Question about Hot Seat

[priac]

I realize Drew shows the contestant the results of their choices “in no particular order”. 

However, I don’t seem to remember an instance when the chair moved to the incorrect choice (if any)last.

Apparently “in no particular order” is not the same as random.

Thoughts?

[Axl]

It is not random.  The order is selected by the producers, but by rule, they will always go to a correctly-priced prize if one is still available.  Drew saying "in no particular order" is just to prevent a player from assuming they are going left-to-right or in ascending order of cost.  He doesn't want contestants to think, "Well, the last price that was just revealed is definitely more than the thing I'm at now, so that means I should bailout," or "They skipped over that one item, and now we've come back to it, so I must have it wrong."

Traditionally in progressive games, the producers try to make each subsequent choice a little harder than the one before, and I assume that's how they select the order of reveals for this game, too.

[tpir04]

Axl pretty much said it all, but let me echo: It is not random to the producers, but it is for the contestant. The items are simply revealed in any order, whereas games like It's in the Bag always go from left to right.

My $2. (Contrary to popular belief, talk is not cheap.)

[gamesurf]

The phrase "in no particular order" does a lot of heavy lifting. It keeps things vague while explaining the jumping around. And the "we'll reveal all correct answers first" bit is also very necessary, since a clever contestant could take that info and use it to their advantage when deciding whether to go on or bail.

I've never seen a playing where Drew used the word "random" to refer to the reveal order. But I bet if he did, S&P would take issue, since "random" has a specific meaning--"chosen without method." Saying the reveal order was determined without following any pattern would be plainly untrue and misleading the contestant. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong and Drew called it "random" without incident.)

Axl pretty much said it all, but let me echo: It is not random to the producers, but it is for the contestant.

One nitpicky nitpick: Something can still be non-random and still "unpredictable" or "arbitrary" from the contestant's PoV. But nothing about it is random--the word "random" has a specific meaning. A thing is either random or it isn't. An outcome can't be both planned to one person and random to another.

The rest seems correct to me.

[priac]

Obviously I misspoke (miswrote) - but I think you all understood what I meant to say.
I’ve never seen a case where the chair moves to an incorrect choice when there are still correct choices to reveal.  The incorrect choices (if any) seem to always be left until the end- of course for dramatic effect.

Thanks for the comments.  It’s clear now that “in no particular order” is not synonymous with random.  I think when I first started watching the game, for some reason I had random stuck in my head. 

In a way this works for the contestant in that after the 35 seconds are up, it allows them to realize an obvious bad choice they might have made under time pressure, and walk away, before bombing out. 

[CBSpromoman]

Obviously I misspoke (miswrote) - but I think you all understood what I meant to say.
I’ve never seen a case where the chair moves to an incorrect choice when there are still correct choices to reveal.  The incorrect choices (if any) seem to always be left until the end- of course for dramatic effect.

Exactly. But that's the point of the game.

They're intentionally not going to an incorrect choice as long as you have correct choices available. Not only must you correctly guess the price range for the items, you also must know when to safely bail while getting as much money as you can.

[JayC]

There'd be a definite S&P issue if they revealed an incorrect item before revealing a correct one also, since the contestant would be getting cheated out of whatever money had the correct item been revealed first then they bailed before losing.

[CBSpromoman]

There'd be a definite S&P issue if they revealed an incorrect item before revealing a correct one also, since the contestant would be getting cheated out of whatever money had the correct item been revealed first then they bailed before losing.

No, there wouldn't be an S&P issue at all. Since they say it's in no particular order, that covers the possibility that the reveals could be in ANY order.

The point of the game, however, is that they don't do it THAT way. They intentionally show you the right choices first...but you don't know when the right ones end and the wrong ones begin. So your job is to know when to stop (or know that you're right all the way through and win the full prize).

[JayC]

I shouldn't have said "definite S&P" issue, but wouldn't the contestant have a valid complaint if it did happen where a SP they had wrong was revealed before one they had right since it means they could've had the money had that been revealed before one that was wrong and bailed?

[CBSpromoman]

I shouldn't have said "definite S&P" issue, but wouldn't the contestant have a valid complaint if it did happen where a SP they had wrong was revealed before one they had right since it means they could've had the money had that been revealed before one that was wrong and bailed?

A valid complaint against whom? The contestant is told they're being moved to the prizes "in no particular order." The show is actually being a bit kind in exhausting all of the right choices before potentially moving to the wrong choices. But there's no regulation that states they're obligated to do so.

It might seem unfair, but as Gamesurf pointed out, "in no particular order" does a lot of heavy lifting.

For years, many games had predictable price patterns such as ending in "0" to make wins happen more easily. Do contestants who've lost because that changed have a valid complaint to demand the prizes?

[SteveGavazzi]

I have to disagree -- it seems to me that Drew means the prizes the contestant has right are being revealed in no particular order.  I'm pretty sure that's baked into the rules of the game.

[gamesurf]

For years, many games had predictable price patterns such as ending in "0" to make wins happen more easily. Do contestants who've lost because that changed have a valid complaint to demand the prizes?

No, but I think these are different situations.

Drew usually says "starting with the ones you have right" as part of the spiel, so it would not surprise me one bit if that is written into the game's official rules...in fact, I'd be extremely surprised if it was NOT written in the game's rules. It would seem extremely unfair to give this piece of info to some contestants and not others.

It presents better as well...imagine two contestants on two separate playings. The setups are identical--both give the same answers and get 4/5 right. One contestant gets the items revealed starting with the items they have right, but let's say the other has the chair move to the wrong choice second. Both contestants performed equally well, but the first contestant can win a potential $10,000; the second only a potential $500. The only thing separating the two is whether the producers decided to "allow" the first to go farther. It looks really fishy.

Much better to have "starting with the ones you have right" written into the rules to avoid any situations like that. The producers already seem to have enough control over the game as it is. Don't want somebody saying "I only could have won $500 because the producers were biased against me."

EDIT: I wonder if the producers decide and document beforehand which items will be revealed first if they're right, and which items will be revealed first if they're wrong. That lets them set it up however they want while still clearing them if S&P has to field a complaint about them trying to give a particular contestant an advantage/disadvantage.

[Casey]

A little common sense... what good does it do for the contestant, or the show, to move me in the Hot Seat to a wrong price first?  "I'm sorry, you don't win anything, but you did have the other 4 prizes correct.  If only we had moved you over there."  That is not good television.