How Much Is Enough?

Message

MarleysGh0st · #1 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:34 am

This new game show debuts at 9 pm tonight at GSN.

So here's the official description of the game:

http://www.gsn.com/shows/howmuch/

Four players face-off competing in a test of strategy, psychology and nerve. It's a high-energy game show combining fast-action and calculated risks taken by each contestant.

The game begins with five "Money Clocks" ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. The players secretly buzz-in for each round as the money amount is displayed on the clock. He/she attempts to capture the second highest amount of money as the greediest player is awarded nothing throughout the first four "Money Clocks." In the 5th (all-important) "Money Clock" round, the two contestants who buzz -with the Most and Least dollar amounts get nothing while the two players in the Middle money range proceed to bank his/her cash.

The two players with the most money remaining in his/her bank after the $5,000 "Money Clock" round then advance to the FINAL Face-Off, wherein the "Money Clock" starts at zero and increases to reach the combined dollar amount of the two player's total banks.

The first player to buzz-in will win that amount of cash on the FINAL "Money Clock" while the greedier player departs HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? poorer…but wiser.

That's it? Just buzz at the right time--not too early, not too late?

<yawn>

Here's another opinion:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... /1025/LIFE

How Much is Enough? debut, 9 p.m., GSN (Game Show Network). Contestants simply try to take a bunch of money, knowing that the one who takes the most will get nothing. It's a game show with zero play-along factor for viewers. Think of it as "Deal or No Deal" without the big money, the glitz or (presumably) the audience.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #2 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:47 am

So, the show awards mediocrity?

MarleysGh0st · #3 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:04 pm

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:So, the show awards mediocrity?

That's it! Because if you're not mediocre enough, you're "too greedy".

GSN's beancounters must love this set of rules.

peacock2121 · #4 Post by **peacock2121** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:06 pm

I won't be watching.

Shade · #5 Post by **Shade** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:58 pm

I watched an episode, I don't really like it. It doesn't make you think like a good trivia game show and it doesn't have a lot of money at stake like Deal or No Deal so I deem it not worthy of 30 minutes of my time but I may still watch it if there is nothing else on.

MarleysGh0st · #6 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:27 am

Shade wrote:I watched an episode, I don't really like it. It doesn't make you think like a good trivia game show and it doesn't have a lot of money at stake like Deal or No Deal so I deem it not worthy of 30 minutes of my time but I may still watch it if there is nothing else on.

I also watched it last night, probably for the last time. If there's nothing else on TV, there are always books.

For variety, the rounds alternate counting up the money clock and then down, e.g. from $0 to $1000 and then from $2000 to $0. Contestants were holding their buttons behind their backs so their opponents couldn't see them, then doing all sorts of silly fake-out moves, which the host started having lots of fun with. He was probably the only one.

Starting in the second round, they started drawing out the suspense before revealing the amount each contestant rang in with. "Do you think your opponent was greedier than you or not? Oh, well played!" Feh.

General strategy seems to be to wait until the money clocks were at about half their full values, more or less. Except for the final round, with the two remaining contestants face off with their buttons in full view of each other. Then it was just a matter of nerves of steel and lightning reflexes. If such a meaningless game can rate such exciting adjectives.

earendel · #7 Post by **earendel** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:43 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:I also watched it last night, probably for the last time. If there's nothing else on TV, there are always books.

"When I was your age television was called books." (the grandfather in "The Princess Bride")

mrkelley23 · #8 Post by **mrkelley23** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:45 am

I believe Linda Lovelace had a slightly different answer to the title question.....

I won't be watching this one.

BackInTex · #9 Post by **BackInTex** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:07 am

looks like an opportunity to cheat.

Two players each agree to split the winnings by both punching in immediately.

Of course, I haven't read all the rules, but it seems like that would work.

MarleysGh0st · #10 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:12 am

BackInTex wrote:looks like an opportunity to cheat.

Two players each agree to split the winnings by both punching in immediately.

Of course, I haven't read all the rules, but it seems like that would work.

I presume they have the usual safeguards against collusion.

thguy65 · #11 Post by **thguy65** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:35 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:So, the show awards mediocrity?
That's it! Because if you're not mediocre enough, you're "too greedy".

GSN's beancounters must love this set of rules.

There's a little game you can play called "Mediocrity" where the goal is not to have the best result, but the most mediocre result. In fact, if you play a series of games, you don't want to win the most number of games, but the second-most number of games. Douglas Hofstadter called this game "Hruska". Bonus points to Bored members who know why he chose this name.

Peter5858 · #12 Post by **Peter5858** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:33 pm

Roman Hruska. Senator from Nebraska. During the nomination hearings for one of the failed Nixon nominees (Carswell, I think), stated in response to a suggestion that the nominee was mediocre: "Mediorce people need representation, too" or words to similar effect.

Shade · #13 Post by **Shade** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:57 pm

MarleysGh0st wrote:
Shade wrote:I watched an episode, I don't really like it. It doesn't make you think like a good trivia game show and it doesn't have a lot of money at stake like Deal or No Deal so I deem it not worthy of 30 minutes of my time but I may still watch it if there is nothing else on.
I also watched it last night, probably for the last time. If there's nothing else on TV, there are always books.

For variety, the rounds alternate counting up the money clock and then down, e.g. from $0 to $1000 and then from $2000 to $0. Contestants were holding their buttons behind their backs so their opponents couldn't see them, then doing all sorts of silly fake-out moves, which the host started having lots of fun with. He was probably the only one.

Starting in the second round, they started drawing out the suspense before revealing the amount each contestant rang in with. "Do you think your opponent was greedier than you or not? Oh, well played!" Feh.

General strategy seems to be to wait until the money clocks were at about half their full values, more or less. Except for the final round, with the two remaining contestants face off with their buttons in full view of each other. Then it was just a matter of nerves of steel and lightning reflexes. If such a meaningless game can rate such exciting adjectives.

I do enjoy reading, don't get me wrong. But I kind of have a designated TV time and a designated reading time.

If I had the option of being a contestant on How Much is Enough? I'd want to be one, (Other than Grand Slam and Without Prejudice) it has the highest potential pay out of every other GSN original game show I've seen.