Author Topic: The Price is Right Big Money Week (Read 32140 times)

TLEberle · « **Reply #15 on:** April 22, 2013, 09:01:12 PM »

I\'m only through game three, but that particular layout would have made for some interesting decisions which is nice because Punch-a-Bunch doesn\'t usually have them. Given that there were nine cards worth $10,000 it suddenly doesn\'t become (too terribly) stupid to chase the $250,000, especially since the low card was $500.

Unrealtor · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2013, 09:48:32 AM »

Did they change the distribution beyond multiplying the dollar amounts by ten? I know they decreased the number of $50 and $100 slips in regular play when they added the $25,000 slip, but the number of $500 and $1,000 slips yesterday seemed lower than what I thought I remembered.

Bob Zager · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2013, 02:47:27 PM »

Today\'s episode featured the \"Grand Game,\" for up to $100,000!

For this, the contestant started with $10, and proceeded the same way as usual.

I wondered, since there are six products on display, if it would\'ve been more challenging and suspenseful if they started at $1, and had FIVE products priced lower than the \"target\" amount--thus requiring the contestant to win $10,000 for the usual FOUR correct picks, and risk it all for the $100,000 by correctly picking the fifth one!

JasonA1 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 23, 2013, 02:50:24 PM »

I wondered, since there are six products on display, if it would\'ve been more challenging and suspenseful if they started at $1, and had FIVE products priced lower than the \"target\" amount

Statistically, it is easier to pick 5 out of 6. So, no.

-Jason

Bob Zager · « **Reply #19 on:** April 23, 2013, 02:55:29 PM »

Did they change the distribution beyond multiplying the dollar amounts by ten? I know they decreased the number of $50 and $100 slips in regular play when they added the $25,000 slip, but the number of $500 and $1,000 slips yesterday seemed lower than what I thought I remembered.

Probably because there were more $10,000 slips than regular playings!

When did they eliminate the \"Second Chance\" opportunities?

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #20 on:** April 23, 2013, 06:23:49 PM »

I wondered, since there are six products on display, if it would\'ve been more challenging and suspenseful if they started at $1, and had FIVE products priced lower than the \"target\" amount

Statistically, it is easier to pick 5 out of 6. So, no.

-Jason

How about putting a 7th product up there? How does that change the math?

TLEberle · « **Reply #21 on:** April 23, 2013, 06:37:40 PM »

7 choose 5 is twenty-one, 6 choose 4 is fifteen.

Unrealtor · « **Reply #22 on:** April 23, 2013, 07:38:34 PM »

The fact that there are more winning combinations is irrelevant, as far as I can tell.

The chances of winning if you pick randomly are 1/15 (6.67%) for 4 out of 6, 1/6 (16.7%) for 5 out of 6, and 1/21 (4.76%) for 5 out of 7.

SuperMatch93 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2013, 07:39:19 PM »

When did they eliminate the \"Second Chance\" opportunities?

When they raised the top prize to $25,000 (September 29, 2011).

TheInquisitiveOne · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2013, 08:47:16 PM »

A very minor, yet noticeable quirk I caught during today\'s 100 Grand Game playing:

The computerized board reset to $0, although I (correctly) thought she won $1,000 because of the non-risk involved of choosing the wrong item at that level. I read that the board was not coded to address the augmented top prize for this special playing.

By no means did it detract from the gameplay for me, but the part of me who likes to pay attention to detail thought it should have been properly coded before being used for taping. Now that the board is modernized, I\'m sure it can be altered to however they see fit.

The Inquisitive One

WilliamPorygon · « **Reply #25 on:** April 23, 2013, 09:09:03 PM »

A very minor, yet noticeable quirk I caught during today\'s 100 Grand Game playing:

The computerized board reset to $0, although I (correctly) thought she won $1,000 because of the non-risk involved of choosing the wrong item at that level. I read that the board was not coded to address the augmented top prize for this special playing.

By no means did it detract from the gameplay for me, but the part of me who likes to pay attention to detail thought it should have been properly coded before being used for taping. Now that the board is modernized, I\'m sure it can be altered to however they see fit.

That could be, though I don\'t get that they\'d even need to relay a loss to the scoreboard unless it\'s at the final pick. Maybe to make it turn red, but it didn\'t turn red when the contestant lost on the first pick a few weeks ago. Either way, yeah, that bugged me too.

chad1m · « **Reply #26 on:** April 23, 2013, 09:48:57 PM »

Maybe to make it turn red, but it didn\'t turn red when the contestant lost on the first pick a few weeks ago.

That\'s because if you lose on the first pick, you still win a dollar. Under regular play, if you risk the $1,000 to try for $10,000 and miss, you win $0.

WilliamPorygon · « **Reply #27 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:31:02 PM »

Maybe to make it turn red, but it didn\'t turn red when the contestant lost on the first pick a few weeks ago.

That\'s because if you lose on the first pick, you still win a dollar. Under regular play, if you risk the $1,000 to try for $10,000 and miss, you win $0.

I know, I meant they could\'ve programmed it to turn red to indicate the game was lost while still keeping $1/$10/$100 on the display, but they apparently didn\'t.

Mr. Armadillo · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2013, 09:33:26 AM »

How about putting a 7th product up there? How does that change the math?

Forget the math, where are you sticking a 7th product cubby?

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #29 on:** April 24, 2013, 06:14:11 PM »

How about putting a 7th product up there? How does that change the math?

Forget the math, where are you sticking a 7th product cubby?

Redesign the front of the board by making slightly narrower cubbies. Not that hard.