Make Your Mark Change - Good, Bad or Indifferent?

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195699\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 12:16 PM\']That's an excellent way to make it work.[/quote]
Quite.  I'd have played it out like Greed*, but your way works as well.

*-Place 3 markers, show two prices, offer $500 to bail.

[chris319]

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195699\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 12:16 PM\']That's an excellent way to make it work.[/quote]
Thank you.

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'195701\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 09:26 AM\']
Quite.  I'd have played it out like Greed*, but your way works as well.

*-Place 3 markers, show two prices, offer $500 to bail.[/quote]
The odds are a little more in favor of the contestant winning the bonus if he only has to place two markers to start with.

[joker316]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195706\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 01:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'195699\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 12:16 PM\']That's an excellent way to make it work.[/quote]
Thank you.

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'195701\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 09:26 AM\']
Quite.  I'd have played it out like Greed*, but your way works as well.

*-Place 3 markers, show two prices, offer $500 to bail.[/quote]
The odds are a little more in favor of the contestant winning the bonus if he only has to place two markers to start with.
[/quote]
It's too bad you both can't work on the show!

Then again, you both have good ideas and common sense and Lord knows Fremantle can't have that on TPIR!

[chris319]

It's too bad you both can't work on the show!

Already have, in a very minor capacity.

[Mr. Armadillo]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195698\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 10:54 AM\']
The contestant places two markers. The house reveals the two selected prices. If the contestant has selected the "danger price", game over. If not, the contestant is awarded $500. He may then end the game and walk away with the $500 bonus, or he may forfeit the bonus for the right to place the final marker. If he places the final marker correctly he wins the prizes but not the bonus.[/quote]

So you've 'fixed' the game by completely removing the Monty Hall problem, since the two revealed prices are now essentially random instead of revealed with full knowledge that they're correct?  Not to mention that the odds of me winning the game under these rules are considerably less than they were under the current rules?  No thank you.

You're fixing something that's not broken, by assuming a contestant is going to be more worried about $500 in their hand than they are about winning the game in front of them.  One, not everyone will fall for that.  Two, if they're going to be that dense, there's no use pandering to them.  They won't get it regardless.  Might as well focus on the people that will actually, you know, TRY.

[chris319]

the two revealed prices are now essentially random instead of revealed with full knowledge that they're correct? Not to mention that the odds of me winning the game under these rules are considerably less than they were under the current rules?

They're not "essentially random". A contestant is supposed to bring his pricing skill to the game and is rewarded if he is correct. He has to earn the $500.

a contestant is going to be more worried about $500 in their hand than they are about winning the game in front of them

Winning $500 is preferable to winning nothing, as would be the case is the contestant is unsure about the last prize. My version is preferable to awarding $500 for losing the game.

The overarching goal is to create a challenging game which will beguile the audience, not to put prizes in the hands of contestants.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195978\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 04:46 PM\']The overarching goal is to create a challenging game which will beguile the audience, not to put prizes in the hands of contestants.[/quote]
I would argue that one goal of Barker's Marker$ specifically was to create a game based around the Monty Hall Problem -- something that is totally lost with your revamp.

[chris319]

I would argue that one goal of Barker's Marker$ specifically was to create a game based around the Monty Hall Problem

So what? Even if you leave the Monty Hall element in place and play by the old rules, or let the contestant keep $500 for losing the game, it's not one of their stronger pricing games. IOW the Monty Hall problem doesn't necessarily make it a compelling game.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195991\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 07:08 PM\']So what? Even if you leave the Monty Hall element in place and play by the old rules, or let the contestant keep $500 for losing the game, it's not one of their stronger pricing games. IOW the Monty Hall problem doesn't necessarily make it a compelling game.[/quote]
I would agree with this.  (And you want to be careful when both moderators are on the same page!)  Whatever the original thought behind the original game may or may not have been isn't really relevant to whether a change to the game makes it better or worse.  Unless, of course, your objection to it is the change itself.

Put another way, say a pricing game is based on tiddlywinks.  If the game is changed so that it no longer resembles tiddlywinks, the new game might still be a better game (or might still be a worse game) than the original, but it wouldn't be better or worse JUST because the original creator of the game really, really liked tiddlywinks.

[TroubadourNando]

I really must be missing something, because there's one thing that keeps sticking in my mind.

Last season there was a playing of Make Your Mark where the last prize to be revealed was a luggage set, and the two possible prices were (something dramatically different like) $2,000 and $999.

I would think most people would be able to pick the correct answer given that choice (iirc, the contestant did) but say the exact same situation was presented under the new rules, the contestant had marked $2,000, and really, really believed against all logic it was right, therefore keeping the mark. Wouldn't that end up rewarding said player with the $500 even though they made a pretty poor choice?

Like I said, I'm definitely missing something....

[alfonzos]

Awarding a player just winning one's way on stage is not unhreard of. It is the basis of "Temptation." "Let 'em Roll" guarantees the player at least $500. I have no problem with the rule change.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'196002\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 09:01 PM\']Awarding a player just winning one's way on stage is not unhreard of. It is the basis of "Temptation." "Let 'em Roll" guarantees the player at least $500.[/quote]
And they're also both played for cars.  Very different animals, both of them, than Barker's Marker$.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'196014\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 09:00 PM\']
And they're also both played for cars.  Very different animals, both of them, than Barker's Marker$.[/quote]
I utterly fail to see how the grand prize being a car has any bearing whatsoever on the original point of giving someone prizes for doing nothing in their game.

[chris319]

I utterly fail to see how the grand prize being a car has any bearing whatsoever on the original point of giving someone prizes for doing nothing in their game.

Worse than doing nothing, they flat-out lost the game. With MYM, given four prices and three markers, two are going to be right no matter what. To blow it on the final marker means you've lost the game and should go home empty-handed. Temptation is not the same in that the contestant may forfeit the prizes and go for the car. If he loses the car, he likewise walks away empty-handed having forfeited the smaller prizes.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'196018\' date=\'Sep 3 2008, 10:21 PM\']
Temptation is not the same in that the contestant may forfeit the prizes and go for the car. If he loses the car, he likewise walks away empty-handed having forfeited the smaller prizes.[/quote]
Then is Let 'em Roll flawed?