Temptation (Australia) question

[adamkendall]

I watched the most recent clip of Yolanda taking over $900,000 in cash and prizes on Temptation, and then read the Wikipedia article about the format changes in 2006, which leads me to my questions below.

I understand that a champion wins $50,000 automatically upon agreeing to come back the next night.  That amount then forms the base of a cash jackpot that builds with each successive $50,000 ten-in-a-row win.

Can champions still claim the cash jackpot on any night before agreeing to play again?  If that is true, and if all of the prizes are the "temptation" on the 6th night, and the cash jackpot alone is the temptation on the 7th night, then it appears that a champion actually plays for less on the 7th night than on the 6th, correct?

Why did they change the original ten-in-a-row game?

Adam

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'adamkendall\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 10:59 AM\']If that is true, and if all of the prizes are the "temptation" on the 6th night, and the cash jackpot alone is the temptation on the 7th night, then it appears that a champion actually plays for less on the 7th night than on the 6th, correct?
[/quote]
At first I was gonna explain it here, but now that I've taken a good hard look at it, you're right. Maybe the Wiki article is wrong and a player can't leave the show with accrued Ten Right cash anymore, they just get the prizes and can only take the cash (and not the prizes) following Night 7?

Paging Chris Powney...

Why did they change the original ten-in-a-row game?

I liked it, personally, but if I were a betting man I would say they changed it because the players who WERE doing well in it were taking the money and bolting before they could get up to those ratings-grabbing later nights, and the players who were doing well in the front game but not in Ten Inna Row were putting together uninteresting bank accounts, which made the $500K in gold dwarf it and made it uninteresting.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 12:28 PM\']I liked it, personally, but if I were a betting man I would say they changed it because the players who WERE doing well in it were taking the money and bolting before they could get up to those ratings-grabbing later nights, and the players who were doing well in the front game but not in Ten Inna Row were putting together uninteresting bank accounts, which made the $500K in gold dwarf it and made it uninteresting.

[snapback]112882[/snapback]

[/quote]
Case in point: the night one champion scampers to the top of the chain with ten correct answers. On night two, he decides to take the prize and leave, with roughly $120,000. Of the remaining champions of premiere week, the top cash account was $1,000. How many people would have gone all the way to win the advertised $1.2 million? Not many, I'd bet, because to get that far, you have to risk the cash account, and get $100,000 each night. And that compared to the night three Parisian holiday looks silly. For all the good things about Ten in a Row, the decision wasn't compelling television.

[ChrisLambert!]

As if on cue, FatRed updated the wiki today to clarify that no, you can't take the money and run anymore. You can take $350,000 on Night 7, or risk it to come back on night 8 for all the prizes and  [ (350K + 50K) * 2 ] = 800K.

[comicus]

[quote name=\'adamkendall\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 01:59 PM\']I watched the most recent clip of Yolanda taking over $900,000 in cash and prizes on Temptation, and then read the Wikipedia article about the format changes in 2006, which leads me to my questions below.

[snapback]112880[/snapback]

[/quote]

Is this clip online?  Link?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'ChrisLambert!\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 04:37 PM\']As if on cue, FatRed updated the wiki today to clarify that no, you can't take the money and run anymore. You can take $350,000 on Night 7, or risk it to come back on night 8 for all the prizes and  [ (350K + 50K) * 2 ] = 800K.

[snapback]112915[/snapback]

[/quote]
Assuming that it's $350K, of course. (And wouldn't it be $300K tops? You decide BEFORE you play Ten Right, yes?)

Anyhow. good. That makes a LOT more sense.

[pownster]

I obviously arrived a bit late in this conversation - but as stated - the accrued cash jackpot cannot be claimed until the 7th night. These changes were introduced for the 2006 season because most contestants were having great difficulty putting together a recent jackpot under the old game. That - and it was unfair anyway - a player who say got one question right, then made a mistake and then answered 9 questions right would get $50,000, yet a player getting 9 in a row first, then making a mistake, and answering a question right would only get $1,000 - even though both answered the same number of questions right/wrong. Figure that out!  

As for the clip of Yolanda's win - it can be found at my site:

Video Moments - Australian Game Show Home Page

[adamkendall]

So the minimum jackpot for night 7 would be $50,000, assuming that none of the Ten Right games were won?  So, theoretically you could still be taking less on night 7 than on night 6 if this were the scenario?

Adam Kendall

[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 08:39 PM\']I obviously arrived a bit late in this conversation - but as stated - the accrued cash jackpot cannot be claimed until the 7th night. These changes were introduced for the 2006 season because most contestants were having great difficulty putting together a recent jackpot under the old game. That - and it was unfair anyway - a player who say got one question right, then made a mistake and then answered 9 questions right would get $50,000, yet a player getting 9 in a row first, then making a mistake, and answering a question right would only get $1,000 - even though both answered the same number of questions right/wrong. Figure that out! 

As for the clip of Yolanda's win - it can be found at my site:

Video Moments - Australian Game Show Home Page

[snapback]112926[/snapback]

[/quote]

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'adamkendall\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 06:52 PM\']So the minimum jackpot for night 7 would be $50,000, assuming that none of the Ten Right games were won?  So, theoretically you could still be taking less on night 7 than on night 6 if this were the scenario?
[/quote]
Theoretically. And if you were at $0 banked for six nights and you DIDN'T walk, there is no way in nine blue hells you're walking on Night Seven anyhow, so it's really rather a moot point.