Reaching a dollar goal

[Jay Temple]

One of the many changes they made in TJW from the pilot to the show is that the pilot had questions worth points, while the aired version had $50/$100/$150 (later $200) questions, and the goal was $500. Does anyone know of an earlier game show where (i) score was kept in dollars and (ii) the game was won by reaching a dollar figure first? (In contrast, Cullen's TPIR kept score in dollars, but the winner was the player with the high score at the end of the show.)

[Matt Ottinger]

You probably want to add to your conditions a competitive game as opposed to a single player against the house.  Because there's a reason they called it The $64,000 Question.  (And before that, the $64 question on radio.)

[SFQuizKid]

The original (1960s) Match Game might be one.  

Although Gene didn't exactly score the main game in dollars (on the shows I've seen on YouTube, Gene just says "you get 25" or something like that.), to win the game and go to the audience match a team has to score 100.  Then during the Audience Match Gene very clearly says "you get fifty dollars for the answer you match most often"--and the 50 is always added to the team's original 100.  So although there wasn't a big dollar sign on the scoreboards, it seems like Match Game worked by "first team to $100."

[Neumms]

Although Gene didn't exactly score the main game in dollars (on the shows I've seen on YouTube, Gene just says "you get 25" or something like that.), to win the game and go to the audience match a team has to score 100.  Then during the Audience Match Gene very clearly says "you get fifty dollars for the answer you match most often"--and the 50 is always added to the team's original 100.  So although there wasn't a big dollar sign on the scoreboards, it seems like Match Game worked by "first team to $100." Not sure if you ended up scoring over 100 (thanks to a tie or matching both on the last question) if they'd pay the extra.

It seems to me he'd call them points, but, yes, the winners received $100. I wonder if the thinking was that if he said $25 instead of 25 points, they'd have to pay the loser, too. On _ Jeopardy!_, Alex is very explicit that "only the winner keeps the cash," partly because that was a change from Art's version. Jack Barry didn't really bring it up, though. They just blanked the loser's score and mentioned only parting gifts.

I still kind of wonder if on TJW, if player 1 goes over $500 then player 2 spins three jokers and wins if player 2 wins $500, the amount player 1 scored, or that amount plus $1 or $50.

[clemon79]

I still kind of wonder if on TJW, if player 1 goes over $500 then player 2 spins three jokers and wins if player 2 wins $500, the amount player 1 scored, or that amount plus $1 or $50.

Occam's Razor answers your question with another one:

Which one is cheapest?

[Jay Temple]

Matt: You're quite right. I meant games in which you defeated your opponent this way.
SFQuizKid: I checked 60's MG before I posted, because I thought it might have been scored that way, but it was clearly stated as reaching a point total. If an episode exists that shows a team winning the game with more than 100 and getting the higher dollar figure, that would prove us wrong.

[wdm1219inpenna]

Although Gene didn't exactly score the main game in dollars (on the shows I've seen on YouTube, Gene just says "you get 25" or something like that.), to win the game and go to the audience match a team has to score 100.  Then during the Audience Match Gene very clearly says "you get fifty dollars for the answer you match most often"--and the 50 is always added to the team's original 100.  So although there wasn't a big dollar sign on the scoreboards, it seems like Match Game worked by "first team to $100." Not sure if you ended up scoring over 100 (thanks to a tie or matching both on the last question) if they'd pay the extra.

It seems to me he'd call them points, but, yes, the winners received $100. I wonder if the thinking was that if he said $25 instead of 25 points, they'd have to pay the loser, too. On _ Jeopardy!_, Alex is very explicit that "only the winner keeps the cash," partly because that was a change from Art's version. Jack Barry didn't really bring it up, though. They just blanked the loser's score and mentioned only parting gifts.

I still kind of wonder if on TJW, if player 1 goes over $500 then player 2 spins three jokers and wins if player 2 wins $500, the amount player 1 scored, or that amount plus $1 or $50.

To the best of my recollection, on "The Joker's Wild", if the challenger exceeded $500, and the champion got one final spin and spun 3 Jokers, and answered 1 question correctly, the champion would win $500.  I always disliked that personally.  If the game were tied in "overtime" say $800 to $800, the challenger gets a triple and answers right, then it's $1,000 to $800, then the champ spins 3 jokers and answers correctly, the champ won the game with only $500.  Hated that rule....

[Jay Temple]

To the best of my recollection, on "The Joker's Wild", if the challenger exceeded $500, and the champion got one final spin and spun 3 Jokers, and answered 1 question correctly, the champion would win $500.  I always disliked that personally.  If the game were tied in "overtime" say $800 to $800, the challenger gets a triple and answers right, then it's $1,000 to $800, then the champ spins 3 jokers and answers correctly, the champ won the game with only $500.  Hated that rule....

I wasn't crazy about that rule, but the situation was so rare that I find it hard to get worked up about it. It bothered me more that the game ended if the champion reached $500 on the challenger's question. I thought the champion should have to take a spin if it was possible for the challenger to catch up. (I understand why they didn't, though.)

[clemon79]

It bothered me more that the game ended if the champion reached $500 on the challenger's question. I thought the champion should have to take a spin if it was possible for the challenger to catch up. (I understand why they didn't, though.)

I honestly can't think of a single scenario where that makes an ounce of sense.

[PYLdude]

It bothered me more that the game ended if the champion reached $500 on the challenger's question. I thought the champion should have to take a spin if it was possible for the challenger to catch up. (I understand why they didn't, though.)

I honestly can't think of a single scenario where that makes an ounce of sense.

Not only that, you've got a situation that just makes for bad television. The champ could be leading by $100, spin at least one single, then purposely throw the question because he doesn't need to answer it. So the challenger is hosed no matter what happens in that case. There's just way too many variables at work that make the outcome undesirable for all involved.

[parliboy]

In fairness, the champion could also spin a natural triple and be forced to take a $200 question. And if the champion leads by $450 versus $500, he wouldn't be able to throw it at all. But I like to look at it as simply part of the champion's advantage, just as the three jokers rule is the challengers advantage, and move on.

[PYLdude]

In fairness, the champion could also spin a natural triple and be forced to take a $200 question. And if the champion leads by $450 versus $500, he wouldn't be able to throw it at all. But I like to look at it as simply part of the champion's advantage, just as the three jokers rule is the challengers advantage, and move on.

Which is exactly how it should be looked at. No point in further complicating the matter. Besides, why would you force a player to answer a question for the full amount of the spin when they wouldn't have to do that in any other situation?

[Jay Temple]

The two situations Parliboy suggested are why I thought the champion should have to spin. But "bad television" is exactly what I meant when I said I understood why they didn't. Sometimes the fairest game doesn't make for the best television.

[clemon79]

The two situations Parliboy suggested are why I thought the champion should have to spin. But "bad television" is exactly what I meant when I said I understood why they didn't. Sometimes the fairest game doesn't make for the best television.

Except the point I was making with my incredulity is that it's not fair either. Challenger gets last licks so that both players get the same number of spins, no more, no less. If players get sniped on wrong answers, that's on them for not getting their questions right.

[Matt Ottinger]

The two situations Parliboy suggested are why I thought the champion should have to spin. But "bad television" is exactly what I meant when I said I understood why they didn't. Sometimes the fairest game doesn't make for the best television.

Except the point I was making with my incredulity is that it's not fair either. Challenger gets last licks so that both players get the same number of spins, no more, no less. If players get sniped on wrong answers, that's on them for not getting their questions right.

This discussion reminds me of the argument I had with a fellow over the college football overtime format.  It's unlikely, but possible, for the team that starts on defense to win in overtime by returning an interception for a touchdown.  He insisted that if that were to happen, the teams should still play the second part of overtime because the other side ought to have the same chance to do the same thing.  Even though he totally understood that it just meant taking four knees, he felt fairness demanded that those downs be played out.  I realize that's an extreme variation on what you two are talking about, but I've never had a chance to share that story before.