Author Topic: Hypothetical Blockbusters Question (Read 2962 times)

TheInquisitiveOne · « **on:** May 18, 2007, 11:27:41 AM »

Good day everyone!

This question has been lingering in the back of my head for some time, and I thought I would ask this to you.

Let's say Blockbusters was revived, and the Gold Run is worth $10,000 (all rules are the same as previous versions). Now, if the jackpot is not won, the prize for the returning champion would increase by $5,000 for each time he/she/they return to the bonus round.

Do the math, if you will...

Contestant wins $10,000, then returns and wins $10,000 more = $20,000 (plus frontgame winnings)

Contestant fails to win $10,000 in the first run, but returns to win $15,000 = $15,000 (plus the amount of money received in the first Gold Run and frontgame winnings).

Therein lies the question: is this progressive jackpot rule unfair, or should this be a reminder for contestants to step it up?

This is not a revival proposal, I am just asking for the sake of honest discussion. Thanks in advance for your responses.

The Inquisitive One

clemon79 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 18, 2007, 11:35:33 AM »

It's certainly better than doing what Super Password did, which made winning the endgame effectively meaningless so long as you won it immediately before you were dethroned as champion.

Personally, not a huge fan of progressive jackpots. But at least yours penalizes losing.

Neumms · « **Reply #2 on:** May 18, 2007, 11:35:59 AM »

[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' post=\'152637\' date=\'May 18 2007, 10:27 AM\']
Good day everyone!

This question has been lingering in the back of my head for some time, and I thought I would ask this to you.

Let's say Blockbusters was revived, and the Gold Run is worth $10,000 (all rules are the same as previous versions). Now, if the jackpot is not won, the prize for the returning champion would increase by $5,000 for each time he/she/they return to the bonus round.

Do the math, if you will...

Contestant wins $10,000, then returns and wins $10,000 more = $20,000 (plus frontgame winnings)

Contestant fails to win $10,000 in the first run, but returns to win $15,000 = $15,000 (plus the amount of money received in the first Gold Run and frontgame winnings).

Therein lies the question: is this progressive jackpot rule unfair, or should this be a reminder for contestants to step it up?

This is not a revival proposal, I am just asking for the sake of honest discussion. Thanks in advance for your responses.

The Inquisitive One
[/quote]

Geez, is this what "Power of 10" is gonna be like? My head hurts.

clemon79 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 18, 2007, 11:50:46 AM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'152639\' date=\'May 18 2007, 08:35 AM\']
Geez, is this what "Power of 10" is gonna be like? My head hurts.
[/quote]
I don't see why, it was a completely reasonable question.

Neumms · « **Reply #4 on:** May 18, 2007, 01:19:49 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'152642\' date=\'May 18 2007, 10:50 AM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'152639\' date=\'May 18 2007, 08:35 AM\']
Geez, is this what "Power of 10" is gonna be like? My head hurts.
[/quote]
I don't see why, it was a completely reasonable question.
[/quote]

I was just attempting a little joke about the other thread.

I agree on the jackpots--it should start out higher than the increments it goes up. I'm not crazy about the "if this is your first trip, it's this much, your third trip, it's this much" thing, either. It's an annoying contrivance.

beatlefreak84 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 18, 2007, 01:43:44 PM »

I agree with Chris...I always thought, when I watched Rafferty BB after they instituted the jackpot, Hot Potato, SP, etc., that, pending you were good at the front game, you got more money by LOSING the bonus game and then trying to win it when you were at the end of your run, which doesn't make any sense!

Now, granted, I don't know how many people actually thought about this and tried to pull it off (and, if there were any, how many were actually successful?), but that always seemed weird to me. So, I like this idea of starting things off at $10,000 and going up $5,000 each time not won.

And don't get me started on CC's "win car, retire undefeated" thing...

Anthony

P.S. From a business standpoint, I never understood the mentality behind making the jackpot increments the same as the base jackpot; that guarantees that you're going to have to pay out like somebody won the bonus game every show!

tvwxman · « **Reply #6 on:** May 18, 2007, 02:12:46 PM »

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'152660\' date=\'May 18 2007, 01:43 PM\']
P.S. From a business standpoint, I never understood the mentality behind making the jackpot increments the same as the base jackpot; that guarantees that you're going to have to pay out like somebody won the bonus game every show!
[/quote]
Absolutely agreed.

The best progressive jackpot, to me, was one that started at a nominal amount, and went up a fraction of it every time (like Scrabble's Sprint, the Wordplay Bonus, SotC's first end game). You are penalizing a champion for not succeeding in the bonus, while giving him an extra cherry to make it back a second time.

And, for the record, I thought CC's final end game format was perfect...every time you made it to the bonus, you got more time, but the clock was yours and yours alone, in that, if another player went up there instead, 'their' own clock started at 35 secs and went up. I had no problem with the one and done thing with the car.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #7 on:** May 18, 2007, 02:17:12 PM »

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'152660\' date=\'May 18 2007, 01:43 PM\']Now, granted, I don't know how many people actually thought about this and tried to pull it off (and, if there were any, how many were actually successful?), but that always seemed weird to me. So, I like this idea of starting things off at $10,000 and going up $5,000 each time not won.[/quote]
I remember when they doubled the Pyramid title value to The $20,000 Pyramid, and even as a fairly young man understanding how unfair the payout structure was. Play the end game well, and you leave on your first attempt with $10,000. Play the end game poorly, and maybe you finally get lucky after several tries -- and you get $20,000.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 18, 2007, 02:24:29 PM »

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'152660\' date=\'May 18 2007, 01:43 PM\']
P.S. From a business standpoint, I never understood the mentality behind making the jackpot increments the same as the base jackpot; that guarantees that you're going to have to pay out like somebody won the bonus game every show!
[/quote]

Well think about that for a moment. Given "Super Password"s pacing of one-endgame-per-show, they basically had to budget $25,000 every week for the endgame. If the jackpot started at $10,000, that would make the bonus round winnings an uncertainty because more could be won if the jackpot didn't go up (as was illustrated by the OP).

-Jason

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2007, 06:14:20 PM »

I have noted before that Super Password had an incredibly stable budget due to its progressive jackpots. You could count on every game, over time, costing $6000 (the base $5000 per bonus round + the base $1000 per Cashword) + $600 or $1000 in the front game + $600 or $700 more for consolation money in the bonus round. About $7500, every time.

(And, of course, if you're giving that away too fast, just get Bert to start talking about a puzzle in progress.)

What bugged me even more than that on SP, though, was the way that new contestants could inherit a huge jackpot, based purely (as far as they were concerned) on the luck of the draw. The good contestant who wins her first game when the jackpot is $55000 is very often going to end up with about $50000 more than the good contestant who gets to start at $5000.

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #10 on:** May 18, 2007, 11:28:40 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'152662\' date=\'May 18 2007, 02:17 PM\']
I remember when they doubled the Pyramid title value to The $20,000 Pyramid, and even as a fairly young man understanding how unfair the payout structure was. Play the end game well, and you leave on your first attempt with $10,000. Play the end game poorly, and maybe you finally get lucky after several tries -- and you get $20,000.
[/quote]

But it's not as if you'd throw the end game just to get another chance at playing it. After all, this was in the day when you lost a front game and went home--no second chances, no switched partners, just rice-a-roni, thanks, here's the door.

By doing it this way, weren't Stewart, ABC, and company simply rewarding somebody who could play the front game really well, while not over-stretching their budget?

-Clay

(By the way, the one-loss-and-you're-gone format makes the feat accomplished by a friend of mine even more impressive: she played SIXTEEN front games before she won the WC.)

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #11 on:** May 18, 2007, 11:32:14 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'152719\' date=\'May 18 2007, 06:14 PM\']
What bugged me even more than that on SP, though...The good contestant who wins her first game when the jackpot is $55000 is very often going to end up with about $50000 more than the good contestant who gets to start at $5000.
[/quote]

Very often? How about "every time"? (I'm not good with math, but $55,000 is always $50,000 more than $5,000.)

Snark aside, you're absolutely right. The progressive "it's been x-days-since-it's-been-won" jackpot randomly rewards some winner in a way not at all based on her/his skill.

Neumms · « **Reply #12 on:** May 19, 2007, 04:20:22 PM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'152794\' date=\'May 18 2007, 10:28 PM\']
By doing it this way, weren't Stewart, ABC, and company simply rewarding somebody who could play the front game really well, while not over-stretching their budget?
[/quote]

I always thought it a stingy way to make the stakes look higher than they are. The thing started as "The $10,000 Pyramid," and 25 years later, most runs up the pyramid were still worth $10,000. At least Donny took the dollar amount out of the title. (Not that I'd mind 10 grand.)

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #13 on:** May 19, 2007, 08:33:33 PM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'152796\' date=\'May 18 2007, 11:32 PM\'][quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'152719\' date=\'May 18 2007, 06:14 PM\']
What bugged me even more than that on SP, though...The good contestant who wins her first game when the jackpot is $55000 is very often going to end up with about $50000 more than the good contestant who gets to start at $5000.
[/quote]
Very often? How about "every time"? (I'm not good with math, but $55,000 is always $50,000 more than $5,000.)[/quote]
Yes, but I specifically meant to write "wins her first game", not "wins her first bonus round". If a good player gets to play 3-5 bonus rounds, the above is likely, but not guaranteed.

I don't think the $20K Pyramid payout structure was broken enough to encourage anyone to throw a Winner's Circle, but I think it still looked a little iffy from a viewer's standpoint. "Wow, that guy's a great player! He won right away! He gets half of the prize in the show's title!" While we're digging up those erased episodes with our time machine, let's ask Bob how he feels about just letting players win $10,000 up to two times instead of once. Calling that "The $20,000 Pyramid" is hardly going to look bad when you're already "augmenting" winning totals to announced figures.