Current Events > C/D: People who bid a dollar over someone on Price is Right are scummy.

(+) Yeah! (+)

C

It's often a smart idea, but it's definitely a despicable one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdQTtdcOFP4

don't hate the player hate the game

Uhh, no? It's a perfectly legitimate strategy. Sucks for the people who go 1st and 2nd (and 3rd unless #4 just bids $1) but that's just how it goes.

GuerrillaSoldier posted...

don't hate the player hate the game

Metal_Gear_Raxis posted...

Uhh, no? It's a perfectly legitimate strategy. Sucks for the people who go 1st and 2nd (and 3rd unless #4 just bids $1) but that's just how it goes.

I already said it was good strategy. I think it's very inconsiderate, though, x.x . They've could've at least given the other person some sort of cushion, like even 50 dollars or so.

There's money on the line. It's a game show. You'd have to be a dumbo to place arbitrary restrictions on yourself in that scenario.

Not doing your best is disrespectful to your opponents. Even in The Price is Right.

voldothegr8 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdQTtdcOFP4

My immediate thought lmao. Fuck those people. Its a good strategy, Ill concede. But I completely understand the previous bidders anger.

huge D. gotta be cut throat to win sometimes.

GrandConjuraton posted...

C

It's often a smart idea, but it's definitely a despicable one.

You wouldn't ever do it under any circumstance?
What if it was your absolute last dollar and it was something you reeeeealllly wanted?

W_S_C_M posted...

You wouldn't ever do it under any circumstance?
What if it was your absolute last dollar and it was something you reeeeealllly wanted?

You don't bid with your own money on Price is Right, >.<

GrandConjuraton posted...

You don't bid with your own money on Price is Right, >.<

lol

W_S_C_M posted...

You wouldn't ever do it under any circumstance?
What if it was your absolute last dollar and it was something you reeeeealllly wanted?

Nobody is arguing the benefit of it. Its objectively a smart way to play if you want to win.

But there are a LOT of "great ways to win" that are generally shitty and ruin the game for everybody else. Fuck, we're on fandom.gamefaqs.gamespot.com; i guarantee every single person here has experienced a multiplayer game being shitted-up by a team of spawncampers. Perhaps those campers were aided by a badly designed, poorly balanced map? Or maybe you've dealt with Meta Knight/Bayonetta players in Smash Bros Brawl/4 (respectively)? Hell, most of us have probably BEEN that player exploiting game imbalances and making the game shitty for our opponent at one point or another.

The game has an easily exploitable flaw that makes it dogshit for the middle contestant. Exploiting that flaw is both the smart thibg to do, and objectively ruins the game for everyone else. Both can be true at once.

Confirm, the tactic is so overused anymore, it's one of the reasons I stopped watching long ago.
That, and most of the games don't/never appealed to me anyway. Don't care for Plinko, Three Strikes ever since they switched from 3 strike tokens to 1, Card Game because so hard to guess within the range determined by the card drawn, and a few others (and some of the games I did like were retired)

SAlYAN posted...

Nobody is arguing the benefit of it. Its objectively a smart way to play if you want to win.

But there are a LOT of "great ways to win" that are hemerally shitty and ruin the game for everybody else. Fuck, we're on fandom.gamefaqs.gamespot.com; i guarantee every single person here has experienced a multiplayer game being shitted-up by a team of spawncampers. Perhaps those campers were aided by a badly designed, poorly balanced map? Or maybe you've dealt with Meta Knight/Bayonetta players in Smash Bros Brawl/4 (respectively)? Hell, most of us have probably BEEN that player exploiting game imbalances and making the game shitty for our opponent at one point or another.

The game has an easily exploitable flaw that makes it dogshit for the middle contestant. Exploiting that flaw is both the smart thibg to do, and objectively ruins the game for everyone else. Both can be true at once.

As a longtime veteran of CoD, fuck spawn campers.

They've actually made a clever design decision related to this, that you've probably never noticed.

So, the players' position in the turn order gives (or withholds) a number of advantages. First gets nothing. Second and third can bid one over, and last can bid one over, or $1, and can't be one-overed in turn.

Let's assume, for a second, that none of the players have the slightest clue what the price of anything is. All they know is the object of the game, and the above advantages. But they all assume the other players have a ballpark idea. The first player has to guess blindly. The second player can guess blindly, or go one-over. The third player can guess blindly, or has two options for going one over. The last player can choose to one-over anyone or bid $1 (in fact, there's no reason to guess blindly). So clearly, the later you are in the turn order, the more likely you are to win. So the most common situation is that the player who goes last wins, is removed from the game and is replaced by a new player, who takes their former podium.

This much, you already know. Here's where they got clever. The new player goes first, the player to their left goes next and so on.

So the new player is most disadvantaged and the player to their right is most advantaged. If we assume it's at least the fourth round, this player to their right is also probably the player who has been doing the worst at the game. It's a negative feedback loop, just like giving the starman to the player in last place in Mario Kart. They've turned an imbalance in the game that they couldn't eliminate into a controlled element.

Why am I so sure this player has (probably) been doing the worst? Because they've (probably) been on the stage the longest. The person to the right of the newcomer has the most advantage, so they're most likely to win (assuming, as above, that nobody has any clue what to bid). So the most common situation is that the newcomer podium moves one spot to the right (from the players' perspective) each round.

In fact, this means that you can generalize it so that you typically gain more advantage the longer you've been on stage.

It's not always going to play out exactly like that, of course. In fact, if you were to graph the frequency with which each position in the turn order wins, it might only make a small difference. But then again, that would just mean it's not that unfair of an advantage after all.

I'm sure the people who ended up winning after using this tactic are currently being overwhelmed by the weight of your judgment.

shnangyboos posted...

I'm sure the people who ended up winning after using this tactic are currently being overwhelmed by the weight of your judgment.

not to mention the guilt

you become to last one to bid if someone pulls that stunt and wins for the next bidding game, unless it happens to be the last game in which case I'm calling you out in the parking lot!

shnangyboos posted...

I'm sure the people who ended up winning after using this tactic are currently being overwhelmed by the weight of your judgment.

The Price is Right has been on a long time, a lot of them are probably already burning in hell for doing it.

Within the rules, play to win.

The game does not recognize, nor reward, your 'virtue'.

I get that it's part of the game but I feel like if they made them type in an answer at the same time (and recorded speed for ties) then it'd just be a more fair game.

There'd be the weird element of the $1 guess. Like why wouldn't you just go $2 but then $3 then $4 and so on. Where's that sweet spot I wonder...

Bidding +1 dollar is a risky move unless you're going last because someone could just +1 you again. In order to actually go last, though, it means you already lost 3 times and if you lose again you're done for the show and have to go sit back down in the audience. So I can't really blame people for bidding +1 dollar. If they're doing it, it's probably their literal last chance to win something.

Yeah, if Price is Right really hated the practice they could implement rules to prevent it, but here we are like over 40 years of Price is Right and they let you still do it.

They control all the rules in the game, the people behind the show could change any number of rules easily.

C.

I think everyone at the Podium gets a chance to be 1/2/3/4, so they all get a chance if they so choose to plat that strategy, dont they?

Otherwise I have to agree, it would be unfair and basically whoever got to go 1st / Last gets a distinct advantage over the other contestants.

Also it's not like the strategy works all the time. So it's not a guarantee that it will even get you into the winners circle.

Obviously D. If someone thinks it is higher, especially if the last bid, it is stupid to not do so.

Why would anyone be "nice" on a game show?

I love when dumbass third bidders do it

Getting spots I always assumed was some kind of lottery draw and the last person has the clear advantage. The show could do things like have them pre enter their answers or change up the order each round but those in charge chose not to. So that advantage is written into the rules of the game and is fair to use.

D

Its a zero sum game. Youre a fool if you dont play to win.

I'm not here to make friends; I'm here to win!

I don't think that much judgment is placed on people who do this.

People who consistently bid amounts including numbers like 69 or 420, though? Now those guys get scorn for lameness/unoriginality.

Cory898 posted...

Getting spots I always assumed was some kind of lottery draw and the last person has the clear advantage. The show could do things like have them pre enter their answers or change up the order each round but those in charge chose not to. So that advantage is written into the rules of the game and is fair to use.

The first four is by order called. After that, the new person always takes the first spot and everyone moves over one. The first four are guaranteed to end up in the last spot if they don't win earlier. So it does change after each round.

It sucks being the person called in the last round. They only have one chance and in the first spot.

Edit: apparently people don't move and my memory sucks

D

Theyre smart

bsp77 posted...

The first four is by order called. After that, the new person always takes the first spot and everyone moves over one. The first four are guaranteed to end up in the last spot if they don't win earlier. So it does change after each round.

It sucks being the person called in the last round. They only have one chance and in the first spot.

Thanks for clarifying. I stand by my position that its luck of lottery and thus fair that getting called sooner means a bigger advantage. Out of curiosity what order are the first four assigned? Im going along with the idea that first picked wins biggest advantage they should get spot number four.

Also should note the TC didnt mention betting a dollar, am equally strategic move the last player can use.

Cory898 posted...

Thanks for clarifying. I stand by my position that its luck of lottery and thus fair that getting called sooner means a bigger advantage. Out of curiosity what order are the first four assigned? Im going along with the idea that first picked wins biggest advantage they should get spot number four.

Oh yeah, it is unfair regardless. But just getting on is luck too.

Um, people don't move over btwn rounds. I somehow made that up and feel dumb.

Also should note the TC didnt mention betting a dollar, am equally strategic move the last player can use.

Yep. I always laughed at the last bidder if they did anything other than $1 or a dollar higher than someone else.

They dont bet $1 in Utopianica

If you are 4th and don't bid $1 or +$1 a previous bid you are not playing to win. Any bid you place should be done with an intent to win. It isn't scummy to do that. There's no cooperation reward in this game, it is simply 3 players lose and 1 player wins.
If you give your opponents "breathing room" then you are either actively sabotaging yourself or being dishonest by giving false hope.

Monopoman posted...

Yeah, if Price is Right really hated the practice they could implement rules to prevent it, but here we are like over 40 years of Price is Right and they let you still do it.

They control all the rules in the game, the people behind the show could change any number of rules easily.

Yeah, exactly. The people who set the rules built a game that has an obvious optimal strategy. You can't blame players for using that optimal strategy.

Besides which, bidding $1 over the highest bidder only works if they haven't overbid. If they have then you should bid somewhere below that amount or $1 if everyone else has overbid.

UnsteadyOwl posted...

Yeah, exactly. The people who set the rules built a game that has an obvious optimal strategy. You can't blame players for using that optimal strategy.

Besides which, bidding $1 over the highest bidder only works if they haven't overbid. If they have then you should bid somewhere below that amount or $1 if everyone else has overbid.

Yep, if the lowest bid is an overbid then it's a pretty bad strategy, and sometimes the bids are close to the actual price so it's harder to know for sure.

If an item is worth say $250 and every bid is just over that bidding the highest and one dollar is a bad deal. I think they also don't mind it because typically it's only really powerful for the last player, the one that has been trying to get into actually coming up on stage to play the longest.

A bonus to that player in some instances is fine, especially since you still have to know when to use it and when to not use it.

D, it's just how the game goes.

I think the game is designed poorly, in such a way that it encourages screwing over another player. (Though this might be part of the fun of watching. To enjoy the screwing)

The easiest solution would probably be to have all players bid simultaneously. Ties go to the longer waiting player. (250 tie, turns into 250 and 249)

I figured a gaming forum would intuitively understand what's wrong with scrub mentality. It isn't about whether it's scummy, or cheap, or not nice or whatever. You play to win, end of story.

ssjevot posted...

I figured a gaming forum would intuitively understand what's wrong with scrub mentality. It isn't about whether it's scummy, or cheap, or not nice or whatever. You play to win, end of story.

You can play to win without being a cheap asshole.

Monopoman posted...

Yeah, if Price is Right really hated the practice they could implement rules to prevent it, but here we are like over 40 years of Price is Right and they let you still do it.

They control all the rules in the game, the people behind the show could change any number of rules easily.

50+. It was on before I was born. 51st or 52 season i think

Big time D

The aim of the game is to get up and win prizes. It isnt a team sport.

AndyReklaw posted...

I get that it's part of the game but I feel like if they made them type in an answer at the same time (and recorded speed for ties) then it'd just be a more fair game.

There'd be the weird element of the $1 guess. Like why wouldn't you just go $2 but then $3 then $4 and so on. Where's that sweet spot I wonder...

lol I've seen one time one person bet $1 and someone else did bet $2. I don't think the guy that bet $1 realized that only works when you're the last one guessing.

TyVulpine posted...

You can play to win without being a cheap asshole.

That's literally scrub mentality.

https://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

my favorite part about watching that show was when the 3rd person bid $1 and the last person bid $2

probably the biggest daytime gameshow 'fuck you' possible

It's a poorly designed game so position is really powerful, oh well.