Three on a Match clairfication

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'132830\' date=\'Sep 27 2006, 07:30 PM\']
Another question, after seeing the show on Jamie's site: It seems to me, the strategy would be to pick the $40 column first and work left because it's cheaper that way. You only have to buy one $40 box, then match the others to it. So why didn't they do that?[/quote]
That's usually a good strategy -- unless you won "free boxes" in your true-false round.  The free boxes would always be given to you last, so you typically saved them for the $40 column and used your money to buy more of the less expensive boxes.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'132815\' date=\'Sep 27 2006, 05:07 PM\']
Later, front game format gets changed again--gone goes the auction, lockouts are installed on the desks and Bill asks five questions to be answered similarly (for example, with the name of a TV game show), each one worth ten dollars more than the previous one.  If you are over $90 in your total and you buzz in and answer correctly, Bill asks you if you want to go to the board.  If you don't, he asks another tossup. [/quote]

Y'know, I thought I remembered a buzz-in version of this game, but couldn't remember any of the details.

It was still a three-matches-wins-the-game format then, yes?

[Ian Wallis]

Later, front game format gets changed again--gone goes the auction, lockouts are installed on the desks and Bill asks five questions to be answered similarly (for example, with the name of a TV game show), each one worth ten dollars more than the previous one. If you are over $90 in your total and you buzz in and answer correctly, Bill asks you if you want to go to the board. If you don't, he asks another tossup. This means the game moves a little faster than category reveal/auction/asking the true-or-false questions.

I have no memory of this particular variation at all.  Does anybody know when it started?  It must have been pretty close to the end.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'132876\' date=\'Sep 28 2006, 09:05 AM\']
I have no memory of this particular variation at all.  Does anybody know when it started?  It must have been pretty close to the end.
[/quote]

Near as Matt O and I have been able to discuss, it was the last couple of months.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'132879\' date=\'Sep 28 2006, 10:16 AM\']
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'132876\' date=\'Sep 28 2006, 09:05 AM\']
I have no memory of this particular variation at all.  Does anybody know when it started?  It must have been pretty close to the end.
[/quote]

Near as Matt O and I have been able to discuss, it was the last couple of months.[/quote]
It would just about have to be.  The episodes on Jamie's page are from February, 1974 and the show was cancelled in June.

[Bob Zager]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'132815\' date=\'Sep 27 2006, 05:07 PM\']

Later, front game format gets changed again--gone goes the auction, lockouts are installed on the desks and Bill asks five questions to be answered similarly (for example, with the name of a TV game show), each one worth ten dollars more than the previous one.  If you are over $90 in your total and you buzz in and answer correctly, Bill asks you if you want to go to the board.  If you don't, he asks another tossup.  This means the game moves a little faster than category reveal/auction/asking the true-or-false questions.
[/quote]

Yeah, that's exactly how the new front game format worked.  The first question was worth $40, and each subsequent question was worth ten dollars more than the previous one.  Also, if a player buzzed in, and answered incorrectly, the value of the question was equally split between the other two players.  

I also recall, that very briefly during this format, the dollar values on the board were $30, $40, and $50.  So, if somebody called out "$40 on the red," the red box, in the middle column turned over, not the one in the right-hand column.  It confused me when that happened, and probably confused some contestants, too, since shortly thereafter, they went back to $20, $30, and $40.

[narzo]

[quote name=\'Bob Zager\' post=\'132911\' date=\'Sep 28 2006, 06:47 PM\']
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'132815\' date=\'Sep 27 2006, 05:07 PM\']

Later, front game format gets changed again--gone goes the auction, lockouts are installed on the desks and Bill asks five questions to be answered similarly (for example, with the name of a TV game show), each one worth ten dollars more than the previous one.  If you are over $90 in your total and you buzz in and answer correctly, Bill asks you if you want to go to the board.  If you don't, he asks another tossup.  This means the game moves a little faster than category reveal/auction/asking the true-or-false questions.
[/quote]

Yeah, that's exactly how the new front game format worked.  The first question was worth $40, and each subsequent question was worth ten dollars more than the previous one.  Also, if a player buzzed in, and answered incorrectly, the value of the question was equally split between the other two players.  

I also recall, that very briefly during this format, the dollar values on the board were $30, $40, and $50.  So, if somebody called out "$40 on the red," the red box, in the middle column turned over, not the one in the right-hand column.  It confused me when that happened, and probably confused some contestants, too, since shortly thereafter, they went back to $20, $30, and $40.
[/quote]

so there was no way to get free boxes then?  This goes back to the earlier question in the thread because you would have to have a nice bankroll since you had to have enough to cover many selections at your expense.  I can't imagine trying it without at least 200 bucks to spend (with the 30,40,50 amounts)

[Allstar87]

That second format doesn't sound as good. I thought the auction was a neat idea, and provided a good bit of strategy with the wagering. (Keep in mind though, the only exposure I've had to this show is the episode Jamie put up.)

Wonder why it switched formats so late in the run. Perhaps a last-ditch effort to attract viewers?

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'133003\' date=\'Sep 30 2006, 12:02 AM\']
Wonder why it switched formats so late in the run. Perhaps a last-ditch effort to attract viewers?
[/quote]

It sure wasn't 'cause there was a sale on lockouts at Ikea.

The last format--such that I recall it only dimly, at that--seemed a doubly bad idea: another aspect of the auction round that I hadn't thought of 'til just now is that it's the flip side of the rest of the game: it's the part where the "Three" don't want to be "on a Match."  Perfect!

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'133003\' date=\'Sep 30 2006, 12:02 AM\']
Wonder why it switched formats so late in the run. Perhaps a last-ditch effort to attract viewers?
[/quote]
I sense the hand of Lin Bolen in this. Similar wisdom was in evidence when Jackpot went to straight questioning and abandoned the riddles.