Crossover games on LMAD and TPIR this week

[Joe Mello]

Because that cash buyout against what you described it just silliness.

I'd argue that if the whole point of the week is to play games from the Price is Right, having real incentive to not play them is also silly.

[TLEberle]

Because that cash buyout against what you described it just silliness.

I'd argue that if the whole point of the week is to play games from the Price is Right, having real incentive to not play them is also silly.

Then why bother making the offer at all? If it's mine to do I'd offer an extra chance at today's game to whoever comes nearer the price of the grand prize, then make the sure thing offer.

The games aren't being played in a vacuum, they're being mashed-up. Lots of pricing games don't offer bailouts, but they're playing LMAD's games in the spirit they were created while also adding a pricing element to them. Five Price Tags doesn't have a sure thing option, but yesterday's playing of it was done brilliantly.

[Joe Mello]

Because that cash buyout against what you described it just silliness.

I'd argue that if the whole point of the week is to play games from the Price is Right, having real incentive to not play them is also silly.

Then why bother making the offer at all?

You bother for the same reason you bother allowing a Millionaire contestant to walk with $500. The option to not do a thing is integrated into how the show works, but that doesn't mean the option has to be compelling all the time. If the producers wanted to, they could've played Master Key with all the pomp and chrome of all the "pick the specific object from a group" games that have come before it, but they chose not to. I agree that the offer was weak sauce, but it wasn't without reason.

[Unrealtor]

So does the show treat those cash bailouts as offers from Walter P. Smythe, or is Wayne empowered and empaneled to increase it?

My recollection of the discussions when this version first came on was that we thought that Wayne couldn't offer a tissue to someone who sneezed unless Mike Richards said so, but I don't remember if that was speculation or inside knowledge.

In practice, it seems like the trading deals are the ones where you see Wayne start with a lowball offer and increase it, and the games tend to have inflexible take it or leave it bailouts.

[TLEberle]

You bother for the same reason you bother allowing a Millionaire contestant to walk with $500.

But the host doesn't implore the contestant to ponder the risks of going for the $1,000 question--it is a step on a path rather than a temptation. One of the reasons I mock the $50/point buyout that $25,000 Pyramid had early on for the 7-11 is that nobody is going to agonize over that choice, similar to the first two offers on Deal or No Deal or whether to stop on $725 because by God there could be a devil on your next spin. Sale of the Century had some terrific items in the gift shop and you could see the wheels turning, and when Temptation turned the temptations into handbags, sunglasses and makeup it really isn't that tempting. The entire point of Let's Make a Deal is whether someone will stick with what they have or have a punt on something that might be great and might be crappy. $500 against a car isn't much of a decision, if the buyout amount is more than either of the other two lower prizes on offer, and substantially more, then that might be something to ponder. I get that they want players to play the games because they're big and bright and TV-friendly and no one wants to wheel the prop out so it can go back to storage unused, but I remember at least a handful of people who decided to keep Monty's check rather than spinning the Dealer Wheel.

[Clay Zambo]

I haven't watched the LMaD versions, but have enjoyed the Deal-on-Price games. Accelerator seems like Spelling Bee with a cooler prop. The Go for a Spin wheel is just pretty, but I really liked the upside-down or right-side-up pricing aspect.

All in all, a fun way to freshen up the week.

[BillCullen1]

Games played on Friday May 13, with alternate rules:

On LMAD, they played Punch-a-Bunch. Three people were selected. First contestant punched out one circle, 2nd contestant punched two, and 3rd contestant punched three circles. After each contestant punched, Wayne offered them an alternate prize (curtain or box) or take the money punched. Dollar amounts were the same as on TPIR. Male model James was on hand.

On TPIR, Smash For Cash was played for $20,000 Six piggy banks with products. Five were less than $8.00, one was more and a zonk. The good ones had cash ranging from $1 to $5.00. Contestant had to avoid the zonk to move up the scale. Contestant could stop & take the money along the way. Jonathan was there to smash the piggy banks.

[jjman920]

On TPIR, Smash For Cash was played for $20,000 Six piggy banks with products. Five were less than $8.00, one was more and a zonk. The good ones had cash ranging from $1 to $5.00. Contestant had to avoid the zonk to move up the scale. Contestant could stop & take the money along the way. Jonathan was there to smash the piggy banks.

Probably the easiest one they converted this week since they turned it into Grand Game with an extra grocery product.

[BrandonFG]

Games played on Friday May 13, with alternate rules:

On LMAD, they played Punch-a-Bunch. Three people were selected. First contestant punched out one circle, 2nd contestant punched two, and 3rd contestant punched three circles. After each contestant punched, Wayne offered them an alternate prize (curtain or box) or take the money punched. Dollar amounts were the same as on TPIR. Male model James was on hand.

Any rhyme or reason as to why the succeeding contestant received an extra punch? From the description, it seems like an unfair advantage, and an arbitrary thing to do. Unless the first contestant - with one punch - had the best trade offer.

[BillCullen1]

There really wasn't any rhyme or reason to why they did that on LMAD.  Not to me anyway, and I don't recall the trade offers.

[parliboy]

Lots of those situations have always been arbitrary for the life of the franchise.  Ex: player A chooses one of two things and gives the other to Player C.  Player B does the same thing.  Player C then keeps all his stuff or trades.  Why does player C get more stuff?  Meh, nobody knows or cares.

[TLEberle]

Punch-a-Bunch fell flat alternating between the three players and the deals, never really building to any satisfying conclusion, even with the chance that the last trader could have punched $45,000. (I think having to choose between two unknowns seems anathema--that you choose between something you know and something you don't) I thought Hole-in-One and Cliff Hangers mashed up the best on LMAD, and Go for a Spin and Car Pong were my favorites on TPIR.

[clemon79]

(I think having to choose between two unknowns seems anathema--that you choose between something you know and something you don't)

That has never, ever, ever been a hard-and-fast rule with Let's Make A Deal.