Wheel of Fortune: What was Nura thinking?

In sports it doesn't matter how you win the game. Typically a win or a loss counts the same no matter how artistic or ugly the outcome was.

In baseball a team can win a low scoring game thanks to great pitching and defense. And a team can win a game with relentless slugging and offense.

Wheel of Fortune is not a sport, but like baseball it's a game in which strategy plays a big part of determining the outcome, although its winners often need a bit of luck to earn the victory.

Youtube is filled with videos showing blunders and gaffs by WOF contestants who dream of a victorious appearance on the show, not to mention a bountiful prize package at the end of that day.

On Nov. 10 we saw a woman named Nura Fountano demonstrate some of the most absurd strategy, or lack thereof, we've seen on the show in its 40-plus years. (Don't be fooled by that 33-year talk the syndicated program likes to spew. The show dates back January 1975.)

If you missed it, here's a recap. Most of the game played out like a typical episode of WOF. Contestant No. 1 was Steve, and he wasn't winning a thing. Contestant No. 2 was Troy. His strategy puzzled me a bit, and he had one highly painful moment when he failed to solve the final word of the prize puzzle. Contestant No. 3 was Nura, a woman who seemed to be a sharp player.

The final puzzle was played entirely as a speed-up round. Nura had a $9,670 lead over Troy going into the final puzzle. Troy was the first person to call a letter. Pat Sajak spun $600 for the final spin, making each consonant worth $1,600. Because of that Troy needed to pick seven consonants in the puzzle and solve it in order to win the game. Not an easy task, but not impossible. The final puzzle category was "what are you doing?" and the puzzle was FOLLOWING FOOTPRINTS.

Troy started by calling T. There were two of them. He had $3,200 in his bank. Nura followed by inexplicably calling Z. Sajak was confused by this, as you would expect. The game continued with Steve and Troy calling common consonants from the alphabet. Nura, however, opted for the most obscure consonants. She also called Q and X during the round, and on two of her turns she failed to call any letter, resulting in her turn being skipped due to the time limit she had to work with.

My reaction: I thought she was suddenly drunk. My girlfriend wondered if she was having a medical episode that was impairing her mental faculties. It was that bizarre.

Troy continued to build his bank as this played out, but Steve solved the puzzle. He pocketed $6,400 for the solve. Troy had $9,600 sitting in front of him, but could not cash in.

Had Steve not solved the puzzle, Troy might have been able to do so immediately following Steve's turn. Any one consonant in the puzzle would have put Troy at $11,200 or better for the round, which would have been enough for him to win the game and play the bonus round. With $9,600 in front of him, he would have been $70 short of tying Nura had he cashed in without selecting another consonant.

Nura's strange play put her in a position to lose the game had Steve not finally cashed in on the final puzzle.

Nura seemed to be doing anything she could to avoid winning the game in the final round. Why? We don't know.

Twitter comments about the game included several praising Nura's alleged strategy. The thinking is that her strategy was to not help either opponent solve the puzzle and/or let the opponents share in the wealth, as if she was going to coast to victory. As I just illustrated, she nearly gave the game away.

The strategy might work if it's a small puzzle and you have a lead greater than $9,670. But in this case the strategy was nearly suicidal, assuming she had any interest in winning the game and playing the bonus round.

Those who think Nura was trying to coast to victory while sharing the wealth fail to realize that a far better strategy would have been to try to solve the puzzle. The math proves it.

At $1,600 per consonant, Troy needed to pluck seven consonants from the puzzle, and solve it. The puzzle contained 13 of them. That means he had to get lucky, while his opponents got unlucky, assuming both opponents were trying to solve the puzzle, in order to bank cash for seven consonants.

By not calling logical consonants or not making a selection at all, Nura essentially turned the round into a two-person game. Therefore Troy was competing with only Steve for those 13 consonants on the board. He needed seven of them, and his odds of picking seven improved because of Nura's alleged strategy.

Troy opened with T, and immediately claimed two of the 13 consonants. Had Nura followed with any of the other four common consonants (L, N, R, S), she'd have picked off at least one, leaving Troy needing five of the remaining nine or 10 consonants in the puzzle. With Steve also trying to solve the puzzle, Troy's odds of getting five more would have been slim.

And if Nura was playing to solve the puzzle, by the time the turn came back around to her, she'd have been guaranteed at least one more consonant had she called one of the common consonants, since all five were in the puzzle. And because the puzzle was "what are you doing," we knew there was at least one G in the puzzle. At minimum she would have claimed two consonants, leaving Troy needing seven of the other 11 to beat her. That's a tough hurdle to clear.

Even if Nura would have refused to solve the puzzle, no matter how obvious, by playing to solve it rather than playing as if she were drunk, she would have done a better job of coasting to victory while leaving cash for one of the other two contestants.

All that said, there's another factor that makes playing to solve the puzzle statistically smarter. Players tend to solve the puzzle as soon as they know it during the speed-up round. Because the turn passes with each letter called, there's no guarantee the turn will get back to you. Players seem to solve the puzzle as soon as they know it, regardless of the bank or the score of the game prior to the final round. And if they know the puzzle early, with just a few letters showing, they'll still solve the puzzle, take whatever cash they have and impress Sajak and the audience with their skills. That's just the nature of the game.

I'm sure more than one player has passed up solving a speed-up puzzle in hope of the turn coming back around and banking more cash. If I was playing the game and trailing by $2,000 during the speed-up round, I might pass on solving for $1,600 in the hope that the turn comes back around to me and I can bank more cash, solve the puzzle and win the game. This assumes I have the presence of mind to watch the scoreboard. I'm sure it has been done, although it likely wouldn't have been obvious to the home viewers. But again, under most circumstances, a player is going to solve the speed-up puzzle as soon as he or she can.

Had Nura created a three-way competition for the final round puzzle, odds are either Steve or Troy ends up solving the puzzle before Troy has banked $11,200.

If Nura's strategy was simply to avoid helping either player solve the puzzle, it was bordering on suicidal, given her position. If her strategy was to coast to victory and let one of the other players win additional cash, I just proved why her method was far more dangerous than had she played out the round like a normal human being and simply refused to solve the puzzle.

It doesn't matter how brilliant or lucky a baseball team is on any given day, a win is a win. There are no style points. Blackjack and poker players have strategies, some more sound than others. But the best strategy doesn't guarantee a win. The luck of the cards plays a factor. Nura's strategy was good enough for her to win on that particular day. Against other opponents perhaps she loses the game. Style points don't matter. But it doesn't change the fact her strategy was idiotic, as I proved.

As indicated earlier, a few people tweeted admiration for Nura, assuming she wanted to share the wealth. If that was her motivation, bravo. There's nothing wrong with that, but she gets no kudos from me.

Why do people compete on a game show, at least traditional game show? To win big money. That's what you're there for. In late October a gentleman destroyed his competition. He had good luck throughout the game, and won more than $35,000 during the game. His bonus round prize put his total at more than $80,000. A few tweeters criticized him for not sharing the wealth during the speed-up round. I don't get that.

If you go on WOF, you get one game to win whatever you can. There's no coming back as a returning champion to do it again. It's your one shot to win big. So why wouldn't you try?

If you don't care about coming home with cash and prizes, you're the exception, not the rule. If you're altruistic enough to want others to take home a nice cash prize, you're better than I am. If I'm ever on the show I want to do my best, and demonstrate how good I am at solving tough puzzles. I'm not there to take pity on others if I'm having a better run of luck, or am a better puzzle solver. WOF is not high school football, where the big school is supposed to play reserve players in the second half because it is crushing the small school.

The idea that people should share the wealth on WOF makes no sense. Do people think that returning champions on Jeopardy! should take a dive after they've won $100,000? Did people suggest Ken Jennings should take a dive after he had won $1 million? Why shouldn't he have shared the wealth with one of those opponents he bested during his 74-game wining streak?

Nura had the right to take a dive and the right to let another player share the wealth. If she was motivated to do the latter, I find that bizarre. But I don't have to understand the rationale for it. If she was guilty of the former, it was poorly thought out, at best, assuming she was the least bit interested in winning the game.

Tweeters are welcome to admire her for the perceived act of charity. Tweeters who praise her perceived strategy, however, don't seem to realize just how poor and unintelligent the strategy was.