Duel Returns Tonight on ABC

[TheConfessor]

I'll be interested to see what format changes they made. I thought the show was interesting and worth watching the first time around. I was mostly wishing I could be a contestant. It seemed like pretty easy money, except for the contestants who were never given a chance to play.

I'm not sure if anyone here auditioned. From what I hear, they were interested only in contestants from So. Cal.

[MarleysGh0st]

I'll be interested to see what format changes they made. I thought the show was interesting and worth watching the first time around. I was mostly wishing I could be a contestant. It seemed like pretty easy money, except for the contestants who were never given a chance to play.

Thanks for the reminder! I didn't think there was anything worth watching tonight.

And that part about contestants not getting to play because the other contestants thought they looked too smart was the worst part of all. Out with it, I say!




And bring in a Phone Game!

[lilclyde54]

Actually, Duel would be my game show of choice right now if I could choose any show to get on. From what I saw the first go-round, there is much potential for improved gamesmanship if you are willing to take a chance or two.

[15QuestionsAway]

If you've seen YouTube clips of UK Duel, you'll have an idea of how the game is changed.

I auditioned and was called back to play the game while the production executives were modifying the format. I participated in the first and third stages of the audition - there was a second stage where potential contestants were called back for a video interview. The Duel suits didn't think I needed the second stage of the audition, however I didn't make the final cut for the show.

The essential mechanism of the Duel is the same. During our mock games, we had 10 chips but we only had one press. However, the way a contestant earns money is now completely different if the rules I played under hold. The change that has driven all others is the elimination of the tournament format.

Rather than the player's prize decreasing based on the number of chips lost during the Duel, the player's pot for each Duel now increases based on the number of questions asked according to a prize ladder. Longer Duels = more money, up to a maximum of $50k. So you won't see any belly dancers answering one question and winning $45k this time.

After a contestant wins a Duel, he has the opportunity to walk away with his accumulated winnings. If he decides to continue, he must play an additional Duel question with one chip. If he answers correctly, his winnings for the previous Duel are doubled. If he's wrong, they're halved.

The Duel winner chooses their next opponent in the same way as the original series - from three potential opponents. In our mock game, the two players not chosen for the previous Duel were carried over and a third player was randomly selected.

To win the top prize, a player must win 5 consecutive Duels. During my mock game, the top prize was set at $1M, but it's now $500k.

It's probable that the gameplay was further refined - my mock game was about 10 days before the shows were taped last week.

[TheConfessor]

15QA, based on the first 15 minutes of the show, you probably weren't the kind of obnoxious jerk they were looking for. So far, at least they're keeping a pretty good pace on the questions.

Spoiler

And at least the obnoxious jerk lost.

[TheConfessor]

On the after-duel bonus question, the contestant can get it right and double her money, or get it wrong and keep what she had (not lose half of it).

But then, she has to decide whether to walk with the money, or put it all at risk by playing another duel. One must win 5 duels to get $500K, which appears to be the ultimate objective. So if you already have maybe in the $30K - $100K range after your first win, it's reasonable to risk it all by going for a second duel. However, if you already have, say $350K after four duels, does it really make sense to go for the fifth duel and risk the $350K? Not for most people. So the incentives are built in to make most people walk away after 1 or 2 wins.

These rules are not clear so far:
Is the $500K prize for five wins in addition to the money you've won so far, or do they just top off your total at $500K?

If you win five duels and the $500K prize, are you forced to leave, or can you stay around and go for more duels and more money?

[MarleysGh0st]

- The new prize ladder: Good.

- Still getting to choose your next opponent: Rotten. I hope those on deck stay there as long as it takes to get chosen or to be one of the two random(?) players who replace a retiring champ.

- Risking everything you've won for the chance to continue: Not so good, as Ed has already pointed out.

Spoiler

And tonight's champs didn't have any guts at all, walking with $40K after one win and $35K after two wins, respectively.

How about that Miss USA, thinking that Lincoln Logs might have been named after the Swahili word for "building"?

And Greenie is still too boring with his drawn-out explanations.

Greenie: [holding up the "Max" chip]: Do I need to remind you what this is?

Contestant: Nope.

Greenie explains it all again, anyway.

[TheConfessor]

- Still getting to choose your next opponent: Rotten. I hope those on deck stay there as long as it takes to get chosen or to be one of the two random(?) players who replace a retiring champ.

Note to future contestants:
If given a choice of opponents, always choose

Spoiler

the teenage beauty queen.

[TheConfessor]

ABC's crack promotions team just sent an e-mail telling me to watch Duel. It arrived about an hour after the show was over. I think someone already mentioned this, but bragging about a past $1.7 million winner seems pretty shady if the (improbable) maximum prize has been reduced to $500K.

One irony is that a bad player might have a better chance of winning $500K than a really good player. If some dumb guy lucks out and wins 4 games in a row, but his cumulative total is only, say, $10,000, it's a no-brainer to go for a fifth duel that could win him $500K. A really smart guy with four wins could have up to $400K at risk if he decided to go for the fifth duel, so he'd probably just walk away.

==========

Duel -- Fridays @ 9/8c

This adrenaline pumping, high-stakes competition game show returns on a weekly basis beginning tonight! Once again, contestants will be matched in intense head-to-head competitions where they scheme to outsmart and outmaneuver their opponents. Last time, one player took home a jackpot of over $1.7 million! Tune in and watch the sparks fly.

Test your own skills by playing the online game now!

[ulysses5019]

Yup, I just got my email too.

[takinover]

I don't like the changes.

Spoiler

Why would anyone put $35K or $40K at risk, unless if they need more money to pay off a debt or something?

And they did not take care of the pick the weak link problem

[Bob78164]

ABC's crack promotions team just sent an e-mail telling me to watch Duel. It arrived about an hour after the show was over. I think someone already mentioned this, but bragging about a past $1.7 million winner seems pretty shady if the (improbable) maximum prize has been reduced to $500K.

One irony is that a bad player might have a better chance of winning $500K than a really good player. If some dumb guy lucks out and wins 4 games in a row, but his cumulative total is only, say, $10,000, it's a no-brainer to go for a fifth duel that could win him $500K. A really smart guy with four wins could have up to $400K at risk if he decided to go for the fifth duel, so he'd probably just walk away.

I think your winnings have little to do with your own skills and much to do with your opponent's. If your opponent is dumb enough to miss the first question, you win $1000 no matter how smart you are. Someone consistently smart enough to win $400,000 in four games probably has reason for confidence that he or she would win the fifth as well, having had to outlast four rather smart players. --Bob

[TheConfessor]

ABC's crack promotions team just sent an e-mail telling me to watch Duel. It arrived about an hour after the show was over. I think someone already mentioned this, but bragging about a past $1.7 million winner seems pretty shady if the (improbable) maximum prize has been reduced to $500K.

One irony is that a bad player might have a better chance of winning $500K than a really good player. If some dumb guy lucks out and wins 4 games in a row, but his cumulative total is only, say, $10,000, it's a no-brainer to go for a fifth duel that could win him $500K. A really smart guy with four wins could have up to $400K at risk if he decided to go for the fifth duel, so he'd probably just walk away.

I think your winnings have little to do with your own skills and much to do with your opponent's. If your opponent is dumb enough to miss the first question, you win $1000 no matter how smart you are. Someone consistently smart enough to win $400,000 in four games probably has reason for confidence that he or she would win the fifth as well, having had to outlast four rather smart players. --Bob

That's true that a really smart player against a really dumb player might win only $1000 per duel. However, in order to win $400K in four duels, you would have to win four consecutive games that were very long and very close, and which could easily have gone the other way. In other words, you won four consecutive events which you had only a 50-50 chance of winning. I don't think that would give me a lot of confidence that I would win the fifth duel. If going for a fifth duel means I'm taking a 50-50 chance of winning an extra 100K or losing the 400K that I already won, anyone with any sense would have to walk away.

As I said earlier, we're not sure what the rules are. If a person gets the 500K as a bonus that is added to what he has already won, or if a person can win the 500K bonus and then continue to play more duels, then that would change the decision parameters.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

Yup, I just got my email too.

I got mine as well.

I was too busy to watch.

[Bob Juch]

They obviously don't want to give much money away, thus the new rules.

[kusch]

I watched it and while I don't really really like the show, I do like the new format a bit better than the previous one.

Oh, and the last duel loser was Brooke. (the blonde) I think she was on Beauty and the Geek. Yes, I watch that show. Maybe KT can confirm this observation.



I did some checking, I cannot find that she was on Beauty, but still she looked familiar.

[Bob78164]

That's true that a really smart player against a really dumb player might win only $1000 per duel. However, in order to win $400K in four duels, you would have to win four consecutive games that were very long and very close, and which could easily have gone the other way. In other words, you won four consecutive events which you had only a 50-50 chance of winning. I don't think that would give me a lot of confidence that I would win the fifth duel. If going for a fifth duel means I'm taking a 50-50 chance of winning an extra 100K or losing the 400K that I already won, anyone with any sense would have to walk away.

As I said earlier, we're not sure what the rules are. If a person gets the 500K as a bonus that is added to what he has already won, or if a person can win the 500K bonus and then continue to play more duels, then that would change the decision parameters.

But your original point was that a dumb player has a better chance of reaching $400,000 in four games that a smart player. I don't think that's right. The "dumb" player isn't likely to win a lengthy game.

The most likely scenario, of course, for someone to win $500,000 is for a really smart player to face a series of not-so-astute opponents, thereby wracking up victories that are easy but not terribly lucrative.

[TheConfessor]

But your original point was that a dumb player has a better chance of reaching $400,000 in four games that a smart player. I don't think that's right. The "dumb" player isn't likely to win a lengthy game.

No it wasn't. Read it again. I said a dumb player has a better chance of lucking into $500K than a smart player does. I agree that a dumb player could never win $400K. Only a smart player (playing against other smart players) could win $400K. However, a dumb player playing against other dumb players has a plausible chance of winning the $500K bonus, because with minimal winnings and little to lose after the fourth duel, there's no reason not to go ahead and try for the fifth duel.

[elwoodblues]

I would like to see the winner get to play again without having to risk his/her previous winnings. Jeopardy! does not ask the champions if they want to risk their money and come back.

Nor should they get to pick their next opponent. J! does not do this either. ("I'll take that Ken Jennings guy. He doesn't look that bright.")

[MarleysGh0st]

If they want to keep the "risk it or leave" feature of the game--and if they really don't want all their champs to walk away--I think they ought to add some safe havens, so that only the most recent game's winning is at risk. After the first match, you're risking it all to play the second game. After the second game, your first game's winnings are safe and the second's at risk. After the third win, the first two are safe, etc. Maybe that tilts the odds too far in the other direction? (Then get rid of the "Max" chip or add some double or nothing risk to that, too.)

[Timsterino]

I'll be interested to see what format changes they made. I thought the show was interesting and worth watching the first time around. I was mostly wishing I could be a contestant. It seemed like pretty easy money, except for the contestants who were never given a chance to play.

I'm not sure if anyone here auditioned. From what I hear, they were interested only in contestants from So. Cal.

I was a semi-finalist (potential contestant) during the first run of the show. I had auditioned in Orlando and made the cut all the way to signing a contract. For some reason (I think it was my numerous game show appearances) I was not chosen for the show. So I have VERY mixed feelings about the show, they gave a lot of people the run around.

[15QuestionsAway]

If they want to keep the "risk it or leave" feature of the game--and if they really don't want all their champs to walk away--I think they ought to add some safe havens, so that only the most recent game's winning is at risk. After the first match, you're risking it all to play the second game. After the second game, your first game's winnings are safe and the second's at risk. After the third win, the first two are safe, etc. Maybe that tilts the odds too far in the other direction? (Then get rid of the "Max" chip or add some double or nothing risk to that, too.)

Yeah, they tweaked the game the wrong way from my mock game. You kept your winnings after a successful Duel - the double or half (now Max - double only) question just determined how much you actually won. I won a Duel in my mock game, lost the double or half question then lost my next Duel. Still had $15k, since I won a long Duel.

Now the incentives to continue are perverse - if you win a small amount in a Duel, you're way more likely to continue than if you win a big amount, because of the risk of losing it all.

The only thing I can think of is that the mock games scared the executive producers. The guy who beat me won four Duels and was very unlucky not to win his fifth. I definitely picked the wrong opponent - he trashed the other two I could have picked.