Cash on the Barrel

[alfonzos]

Three prizes are revealed and described (as if Most Expensive or Eazy as 1, 2, 3 was being played). Cash is then brought out on a barrel (hence the name of the game). This cash is wadded in bundles of $500 each. The cash totals about $3000 more than the ARP of the prizes. To win all three prizes the player must put cash on each prize that is equal to or greater than the ARP of each prize. Placing not enough money on any one or two prizes results in a loss and no award of prizes.

Example #1:
Prize A: Three-piece Outdoor Tiki Bar Set Prize B: Gas Grill Prize C: 32” Outdoor LCD HDTV Cash on the barrel: $13,500
If you put a least $1000 on Prize A, $6500 on Prize B, and $3000 on Prize C, then you have won.

Example #2:
Prize A: Lance Powersports Cali Classic Scooter PrizeB: Mac Pro Computer with 8GB RAM and 1TB HDD  Prize C: Refrigerator  Cash on the barrel: $12,000
If you put at least $2000 on Prize A, $4000 on Prize B, and $3000 on Prize C, then you have won.

Your opinion please.
(c) Alfonzo Smith, Jr.

[MikeK]

Not bad.  My biggest issue is the name.

I created a similar game about 5 years ago for the Palace called It's in the Chips.  It's the same idea except you had 10 large poker chips all of the same value, either $100 or $500, and you added chips to the prices of 4 prizes.  After the first chance, the items with the right prices are shown and the player gets a second chance.

[TLEberle]

I'm sorry, you said Pricing Puzzle?

[clemon79]

I'm sorry, you said Pricing Puzzle?

You shouldn't be surprised, he was prattling on about it being a more appropriate name a while ago.

[parliboy]

And again, while it's not terminology I will use, I can tolerate it, since it really just refers to a pricing game without a chance element.

Unfortunately, there are too many manipulatives in this game for the typical contestant.  Depending on the version, Money Drop gives you 40-50 stacks of cash to place within one minute.  But these are Price contestants.  Lowest common denominator, and all that.

So, one of three changes:

[list=1]

• Lower the value of the prizes,
• Increase the cash wads to $1,000, or
• Change the object of the game so that all of the cash placements must be less than the ARP, not greater than.

Personally, I'd prefer option 3, since it reduces the number of wads in the game while changing the game to fit the "without going over" motif.

[Kevin Prather]

Personally, I'd prefer option 3, since it reduces the number of wads in the game while changing the game to fit the "without going over" motif.

Problem is with alfonzos's idea, you don't have to place all the cash. "Ok, I'll put one bundle on one, one on two and one on three. Whee! I win!"

[clemon79]

Problem is with alfonzos's idea, you don't have to place all the cash. "Ok, I'll put one bundle on one, one on two and one on three. Whee! I win!"

I suspect one of the rules would then change to "you have to place all of the money."

[parliboy]

Indeed. Also, "Alfonso's idea"?

[clemon79]

Indeed. Also, "Alfonso's idea"?

Punctuation would have been Kev's friend: "The problem is, with Alfonzo's idea, you don't have to..."

The thing is, though, under Alfonzo's format, you'd be a fool not to place it all because it's obvious the extra cash is given to you as padding, so it doesn't need to be said. With yours it's the *lack* of cash that acts as the padding, so, yeah, tell the player they have to put it all out, problem solved.

[Kevin Prather]

Indeed. Also, "Alfonso's idea"?

Punctuation would have been Kev's friend: "The problem is, with Alfonzo's idea, you don't have to..."

Yeah, that's what I was going for.

[TLEberle]

And again, while it's not terminology I will use, I can tolerate it, since it really just refers to a pricing game without a chance element.

The problem I have is that he's clearly being obstinate in the face of reality. Why should I listen to someone who won't even bother to use a long-established nomenclature, stubbornly clinging to his "It isn't a (whatever), because there's no (whatever) involved"?

Not bad.  My biggest issue is the name.

I don't think the name is terrible; after all Cash on the Barrel is a known phrase. My biggest issue is that the game is either Mystery Price or Clearance Sale. I think the way to make it interesting is to go even farther in the opposite of Parliboy: to have the decisions to the dollar. You put a tote by each prize and the player. Start with $bank, and have the contestant make the first two bids, leaving the third amount as the last one. Let the player slide some money around either way if they have buyer's remorse. Thing is that you're still playing a Frankengame of Mystery Price/Clearance Sale, and with a really wide berth, at that.

[MikeK]

Not bad.  My biggest issue is the name.

I don't think the name is terrible; after all Cash on the Barrel is a known phrase.

I had never heard of that phrase before now.  I take back my criticism of the name.

[Kevin Prather]

And again, while it's not terminology I will use, I can tolerate it, since it really just refers to a pricing game without a chance element.

The problem I have is that he's clearly being obstinate in the face of reality. Why should I listen to someone who won't even bother to use a long-established nomenclature, stubbornly clinging to his "It isn't a (whatever), because there's no (whatever) involved"?

Similar to the podium/lectern debacle.

[pacdude]

after all Cash on the Barrel is a known phrase

Not quite. The phrase is "cash on the barrelhead."

[Matt Ottinger]

after all Cash on the Barrel is a known phrase

Not quite. The phrase is "cash on the barrelhead."

Both are perfectly acceptable.