“Grand Slam” Commentary for August 19th

19 Aug

Posted by Alex Davis as GSN, Grand Slam, Opinion, Reader Input

I’m very sorry, everyone. I went to a roller derby game and went to see Clockwork Orange tonight so I completely spaced out about Grand Slam today saw games Brad Rutter VS Ogi Ogas and Leszek Pawlowicz VS David Legler. This is where I’m stumped. I can call that Pawlowicz beats Legler, but I have no idea with Rutter VS Ogas. Both are very smart. The only advantage I could call on Rutter is that he has the speed thing down, but apparently Ogas does as well. I don’t know why, but I have a slight hunch Mr. Ogi Ogas wins it. What did you think of the episode?

31 Responses

Quincy Hughes
1
August 19th, 2007 at 8:28 am

Ogi Ogas is a monster! I think he really is the one to beat. I can’t wait to see David Legler face him in the semis. I’d love to see this show come back again with regular contestants down the line too.
David Howell
2
August 19th, 2007 at 8:47 am

Ogas over Rutter?! That marks him out as the favourite for sure. I had Rutter down to win the whole thing, and now I’m going to have to call Ogas. Beating a fellow Millionaire champ was not a shock - this is a huge one.

Legler over Pawlowicz?! My word, that’s an even bigger upset! Was this Let’s Pick On Jeopardy! Night or something?

As for Quincy’s idea about using this in the future - how about a standard run of episodes like this, perhaps a 32-player contest, with regular contestants and a random draw (or maybe 16 ‘unknowns’ and 16 lesser-known ex-contestants in there - more Lingo champs, RR champs, six-figure winners from Millionaire, perhaps the odd one from Fifth Grader and 1 vs 100?)? The whole series winner could get $100,000 and the chance to face the winner of THIS year’s series for another $100,000. That’s twice as much money over twice as many episodes, so that’s still in GSN budget. And half of it would likely not be given away…
Marc Power
3
August 19th, 2007 at 11:01 am

I think Ogi was right when he said it’s gonna him and Ken in the finals. Especially since Rutter & Pawlowicz are out. I’m thinking Ken will take it, But don’t rely on me I’m only batting .300 so far as far as the predictions go.
Bobby McBride
4
August 19th, 2007 at 11:18 am

Rutter fizzled out in the final round thanks to many early mistakes there.

What the heck happened to Leszek Pawlowicz? After his incredible win over Ed Toutant, I thought he might actually win the whole thing. When he started bombing out in the category he was perfect in previously, Math and Numbers, that was the beginning of the end for him.

An Ogas-Jennings final would be really interesting, as both are big math whizzes like me.
lobster
5
August 19th, 2007 at 11:56 am

wow. i freakin’ love Ogi and his neuro-anatomical analysis of his strategy.. He ripped up the math just like the better players seem to do on the UK version and his meditation keeps him from cracking under pressure.. and “Brad does math like a little girl” was absolutely the most timeless throw down in all of game show bravado… I hope he owns Ken :D
Mike
6
August 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

I don’t know about Ogi meeting Ken in the finals… I’m not taking it for granted that Ken will make it to the championship. He looked vulnerable in the first round, and it’s just going to get more difficult from here on out.

The other factor is the game is, really, so short — driving up the variance. Ogi could even drop out before then.

I’m starting to believe more and more that Grand Slam really is about grace under fire though and that’s the aspect that will win it for someone — when I was watching the round with “What is 1002 divided by 3?” I froze and couldn’t figure it out, but I felt sure that the contestant would get it easily — he surprised me by passing. Once the commerical break came and the nerves were gone it was easy to think 333 x 3 = 999 so it must be 334.
Leszek Pawlowicz
7
August 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Well, I’ve had better games … in fact, I’d call this my “worst game ever” (in Comic Book Guy voice).

I did get rattled by the first few questions in the math round, and that threw me off for the rest of the game. If I had kept my cool, I know that I would have gotten a few more questions right (e.g. the spelling question) or not switched when I did (the divide by 9 question), and that would have made the match closer.

Problem is, even if I hadn’t gotten knocked out of my groove, I don’t see how I could have beaten Dave that night - he was too strong in math, words and the final round. And in the subsequent matches in my tournament bracket that I watched, it’s not clear to me that I would have done any better in math or words. General knowledge and trivia is my specialty, beyond that is a crap shoot.
Leszek Pawlowicz
8
August 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I’ll add this - even though this was not a good game for me, I felt pretty much the same way Ed did after his loss to me. It was a great experience, and unlike previous losses on other shows, I didn’t feel bummed out or upset after losing, especially to someone like Dave. Everyone in the competition said the same thing after losing a game. Given the level of competition, it was a longshot for everyone who showed up, even the person who eventually won it all.

Still, it would have been nice if GSN hadn’t made this “winner takes all” …
Ryan
9
August 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Well, Leszek, not to be rude, but I’m assuming that they weren’t betting on someone with such a low amount of winnings doing well and not winning. (Besides, they’re a low-budget network.)
Xavier
10
August 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Believe it or not, I see the final round being Ogi against Phylis. She was so strong in her first round, that I think she can take Jennings. I would even put money on her.
Ogi Ogas
11
August 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Just a few notes about my match with Brad. Later I’ll probably add a few more about Leszek/Legler’s match.

Playing Brad Rutter is like chewing on a grenade. It’s just a matter of time before it takes your head off.

I completley agree with Mike’s evaluation that Grand Slam is about calm in the face of seething pressure. I spent a lot of effort working on calming techniques to keep me settled and focused. The only time in the tournament that I recall panicking and not being able to get my calm back was in the final round with Brad.

I went into the final round protected by a 6 second lead. With Brad Rutter, that’s like storming a machine gun nest protected by chain mail. The guy never gave up, never relented, and he was really goddamn good. Rutter gets props for having the cajones to pass an “easy” math question to me in the final round after experiencing my earlier performance in the math round. Like Mike (above), I just blanked out on 1002 divided by 3. I have math tricks I use, and I just couldn’t summon them up, couldn’t even parse the digits of the problem. It was like I was being asked to translate a phrase in Swahili. My mind was on the clock.

My general strategy was to never look at the clock, it can only distract, never help. But in that last round I broke my concentration and kept willing the clock to jump forward, wishing I was like Hiro Nakamura in Heroes and could control time. I blanked on two easy math questions in the final round because of my fear of Brad’s fire-breathing pursuit. I also handled my spelling questions with incredible slowness, again because I had lost my focus (and lost some spelling heuristics).

I still can’t believe I won. When I was watching the show yesterday, I became genuinely nervous for myself–I started wondering if I had actually lost the game and was simply mis-remembering the outcome. Brad did seem nervous, certainly more nervous than I had expected, but it never seemed to diminish his speed or his laser-intense focus, even when he was behind. He was every bit as good as his immense reputation. I sure hope I don’t have to play him again anytime too soon–afterwards my entire body felt like I had wrestled an elephant. I’m just glad I played him early in the day, before I got tired — my match with Brad was the only one where I was 100% fully alert and fully awake and it’s clear if I had been diminished or sleepy at all, he would have taken me down.

He’s a Grandmaster, a legend, and an incredibly modest and likable guy. It sure was a great honor getting to throw down with him.
lobster
12
August 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

well, nonetheless, Ogi, you’re a trip to watch and your interview talking points are awesome.. You illustrate how all of this game show stuff is really just utilizing separate functions of brain, and how above all else, succeeding is more of a metaphysical and scientific thing than just memorizing a bunch of trivia facts.

It’s great that someone’s able to expand upon “mental tricks” rather than hearing about how they memorized the list of US Presidents in order the night before.. :D

LObs
Quincy Hughes
13
August 19th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Kudos to both Leszak and Ogi, first of all, for taking the time to comment on their appearances. It’s great to get candid and honest firsthand observations and to see graciousness in both victory and in defeat. I wish there were more people like you guys in the world (especially when you look at most athletes…I’ll never forget Michael Vick’s arrogant brush-off to an ESPN reporter when he was being asked about the dogfighting charges a couple of months before everything blew up and became public with the charges and arrests).

Now, what I’ve noticed in most of the losses so far is that it seemed the player who went down in defeat would miss a question or two and snowball it into ultimately being done in. In some cases that was also combined with that said player not getting any help from an icy concentrating face from their opponent (example, Nancy’s loss to Ogi in the first round). Leszak seemed to get a bit frustrated with himself when he missed a couple that he likely knew, but just wasn’t given the opportunity to think about it (since that’s the game, quick thinking is needed), and David had that same concentration where it seemed he barely blinked. Some people have called David’s win a surprise, and I’m not sure I disagree (I always felt “Twenty-One” was a very dumbed-down show, although David’s certainly no dummy), but I think once Leszak’s frustration was seen it was what did him in. The final round is especially tough because when there’s a significant time difference it’s hard not to build on frustration and nervousness when you’re finding yourself peeking over at the clocks. My own strategy would also burn those switches of my opponent as fast as possible, even at the risk of burning my own, and passing quickly if it came back to me. Both players had problems with the math questions this time around, which I found interesting.

Ogi Ogas is going to be “game show legend” since he’s handed Rutter his first TV game show loss, but I think beyond that we’re just seeing a genuinely (even frighteningly) smart guy here. Everyone has specialties, some people can do the quick math and fill in letters mentally quickly, some people can concentrate with no distractions (Ogi was looking at the clock too, dangerous in my eyes as mentioned above)…everyone has an ultimate list of strengths and weaknesses. I’m not really sure we’ve seen that list of weaknesses from Ogi. I think we’ve seen a few hints, but he’s overcome them and has more than made up for them with his obvious list of strengths. I don’t care if it’s Ken Jennings or David Legler or Michelle Kitt or Dr. Joyce Brothers with boxing questions, whoever faces off with Ogi at this point is going to be the underdog in my eyes.

I also think that the winner of this tournament should not only get the cash and the cup, but the permission to throw Dennis Miller into a Port-a-Johnny and roll it down a hill.
rarejoule
14
August 19th, 2007 at 8:42 pm

“or Michelle Kitt or Dr. Joyce Brothers with boxing questions”

Funny enough, the last question I was asked on Weakest Link was “What television psychologist won the grand prize for answering questions about boxing on the $64,000 pyramid?” People who ask then guess Dr. Ruth, Dr. Phil, and a few have said “Frazier.” Ha!

MK
lobster
15
August 19th, 2007 at 9:26 pm

before you get the onslaught of corrections, I’ll go ahead and throw it out there:

“You mean the $64,000 Question?”

:D

LObs
Ryan
16
August 20th, 2007 at 1:41 am

Hey, she’s Michelle Kitt, she can screw up once or twice when the cameras aren’t rolling. ;)
rarejoule
17
August 20th, 2007 at 3:38 am

Oof… flashback to my teaching days… “I was just testing YOU. Luckily, you passed.”

;-)

MK
Tom Jetland
18
August 20th, 2007 at 10:56 am

I’m curious, Ogi, if the interviewers prompted you for some of the trash-talking we saw (I’m thinking “Brad does math like a little girl”), or if it had something to do with the excitement and adrenaline of the day (or the persona you were creating). I ask because you are all grace, deference, and kindness here, but you were all bravado and competition there.
lobster
19
August 20th, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Ah, well, since this show is produced by Embassy Row, there are drippings of WSOPC all over it.. Bracketed tournament, the hidden and ominous Pat Kiernan, and of course, smack talkin’! Half of WSOPC’s fun was the smack talkin’ between teams during interviews.. The difference there, though, is that none of the teams knew anything about each other — the smack talk was mostly generic and cute “We’ll try to go easy on ‘em” stuff…

On GS, however, the contestants not only might know each other from the “game show circuit” but there’s a chance to also smack-talk down and typecast an entire game show’s worth of contestants — in this case the best example being this apparent Millionaire vs. Jeopardy intelligence debate. All in all it’s fun and funny — and Ogi’s math comment on Rutter was probably the first time I’ve laughed out loud while watching a game show since WOF’s “A Group of Pill Pushers” ..

Speaking of game show typecasts, as a mere and seemingly lowly Friend or Foe and Lingo champ, I’m confident I could take all these cheeseballs at Math n’ Words down “as bad as Roquefort cheese gets when left in the Grecian sun” if I may be so Dennis Miller [HINT HINT GRANDSLAM2 HINT HINT GRATUITOUS GSN PLUG HINT HINT ATTN:MEGAN MIGUEZ]

:D
LObs
lobster
20
August 20th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

(by the way, welcome Michelle) :D
I think we’re up to four GS players posting on here so far .. how cool is that :D
Happy Steve
21
August 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Those were really good matches this episode.

Hey there, Ogi. Congrats on your win. Ever since you mentioned that you were the only contestant who hadn’t won the top prize in their respective game show, I’m really pulling for you. I like how you’ve truly done your homework and figured out all sorts of strategies for this tournament. I’d love to see a post about more of those.

Trash talking math skills? ha ha ha! Now I’ve heard everything!
OgiOgas
22
August 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Regarding my trash talking, I posted a lengthy discussion on the GSN board here: http://www.gsn.com/buzz/showthread.php?t=91667&page=15

But I can add a few more notes. Tom Jetland asked if I was prompted by the producers to trash talk. Never directly, but eventually I realized how excited they were about it — and how negatively I might come across — when they asked me, “How do you feel about being the villain of the tournament?” That really cut through the epinephral fog and I think I stopped saying anything directly personal after that, but I can no longer recall at what point that occurred. As I tried to make clear in my GSN post, I never really even thought about what I was saying. You were basically hearing exactly the things I was telling myself during my matches.

I confess I did think the line “Brad does math like a little girl” would be funny, though it was also just the kind of thing I was telling myself to keep my confidence up.

Tom Jetland contrasted my behavior on the boards with my behavior on the dance floor: it’s the difference between sitting in my air-conditioned condo sipping on lemonade as I type at my computer vs. coming off a light-blasted, audience-surrounded stage, sweaty and awash in hot adrenalin, after beating the toughest brain anybody is going to face. Now I can choose my words and wax philosophical. In the studio I had only one thing on my mind: winning.

Now that I’ve seen how I came across, I’ll make the effort to filter myself if there’s another Grand Slam. But you’ll probably still find me leaping in the air after narrow victories or crumpling to the floor after heartbreaking defeats (as I did on Millionaire). I’m an emotional guy; that’s why I had to work so hard to stay calm.
lobster
23
August 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

No way, dude, that comment was awesome. Anyone who found it offensive is .. well.. to put it bluntly, a pussy. :D It was clearly said in fun and gest, and you’re right, I’m sure Rutter got a kick out of it. It shows that you can be playful and have a sense of humor while in the middle of the competitive spirit vs. one of the supposed behemoths of the tournament. I think you’ve gained a lot more fans based on your interview commentary, personally… it’s great!

LObs
Ogi Ogas
24
August 20th, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I also meant to thank everyone for their kind words, especially Quincy Hughes, lobster, and Happy Steve. And I wanted to follow-up on Quincy’s comment about the “snowball” effect, which I have been calling the “sinkhole” effect though snowball is probably just as apt.

Calm and confidence are essential to victory in Grand Slam. If you lose them, even for a moment, it is extremely hard to get them back. As Quincy pointed out, if you start missing or passing several questions in a row, the psychological pressure grows exponentially and you tend to make more mistakes which just spirals until you give up, even though objectively you might still have a chance at winning. This is perhaps the single most potent effect of the Grand Slam clock, and what distinguishes it from any other game show.

Nancy Christy fell into a sinkhole against me, the amazing and probably best all-around natural Leszek fell into one against the steady Legler, and poor Rahim’s entire game seemed like one giant sinkhole. Brad never fell into one, not even during his run of missteps in math: he never stopped fighting, his confidence never waned. That’s why he’s the very best, I think. Ken’s very steady and confident, too, but I think the fact that he’s been on TV almost a hundred times has had a big influence. Brad’s been on quite a bit, too, so I think experience might be the best source of confidence. I will definitely be more confident next time. But this time, I had to constantly pump myself up.

However, I think the one competitor that really deserves the most credit for her remarkable steadiness and calm is Michelle Kitt. Kitt is good in everything, but not elite in any one subject–she’s not as good in trivia as Brad, not as good in math as me, not as good in words as Ken. But she really demonstrated how to leverage a relatively (emphasis on *relatively*) weak skill set with very savvy, steady, calm play. She was a mighty underdog against Olmstead, and a full half-minute down in the final round, but just watch her performance. She never got nervous, she never bent, she never hurried or rushed. And Olmstead broke beneath her patient play. In some ways, her perfect posture is a perfect metaphor for her perfect play. Kitt demonstrates that there’s other ways to win than just knowing a lot. Like me, she’s going up against a very tough game show legend in her next match… I can’t wait to see if her expert play will land her a spot in the semi-finals!
David Howell
25
August 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Kitt’s interesting because while she’s probably the least capable of this elite group, she might just be the best adapted to the format. She’s got the calm approach and the reflexes to take down stronger opponents in this particular format, and while I wouldn’t have her down as the favourite (that’s you, Ogi) I will say that Kitt is the person least likely to beat herself - I think her worst day is likely to be less bad than anyone else’s, though I think everyone else’s best day will be better than hers. It’s going to come down to how well her opponents play her, because she’s just going to keep being consistently good without necessarily being capable of mixing it with the elite unless they crumble. And here’s the thing - they can crumble, they do crumble, and they have crumbled.

As for trash-talking, as far as I’m concerned it’s how the target(s) react(s) that determines its acceptability. I’ve not noticed anything that implies unacceptable trash-talking from what I can gather, although bear in mind I’m only following this vicariously from England.

I will say this. Three 60-second rounds and 60 seconds in the final round is way better than four 60-second rounds and 30 seconds in the final round (what we got). Makes for an awful lot more close games - we basically didn’t have one nailbiting finish all tournament.
Ed Toutant
26
August 20th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

David Howell said -
“Three 60-second rounds and 60 seconds in the final round is way better than four 60-second rounds and 30 seconds in the final round (what we got). Makes for an awful lot more close games - we basically didn’t have one nailbiting finish all tournament.”

There has been only one “nailbiting finish” so far in the US version of Grand Slam. In the UK, there were five rounds totaling 4.5 minutes, compared to the US with four rounds totaling 4.0 minutes. I don’t see how that would make the US version significantly more competitive. All seconds in the match have equal value, regardless of how the rounds are defined. As with any argument, yours can be tested by taking it to the extreme. What if there were only one round, and it lasted only ten seconds? Now that would be a real nailbiter, in case that’s the desired objective of the show. Results would be very random and unpredictable. However, if the objective is to prove who is the best, a longer game with more questions will produce more accurate results. Since the UK game involved more time and more questions than the US game, its results were probably a little more accurate than the US results.
The Great Butler
27
August 20th, 2007 at 9:01 pm

This is like a game show nerd’s ultimate fantasy, this thread. Dissecting shows with FOUR champions. Whooooooooooo……

I was wondering out loud though, was Mark Richards ever considered for a slot as a contestant? Sure, we all remember him fondly (?) for hosting Starcade but he was a fairly prolific contestant too (better than Amy was at least…) He also did make a living for a while teaching people how to be good contestants—had to give it up when he got Starcade—so bringing him on board would’ve certainly brought a unique view into the fold.
David Howell
28
August 21st, 2007 at 6:58 am

Good point from Ed, very true. I think it’s perhaps more accurate to say ‘more games where the result was in doubt going into the final round’. It just so happens you’ve had games where the final round has generally gone one way or the other, whereas our games were very often processional before the round even began. I’m sure that’s why the rounds were organised the way they were in the US, to produce a final round that tended to be decisive even if the finishes wouldn’t necessarily be close. The Kitt-Olmstead finish was just one of those great game show moments you can’t plan for.

The possible biggest weakness of this format is that with every second counting equally a game can be over with a fair way to go - it’s like most sports in that respect - whereas game show formats tend to be devised such that the later rounds are more valuable thus making more games go to the end. (Of course, the recent games where one person chases the money and there’s no multiplayer front game - be it luck-based shows like Deal or skill-based like Millionaire - aren’t applicable, though Deal’s pattern of offers that asymptotically converge towards the mean is another example of a game building up excitement as it goes.

It’s just amazing to be in this thread with multiple great contestants… just awesome. I find Ogi’s analysis particularly fascinating, but that’s because I’m pretty much prone to overanalysis myself. Hey, that’s what Asperger Syndrome does.

Michelle, just noticed - $64,000 Pyramid? Hey, that’d be a good replacement for Singing Bee… same budget… :)
Ogi Ogas
29
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm

David:

I’ve definitely got some autismy brain wiring myself.

Are you writing from the UK? Or are you in the US? Did you actually watch the UK Slam when it was originally on TV? If so, I’m curious about pre-tournament expectations about which competitors viewers thought would win, and why, and if these predictions were accurate.
David Howell
30
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 am

Writing from the UK here. Didn’t watch UK Slam, mostly because the television was controlled by the rest of my family and I had no television in my room at the time. My loss. :(

There’s some great reports at the time from leading UK game show writer Iain Weaver (http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.php/Weaver%27s_Week - reports starting 14th June 2003). I’m not quite sure what the expectations were - but it’s worth pointing out that we have a very, very tradition of game shows. (We had strict prize regulation until the mid-1990s, but three very well-respected and very different ‘brain games’ that didn’t have cash prizes - words-and-numbers game Countdown, Mastermind (if you’ve not seen that before, it’s Two-Minute Drill with non-sports questions) and Fifteen-to-One (another trivia game, but with a notably different format involving strategy as well as knowledge) - that’s where our contestants tended to come from. That and Millionaire, and most of the people from that had made multiple appearances on other shows in the past too. (That’s what happens when you have many formats without huge prizes and you don’t have the one-year rule the US has on multiple appearances.) I’m not sure what the expectations were, but I don’t think too many were surprised that it came down to a Countdown champion and a Mastermind champion in the final. We did emphasise trivia rather more, as the fourth main-game round we had that you didn’t was another trivia round (the two rounds were called ‘general knowledge’ and ‘contemporary knowledge’, which implied far more of a high culture/pop culture split than really existed), and we added yet another trivia round from the quarter-finals onwards (the ‘keyword’ round).

The format was rather different in terms of the way the draw went. With such a limited tradition of big-cash shows, sorting contestants by winnings was impractical in the extreme. Instead, the first round draw was randomised, and then seeding for the quarter-finals and beyond was sorted based upon first-round winning margins. This didn’t quite work because one contestant fell to pieces and there was precisely one really good and fairly close first-round match, meaning the 1 v 8 match was actually always likely to go to the eighth seed. Oops. :)

It’s worth noting that the winner of Grand Slam later appeared on Millionaire and ‘only’ won £125,000. Our Millionaire (and, since the switch to syndication, yours) seems almost to depend upon luck of the draw on the final few questions should you get that far; the questions are esoteric enough that the lifelines (certainly ATA) can be almost useless. (STQ does help in that it gives you another chance at getting a manageable question, something you… sort of… exploited.)

Also worth noting - said winner (Clive Spate) was always seen as a danger, had a tricky quarter-final that his first-round victim reckoned would be his only challenge, but Clive himself reckoned he’d get through it easily and have trouble with one of the two set to meet him in the final. Turned out that’s exactly what happened - the final was the one really close finish of the tournament.

Wow, I’m rambling.
Ogi Ogas
31
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Thanks, David! Very interesting.