sir_quirky_k (![[info]](http://www.iziblog.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} sir_quirky_k) wrote,@ 2007-09-16 16:12:00 |
In response to the Week
'Noel Edmonds giving a 45-minute illustrated lecture on the merits of gambling, even when the illustrations completely contradict his message.'
Utterly brilliant.
In other news, 14 out of 15 players have bought blue values to the table in the last two-and-a-half weeks, and approximately four of them have been given an offer that would be accepted by someone with a utility curve less non-linear than Beryl's. Yesterday's game was apparently all but over before Act III even begun, so expect potentially even lower audiences than last week (although BIG 7 and TAKEAWAY aren't as fearsome as WHY FACTOR). In fairness, there have been some diabolical boards of late, but there have been some ludicrously low offers (£4 on 1p/£500, anybody?), and the Dutch strategy of face-saving AMOs in bad games appears to be something the Banker adopts only on special occasions (last use: Christmas Eve).
I agree on the MILLIONAIRE prize tree - it's awkward, but effective. It'll entice people to take risks far more reasonably than bringing in an Edmonds-esque host would. Would we really have considered this music effective if it had begun in 1998? I think that's up for debate; probably, yes. We wouldn't have been in a position to assert, for instance, that a plaintive four-note synth motif with a harp arpeggio every eight bars would work so very much better on the four questions following the second milestone, whereas after nine years of hearing exactly that we now can. We would, however, have realised that the rave beat was ruining a very good melody. Or if we wouldn't, someone else would...
'Noel Edmonds giving a 45-minute illustrated lecture on the merits of gambling, even when the illustrations completely contradict his message.'
Utterly brilliant.
In other news, 14 out of 15 players have bought blue values to the table in the last two-and-a-half weeks, and approximately four of them have been given an offer that would be accepted by someone with a utility curve less non-linear than Beryl's. Yesterday's game was apparently all but over before Act III even begun, so expect potentially even lower audiences than last week (although BIG 7 and TAKEAWAY aren't as fearsome as WHY FACTOR). In fairness, there have been some diabolical boards of late, but there have been some ludicrously low offers (£4 on 1p/£500, anybody?), and the Dutch strategy of face-saving AMOs in bad games appears to be something the Banker adopts only on special occasions (last use: Christmas Eve).
I agree on the MILLIONAIRE prize tree - it's awkward, but effective. It'll entice people to take risks far more reasonably than bringing in an Edmonds-esque host would. Would we really have considered this music effective if it had begun in 1998? I think that's up for debate; probably, yes. We wouldn't have been in a position to assert, for instance, that a plaintive four-note synth motif with a harp arpeggio every eight bars would work so very much better on the four questions following the second milestone, whereas after nine years of hearing exactly that we now can. We would, however, have realised that the rave beat was ruining a very good melody. Or if we wouldn't, someone else would...
