Paucle wrote:

Maybe jaclyn watches HTO on her Cable provider

LOL. Nope. I work at a university that has a ticket office. There's a link to it on the athletics web site:
http://www.rolltide.com/

So in my brain, box office is associated with movies, theatre, and artistic endeavors. Ticket office is sports. Maybe it's a regional thing, although it would be rare for a national TV show to pick the Southern regionalism to go with.

OgiOgas wrote:

Ken seems to evince a natural cortical potency that I can only attain through cognitive prosthetics.

econgator wrote:

Yeah, I think I get a lot of emails for this ....

jaclyn wrote:

I feel like I should congratulate Mindy.

LOL

Congratulations to Lady Kitt. Another steady, focused performance. Once again, she capitalized on her opponent's mistakes in a nail-biter finish.

John Carpenter was wicked funny in person. Just a naturally humorous personality, perfectly reflected in his "What?" reaction and reaching its consummation in his spontaneous, famous call to his father on the million dollar question. He had me laughing uncontrollably more than once. Too bad that Carpenter seems quicker with a joke than with an answer. But anyone who talked to him at the Grand Slam tournament would not have been surprised at the outcome of his last match: he constantly lamented his math deficiencies, and equally often professed that he believed he could not possibly win as a result (evidently, Brad Rutter didn't get that memo). Nevertheless, I still thought he turned in a solid -- if a little slow and switch-deficient -- performance, and Michelle is to be commended for repeating her calm, careful play. As Ken said, keeping your head right is a big part of Grand Slam, and nobody achieves that better than Lady Kitt.

I just reviewed David Legler's performance against Leszek again -- the first time I watched it, I was more focused on Leszek -- and Legler looked damn good in everything. In fact, I'm beginning to feel that he might not be getting the recognition he deserves. We all know that Leszek tripped himself up, but Legler's win was no fluke. I think if Leszek had been playing full-on, it would still have been a nail-biter. Legler adapted to the format of the game quickly, as did Ken.

Adaptation is a huge, underlooked factor. One of the narratives in my interviews which Michael Davies chose not to highlight (in favor of my trash mumbling) was my "Road to Brad and Ken". In every interview I discussed my strategy concerning Ken and Brad. But even in the biographical sketch interview (shot before we arrived in New York), I emphasized that anybody's best chance of beating Ken and Brad was in the first round, and I prayed I would get one of them right off the bat. The reason being that they both have demonstrated themselves to be masters of adaptation, evolving according to the demands of the format, getting geometrically (or at least arithemetically) better with each game they play. No doubt this contributed in some fashion to Brad's defeat of Ken in the UTOC (Brad reaching "the zone" from so many immediately preceding tournament games), as well as contributing to Ken's mythic winning streak. In Grand Slam, that baker's fresh shot at taking out Ken fell to Victor, who did a pretty good job, but missed his chance (how far might Victor have gone if he had squeaked past the Grandmaster?). But Ken's performance against Phyllis was a quantum leap forward. You could see Ken learning, adjusting. I wouldn't be surprised if we see even more improvement in his next game as his brain starts hanging up the family photos and settling in.

I'm glad I caught Brad when I did: math or no math, he would have been even more formidable if he got to the finals.

But Legler also showed he can learn, react, and grow in response to the hyper-evolutionary environment of Grand Slam.



Last edited by OgiOgas on Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

Doglover19 wrote:

Did anyone notice GSN is reairing the Slammers' show(s) they won on. I recently saw an episode with Rahim and Phyllis (on Greed I think). I don't know if they are doing it for all of them.

Yep, I've noticed. The two times I've turned on GSN in recent weeks that weren't for Grand Slam were

John Carpenter's Millionaire win: "Hi Dad, I don't actually need your help."
Brad Rutter's Jeopardy! TOC win. (I'd never seen this one; that other guy blew a true Daily Double down the stretch that basically decided it.)


_________________
In a way all of us have an El Guapo to face someday.
http://digitalplates.blogspot.com/

Doglover19 wrote:

Hola! This is my first post here. Just have a few questions for the Ken & the other contestants:

1) How were you guys approached for the show?
2) When was it filmed and how long did it take to film it? (e.g. 2 days, 2 weeks, etc.)
3) What is the prize money for the winner?

Hey Doglover - thanks for all your questions! I received an email from GSN that said producers of a new show were looking for me. Apparently they had been searching for a while and couldn't find me. I didn't know I was that hard to find. My call came 3 weeks before taping but I think others knew they would be on the show a month or two beforehand. Taping was over in 3 days (Wed-Thur-Fri). You can see in John's post game interview he mentions "yesterday..." The prize was $100,000 and bragging rights, of course.

Doglover19 wrote:

Big props to Michelle, she has really been extremely impressive and surpising. She proves she can hang with the guys (which is good because there isn't as many legendary female game show contestants are there are men) and has earned my respect. She probably came into it thinking she would get out first round, and she has taken out two Millionaire legends, the first winner and the top prize winner. Next she faces off against Ken, I don't know if she'll win but I expect it to be closer than some are expecting. Nonetheless she is hauling some serious ass...

A few questions for Michelle:

1) Are you the top winner from the Weakest Link?
2) Is Ann as intimidating as she appears on TV?
3) Were you statistically the best player the entire game? (I know some winners aren't always, a lot of times a weak player is carried to the final 2 only to win)
I don't remember too much about your win on WL. I do remember seeing it though, like 5 years ago or whenever it was.

Thanks so much! I took that last round with John slowly because I knew I had the time. I was very surprised that I only had 9 seconds left.

1. I believe I am the top winner in regular game play. There are a few that went higher: A second chance game where people who lost in the final two came back to play again, a celebrity version, an Anne Robinson look-alike version, an 11-th grader version, an Elvis impersonator's version, and a TV moms version. I am the top, plain vanilla winner. I'll take an asterisk - I still got paid.

2. Nah, Weakest Link taped much slower than it appeared on TV. Anne welcomed us, said she was excited to film the American version and said "This is the last time you'll see me smile." We did not interact with her at all, however she made a mistake during taping causing us to have to stop tape and go back; she apologized to the player with whom she made the mistake.

3. Ok, so there's 8 rounds. The 7th doesn't measure a statistic strongest link because there's no one to vote off. Counting the final face off and the other 6 scored rounds, I was the strongest link 4 times, but the weakest 2. I had to look this up in the scrapbook my mom made for me. Am I the only contestant whose mom still does this?

MK

rarejoule wrote:

The prize was $100,000 and bragging rights, of course.

Are the prizes tiered or does the winner get 100k and everyone else get a lovely parting gift?

Brad Rutter's Jeopardy! TOC win. (I'd never seen
this one; that other guy blew a true Daily Double
down the stretch that basically decided it.)

The real blown opportunity was the Semi-finals, that Brad essentially lost-- but, due to a terrible FJ wager by Leslie Frates, he managed to pull out the win.

Had Leslie made the correct wager- the one I'm sure 99% of other Jeopardy players would have made-- she'd've won.

Paucle wrote:

The real blown opportunity was the Semi-finals, that Brad essentially lost-- but, due to a terrible FJ wager by Leslie Frates, he managed to pull out the win.

Had Leslie made the correct wager- the one I'm sure 99% of other Jeopardy players would have made-- she'd've won.

Yeah. Why she bet zero, I've never been able to figure out.

OgiOgas wrote:

But Ken's performance against Phyllis was a quantum leap forward. You could see Ken learning, adjusting.

...assimilating?

Seriously, that passage sounds like Ken's some sort of machine. The TriviaTron 5000.

Also MK:

For the final round how many of the 5 questions did you answer correctly?

Are the contestants (for Weakest Link) allowed to chat with their fellow contestants inhead of time? I get the impression they do because it appears some contestants form alliances and a pecking order

Anyways I am crossing my fingers for you in the semis. Anybody who can maintain composure going up against the great Ken is truly an all star. If my memory serves me correct, only two people have ever beaten him thus far.

Ken, your first question in the "words" round was "What letter is 17 after D?", which you got almost immediately (U). (In your first match, you also correctly (and fairly quickly) identified O as the 15th letter.) How did you get U so quickly? I'm assuming you have all the letter numbers memorized? Is this something you did for the show? Or just something you already had stored away? Or did you read the question way ahead of The Questioner and have it figured out by the time he finished reading?

Also, unrelated, semi-interesting Switch data:
Time for Michelle to hear "spell gondolier" and switch = 2.74 seconds
Time for John to immediately start spelling and get it right = 4.13 seconds

If she spells it, it probably takes at least 4 seconds. If she gets it wrong, or even if she passes immediately, it takes at least 3-4 (more) seconds for The Questioner to read the right answer.

As pointed out up-thread, if you're going to switch, you might as well do it when the question is short but the answer is long.

econgator wrote:

Are the prizes tiered or does the winner get 100k and everyone else get a lovely parting gift? :)

For the World Series of Pop Culture (another Michael Davies production), the winning team got the whole prize, and the rest of the teams got nothing but a free trip to New York (hotel and transportation). I would imaging it would be a similar situation for Grand Slam.

Doglover19 wrote:

Also MK:

For the final round how many of the 5 questions did you answer correctly?

Are the contestants (for Weakest Link) allowed to chat with their fellow contestants inhead of time? I get the impression they do because it appears some contestants form alliances and a pecking order

Anyways I am crossing my fingers for you in the semis. Anybody who can maintain composure going up against the great Ken is truly an all star. If my memory serves me correct, only two people have ever beaten him thus far.

In the final, I got 4 correct. The contract for Weakest Link pretty much blatantly encourages collusion and the contestants are together a full 24 hours before taping. You could form alliances, however they brought out more than get on the show (in our case 13 for 8 spots) so you run the risk of creating an alliance and not having your teammates make it to the show. They announce 8 players directly before taping so there's no time to readjust your plans. I did form an alliance but not a very smart one. We were 3 strong and one of us got voted off in the first round. The two remaining made it to the final but our alliance didn't really matter until there were 3 or 4 of us left. I got one vote the entire game.

Thanks for crossing your fingers - I hope to be the third!

MK

grodney wrote:

Ken, your first question in the "words" round was "What letter is 17 after D?", which you got almost immediately (U). (In your first match, you also correctly (and fairly quickly) identified O as the 15th letter.) How did you get U so quickly? I'm assuming you have all the letter numbers memorized? Is this something you did for the show? Or just something you already had stored away? Or did you read the question way ahead of The Questioner and have it figured out by the time he finished reading?

I know you asked Ken but for me, I practiced memorizing alpha-numeric code by writing notes and memos in number form. I'd drive down the street and be like "Whole Foods - 23-8-15-12-5-6-15-15-4-19." The easiest letter/number association to remember is "T=20" - so U is 21 (D=4 + 20 = 21) I would use T as a benchmark.

MK



Last edited by rarejoule on Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:20 am; edited 1 time in total

grodney wrote:

Ken, your first question in the "words" round was "What letter is 17 after D?", which you got almost immediately (U). (In your first match, you also correctly (and fairly quickly) identified O as the 15th letter.) How did you get U so quickly? I'm assuming you have all the letter numbers memorized? Is this something you did for the show? Or just something you already had stored away? Or did you read the question way ahead of The Questioner and have it figured out by the time he finished reading?

Also, unrelated, semi-interesting Switch data:
Time for Michelle to hear "spell gondolier" and switch = 2.74 seconds
Time for John to immediately start spelling and get it right = 4.13 seconds

If she spells it, it probably takes at least 4 seconds. If she gets it wrong, or even if she passes immediately, it takes at least 3-4 (more) seconds for The Questioner to read the right answer.

As pointed out up-thread, if you're going to switch, you might as well do it when the question is short but the answer is long.

Why does the length of the question matter when deciding to switch? That's what's called a "sunk cost" at the point when you're making the switch decision. I do agree, however, that the length of the answer is relevant to that decision.

slam wrote:

grodney wrote:

Ken, your first question in the "words" round was "What letter is 17 after D?", which you got almost immediately (U). (In your first match, you also correctly (and fairly quickly) identified O as the 15th letter.) How did you get U so quickly? I'm assuming you have all the letter numbers memorized? Is this something you did for the show? Or just something you already had stored away? Or did you read the question way ahead of The Questioner and have it figured out by the time he finished reading?

Also, unrelated, semi-interesting Switch data:
Time for Michelle to hear "spell gondolier" and switch = 2.74 seconds
Time for John to immediately start spelling and get it right = 4.13 seconds

If she spells it, it probably takes at least 4 seconds. If she gets it wrong, or even if she passes immediately, it takes at least 3-4 (more) seconds for The Questioner to read the right answer.

As pointed out up-thread, if you're going to switch, you might as well do it when the question is short but the answer is long.

Why does the length of the question matter when deciding to switch? That's what's called a "sunk cost" at the point when you're making the switch decision. I do agree, however, that the length of the answer is relevant to that decision.

Also, in most cases, you can't see the question, so you have no idea how long it is until it's done being read. So, yeah, question length is completely irrelevant.

As to the original question, just know the 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th letters.

Thanks for the blog answer, Ken, and to MK and the others here.

econgator wrote:

slam wrote:

grodney wrote:

Ken, your first question in the "words" round was "What letter is 17 after D?", which you got almost immediately (U). (In your first match, you also correctly (and fairly quickly) identified O as the 15th letter.) How did you get U so quickly? I'm assuming you have all the letter numbers memorized? Is this something you did for the show? Or just something you already had stored away? Or did you read the question way ahead of The Questioner and have it figured out by the time he finished reading?

Also, unrelated, semi-interesting Switch data:
Time for Michelle to hear "spell gondolier" and switch = 2.74 seconds
Time for John to immediately start spelling and get it right = 4.13 seconds

If she spells it, it probably takes at least 4 seconds. If she gets it wrong, or even if she passes immediately, it takes at least 3-4 (more) seconds for The Questioner to read the right answer.

As pointed out up-thread, if you're going to switch, you might as well do it when the question is short but the answer is long.

Why does the length of the question matter when deciding to switch? That's what's called a "sunk cost" at the point when you're making the switch decision. I do agree, however, that the length of the answer is relevant to that decision.

Also, in most cases, you can't see the question, so you have no idea how long it is until it's done being read. So, yeah, question length is completely irrelevant.

As to the original question, just know the 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th letters.

And you cannot switch until the end of the question anyway. If you call out switch, the questioner will finish the question and then time will switch.

Ken Jennings wrote:

I hit up one of the UK contestants for tips before going on the show. He blogs here and, I think, has posted on these boards before.

I checked his blog back to May...no mention of Grand Slam. Perhaps they're all too busy thinking about Test The Nation right now?

Excellent commentary on the matches so far. I actually thought Ken looked like he felt sorry for Phyllis in the last couple of rounds. Obviously he wasn't going to throw the game or anything, but he seemed uncomfortable about her meltdown.

The one question that stuck out, mentioned earlier (the floor/for question), didn't stick out because it was particularly hard (although you had to pay attention to every word the questioner said), but how the time was handled. To me, if the questioner was not allowed to repeat a question if asked (and his silence seemed to indicate he wasn't), the answer "What?" from John should have been immediately counted incorrect. Instead, the questioner waited several seconds for John to say "Pass" before saying he was incorrect.

Is there something special about asking a question that the questioner won't count it as an answer, even if he's not permitted to answer the question asked? I was under the impression that pretty much anything you said, other than the correct answer, would be counted as incorrect and he would move on to the next question.

enielsen wrote:

The one question that stuck out, mentioned earlier (the floor/for question), didn't stick out because it was particularly hard (although you had to pay attention to every word the questioner said), but how the time was handled. To me, if the questioner was not allowed to repeat a question if asked (and his silence seemed to indicate he wasn't), the answer "What?" from John should have been immediately counted incorrect. Instead, the questioner waited several seconds for John to say "Pass" before saying he was incorrect.

Is there something special about asking a question that the questioner won't count it as an answer, even if he's not permitted to answer the question asked? I was under the impression that pretty much anything you said, other than the correct answer, would be counted as incorrect and he would move on to the next question.

Good question (and that was something that crossed my mind as I was watching the episode). Everything else seemed to be (correctly) jumped on by the announcer/judges (I assume someone from S&P gave a thumbs up/down to the announcer, not that it was his decision), so I wonder why this one wasn't.

After watching the taping of 4 of the matches, and also the program as edited, it seems to me that a better format for the program would be to have three rather than two matches in an hour show. The best way to work this would be to have 3 contestants play a round robin, with only the best one moving on, similar to the early rounds of world cup soccer other competitions that have pool play prior to a final single elimination tournament. This gives every contestant at least two shots at the format (with a maximum of 8 minutes of playing time in each game)

While it is quite possible that a strong player would win the section 2-0, it would also be possible that there could be three players at 1-1, which then would leave an interesting twist of having the tiebreaker be the net amount that the player was ahead or behind at the end of the matches. This would put a smidge more pressure on someone who is way ahead to still keep pressing to preserve their margin in case of a tie.


_________________
8th Game Show Congress - Summer 2010
www.gameshowcongress.net
gameshow@comcast.net

The U=21 thing was easy for me & I think I know why. I attend a lot of theater, and seat rows are usually given letter designations. But the number/letter equivalents were solidified in my mind when I started volunteer ushering. As an aside, you can volunteer to usher in a lot of off-Broadway & not-for-profit theaters in NYC. You arrive an hour before show time, stuff programs, show people to their seats and see the show for free. I've gotten very used to saying, "H 103, that's 8 rows up, third seat from the aisle" and so on. When seating the audience from the back of the house, it's a little trickier but I automatically know how to subtract letters from W (the back row for the theater I usher in most often).

Even before Phyllis said how nice Ken was, it was obvious during game play. When she got the Chuck Woolery scramble, Ken gave an encouraging smile that seemed to say "Sure, you've met that guy, you know that one" and it seemed to put her a bit at ease. Phyllis did seem to be working from behind so early in round one, which was a shame. I was happy she made a nice comeback in the final round and showed her real skill level.

I actually watched the whole program due to recording it for someone, so no FFing the peanut gallery. It wasn't as bad as the first episode.

Listen, I know I played terribly against Ken. Sometimes you think you're calm, but you're not. I am thrilled to have won one match and made it to the elite 8. I have never, ever studied for a game show I was to be on, and clearly it was a big mistake for this one. Congratulations to Ken on his performance, as he rose from 67% to 79% correct. He played well and kept his calm. I did neither. Just remember that this was the most difficult and stressful game show experience I have ever been a part of. I am proud to have been chosen to participate, and almost didn't do it because of the fear of total failure. I understand it was hard to watch, but understand that it was harder for me. I plan on participating in more game shows, and hope to redeem myself.

Absolutely--this particular show is a real wringer.

But I think that's clear to the home viewer as well--nobody at home is going to say, "Wow, that player sucked." They're going to realize, "Wow, this format is merciless."

phee1 wrote:

Listen, I know I played terribly against Ken. Sometimes you think you're calm, but you're not. I am thrilled to have won one match and made it to the elite 8. I have never, ever studied for a game show I was to be on, and clearly it was a big mistake for this one. Congratulations to Ken on his performance, as he rose from 67% to 79% correct. He played well and kept his calm. I did neither. Just remember that this was the most difficult and stressful game show experience I have ever been a part of. I am proud to have been chosen to participate, and almost didn't do it because of the fear of total failure. I understand it was hard to watch, but understand that it was harder for me. I plan on participating in more game shows, and hope to redeem myself.

You certainly have nothing to be ashamed of. I dare say you did better than 99.9% of us would have done under the same circumstances. For the most part, you really can't 'study' for shows like this. Minor things, sure, but when the round starts, you're most likely acting on instinct and that stuff you looked at the night before is gone.