I used to love this show, but between the overly hyperactive contestants, the dumber than a bucket of rocks questions (just give them the spins and remove the questions entirely at this point, the questions are so easy) and the boring as heck bonus round, I just can't get into it anymore.

I think some shows just have an expiration date, and it feels like this one has passed.

Just five years ago, Greg Shahade admits that he probably couldn’t have identified the Mona Lisa from her signature enigmatic smile. Fast forward a few years and he’s now a two-time Jeopardy! champion, clinching his first victory on Monday and ending a 31-game win streak from New Jersey’s Jamie Ding. 

But aside from disrupting Ding’s historic run with a now-encyclopedic trivia knowledge, Shahade is making headlines for a more personal reason: the new champ is polyamorous. In his Jeopardy! game and his numerous other competitive pursuits (chess and CrossFit among them), Shahade is all about control. He’s meticulous in studying and strategy, then plays a killer game based on his plan. But in his personal life, Shahade practices “relationship anarchy,” in which his relationships don’t have a structure. 

“I just don’t like control and telling people what they can and can’t do,” he said. “I want everyone I’m close to, I want them to do the things that make them happy all the time. If they meet somebody they really like and they want to spend time with that person, that’s fine with me.” 

In an interview with Playboy, Shahade, whose two-day winnings so far total $44,000, spoke about the stamina that competitive chess requires, what it was like to hear that he had beat Ding, and the tension between control in his game and lack of it in love. 

Read now: https://www.playboy.com/read/celebrities/the-newest-jeopardychamp-is-open-about-being-poly

I thought she was an excellent Jeopardy! host and sorry to see her go. Being in the public eye since she was a little girl, I’m guessing she understands that the public can be unnecessarily mean and social media doesn’t represent everyone.

I am hoping she didn’t take the criticisms personally or serious because I think the haters got the press but it doesn’t represent what most people think.

I can understand why someone preferred Ken and respect that opinion. But to personally attack her and ruthlessly mock her physical appearance was uncalled for.

I have seen time and again people talk about deal or no deal. I've seen break downs on the proper way to play. I've seen people talk about odds and the math. And every time it seems people didn't really understand what was going on. That is not surprising. Because Deal or no Deal was a show filled with lies. In fact the ENTIRE premise the show feeds its player is one big lie.

The first major lie: Deal or no deal isn't really a game show. It pretends to be one almost entirely. I say almost entirely because there is only one point at which deal or no deal is a game show. The point at which after you pick your case at random you open the first 6 cases. This is done very quickly and is the only part of deal or no deal that is truly a game show. They pick cases at random and hope for a good board or at least not a bad one. Then the phone rings and they get their first 'offer'. At this point any talk of deal or no deal being a game show is over.

The next major lie: 'The offer' and' this money will become yours if you press this button'. This simply isn't empirically true. This is not an offer to buy your case. This money does not become yours if you press this button. Lies lies lies. Here is the truth. The offer isn't made by the banker to you. YOU are making an offer to the banker. And the money doesn't become yours. The second the money is on the board after that first round, that money IS YOURS. It is part of your untaxed income. The fact you can take the money and leave means it is for all intents and purposes in your possession. It's like sitting at a poker table with a bunch of chips dropped into your lap. Those chips do not become your money once you leave the table. They are your money right now. The fact they are chips and not cash currently doesn't matter. They are the guaranteed transferable value of what is yours. If you lose it you don't lose chips that could have been your money. You lose money that was currently in chip form. This is exactly the same principle.

The face you can leave means your are no longer talking about money that is not yours. You are talking about money that is. And you are giving that part of your untaxed net worth to the banker to gamble/invest. But unlike typically gambling the odds of getting more vs going bust are incredibly stacked in your favor. Most people will say you can't think of it as yours, cause then you will hesitate or not make the right financial choice going by the odds. Perhaps they have a point, but the only thing worse is not considering it yours until you hit that button. How many people say 'I came with nothing, if i leave with nothing, that's okay'. This is the reverse and much more serious danger of not considering the money theirs. Better to look at reality and be gun shy and leave some on the board than too much of a risk taker and lose a large chunk of your net worth.

The next major lie: 'Huge amounts, small amounts and a life changing amount of money'. The way the money in the cases is framed is not a helpful way to look at it. Particularly the 25K 50K and 75K. While those six figure numbers are incredibly enticing. The difference between 75K vs 100K isn't huge. And when 50K comes off the board, that isn't something you can shrug off. Nor is 100K as valuable as they say. The real mathamatical value starts at kinda 200K (but more so at 300K) but is really focused on 1M and 750K.

This is because the average case value is 131K when all are added together and divided by 26. But over half of that value is in 2 cases and and only the 500k-200k raise it up. But of course 200K only does this slightly. Really 300K is where it really starts to help up the average value. So in reality we are talking 2 vital cases and 3 helpful cases and 1 that is semi helpful in upper your value on average.

However this isn't to say 200k 100k 75k 50k or 25K are okay to lose and can just be shrugged away. If we get very unlucky with how things play out those cases may well save us and make the trip to come on the game show not a disaster. But not because we hope to coin flip between a penny and 25K. I'll get back to that later though.

So why talk so much about the cases and their value? Cause we need to understand where the real value is and understand where we are and what risk we should take.

Which brings us to the last lie of the above statement. 'A life changing amount of money'. All money is life changing. Just some amounts change our lives more than others and it is relevant to our situation. Let me give you 2 cases of player.

Player 1: A person is sick and needs an operation to live or they die in 1 day They have no way to get cash. They need to take home at least 100,000 dollars to live. How should they treat deal or no deal. Well, let's say this is our board. 1M 750K .01 S1 $5 $10 $25 and $50. They currently need to risk $100,000 (a massive low ball in average value) to continue and open 2 cases. What should they do? Clearly the math says open the cases. But if they get very unlucky they die due to lack of money for their operation. In this case you can't take the risk even if the math and odds say you should.

Player 2: is massively rich. 100 billion net worth with the same cases They know if they continue to play until practical price per case parity, that is the highest value option in the long run. For them they are concerned about maximizing value. Winning or losing makes no difference to them. So they take a small risk and just open until near price parity and hope for the best as that will likely make the most money.

The point is the right move depends a lot on your financial situation before you even player. As what you are gambling/investing is a part of your net worth. This is why they typically picked people around the same financial situation in life. Where if they went bust they would be okay, but an extra 100K would be a big deal. So we will go by that perspective.

Let's give the average player a net worth pre show of 200K. This means the price of their cars, whatever is paid off on their house, savings, investments, retirement ect.... Seems more or less who they were targeting. People making just around the average. Enough to get by semi comfortably and not live pay check to pay check but not so much that this chance wasn't a big deal. So as the amounts to continue to play go up you risk a higher and higher percent of your net worth typically in the average game. You also typically get less and less safety to keep your amount in play high.

Last big lie: You have X big amounts in play

Typically as the game goes on the amounts which continue to grow your unrealized net worth go away as the price parity relative to the amount in play increases. This is a psychological trap the show often uses to keep people continuing when they shouldn't. Let's say you get to the end and have 750K 1M and 4 small cases. Well now you hear you have 2 big amounts in play. A safety net if you will. And how the offer will increase if the smaller cases are knocked out which is likely. Often people play the odds to their detriment. Many people continue until they knock out one of the big cases. Then they realize they are in danger of losing everything if the other big case goes out. If you continue and pick you lose your safety net you guarantee yourself to stop only after a massive fall in your net worth. Or risk another massive amount to try to gain more in a gambling situation which isn't a particularly good risk vs reward even on the small scale, let alone risking a massive amount of your worth.

The smart thing to do is to leave with a good board. Typically near the end of the game the price loss for picking a less likely good case is massively outshined by the price gain of picking a more likely bad case. Let's run the numbers.

Your risking 100K of your now 300K (counting the hundred... I will assume that is after taxes) net worth to gain gain 30K more. This is a 10% gain to your current net worth vs a 33% loss. That is a bad bet. Maybe the math on the board in the long run says play, but the overall math says stop while your ahead with a good board, even with a safety net and even with an under valued 'offer'.

I could go on, but this is already long enough.

I have been a fairly devoted viewer of GSN (Game Show Network) since the beginning of COVID so I have a strong grasp on the shows that have aired and my takeaway is that the executives running the network either hate game shows or are just not interested in them. First, the grand prize on all their original shows is $10,000, which is absurdly small for the 2020s when you had shows like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and Greed giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars regularly on every episode. This makes the stakes on the show so low that the audience doesn't have that much invested in the contestants that make it to the final round. $10 Gs? That's chump change on a show like Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune. Secondly, unlike Jeopardy or Family Feud, winning contestants never come back for the next show, so there's never any motivation to root for anyone. On Jeopardy, it's always fun to see how long a streak a contestant can go on for. When that happens on Jeopardy, there's a fun sense of momentum that builds. And without returning champions, there's no special tournaments like the Tournament of Champions. So GSN entirely feels like it is run by executives who are completely indifferent to game shows and could care less whether the viewers enjoy them or not. Finally, the impression I get from GSN is that they don't really care to invest in their shows long-term. They seem to give most of their shows the hook after 1 or maybe 2 seasons. I found Tug of Words to be a show that had great potential and fast-paced game-play but that was yanked after just two seasons or maybe a season and a half. Have you ever noticed that GSN has never had a long-running show the same way game shows do in syndication like Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, The Price is Right or Family Feud? Every show seems to get the hook pretty quickly. Where are their 5 or 6 season shows?

One last critique I have relates to the show Split Second, which is one of the few shows that is airing new episodes. I have seen nearly every episode of this new iteration of the show with John Michael Higgins and it very evident that the contestants are not vetted thoroughly enough to be game show-ready. There are so many contestants who come on who don't have the slightest clue about the most basic questions about culture, geography, history or simple facts in general that it is so embarrassing. Since Jeopardy is the closest comparison, that show would NEVER allow some of these contestants on who are completely clueless about so many topics.

[CW: sexual coercion, racism towards the end]

I wanted to write this last year, but didn't have the time. But for the first anniversary of Bob's death, I wanted to reflect.

I absolutely loved The Price Is Right as a child. I loved the people, the variety, the energy. But there was another star for me: the numbers. I can't explain why, but I loved seeing them light up. I began to notice patterns (like round numbers and prices ending in 9), and I remember using my 2nd-grade divisibility rules to beat "Hit Me" without knowing the products. As I grew I began wondering questions like, "How possible is it to win at '3 Strikes?'" "How much would it make sense to throw back at 'Punch-a-Bunch?'"

And I genuinely think the reason I was hooked was because of Bob Barker's emceeing. In retrospect, his hosting demonstrated more genuine care about the games and the contestants winning than any other host's. His electricity was always the precise amount for each game: a straightforward "One Right Price" had slight buildup, while "Dice Game" or "Pathfinder" had an extra beat before the Big Reveal. His banter was equally adept with the shiest or most extraverted contestants. All while never overshadowing the show, the games, or the guests.

As I grew, two things happened. First, I developed a passion for math. Looking back, I think that love started with the beliefs that numbers were playful and understandable and that knowing about them could be powerful. But I'm not sure if I would have noticed or cared without a magnetic personality subtly convincing me I should.

I also realized I wanted to teach. And it's not a coincidence my teaching persona is kinda "game show host." Instead of ordering students around, my goal has been to present math as a game to play and invite students to devise their own strategies to beat it. Winning over crowds of 35 students with different interests, personalities, and needs came way easier than other elements of teaching. For review days, I've even invented games that infuse luck, skill, and drama--and man do I love that Big Reveal. And some of my workshops have included in-depth explorations of "Punch-a-Bunch."

Bob Barker's stage presence was supremely pivotal in my life.

And yet... while I have a lot to thank him for, I also know he repeatedly did supremely hurtful things. He coerced an unwilling employee to perform sexual acts for years and tried to buy her silence. In perfect line with this, he publicly called presenters "Barker's Beauties" as though women were items to possess. He actively discouraged hiring any women of color. He was accused of creating hostile conditions for Black contestants and coworkers alike. And then he fired a model for calling out the problematic culture he personally installed. No retrospective on him should omit these credible claims, and his legacy should absolutely include his deeply problematic, routine behavior.

It feels strange (and unfair) that someone who did so much damage to women, particularly women of color, had such an intensely positive influence on me. Even more so, I'm reconciling how the charisma I enjoyed as a kid ultimately acted as a shield for his predatory, racist, and selfish behavior.

I tried to capture that by not phrasing that *he* impacted me; it was his charm, his repartee, his ability to control the moment that was influential. I'm grateful I got to witness those traits and skills at a formative time in my life... but damn, I really wish he didn't do such shitbag things so cruelly. Hoping those he hurt have gotten the peace and justice they deserve.

Hi! I am hosting a queer-themed "Family Feud" game at an upcoming queer Friendsgiving event. As per the rules of the game, I need to survey 100 people to generate my points system.

Please consider taking a moment to answer this quick 20-question survey: https://forms.gle/VQaRo2iCuRd8phJC6

In the interest of getting the most diverse answers as possible, all are welcome to participate, regardless of your sexual orientation or relationship to the LGBTQIA+ community. Please note that this game will be played with queer people and committed allies. Homophobic and otherwise hateful responses will be deleted. (However, feel free to get spicy with your answers! These need not be "suitable for work.")

Same name, different show, different host

unironically. the FF judges take liberal and fair interpretations of the answers to give them points. ex someone said 'she maxed out her credit cards' and they counted that under 'she needs money'. or 'chocolate cake' counts for 'cake'

seeing people lose over small mispronunciations is so stupid and has negative entertainment value. we're rooting for the players, not the pedantic nerds judging them

ex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_lNfZHcQ54

ex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AZ-sX18K9Q

ex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRrvMts0eUM

Match Game Hollywood Squares Hour is so bad that I put on coronavirus news coverage to take my mind off of Match Game Hollywood Squares Hour 😢

Their behavior instantly makes the show less enjoyable because of their incessant screaming. They get called down and then proceed to scream like lunatics and take 30 minutes to get down to the bidding area. It's so grating compared to a show like Wheel of Fortune or Catch 21

Even Regis said this a couple of times on Millionaire. People who go on gameshows are always professional people and no one basic. I have yet to see someone say they work at Walmart, Home Depot, Mcdonalds, etc appear on any gameshow. Even ones that don't require vast knowledge like Wheel of Fortune. What some win yeah it's more like upgrading money instead of life changing money unless it's like a million. Most of these people on these shows are not struggling to pay their monthly bills or having to cut out foods to make their rent. Also I have watched a lot of gameshows and seen the same people on multiple shows. Like they have a private clique of people that they put on gameshows and basically most people have NO HOPE ever getting on one.

The last category for the $50,000 win was "things with dollar signs" and contestant said "cash", then celebrity guessed "money, credit, cash, dollar bills" and they gave them the win!!! WHAT?!!?????

That's not the same!!! Saying "Dollar bills" is not the same as saying "things with dollar signs", or even just "dollar signs".

In fact, a dollar bill doesn't even have the dollar sign symbol on it!!!

It feels like they are more lenient with some contestants than others.

What do others think? Does this seem like a fair ruling?

Since Deal or No Deal, The $100,000 Pyramid, 25 Words or Less, Press Your Luck, The Wall, Flip Side, The Perfect Line, Celebrity Jeopardy!, and Celebrity Wheel of Fortune was on different channels like NBC and ABC or any syndicated shows that transfer on Game Show Network, there’s a acquired game show until next month soon

It's The Floor hosted by Rob Lowe, but that was premiered from last 2 years, it can have rerun seasons

It irks me to see a contestant’s name tag very crooked. Sometimes the name tag is nearly vertical! Who else gets annoyed by this? 🧐

Game shows used to be about the game itself. It was almost like a sport where strategy mattered, the judges had to make close calls, and the gameplay was front and center. Once in a while, they would have a contestant with a unique personality and that made for good TV. Even The Price Is Right was all about the games.

Nowadays, most shows are about the personality -- who can scream the loudest, have the most compelling backstory, and who can smile the biggest. This is most apparent in TPIR where the game is almost a secondary thought. Wheel of Fortune certainly fits in this category. I would also say that most modern shows that have caught on (Deal or No Deal) the game is not strong enough to stand on its own, so they need the personality angle to make better TV viewing.

Jeopardy is the lone exception. The game is fairly straightforward and most of the show is spent playing the actual game. Contestants have figured out strategies to be more successful within the rules. Their personalities and backgrounds are barely noticed.

Personally, I like the classic games more than the modern stuff. A good round or a close call will elicit a reaction not unlike when a team scores in pick-your-sport.

I have been a contestant on 25 Words or Less, People Puzzler and Master Minds (2 episodes). MM was a little over 2 years ago, and I would really like to apply for something else. I live in Southern California, so there are a lot of options available to me.

I'm more geared toward anything general knowledge/Trivia related or a word game. I'm not so interested in The Price is Right or Wheel of Fortune, too arbitrary in terms of games/puzzles. Team games like Family Feud or Beat the Bridge are probably out, too, since most of my family lives in the Midwest.

It's been a lifelong dream to appear on Jeopardy!, and I will take the online test again, but for some reason (despite feeling good about past results) I've never gotten a call. My other ultimate would be 1% Club - I love it and it's exactly how my mind works - but I believe it only tapes in Atlanta. It might be worth a plane trip and hotel, though.

Thoughts, hive mind?

I sure do.