume you know what you're talking about. Never took much of a liking to detailed math.[/quote]
Head down to your nearest Half Price Books and pick up a beginning stats book. Hypothesis testing is about halfway through.
/When I first saw methods of moments, however, I made a Type II error in my pants.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'237106\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 04:24 PM\']/When I first saw methods of moments, however, I made a Type II error in my pants.[/quote]
I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. I might have needed to buy a new monitor otherwise.
-
Thanks for the correction, guys -- even if I barely understood it myself. In the most basic terms, no the puzzle difficulty does not correspond to the prize value.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'237035\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 09:40 PM\'][quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'237030\' date=\'Mar 6 2010, 10:11 PM\']puzzles that have an unnecessary "A" in front of them (like A PUZZLE PIECE)[/quote]If it is in a category like "thing", it should be insanely obvious what that "unnecessary" space is going to be.
[/quote]
Believe it or not, he has a point here. While it shouldn't have any bearing on what a contestant chooses, 99% of Wheel contestants are going to see that one-letter word, know it's an 'A', and therefore pick 'A' for their vowel, whereas they might have chosen something else had that one-letter word not planted the 'A' in their brain.
Since 'A' is obviously an inferior vowel choice to 'I' (or the never-chosen-anyway 'U') in this puzzle, I would argue that A PUZZLE PIECE is harder for the average contestant than PUZZLE PIECE would be, and that the people in charge of writing bonus puzzles know this.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'237100\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 03:56 PM\']"Fail to reject the null hypothesis"? Really?[/quote]
Yep, it's basic statistics. You take a hypothesis, and then you run the numbers to see whether the hypothesis holds. However, you cannot accept/reject the hypothesis, since it's impossible to know whether your data is just the one fluke set in a million that randomly matches the hypothesis, so all you can do is either reject it or fail to reject it.
Honestly, 'null' is the only word in that sentence that is pure mathematical jargon.
Going back to that data set, it brings another question to my mind...just what the hell is the distribution of envelopes on that bonus wheel? Only two 40k, one 45k, and zero 100k/1000k's in 125 spins?
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'237144\' date=\'Mar 8 2010, 06:54 AM\']99% of Wheel contestants are going to see that one-letter word, know it's an 'A', and therefore pick 'A' for their vowel, whereas they might have chosen something else had that one-letter word not planted the 'A' in their brain.[/quote]
Then this proves nothing more than the fact that 99% of Wheel contestants are idiots.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'237100\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 04:56 PM\'][quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'237097\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 04:35 PM\']We therefore compute a chi-squared value of 0.66 on 6-1=5 degrees of freedom, which is not significant at the 5% level. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the bonus round difficulty is correlated with the prize amount.[/quote]
If that was supposed to be deliberately obtuse for comedic effect, then I apologize for not getting the joke, but frankly, I'm a pretty smart guy, and I have no idea what you're saying.
"Fail to reject the null hypothesis"? Really?
[/quote]
Well, if it makes you feel any better jaguar, I understood it lol. Then again, I'm a Physics guy... so I guess I'm no better off null set for null set... :P
[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'237144\' date=\'Mar 8 2010, 09:54 AM\']Going back to that data set, it brings another question to my mind...just what the hell is the distribution of envelopes on that bonus wheel? Only two 40k, one 45k, and zero 100k/1000k's in 125 spins?[/quote]
It's never been publicly released, just that it has 24 ole' wedges and there's only one $100k/1kk each time.
/I'm not even touching the rest of the conversation...
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' post=\'237152\' date=\'Mar 8 2010, 12:33 PM\']It's never been publicly released, just that it has 24 ole' wedges and there's only one $100k/1kk each time.[/quote]
Back in the a.t.g-s days, I seem to recall somebody getting a copy of the rules when the bonus wheel was first introduced and posting the distribution. I was running a 'Net Wheel of Fortune back then and I know I didn't just make up the distribution I used. Hmm -- let me see if I can find any old e-mails...
There we go. As far as I'm aware, when the bonus wheel was first introduced, the distribution was:
(3) Car #1
(3) Car #2 (possibly just six car envelopes total -- I don't remember if it was broken down)
(12) $25,000
(1) $30,000
(1) $35,000
(1) $40,000
(1) $45,000
(1) $50,000
(1) $100,000
And of the few episodes I've seen this season, I've noticed something, and I'm glad to see the numbers back up my observation...
[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'237097\' date=\'Mar 7 2010, 04:35 PM\']From 9/14/09 to 3/5/10, the bonus round has been played 125 times and won 52 times. The distribution is as follows:
$25,000: 15 solves/39 attempts
$30,000: 19/46
$35,000: 10/23
$40,000: 1/2
$45,000: 0/1
$50,000: 2/6
Cars: 5/8[/quote]
I thought it looked like $30,000 and $35,000 were showing up more frequently this year. Which makes sense from a production viewpoint -- since $25,000 is the lowest amount on the bonus wheel, it almost feel disappointing when a contestant wins "only" that much. But if they get $30,000 or $35,000 -- hey, they did better than the minimum!