Author Topic: pyramid hypothetical (Read 8084 times)

JasonA1 · « **Reply #30 on:** November 29, 2007, 01:11:42 PM »

I'm pretty sure the time the other team had to play with was always a second shorter than what it "should" be so as to avoid a "time tie" as it were. As was said above, the second team has that mini advantage of being able to start an answer before the buzzer. Kind of makes up for the lost time, however inconsequential an amount that may be.

-Jason

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 29, 2007, 01:15:13 PM »

Also to add to the tiebreaker question...the earliest episode of Pyramid that I have (1982), the tiebreak was played after the break. On the '85 episode ($100,000) I mentioned earlier, they were played before the break.

1) What it commonplace earlier in Pyramid's life to play the ties after a commercial?

2) Does anyone know when the switch to "ties before the break" took place?

BrandonFG · « **Reply #32 on:** November 29, 2007, 01:22:23 PM »

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'170830\' date=\'Nov 29 2007, 01:15 PM\']
2) Does anyone know when the switch to "ties before the break" took place?
[/quote]
It's been forever and a day since I saw this on USA's repeats, but I really want to say between late-1983 and early-1984...maybe right around the time they started showing Winners Circle montages again.

dale_grass · « **Reply #33 on:** November 29, 2007, 02:08:50 PM »

The problem with the time is the lack of decimal seconds. To make the buzzer sound when the clock hits zero, the display needs to change almost a full second after the actual time (for instance, whether there's 0.9 or 0.1 seconds left, the clock reads 1; also, when the time starts, there's a one-second delay before it ticks down to 29). This means that if a team takes 13.9 seconds to complete their tiebreaker, the clock would display 18 seconds. This leaves 13.9 seconds for the second team to complete their round: the clock shows either 13 or 14 (depending on whether you could even input decimal seconds or whether the producers rounded up or down). The sum of the two whole number times is either 31 or 32 seconds, giving the appearance of inequity.

And before you ask, I began pondering this issue since I was in the 4th grade...

KrisW73 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 29, 2007, 03:51:31 PM »

Didn't Davidson's $100K try to fix that by going to a decimal clock at least for the tiebreakers?

Steve McClellan · « **Reply #35 on:** November 29, 2007, 04:32:32 PM »

[quote name=\'dale_grass\' date=\'Nov 29 2007, 11:08 AM\']This means that if a team takes 13.9 seconds to complete their tiebreaker, the clock would display 18 seconds. This leaves 13.9 seconds for the second team to complete their round: the clock shows either 13 or 14 (depending on whether you could even input decimal seconds or whether the producers rounded up or down). The sum of the two whole number times is either 31 or 32 seconds, giving the appearance of inequity.[/quote]
Erm, if a team took 13.9 seconds, there would be 16.1 left, and the clock would correctly show 17, not 18. And what I remember from my years watching the show regularly is that if a team got the last word right as the clock was ticking, or anytime up until about 2/3 of the way through the following second, that the second team would get 29 seconds minus what was left over. If at the end of a second, they'd get 30 minus the remainder. Ergo, if a team took 13.9, the clock would display 17, and since it was most of the way through the second, the other team would get 13. This leads me to believe that they were compensating for the length of the last answer and the judge's reaction time by bumping the second team's time down by between about .6 and 1.6 seconds.

Of course, this is just a semi-educated guess. If someone knows for certain, I'd love to hear about it.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #36 on:** November 29, 2007, 04:58:31 PM »

[quote name=\'KrisW73\' post=\'170862\' date=\'Nov 29 2007, 02:51 PM\']
Didn't Davidson's $100K try to fix that by going to a decimal clock at least for the tiebreakers?
[/quote]
I don't recall that, but in hindsight they should have done it on the $50K! (I recall reading that they had a three-way tie at the end of one week.)

dale_grass · « **Reply #37 on:** November 29, 2007, 05:52:13 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'170869\' date=\'Nov 29 2007, 05:32 PM\']Erm, if a team took 13.9 seconds, there would be 16.1 left, and the clock would correctly show 17, not 18.
[/quote]Oops, my bad. Now that I think about it, there were instances when the math made sense (added to 30). I do recall the clock used was an eggcrate readout with only whole numbers. I'm kind of curious how the rounding was handled.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #38 on:** November 29, 2007, 07:19:14 PM »

Quote

I think my logic was more that they were playing the mental game -- that people might think of Q and Z as "hard" letters because they're uncommon and psych themselves out.

Oddly enough, a rule I would have followed was if one of the two letters offered was "obscure", take that one. For example, if it was a choice between a B and an X, I'd take the X. I found words beginning with the "obsure" letter always seemed easier to get.

clemon79 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 29, 2007, 07:33:42 PM »

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'170897\' date=\'Nov 29 2007, 04:19 PM\']
For example, if it was a choice between a B and an X, I'd take the X. I found words beginning with the "obsure" letter always seemed easier to get.
[/quote]
Totally. Because there are less of them. That's why I asked. Two obscure letters are very likely to produce at minimum one 7-out-of-7.

DoorNumberFour · « **Reply #40 on:** November 30, 2007, 12:50:23 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'170901\' date=\'Nov 29 2007, 07:33 PM\']
Totally. Because there are less of them.
[/quote]

"...the answer to this question will begin with an X. Everyone's now running through the TWO words they know (that begin with an X)."

--Bill Cullen, "Blockbusters"

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #41 on:** November 30, 2007, 09:38:56 AM »

I always thought, re: the '80s tiebreakers, that they were keeping more accurate time in the booth or wherever, and that they rounded the on-screen clock to the nearest second to minimize the difference between it and the actual timer. That's just another unsupported opinion, of course.

MrBuddwing · « **Reply #42 on:** November 30, 2007, 12:45:52 PM »

No disrespect to Peter Lawford, but my recollection is he was never a strong Pyramid player - mediocre at best, even when he was cold sober.

I remember Phyllis George was HORRIBLE her first time out, but they did invite her back, and she did improve.

One of the best first-timers I recall was Lynn Swann - and he did well because he was a fan of the show to begin with.

clemon79 · « **Reply #43 on:** November 30, 2007, 01:41:32 PM »

[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' post=\'170950\' date=\'Nov 30 2007, 09:45 AM\']
No disrespect to Peter Lawford, but my recollection is he was never a strong Pyramid player - mediocre at best, even when he was cold sober.[/quote]
Wasn't Peter Lawford one of the celebrities that just "didn't get" Password? Like, the one they actually had to let stop playing because he didn't get it?

Neumms · « **Reply #44 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:21:57 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'170956\' date=\'Nov 30 2007, 01:41 PM\']
[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' post=\'170950\' date=\'Nov 30 2007, 09:45 AM\']
No disrespect to Peter Lawford, but my recollection is he was never a strong Pyramid player - mediocre at best, even when he was cold sober.[/quote]
Wasn't Peter Lawford one of the celebrities that just "didn't get" Password? Like, the one they actually had to let stop playing because he didn't get it?
[/quote]

No, no! He was great. He set the Lightning Round record, in fact. Can't speak for his Pyramid playing, however.