talkingaway wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:51 amNot related to J! directly, but related to the whole concept of game show collusion - in the latest iteration of Pyramid (and I think a few iterations in the Dick Clark era?), players earn $50,000 for winning the first bonus round, while in the second round, it’s either $50,000 if there are two different winners, or $100,000 for a repeat winner. You could theoretically collude in highly detectable way by just agreeing to split all winnings and letting the winner of round 1 win round 2 - or, you could collude in an all-or-nothing way, having a gentleman’s agreement that whoever wins the first game will win the second game, and just keep all the money - although that’s relying on honestly.
Beat Shazam also has a variant of it - often, one team is so far ahead on the last question that they’re a lock to make the bonus round. The second team leaves with half their money. That means that if the last question is worth $20,000 to the first team, it’s automatically worth only $10,000 to the second team. Granted, I can’t say many people would be willing to give up $10,000 for a stranger to get $20,000, but maybe there’s someone out there who would.
My point is that just because collusion is possible doesn’t mean that a game show has to create every single tortuous rule to make sure collusion doesn’t happen. Even in Jeopardy, if the last clue is $2000, and all three places are sufficiently far apart that it’s a lock for all 3 prizes no matter who gets it right, the only person who should theoretically be buzzing in is the leader iff they knows it. But I don’t think that happens - partly due to the fast pace of play, and partly because the North American ethic/culture is to play to win.
Jeopardy only awards the first place prize because they were originally worried that players would be too conservative, opting to leave with a medium payday. As far as ties, I actually liked them, and don’t see any problem with splitting tie winnings between 2 or 3 players. I just think the producers think it makes for bad TV to end a game with three zero wagers.
Even on J, you'd have to rely on honesty.
The difference in your examples would be on those shows, people aren't coming back to win more money. On Jeopardy, all three would have to agree
for the person in the lead and the person in 2nd place to wager the difference between each of them and 3rd place, while 3rd place bets zero. Then 1st & 2nd tank FJ, and you have a three-way tie, and all players come back, and keep doing this until the producers say "stop, here is a rule that will prevent ties".
So, going into FJ:
Left podium has $5000
Middle podium has $8000
Right podium has $10000
Left bets zero, Middle bets $3000, Right bets $5000.
Middle and Right get FJ wrong, 3-way-tie.