Live data from Hacker News

Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

urbo.com

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#31
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anybody explain this part of Arthur Chu’s Jeopardy strategy? Don’t they still get the chance to answer? Or is his strategy that he’ll figure it out within the allotted time? As I recall, he went hunting for Daily Doubles to take them off the board and away from other players who might be able to answer them. Only the finder gets to pose a question for those.

But that has nothing to do with: >buzzing in when he didn't know the answers to prevent other contestants from winning money

I think it does. He chose daily-doubles when I didn't know the answer and bet low. It denies the others the D-D and means he didn't lose much.

This is explained in detail later on.

It's not the most felicitous of phrasing but it makes sense to me.

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#32

This reminds me of a great thought piece that I studied a lot during my gaming years: Playing to Win. http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win Particularly relevant to the Jeopardy contestant that buzzed in when he didn't know the answers to block others from getting the cash.

I'm reminded of the first season of Survivor.

I didn't watch, but followed along on (IIRC) a Diplomacy discussion forum of all places; it seemed clear that Richard was playing an extremely strategic game, even deliberately sandbagging an endurance contest when it was down to 3 players, knowing that the woman who won it would have to eliminate the other, much more popular male contestant to have a chance to win the vote of those who'd already been dispatched.

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link is not to the Price is Right TV show. The "Price is Right" brand has a traveling live theater production as well called Price is Right Live. Tickets to that cost money. Tickets for the real TV show in Los Angeles are free. Thanks for playing.

This seems like an excessive level of condescension for a lack of familiarity with the Price is Right expanded universe.

[deleted]

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#34
The article claims more than it shows and attributes the contestants successes to the wrong factor.

According to the article, host Drew Carey was sure Terry Kneiss was cheating, "When revealing Terry's winning bid, Carey didn’t really celebrate; he was sure that the man had cheated and presumes the source of the host's reaction. Footage of the moment shows Carey's uncharacteristically subdued reaction." and linked to a recording of the show. Later the article claims host Drew Carey had "presumably, unending ire".

Neither claim is backed by evidence. Not only is there no information in the article indicating whether Carey was "uncharacteristically subdued" or carrying any ire, but also there's no evidence Kneiss cheated. What Kneiss did was properly called preparation, homework, or research. These are all complimentary terms which properly frame what Kneiss and other winning contestants do. It's poor editing on the article's part to choose the language they did and explain much later in the piece that there was no cheating going on. The article claims that some contestants "exploit the vulnerabilities" of game shows but this language too places the onus on the wrong party, the contestant.

I'm reminded of a similarly poor accusation made against people who do well at gambling casinos in card games; they're sometimes said to be "card counting" because they mentally track which cards they've seen played in the game and use that information to compute which hands are likely to come up. This phrase is said in the context of placing the blame on the player, as if they've done something wrong. But what they're being accused of is indistinguishable from what reasonable people call paying attention. Fortune may favor the bold, but luck certainly favors preparation and a keen eye (be it studying recordings of broadcast episodes, watching a show for years on end, tracking what's been played, or taking notes based on broadcast information).

If you want to play games with people who pay attention, don't be lazy in setting up the game. Don't do what CBS did on "Press Your Luck" (and certainly don't threaten not to promptly pay out when keen observers win as the article claims CBS initially did). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_your_luck#Michael_Larson has more information on how Larson paid attention and used the information he gleaned to win record winnings.

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#35
post #4

It might be different now, but I'm pretty sure back in the Bob Barker era contestant selection wasn't random. The entire audience had to introduce themselves to the producer one by one and answer his questions about where they were from, what they did, and if they were there with anyone. The people selected were fairly attractive and charismatic. The selection also leaned toward people who came with larger groups. I…

TV shows are always like this. Random would mean that really tall people or really fat people would get on, which would look weird — people look bigger on TV, and most TV people tend to be smaller.

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#36
post #9

>buzzing in when he didn't know the answers to prevent other contestants from winning money Can anybody explain this part of Arthur Chu’s Jeopardy strategy? Don’t they still get the chance to answer? Or is his strategy that he’ll figure it out within the allotted time? Also was anyone else unimpressed by the main character in the articles uncanny ability to predict weather in Las Vegas? Let me guess, it will be hot.…

>> buzzing in when he didn't know the answers to prevent other contestants from winning money

> Can anybody explain this part of Arthur Chu’s Jeopardy strategy? Don’t they still get the chance to answer? Or is his strategy that he’ll figure it out within the allotted time?

No, others didn't get the chance to answer for Daily Doubles. He would take away daily doubles when possible and bet low on categories he didn't know the answers.

> Also how did he win a Southeast Regional Emmy for working in Las Vegas?

The article doesn't say he received those while working in Las Vegas. He got them in Atlanta.

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#37
post #4

It might be different now, but I'm pretty sure back in the Bob Barker era contestant selection wasn't random. The entire audience had to introduce themselves to the producer one by one and answer his questions about where they were from, what they did, and if they were there with anyone. The people selected were fairly attractive and charismatic. The selection also leaned toward people who came with larger groups. I…

Yeah it was like you say. My cousin was on Price is Right. He came with a group of 20, and they were guaranteed that at least one of their group would be in contestants row.

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#38

This reminds me of a great thought piece that I studied a lot during my gaming years: Playing to Win. http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win Particularly relevant to the Jeopardy contestant that buzzed in when he didn't know the answers to block others from getting the cash.

I'm reminded of the first season of Survivor. I didn't watch, but followed along on (IIRC) a Diplomacy discussion forum of all places; it seemed clear that Richard was playing an extremely strategic game, even deliberately sandbagging an endurance contest when it was down to 3 players, knowing that the woman who won it would have to eliminate the other, much more popular male contestant to have a chance to win the vo…

I believe it. Playing Diplomacy, especially for years on Dipbounced, taught me more about strategy and game theory than any other resource. The community of players are all deep thinkers and incredibly ruthless. We used to have 2-3 day Diplomacy sessions back in college where we'd just do game after game and I miss it sorely.

If you were to ask me to pick the most pure strategy games, Diplomacy would be #1 and maybe EVE Online would be #2.

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#39
post #37
post #4

It might be different now, but I'm pretty sure back in the Bob Barker era contestant selection wasn't random. The entire audience had to introduce themselves to the producer one by one and answer his questions about where they were from, what they did, and if they were there with anyone. The people selected were fairly attractive and charismatic. The selection also leaned toward people who came with larger groups. I…

Yeah it was like you say. My cousin was on Price is Right. He came with a group of 20, and they were guaranteed that at least one of their group would be in contestants row.

I once went with a group of 20 that was registered in advance and nobody from our group was called (but I think we were guaranteed seats and didn't have to wait in line). I think the 20+ group thing is an urban legend, the producers can really choose whoever they want. However the way the show is done, if a person has a big cheering section that is good for the show, so I imagine if you come in a group your chance of getting selected is a lot higher than if you come alone.

If memory serves correctly they interviewed us in groups of 5, and for the group I was in the whole "interview" lasted about 3 seconds. They lined us up, looked us over, then passed us on. Still quite a fun experience, and though I didn't get called I was still terrified the whole time I might get called so the adrenaline was running.

Re: Victory on “The Price Is Right” Made Them Change Their System

#40
post #3

Short version: TPIR used to recycle prices/products, so with studying it is easy to guess prices of products on the show. Many contestants and avid fans know this, and one of them got extra lucky in the showcase showdown by guessing the exact price, at about 1/1000 odds (after accounting for common sense and attentiveness) , which is likely to happen eventually for a daily show like TPIR. (Or possibly he was cheating…

Here's a little psychological trick I always wanted to try, if I ever got to the showcase showdown on TPIR. Suppose the other contestant passes the first showcase to me, and I believe it is the lower valued of the two showcases. I bid one dollar. If the other contestant is not paying attention, they just might bid two dollars on their showcase. That strategy works on contestant's row when everyone is bidding on the s…

How likely is someone to do the $2, though? My guess is they would be really confused by the $1 bid then just bid as they would normally.
Post reply on HN