The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Kevin Prather on July 30, 2003, 01:18:28 PM
-
The way i see it, you can go on WoF, and after a few spins, learn just how hard you have to spin the wheel to get it to whatever spot you want. Maybe spin it just right to get it around once, and continuously hit $2500, $3500, and $5000. Using that, if you can guess right letters in the puzzle, and solve the puzzle, you can break the WoF bank.
Now my question...Can you get away with it? or is there a rule prohibiting you from doing that?
-
Has there ever been an instance where the wheel wasn't spun enough and they had to try again (ala TPIR Big wheel)
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 30 2003, 12:18 PM\']Now my question...Can you get away with it? or is there a rule prohibiting you from doing that?[/quote]
It was actually done to a certain extent; the lady who lost $50,000 on \"THE THRILL OF VICTORY.....\" puzzle. All you have to do is see how much force it would take to bring up a big money space, and put the same amount of energy into it.
-
While I'm sure they've updated their \"bible\" a time or two since 1987, a paperback book about the show reprinted the official rules from that time, and there was a specific rule against, as they put it, a contestant trying to \"beat the house\" with a controlled spin.
-
*L* Matt promptly knocked out my comment about not thinking there's a rule like this. There's a reason WOF has lasted; they think of just about everything.
But look at this logically — you get maybe one spin before the game to see how it works (any contestants know this?) And then you're on. You may get, at most, 15 spins (if you're hot and the other contestants aren't). I've read about people who believe they can figure out a roulette wheel based on a bad dealer who starts the ball the same way and speed every time. But that takes years of practice. If you can, on the basis of, say, five spins, put together the combination of speed-for-distance for the number of places the wheel could start in front of you (you don't get to move it to the space you want), then manage the muscle memory to do it the same way every time, you might have a chance. Add any outside influences (humidity, heat from lights, a balky bearing) and your plans die.
If you can put all that into your equation, to hell with Wheel; head for your nearest rocket science classroom. Maybe John Nash could have done it but he would have solved the puzzle this way:
_'M A L_TTL_ T_AC_P
\"Er, The Russians are reading my brain waves?\"
-
I beleve Larsons were pulled quite frequently with the \"Free Spin Teritory\", resulting in a player acquiring a whole bevy of Free Spins. This lead, I beleve around 1990, to the dumping of the space for just the lone disk.
-Joe R.
-
One moment I remember regarding the Larsening of the Free Spin space was around 1986. A contestant got either five or six FS tokens in round one(this was NBC Daytime with shopping IIRC). The lady then played round two and solved the puzzle without ever giving up control. Round three then became a full Speed Up round, Pat spins the $2K TDV on the wheel, and the third player solves the puzzle and wins the game for the day without EVER spinning the Wheel.
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 30 2003, 12:18 PM\'] The way i see it, you can go on WoF, and after a few spins, learn just how hard you have to spin the wheel to get it to whatever spot you want. Maybe spin it just right to get it around once, and continuously hit $2500, $3500, and $5000. Using that, if you can guess right letters in the puzzle, and solve the puzzle, you can break the WoF bank.
Now my question...Can you get away with it? or is there a rule prohibiting you from doing that? [/quote]
Well, by the definition of a \"Larson,\" that can never happen on WOF. There are a finite amount of letters that can be in the puzzle; there is a maximum amount that can be won in a round. In PYL, this was not so.
You probably could figure out how to spin the wheel to get it where you want to. As mentioned earlier, in the era of the free spin space, you could pull a \"Larson\" of free spins, but not of money.
Also, rest assured, WOF's bank will never be broken. They got 1) lots and lots and lots of sponsors, one of which is Sony, and 2) they got lots and lots and lots of viewers. They can throw away a $150K here and there.
Brandon Brooks
-
According to a recent post on the official Wheel of Fortune message board, contestants are even specifically told that intentionally aiming your spins is against the rules, and Pat will stop the game if he sees you doing it. So, the answer is no. (Though I'm sure we've all dreamed about hitting the $3500 ten times in a row then landing the mega-Jackpot with the last consonant... ^_^ )
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Jul 30 2003, 12:42 PM\'] But look at this logically — you get maybe one spin before the game to see how it works (any contestants know this?) And then you're on. [/quote]
Oh yes — the post also mentioned that contestants are given a maximum of three (3) practice spins before the show.
-
Why don't they just have Pat do all the spins?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jul 30 2003, 10:09 PM\'] Why don't they just have Pat do all the spins? [/quote]
Um...because contestants have spun the wheel themselves since 1975? Besides, it would be a lot more boring.
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 12:20 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jul 30 2003, 10:09 PM\'] Why don't they just have Pat do all the spins? [/quote]
Um...because contestants have spun the wheel themselves since 1975? Besides, it would be a lot more boring. [/quote]
I detect a tinge of sacasm in Mr. Owen's post.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jul 30 2003, 10:09 PM\'] Why don't they just have Pat do all the spins? [/quote]
Giving the individual player the illusion of control in a luck-based situation is what makes luck-based events on game shows even remotely bearable.
Close your eyes and imagine Peter Tomarken stopping all the spins on Press Your Luck. Does that seem more or less fair to you than having the contestants stop the spins? Does it seem more or less interesting?
For what it's worth, the Shopper's Bazaar pilot had the contestants telling Chuck when to stop the wheel. Even that wasn't enough to give the illusion that the contestant was controlling her own fate; it seemed as though Chuck was assigning the contestants' fates to them.
-
How could they EVER prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a contestant was \"aiming\" their spins?
-
Wow, seems like I have a reply for every other post in this topic. Here we go . . .
Has there ever been an instance where the wheel wasn't spun enough and they had to try again (ala TPIR Big wheel)
Yes, although it's usually because the contestant's hand slipped. If a contestant gives a pretty weak spin without slipping, Pat will usually just give them a warning to spin harder in the future.
While I'm sure they've updated their \"bible\" a time or two since 1987, a paperback book about the show reprinted the official rules from that time, and there was a specific rule against, as they put it, a contestant trying to \"beat the house\" with a controlled spin.
I still feel fairly certain that that only applies to weak spins, simply because there's almost no way to say for certain that someone spinning the wheel one entire revolution is trying to hit a certain number. And, you know, just like controlled spins on TPIR, they're usually going to miss.
I beleve Larsons were pulled quite frequently with the \"Free Spin Teritory\", resulting in a player acquiring a whole bevy of Free Spins.
On at least one occasion that I recall, Pat ran out of Free Spins. I believe they made careful note of how many Free Spins the contestant \"really\" had.
There are a finite amount of letters that can be in the puzzle; there is a maximum amount that can be won in a round.
[nitpick]There is no set maximum amount that can be won in a Jackpot round.[/nitpick] (Unless there's a rules provision about an upper limit?)
-
I can attest that when I was on Wheel in 1997 there was a rule about \"beating the house\" in that you couldn't just move the wheel a tiny bit in an effort to hit TDV if it was, say, two wedges away.
I'm sure we've all dreamed about hitting the $3500 ten times in a row then landing the mega-Jackpot with the last consonant.
Although it wasn't a \"mega-Jackpot\", one of my episodes featured a very high jackpot. I was in the yellow spot, and being that it round three, the blue player started. (This was pre-toss up time). He proceeded to spin $3500 three separate times before bankrupting on $18K. The girl in the red position then proceeded to spin up a $17,400 jackpot with about three consonants left, and missed. I spun $3500, got two letters, and with a $20,900 jackpot, declined to spin - taking my $7K for that round.
Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a $20K+ jackpot? I've never seen one save for my episode, and I imagine it would be hard to do now that the jackpot round has been moved to a $2500 TDV round (IIRC).
Cheers,
Ryan V.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 01:34 AM\'] There is no set maximum amount that can be won in a Jackpot round. (Unless there's a rules provision about an upper limit?) [/quote]
(Contestant 1 spins $3500)
Contestant 1: Is there a Z?
Pat: For the last time, no!!!
(Contestant 2 spins $3500)
Contestant 2: Is there a Z?
(Pat leaves the studio)
Anyway, there's no upper limit that I know about.
-
[quote name=\'vtown7\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 06:17 AM\']
Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a $20K+ jackpot? I've never seen one save for my episode, and I imagine it would be hard to do now that the jackpot round has been moved to a $2500 TDV round (IIRC).
Cheers,
Ryan V. [/quote]
I think the Jackpot round(round two) still has the $3500 space on the Wheel during it, no? I don't pay as much attention to WOF these days, like a lot of others around here don't.
THere have been Jackpots at high as $25K or so I've seen. Back in the Friday finals format, the Jackpot started at $10K on Fridays for a time.
As for the JAckpot space on Daytime WOF from 1986-88(land on the space, solve the puzzle without hitting a Bankrupt, and win a cash jackpot starting at $1K and going up $1K a day until won), there were two occasions where THAT hit over $20K before being claimed.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 01:34 AM\'][nitpick]There is no set maximum amount that can be won in a Jackpot round.[/nitpick] (Unless there's a rules provision about an upper limit?)[/quote]
That's true, but even then, the event of all three contestants getting constanants wrong just to up the Jackpot is so unlikely that a \"Larsen\" wouldn't happen.
Here are some scenarios. Let's say that all players get stuck in the second round... for the remainder of the show.
1) They'll stop tape, tell the contestants to cut it out and reshoot the round again.
2) They'll keep going until time runs out. - They go into the final round, and no one will be able to win the jackpot.
- The contestant in control will wait to the last possible minute, land on Jackpot before the bell sounds, and end the round, and more than likely win the game.
#1 will be the only one most likely to happen, and that's only if the contestants conspire or are really, really dumb. If the first part of the scenario ever happens, I'd put my money on because they were really, really dumb.
Brandon Brooks
-
here is the problem with scenario #2...
there are no commercials until after round 2. if round 2 took up the remainder of the show, where would they put the commercials? would they chop it up in post? seems unlikely.
what i'm saying is, what if a contestant consistantly spins it once around, landing it on the big $$ spot, and after a few letters, figures out the puzzle, then extorts that knowledge to hit the big $$ every spin, and pick a correct letter every spin? (Oy, that was hella run-on sentence.) Does the \"beating the house\" rule prohibit you from doing that, or does it just prohibit you from spinning it 2 or 3 spaces to the big $$ spot?
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 06:23 PM\'] here is the problem with scenario #2...
there are no commercials until after round 2. if round 2 took up the remainder of the show, where would they put the commercials? would they chop it up in post? seems unlikely.
what i'm saying is, what if a contestant consistantly spins it once around, landing it on the big $$ spot, and after a few letters, figures out the puzzle, then extorts that knowledge to hit the big $$ every spin, and pick a correct letter every spin? (Oy, that was hella run-on sentence.) Does the "beating the house" rule prohibit you from doing that, or does it just prohibit you from spinning it 2 or 3 spaces to the big $$ spot? [/quote]
Rather valid point, indeed. So scenario #2 can't happen.
I coulda sworn I heard a rule where the wheel had to be spun at least a quarter or half revolution, so spinning just to get to three spots away would be very illegal. I don't know if the \"beating the house\" rule bans spinning the wheel one revolution to the same space consistantly.
Brandon Brooks
-
For those who have actually spun the wheel...
My memory is the wheel is so heavy that I can't imagine trying to exert the perfect amount of control in order to try to get anyplace close to even half a revolution with any predictable outcome. Especially true considering no contestant gets to spin more than 20 times between practice and their first day's game play to develop any expert \"feel\" for that wheel.
My impression is that the only way to come close to controlling the outcome on that heavy wheel is to spin not more than 5 or so wedges, which would certainly result in a warning on the first attempt, and a \"stop tape\" on the 2nd or 3rd. I know the S&P folks who work that show - they really DO watch. Plus nobody wants the viewer to have any impression of foul play; there's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost.
Happy spinning, happy winning!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
An interesting topic, yes. However, we are talking about a man who became so obsessed with winning on a game show. He also paid a great price for his actions.
Pulling a \"Larson.\" This is not something anyone is aspiring to. Correct? Pull a \"Claven\" instead. At least you get to keep your dignity.
David
-
ok, maybe \"Pulling a Larsen\" was a bad choice of words.
-
The only times I've seen a contestant consistently hit the same space a few spins in a row is because their maximum spinning strength caused the wheel to make exactly one revolution. And that never seems to happen near the big money. Sometimes you'll see a contestant who can consistently spin the wheel one revolution plus one space, which is fun for predicting what the next spin will be worth. But I suspect that most of those contestants don't even realize how hard they're spinning.
The only time I've seen an instance of a contestant OBVIOUSLY trying to control the wheel was during a Jackpot round from a few seasons ago. The contestant clearly knew the answer to the puzzle, and his arrow was in the general range of the Jackpot space. Since this was before the Jackpot space was placed directly next to a Bankrupt, he kept on spinning, trying to muster up exactly the right strength to land on the Jackpot. It was really exciting -- a couple of times he came really close. Once, he underspun and nearly hit the Bankrupt anyway. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to hit the Jackpot before he ran out of consonants... but as a consolation, the $3,500 space was two away from Jackpot, and he hit that once or twice.
--
Scott Robinson
(I'm somewhat sure that that incident was what prompted the show to move the Jackpot space next to Bankrupt the next season, too.)
-
[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' date=\'Jul 30 2003, 10:01 PM\'] According to a recent post on the official Wheel of Fortune message board, contestants are even specifically told that intentionally aiming your spins is against the rules, and Pat will stop the game if he sees you doing it. So, the answer is no. (Though I'm sure we've all dreamed about hitting the $3500 ten times in a row then landing the mega-Jackpot with the last consonant... ^_^ ) [/quote]
What an insanely stupid rule. How dare you try and make your letters worth more. With folks like that running the show, I'm surprised you're allowed to guess letters that might actually be in the puzzle.
Fine, make a rule that the wheel has to go all the way around once, so that you can't spin it a couple of spaces. That's reasonable.
Tomorrow on Price is Right - \"Massive scandal! Contestant thrown out for attempting to spin 1.00 on the big wheel! And then they had the gall to attempt to bid close to the retail value of their showcase!\"
-
[quote name=\'Gromit\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 07:30 PM\'] What an insanely stupid rule. How dare you try and make your letters worth more. With folks like that running the show, I'm surprised you're allowed to guess letters that might actually be in the puzzle.
Fine, make a rule that the wheel has to go all the way around once, so that you can't spin it a couple of spaces. That's reasonable.
Tomorrow on Price is Right - "Massive scandal! Contestant thrown out for attempting to spin 1.00 on the big wheel! And then they had the gall to attempt to bid close to the retail value of their showcase!" [/quote]
What a perfectly idiotic argument.
The POINT of the Wheel on WOF is that it is supposed to be a mechanism of CHANCE. (So's the one on Price, in fact, but to a somewhat lesser degree.) Spinning the Wheel is not a game of skill. It's the Wheel of FORTUNE, as in luck. (Or money. I suppose. Prolly both definitions were considered when they came up with the name.)
You start letting people try to finesse the thing, you are completely violating the spirit of the game, and making a mockery of it, in my opinion.
(Now, that said, there is a difference in my eyes between physically trying to finesse the wheel and using what you know about your previous spins to decide whether to go again or not.)
The reason there is no \"one complete revolution\" rule is because your average contestant can't get the damn thing around much more than a complete spin anyhow, and in many cases much less. And if you allow ANY finessing of the Wheel, then you have to draw a line as to HOW MUCH finessing you're going to allow. And then you are hip-deep in gray areas that you don't EVEN want to deal with.
-
While I do hold a similar opinion to you, let's play Devil's Advocate (because I can):
What a perfectly idiotic argument.
Not really. It's a little sensational, but not perfectly idiotic. It does have a logic, whether you agree or not.
The POINT of the Wheel on WOF is that it is supposed to be a mechanism of CHANCE. (So's the one on Price, in fact, but to a somewhat lesser degree.) Spinning the Wheel is not a game of skill. It's the Wheel of FORTUNE, as in luck. (Or money. I suppose. Prolly both definitions were considered when they came up with the name.)
Excuse me, but am I not the one to determine what my fortune is on the turn of the wheel? I set it in motion; I choose my letters; I make my fortune. I can go on a game show and Press My Luck... but do I not have the right to be more \"lucky\" due to an advantage I have over my competitor?
And if you allow ANY finessing of the Wheel, then you have to draw a line as to HOW MUCH finessing you're going to allow. And then you are hip-deep in gray areas that you don't EVEN want to deal with.
What if there is already another rule saying you have to at least spin it a quarter revolution? (I don't know if it is fact since no one has confirmed my assertion... it's just hypothetical.)
Brandon Brooks
-
Obviously the producers are free to set the rules, but that doesn't mean we have to like them. As a contestant, I'd certainly spin harder if the big money was beyond where my normal spin would wind up, and softer if it was closer. Doing anything else is just dumb. Trying to enforce a rule saying I can't do so is also dumb, because my intent is unprovable.
It flabbergasts me that casinos are able to discriminate against blackjack players for counting cards, effectively making it against the rules to use your brain. Astounding.
- Peter
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 10:28 PM\'] It flabbergasts me that casinos are able to discriminate against blackjack players for counting cards, effectively making it against the rules to use your brain. Astounding. [/quote]
In case you haven't figured it out yet, a casino is a private institution. Which means NOBODY has a God-given right to play there. They can refuse service to anyone they want. You don't like that a casino won't let you count? Take your business elsewhere?
What? You're saying they ALL act like that? Gee. Shame.
Nope, you don't have to like a rule, but you do have to follow it, and you might as well accept it.
What's funny is that we've recently had a thread here about the \"casting\" of contestants which has done a pretty good job of bursting the bubble for those of us who thought that it WAS actually possible to get a chance on a game show if you didn't have The TV Look. Well, now you're being told that not only are you gonna LOOK like the producers want you to look, but you're gonna PLAY THE GAME the way they want you to, too. What's the difference?
Vegas doesn't want card counters, and Hollywood doesn't want Wheel-finessers. Same concept. Live with it.
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 06:00 PM\']Here are some scenarios. Let's say that all players get stuck in the second round... for the remainder of the show.
1) They'll stop tape, tell the contestants to cut it out and reshoot the round again.
2) They'll keep going until time runs out.[/quote]
Watch me digress . . .
Wasn't an entire second round edited out of a show once, eight or ten years ago? They went right from the end of the first round to Pat standing in front of the puzzle board, explaining that there were technical problems or time problems or something, announcing who won and how much they won, and throwing to commercial.
I know I'm not crazy. (On this particular point.)
-
An interesting topic, yes. However, we are talking about a man who became so obsessed with winning on a game show. He also paid a great price for his actions.
Hardly. He won a bunch of money and gained (at the time) a small amount of notoriety, which he probably loved. He certainly had some troubles in his life and made some bad choices, but by no means did he \"pay a great price\" for his PYL actions. It was quite possibly the highlight of his entire life.
Pulling a \"Larson.\" This is not something anyone is aspiring to. Correct? Pull a \"Claven\" instead. At least you get to keep your dignity.
Huh? To \"pull a Claven\" (a reference to the fictional Cheers mailman losing on Jeopardy) means to let your ego so overwhelm your logic and common sense that you make a spectacularly stupid and embarrassing mistake that costs you lots of money. There's very little dignity in that.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 10:59 PM\'] What a perfectly idiotic argument.
The POINT of the Wheel on WOF is that it is supposed to be a mechanism of CHANCE. (So's the one on Price, in fact, but to a somewhat lesser degree.) Spinning the Wheel is not a game of skill. It's the Wheel of FORTUNE, as in luck. (Or money. I suppose. Prolly both definitions were considered when they came up with the name.)
You start letting people try to finesse the thing, you are completely violating the spirit of the game, and making a mockery of it, in my opinion. [/quote]
Press Your Luck was a game of chance. Michael Larsen finessed the board to win $109,237*. Did that violate the spirit of the game, or did that just make it more exciting? for me, the latter.
Sure if somebody did finess the wheel, they'd later have to make changes to the wheel, like make it tighter, or looser, but they wouldn't be up in arms about how the guy has totally gone against what the show is about.
Basically, what I'm saying is, like PYL, WoF is beatable. While it ain't easy, it is beatable. And without a rule against it, someone could go on, and maybe use round 1 as a warm-up to get a real feel for the wheel, (ok. that one went less than 1 time around, let's go a little harder.....That went more than 1 time around, spin it softer.....Bulls-eye.), then use the rest of the rounds to totally clean up.
Of course they can't win millions, but they could reach upwards of $100,000, couldn't they?
* = I read somewhere he only won $109,237, but was credited with winning $110,237 because of a scoreboard screw-up.
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 09:38 AM\'] Press Your Luck was a game of chance. Michael Larsen finessed the board to win $109,237*. Did that violate the spirit of the game, or did that just make it more exciting? for me, the latter.
[/quote]
There is no question that Larsen't win was entertaining television. But not because it was a good game - far from it. It ws interesting in that he was doing what was thought to be impossible. There is also no question that his actions ABSOLUTELY violated the spirit of the game.
Basically, what I'm saying is, like PYL, WoF is beatable.
And I'm saying, so the hell what?
The only reason PYL was beaten was because the Carruthers people made a mistake and assumed it wasn't possible. If they thought it was, you can bet yer ass that they would have had a rule in place forbidding it, based on how they were scrambling like hell to find something to that effect after Larsen had done the deed to avoid paying him, and based on how they immediately redid the board to make damn sure it never happened again.
Whether a game show IS beatable on its surface, without rules forbidding it, doesn't mean it SHOULD be beaten. Neither the producers of PYL nor those of WOF wanted their shows beaten, but only WOF took the precaution to make sure it doesn't happen.
Being beaten makes for a memorable moment, but an expensive one. Game show producers aren't out to make expensive moments. If they want to augment the rules of their game to protect themselves and their prize budget from some jerkoff who wants to make a mockery of the game to win a stack of dough, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
-
Part of what makes any game show more exciting is the illusion that a game is beatable. That's why watching people spin a wheel is a lot more exciting than if they just used a random number generator.
If the object of the game is to win the most money, and you win money first by spinning a wheel to see how much your guess is worth, then it's ANTITHETICAL to the spirit of the game to explicitly state contestants are not allowed to try to spin a particular amount.
With Press Your Luck, if they wanted the contestants' selections to be random, they should have MADE the stupid board random in the first place, all the while preserving that ILLUSION that contestants' reflexes have anything to do with it.
-
[quote name=\'drmusic_99\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 03:34 PM\'] Part of what makes any game show more exciting is the illusion that a game is beatable. [/quote]
It is?
That's why watching people spin a wheel is a lot more exciting than if they just used a random number generator.
It is?
then it's ANTITHETICAL to the spirit of the game to explicitly state contestants are not allowed to try to spin a particular amount.
If your first two statements are true, then this is certainly the logical conclusion, but I don't see a shred of evidence to convince me yet of the former.
With Press Your Luck, if they wanted the contestants' selections to be random, they should have MADE the stupid board random in the first place,
Here's what the producers want:
1) They want the board to LOOK random, which is different than truly BEING random. A truly random bouncing light would be unpleasing to the eye on TV. The light bouncing in a seemingly-random pattern hither and yon on the board makes for a much prettier shot than a truly random light that might get stuck in one corner for a few bounces. Hence, they developed a set of patterns that appear to the average yokel to look random, which is plenty good enough for most people.
2) They want the contestants to THINK that said light truly is random, and therefore hit the button at a random time, without thinking about patterns or anything like that. This is a realistic thought because 99% of the planet thinks that (1) is actually a truly random pattern, and of that remaining 1%, who would bother to try to figure out the patterns they came up with? Isn't five sequences plenty? (Well, no, it wasn't. But hindsight being 20/20, it seems plausible.)
-
I remember back in the day when Chuck would do the \"Final Spin of the Day\" , he would aim for the biggest money wedge. Somehow it doesn't seem right that there should be a rule on a game show that forbids someone to amass the most money, but, as has been stated, it's their game.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 03:41 AM\'] [quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 06:00 PM\']Here are some scenarios. Let's say that all players get stuck in the second round... for the remainder of the show.
1) They'll stop tape, tell the contestants to cut it out and reshoot the round again.
2) They'll keep going until time runs out.[/quote]
Watch me digress . . .
Wasn't an entire second round edited out of a show once, eight or ten years ago? They went right from the end of the first round to Pat standing in front of the puzzle board, explaining that there were technical problems or time problems or something, announcing who won and how much they won, and throwing to commercial.
I know I'm not crazy. (On this particular point.) [/quote]
I'm likely falling for a hoax, but I read on ATGS a while back that the puzzle was \"Vanna's Pregnant\" and right after the show she had a miscarriage, so it was cut to the scene you reference.
-
He certainly had some troubles in his life and made some bad choices, but by no means did he \"pay a great price\" for his PYL actions. It was quite possibly the highlight of his entire life.
I am no moral judge, but if it were me, I would consider having much of my winnings stolen and losing my marriage quite a price to pay for a little notoriety.
You could be right, Matt. Appearing on PYL may have been the best thing that ever happened to Michael Larson.
To \"pull a Claven\" (a reference to the fictional Cheers mailman losing on Jeopardy) means to let your ego so overwhelm your logic and common sense that you make a spectacularly stupid and embarrassing mistake that costs you lots of money.
I did not realize a \"Claven\" was such a spectacular mistake. Enough GSN, I'm switching to Nick at Nite.
David
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 06:56 PM\'] I'm likely falling for a hoax, but I read on ATGS a while back that the puzzle was "Vanna's Pregnant" and right after the show she had a miscarriage, so it was cut to the scene you reference. [/quote]
I'm not saying this isn't true, but let's say it is. How did they get the show to fill a half-hour, if one full round was cut, and the show was originally taped to fill the standard half-hour?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 06:23 PM\'] 2) They want the contestants to THINK that said light truly is random, and therefore hit the button at a random time, without thinking about patterns or anything like that. This is a realistic thought because 99% of the planet thinks that (1) is actually a truly random pattern, and of that remaining 1%, who would bother to try to figure out the patterns they came up with? Isn't five sequences plenty? (Well, no, it wasn't. But hindsight being 20/20, it seems plausible.) [/quote]
Call it a double illusion. They want to preserve the myth of randomness, and at the same time, let people think they can still use their reflexes to stop it when they see it land on a desirable spot (impossible, unless you know the pattern.) Otherwise, why not just stop it at a random time? Why let the contestant control when it stops?
-
[quote name=\'drmusic_99\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 07:17 PM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 06:56 PM\'] I'm likely falling for a hoax, but I read on ATGS a while back that the puzzle was "Vanna's Pregnant" and right after the show she had a miscarriage, so it was cut to the scene you reference. [/quote]
I'm not saying this isn't true, but let's say it is. How did they get the show to fill a half-hour, if one full round was cut, and the show was originally taped to fill the standard half-hour? [/quote]
I didn't see the episode, but I assume either more commercials were inserted or an extra round was put in.
-
[quote name=\'GSFan\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 05:16 PM\'] I did not realize a "Claven" was such a spectacular mistake. Enough GSN, I'm switching to Nick at Nite.
[/quote]
That's 'cuz everyone around here was apparently too busy with 2-2-freakin'-7 to be watching Cheers. ;)
Seriously, if you ever get a chance to catch that episode, do it, it (especally the epilogue) truly is one of the great moments in sitcom history. :)
-
[quote name=\'drmusic_99\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 05:21 PM\'] Call it a double illusion. They want to preserve the myth of randomness, and at the same time, let people think they can still use their reflexes to stop it when they see it land on a desirable spot (impossible, unless you know the pattern.) [/quote]
But I don't buy that. They want them to hit the button when it \"feels\" right, so you bounce the light just slow enough for such a \"feeling\" to be able to exist.
Y'ever see Second Chance? That light FLEW around the board. Wasn't nearly the same effect.
Otherwise, why not just stop it at a random time? Why let the contestant control when it stops?
Because it looks better. Bottom line.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 06:56 PM\'] [quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 03:41 AM\'] [quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jul 31 2003, 06:00 PM\']Here are some scenarios. Let's say that all players get stuck in the second round... for the remainder of the show.
1) They'll stop tape, tell the contestants to cut it out and reshoot the round again.
2) They'll keep going until time runs out.[/quote]
Watch me digress . . .
Wasn't an entire second round edited out of a show once, eight or ten years ago? They went right from the end of the first round to Pat standing in front of the puzzle board, explaining that there were technical problems or time problems or something, announcing who won and how much they won, and throwing to commercial.
I know I'm not crazy. (On this particular point.) [/quote]
I'm likely falling for a hoax, but I read on ATGS a while back that the puzzle was "Vanna's Pregnant" and right after the show she had a miscarriage, so it was cut to the scene you reference. [/quote]
I'm pretty sure said puzzle was longer ago than 8-10 years.
i remember seeing the puzzle solve in a Vanna White A&E Biography. The contestant solved the puzzle, then Merv Griffin ran out with ballons and flowers.
Also, when watching that Biography, i don't remember anything about a miscarriage. I'll browse the net for any more info.
BTW: as for my question...i think the answer may have been posted, drowned in \"morals\" and \"impossible\" posts, but is there, or is there not a rule prohibiting purposely spinning the wheel one around to land on the same spot?
-
I am no moral judge, but if it were me, I would consider having much of my winnings stolen and losing my marriage quite a price to pay for a little notoriety.
OK, I guess I see now where you were coming from on this. If he hadn't won big on PYL, then he wouldn't have been in the position to have had all that money stolen in the first place.
And if Lincoln hadn't been such a fan of the theater...
-
BTW: as for my question...i think the answer may have been posted, drowned in \"morals\" and \"impossible\" posts, but is there, or is there not a rule prohibiting purposely spinning the wheel one around to land on the same spot?
There is a specific rule that says you can't deliberately spin to -- as they put it -- \"beat the house\". The practical application of that rule is that you can't give the wheel a tiny nudge just to hit the big money space that's a few wedges away. According to the late 80s rules I have, the decision on whether you're \"aiming\" at a nearby wedge is left up to Pat, of all people.
After that, everything else is speculation For example, if you're getting the wheel all the way around, I can't imagine how they could accuse you of doing anything wrong even if you are hitting the same space every time. But in addition to the challenge of consistantly putting exactly the same weight into a pretty hard spin, it's also been suggested back on Usenet that the tightness of the wheel can be adjusted while the game is in progress. I don't think S&P would let them get away with adjusting the torque *during* a spin, but between spins would strike me as being OK.
I'll throw out another thing that hasn't been mentioned. One of the big differences in production between game shows of the 80s era and today's shows is that back then, stopping tape was pretty unthinkable unless the studio was on fire or something. Today, stopping tape is a lot more common for any number of different reasons. I suggest to you that if a Larsonish situation started to develop on a show like Wheel today, they'd stop tape and get to the bottom of it before it was allowed to get out of hand.
-
I remember back in the day when Chuck would do the \"Final Spin of the Day\" , he would aim for the biggest money wedge. Somehow it doesn't seem right that there should be a rule on a game show that forbids someone to amass the most money, but, as has been stated, it's their game.
Pat does the same thing nowadays, and more often that not, if no one else gets a chance to spin in that round, he'll land on or at least around the $5K space.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 3 2003, 05:56 PM\']
I remember back in the day when Chuck would do the "Final Spin of the Day" , he would aim for the biggest money wedge. Somehow it doesn't seem right that there should be a rule on a game show that forbids someone to amass the most money, but, as has been stated, it's their game.
Pat does the same thing nowadays, and more often that not, if no one else gets a chance to spin in that round, he'll land on or at least around the $5K space. [/quote]
I respectfully disagree. For those of you too young to remember, Chuck would pretty consistantly hit the top value on the wheel on his final spin. You could just about count on it. Pat has specifically said in interviews that he didn't think it was fair for him to manipulate the outcome like that, so he studiously avoids spinning for a specific wedge. That's one of the reasons they began adding a thousand to the value of his final spin.
If it seems to you that he tries harder to hit the $5K in certain situations, I assure you that's just coincidence. For all the talk of \"pulling a Larsen\" in this thread, the one spin you can absolutely count on being random is Pat's. Leaving it up to him to decide when he should or shouldn't be aiming for the $5K wedge opens up all sorts of S&P issues.
-
I don't think Pat aims for the $5K, but I would not be at all surprised to learn that the position the wheel is in at the beginning of the fourth round (and it's always the same position) was chosen intentionally because Pat's average final spin strength gets the wheel pretty close to the $5K.
(I wish they didn't have to edit out the final spins that land on Bankrupts. Those used to be such fun, what with Pat having his \"vowels worth nothing\" patter shot to hell.)
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 12:37 AM\'] But I would not be at all surprised to learn that the position the wheel is in at the beginning of the fourth round (and it's always the same position) was chosen intentionally because Pat's average final spin strength gets the wheel pretty close to the $5K.
[/quote]
I would. First, that position is set where it is because of the camera shot of the $5K space, just like the camera shot of every other TDV over the course of the show. Frames it right between Player 1 and Player 2, IIRC. The fact that that happens to be just shy of a revolution to Player 1's pointer (which is in the range of the average spin) is mere happenstance.
Secondly, you seem to be under the delusion that the producers WANT Pat to nail the $5K space. Sure, maybe once every week or two, but I promise you they're not gonna set things up so that he has a higher-than-normal chance of hitting it, I don't care what their prize budget is. That gets expensive.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 02:37 AM\'](I wish they didn't have to edit out the final spins that land on Bankrupts. Those used to be such fun, what with Pat having his \"vowels worth nothing\" patter shot to hell.)[/quote]
Call me crazy (\"You're crazy!\"), but I, too, enjoyed those moments where Pat would do the spiel only to see him land on Bankrupt. I recall at least one NBC episode where he landed on Bankrupt something like 3 times in a row--needless to say Mother McKenzie had a field day with that one.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 10:50 AM\'] [quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 02:37 AM\'](I wish they didn't have to edit out the final spins that land on Bankrupts. Those used to be such fun, what with Pat having his "vowels worth nothing" patter shot to hell.)[/quote]
Call me crazy ("You're crazy!"), but I, too, enjoyed those moments where Pat would do the spiel only to see him land on Bankrupt. I recall at least one NBC episode where he landed on Bankrupt something like 3 times in a row--needless to say Mother McKenzie had a field day with that one.
Doug [/quote]
OMG. I remember that. It aired on GSN last year.
-
[quote name=\'GSFan\' date=\'Aug 1 2003, 07:16 PM\'] Enough GSN, I'm switching to Nick at Nite.
[/quote]
Don't. That network has gone down the crapper faster than last thursday's spaghetti.
Anyway, first to clear up a couple points.
Larson only won $109K and Change. Around the $45K mark, he hit $1K + A Spin, but was credited with $2K (and the spin).
Also, the VAnna's Pregnant puzzle happened in 1994. Between the time of taping and the OAD, Vanna had a miscarriage (This was before Kid #1). The puzzle was edited out, and, I believe, more commercial time was edited in.
----
As for my thoughts on this, re: WoF....I say, if a contestant has the ability to finesse the wheel for the entire taping of the show, is dang sure about what letters they're picking, and is lucky enough to have their opponents screw up so that they get control back, then I don't see a problem....Mainly because, with all the different variables that come into play, the likelyhood of taking away more than $40-$50K is slim (Only way it'd probably happen is to have a good entire show, and then have Pat spin the $5K [$6K])
And then, even if you managed to walk away with $60K-$70K after that, you've got a 50/50 chance of only winning $25K in the bonsu round, meaning unless an entire slew of variables go exactly your way, the chances of winning more than $100K or so are slim to none. Feasibly, a person could manage to a)Finesse the wheel at all the right times, while not drawing suspiscion [Remember, Finessing the wheel to try to hit controlled TDV's all the time is against the rules], b)Have a good idea at all the puzzles, c)Have their opponents screw up, d)Win the Jackpot, e)Win all the Prizes plus the car in the mystery round, f)Have pat spin the $5K Space in the Speed Round, g)Hit the $100K in the Bonus round and get the puzzle right, and walk away with $200K-ish, but the chances of all that happening are so minute that it's probably not ever gonna happen.
At most, on a good day, as a contestant, WITH the $100K space in the bonus round being hit, the most you're probably gonna come away with is about $130K. Without the $100K Space, you're looking at about $50-$60K-ish.
--
Personally, I'd rather just go on J!, hope I can stand answering questions [or would that be questioning answers] for a really long time, hope I don't hit any tough opponents, and rack up the dough [Thank you unlimited reigns]. At least with Q&A/A&Q shows, you have a greater deal of control. If my math is right, in a perfect situation, the max you could win on J per show is $250K....Now, if you were to even come close to that, and have a long reign...Screw WoF.....AS long as you can get on the show, and have knowledge about what you're being asked (Easier task than a decade ago), then....
$$
-
The all-time maingame record was $65,250 set in 2000 during a College Week IIRC. The previous record set in 1987 during the SHopping era was $59,013(a then-record $44,300 was won in round three on the puzzle An American Success Story); that total included a car as a special prize on the round two wheel(Incidentally, in 1986 they offered a $31k Cadillac as the round two special prize once, but it was not won). The highest one-round win I can recall was $45,000 in 1994 in a Speed Up round(the puzzle was James Madison Wisconsin). Of the three players mentioned, only the first won their bonus round.
And of course, we know about the $62K \"Thrill of Victory.....\" loss from 1985.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 10:34 AM\'] you seem to be under the delusion that the producers WANT Pat to nail the $5K space. Sure, maybe once every week or two, but I promise you they're not gonna set things up so that he has a higher-than-normal chance of hitting it, I don't care what their prize budget is. That gets expensive. [/quote]
Anal observation:
Given the odds of hitting that space, hitting it every week or two IS a higher-than-normal chance.
-
When you think about it, you really can't \"Larson\" the wheel. Because there is only so much you win as there is a finite number of letters in a puzzle. Larson could literally spun for the next 6 weeks, the sky was the limit.
Aslo, the reason, along with the others said, why you never saw Larsons and PYL and WOF is because of their fast pace, it's easy to get lost in the games and forget about details, the producers are aware of this.
I recall after Larson did his deed, other potentail contestants \"came out\" with their schemes to break the bank, Larson was not the only one to figure out the patterns. If Larson had not broke the bank, someone else would of, it was only a matter of time with the small number of patterns on the Big Board.
-Joe R.
-
Just asking, what is this \"Thrill of Victory\" loss? I was only 3 when it happened and do not remember it.
-
[quote name=\'JRaygor\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 05:48 PM\'] When you think about it, you really can't \"Larson\" the wheel. Because there is only so much you win as there is a finite number of letters in a puzzle. Larson could literally spun for the next 6 weeks, the sky was the limit.
[/quote]
That was the exact point I made.
I recall after Larson did his deed, other potentail contestants \"came out\" with their schemes to break the bank, Larson was not the only one to figure out the patterns. If Larson had not broke the bank, someone else would of, it was only a matter of time with the small number of patterns on the Big Board.
No offense, but I don't think this is an earth-shatterring revelation, especially considering the amount of game show fanatics we have even now. Someone would've been attentive and figured out. I'm inclined to think Zack would've :)
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'willmorris\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 03:14 AM\'] Just asking, what is this "Thrill of Victory" loss? I was only 3 when it happened and do not remember it. [/quote]
Probably the closest thing to a Larsen moment ever happening on WOF, a lady spun the $5K several times, ultimately ending up with $62,400 in her bank(this happened in 1985 on the syndie version, back in the shopping days). The puzzle read THE THRI-- OF -I-TORY AND THE AGONY OF DEFEAT. The contestant then called an S. She did not win that round.
ALso: THere was time for a fourth round on that show, and another lady won the game thanks to a $5K Speed Up spin in the last round. That lady won a car in the bonus round and was among the more excited contestants in WOF history.
-
Probably the closest thing to a Larsen moment ever happening on WOF, a lady spun the $5K several times, ultimately ending up with $62,400 in her bank(this happened in 1985 on the syndie version, back in the shopping days). The puzzle read THE THRI-- OF -I-TORY AND THE AGONY OF DEFEAT. The contestant then called an S. She did not win that round.
And IIRC, the \"T\" also wasn't called at that point.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
I seem to remember from 18 year old memory that L,V, and C were the letters not called at the point where the $62,400 contestant lost her turn. If someone has the episode in question from OB (I don't think GSN ever aired the 1985-86 syndie season as yet), they could tell us :)
-
First, that position is set where it is because of the camera shot of the $5K space, just like the camera shot of every other TDV over the course of the show. Frames it right between Player 1 and Player 2, IIRC.
I certainly believe your past comments on rarely ever watching WoF nowadays, Chris, as they haven't done camera shots of the TDVs for several years now. About the only time Pat even mentions the $5K space anymore is when he's throwing to the second commercial and one player has a big lead.
Secondly, you seem to be under the delusion that the producers WANT Pat to nail the $5K space. Sure, maybe once every week or two, but I promise you they're not gonna set things up so that he has a higher-than-normal chance of hitting it, I don't care what their prize budget is. That gets expensive.
Considering that the time-is-short sound only goes off at the beginning of the fourth (or fifth or sixth) round maybe twice a week nowadays, the odds could certainly be in alignment with the producers' wishes.
-
As a contestant, I'd certainly spin harder if the big money was beyond where my normal spin would wind up, and softer if it was closer. Doing anything else is just dumb. Trying to enforce a rule saying I can't do so is also dumb, because my intent is unprovable.
Peter captured most of my thoughts. When I first heard of the rule, it was phrased so vaguely that they could cover themselves in any situation. So they can basically say \"we sense you may realize the wheel goes here when you spin it this hard...so don't.\" I found it ludicrous too...if you know the wheel's going to end up in a certain general area, why can't you spin for it?
But, like Matt has once said, the game's rules don't conform to you/us, you follow them, that's why their rules...so, whatever.
-Jason
-
Sorry I joined this thread late...I'm just getting around to having my say...
Basically, what I'm saying is, like PYL, WoF is beatable.
Yes, whoserman, but the bible prevents it, and most people can't phrenagle (I was tired of seeing finesse :) the wheel that way anyhow.
As for Chris and Matt and their aversion to \"Pat hits $5k\" the assessment that he hits it or comes close when he spins is true. He had a little ways to go the other night I watched, and had to put a little more oomph...got within 3 spaces. I believe the interview Matt refers to are older.
-Jason