Worst scoring flaw?

[Brian44]

Regarding $1 spinoffs in the TPIR Showcase Showdown: Some here may consider it a scoring flaw while others may consider it a generous consolation prize when contestant #1 spins $.05 or $.15, then contestant #2 spins a higher amount than #1 and advances to the Showcases but doesn't win any more bonus money.

My guess is that most would consider this scenario to be the latter.

[TLEberle]

Years ago a now former friend posited that if you spin green and win green you should get priority over any other pocket change. I think it’s a fun irony and doubt that when the wheel was designed they imagined the budget expanding to give away extra cash like that.

[SamJ93]

Regarding $1 spinoffs in the TPIR Showcase Showdown: Some here may consider it a scoring flaw while others may consider it a generous consolation prize when contestant #1 spins $.05 or $.15, then contestant #2 spins a higher amount than #1 and advances to the Showcases but doesn't win any more bonus money.

My guess is that most would consider this scenario to be the latter.

It definitely makes for an awkward moment when Bob/Drew has to tell the contestant "You won! But also...you lost," but considering it's a scenario that occurs maybe once per season--if even that frequently--I'm OK with it. Having to explain that the 5/15 spaces are actually worth more for just this one spin would probably be too confusing.

[Ian Wallis]

One other thing related to Pyramid, not directly related to the scoring, is how you may play a perfect front game in the 80s version, but then are screwed out of a potential $5,000 (by winning the tiebreaker) because the other contestant misses one word. I wish it was something more like winning say one amount for getting the perfect score, and then maybe an additional bonus for winning the 21-21 tiebreaker .

Not really a scoring flaw, but I was never a fan of the $5000 bonus for a 21-21 tiebreaker - I just thought it was too much of a bonus, especially since the majority of Winner's Circle tries were for $10,000.

I think some other reward would have worked better, but if they were going to award cash, I'd be more comfortable with something like $2500.  Just IMHO.

[GameShowFan]

I’m a big fan of The Challengers, but not how they deducted money if someone went for it when all players selected the same category.

Nah, that’s no different to me than a Daily Double. You’ve got full agency over which questions you play and in which order, and there has to be a risk/reward element whether you’re leading and trying to extend, or trailing and trying to catch up. Run up, get done up.

I think the problem here is not ringing in and losing money on a miss. It’s going solo on a question and being forced to answer. It’s one thing to think you know and miss. It’s another when you have no clue but still lose money.

[JasonA1]

I think the problem here is not ringing in and losing money on a miss. It’s going solo on a question and being forced to answer. It’s one thing to think you know and miss. It’s another when you have no clue but still lose money.

Agreed. I know the picking on The Challengers is analogous to what happens on Who, What or Where, but in that game, you can more or less avoid danger by betting so low you don't even get a question. And even if you do get to answer, the amount at stake is so low, the damage is minimized. I watched another new-to-me Challengers recently, and as I've seen before, the contestants were floundering with sub-$1,000 totals late into round 2. I wish that show had found its footing faster.

-Jason

[Kevin Prather]

I think some other reward would have worked better, but if they were going to award cash, I'd be more comfortable with something like $2500.  Just IMHO.

$2100. It's right there. And Bob saves another $400.

[Otm Shank]

It was weird that a player would miss out on the bonus over their opponent's quarter-second-late response or a fleeting illegal clue. If they carried forward the bonus for 21 (not for a tie) from the New York days, they could have even split that suggested value of $2,100 and give $1,050, which coincidentally is the amount of a completed Winner's Circle before augmenting. (Dick Clark checking the math on that: "3 ... 5 ... 750 ... 8 .... 9 ... 1050.")

But now, despite that neat symmetry, I'm going to have to cut that down. Unfortunately, $1,050 and a bonus for 7-11 is a weird mismatch. Secondly, by the time they reached L.A., the celebrity players were just too good to offer the bonus for just 21.

[Clay Zambo]

Remind me again why we’re fussing about the 21-21 bonus? It is a bonus that doesn’t impact game score, and nobody is going to boot an answer just to screw their opponent out of a chance at the $5K, since doing so means they would *lose the game.* It’s a prize awarded to the winner of a tiebreaker ending a perfect game.

(And while we’re at it what was the scoring flaw in NYSI74 that started this whole thing?)

[JasonA1]

(And while we’re at it what was the scoring flaw in NYSI74 that started this whole thing?)

This post.

-Jason

[BrandonFG]

Remind me again why we’re fussing about the 21-21 bonus? It is a bonus that doesn’t impact game score, and nobody is going to boot an answer just to screw their opponent out of a chance at the $5K, since doing so means they would *lose the game.* It’s a prize awarded to the winner of a tiebreaker ending a perfect game.

I think it just seemed like a lot to give away for a tiebreaker, given 1) how cheap Stewart was and 2) several shows still offered that as a bonus round prize in the mid-80s. I agree with the others that $2,100 would've been a more suitable fit.

[TLEberle]

I think it just seemed like a lot to give away for a tiebreaker, given 1) how cheap Stewart was and 2) several shows still offered that as a bonus round prize in the mid-80s. I agree with the others that $2,100 would've been a more suitable fit.

I think it was 1984 when Pyramid instituted a car bonus for the tie-breaker win as a means to push teams to get to 21 as the players improved.

I was ok with the $5,000 because it's a bonus and not guaranteed, and it amps up the tension for the tiebreaker. There was also the possibility of someone winning ten grand the hard way.

I don't think it's cheap to fold in the ten thousand if someone summits the phyramid twice in a show especially since that $25k was the send-off point for a long time. Also: once $100k Pyramid took off and the syndication money rolled in (plus Jackpot and Canadian Reaction) I think StewartB had to feel like he was ok and could loosen the purse strings a bit. (Still doesn't explain or defend Repeat Discussion and their stupid main game bonus.

It isn't a flaw if you don't bag the cash in a 21-20 win. You get to play one of the three greatest end games in all of game show-dom and don't have to sweat through what can sort of be a random event in breaking the tie. Given how wiped I've felt after playing just the main game for $no dollars, I think I'd sacrifice the bonus cash for a pass to get to the winners circle.

[Neumms]

The first one I ever spotted was HS86, during the first season. Each game was worth $500. If the same contestant won the first two games, the other contestant was basically screwed. They fixed this in season two with the third game being worth $1000.

On Bergeron's, the $4000 game is preposterous. Play for $2,000 just to get the loser some money. It's the Squares, not tense competition.

[TLEberle]

On Bergeron's, the $4000 game is preposterous. Play for $2,000 just to get the loser some money. It's the Squares, not tense competition.

There was someone in the first year who rolled up fourteen grand, which seems overkill. At some point it becomes Homer pummeling the Krusty Burglar.

I think if you can swing it play a practice game for a grand then the rest at $2,000 each, plus the $500/square. That would work for Card Sharks too, and you do t have to worry about extra cash. Sound a sounder and that’s the final question. It’s not hard.

[Neumms]

I don't think it's cheap to fold in the ten thousand if someone summits the phyramid twice in a show especially since that $25k was the send-off point for a long time. Also: once $100k Pyramid took off and the syndication money rolled in (plus Jackpot and Canadian Reaction) I think StewartB had to feel like he was ok and could loosen the purse strings a bit.

Or was it Michael Brockman and CBS who told him to loosen up? That version also had a significantly better set than Stewart's other shows. (Maybe the original Jackpot was close.)

Winners on the CBS $25K version did really well--with good Mystery 7 prizes, too--but augmenting winnings to $25K if you'd won the 10 always rubbed me wrong--if you already have 10, you're not playing for 25, you're playing for 15. ABC's $20K was even worse.