5 Least Favorite Current Pricing Games

[Jeremy Nelson]

Plinko--The audience gets stupidly riled up for this, which I have not understood.  This is a rare case where I think bumping up some of the lower slots would be helpful.

What’s bothered me about Plinko more is that they keep adding chrome to their already-chromiest game. Some time post-COVID they started playing a Dig We Must cut for every $10k win, which sounds so out of place. Also, it’s still the one game without a max winner. My idea of “small prizes increase a multiplier for one single chip drop” got lost in the mail somewhere.

The few times I've seen "To the Penny", it seems awfully awkward and doesn't work visually.

It has a rule set more in line with a money tier game show than Price’s simplicity. Remove the “spend a penny to remove wrong answers” option and just charge one penny for every wrong guess.

[TLEberle]

As much as I love Jeremy's Plinko idea you still have the chance of multiplying by a low amount, but those are the breaks. For a long time you had an 80% chance to punch a sub-$1,000 card and so be it.

I've come around after its first playing--I think To the Penny is a worthy successor to Penny Ante and a player can use strategy to move through the rounds. My only hangup is the name--of course it's to the penny, every grocery item is.

The great thing about TPIR is that with so many games you're bound to like at least something they do every day if you don't love all of it. And if you don't find at least something to like, I question why it would be tuned in.

[Dbacksfan12]

Plinko--The audience gets stupidly riled up for this, which I have not understood.  This is a rare case where I think bumping up some of the lower slots would be helpful.

What’s bothered me about Plinko more is that they keep adding chrome to their already-chromiest game. Some time post-COVID they started playing a Dig We Must cut for every $10k win, which sounds so out of place. Also, it’s still the one game without a max winner. My idea of “small prizes increase a multiplier for one single chip drop” got lost in the mail somewhere.

That's not the worst idea I've heard.  Out of curiosity, are you keeping the zeroes, or do they disappear at some point?

[wdm1219inpenna]

This Plinko idea is intriguing.

Are you suggesting the game be played with just one chip total?

I've often felt that for each chip that is dropped, if it does not land into $10,000 slot that it should increase by $10,000, so a player with 4 chips could miss the center slot the first 3 drops but if the 4th chip landed in the middle, their cash total would be augmented to $40,000.  THEN Plinko would be a far more worthwhile game!

I recall at least once a woman won all 4 Plinko chips and she ended up getting all zeroes.  Perfect pricing and she won ZERO dollars.  Yes she won the 4 small prizes, each worth less than $100, but for a huge cash game such as Stinko...but I imagine the powers that be on the show and CBS would never consider trying this idea.  For one budgetary issues are considered and for another, so many past players of Plinko might feel slighted by the rule changes but that's just how it goes.  Rule changes happen with games all the time.

[Kevin Prather]

I'd sooner replace the $0s with $500s or something. Decide what you want the minimum prize for a five-chipper to be, and divide it by five.

[TLEberle]

This Plinko idea is intriguing.

Are you suggesting the game be played with just one chip total?

I've often felt that for each chip that is dropped, if it does not land into $10,000 slot that it should increase by $10,000, so a player with 4 chips could miss the center slot the first 3 drops but if the 4th chip landed in the middle, their cash total would be augmented to $40,000.  THEN Plinko would be a far more worthwhile game!

Really? With a top prize of $54,000?

[wdm1219inpenna]

Nope, still a top prize of $50,000.  If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.

[TLEberle]

Then why bother with the other chips at all? Just save the time from the zero drops and go with Jeremy's idea and have one big event.

[wdm1219inpenna]

The bother with the other chips...

Let's say the player ends up with a total of 5 chips.


Chip #1 lands in $500

The $10,000 center slot then becomes $20,000.

If chip #2 lands in the $20,000, the player's total will jump from $500 up to $20,000.

In other words the center slot is a progressive jackpot.  Each time the center spot is not hit, it grows by $10,000.

So using the same example above, if chip #3 lands in the center slot, that adds another $10,000 so the player would be up to $30,000 after 3 chips.

Chip 4 lands in $100   so now they have $30,100 after 4 chips.

The center slot for the last chip would be $20,000, meaning if the last chip lands in the center, the player's total would jump from $30,100 to $50,000.  If the last chip landed in $1,000 for example, the player's final Plinko total would be $31,100.

[Steve Gavazzi]

Nope, still a top prize of $50,000.  If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.

Bob Stewart is not a good person from whom to steal payout structures.

I'm sure half of you have heard this already, but here's what I've been saying they should do since I can't even remember when anymore if they absolutely need to get Plinko won:  If and only if the contestant wins all five chips, after they've all been dropped, they should let the player give up the cash they've won to drop the golden Plinko chip from the MDSs.  Whatever it lands in gets multiplied by five, so if they hit $10,000, they get the full $50,000.

On the other hand, if it hits zero...well, 5 x 0 = 0.

It realistically allows the game to be won without absurdly cranking the odds, and it maintains the need to do all the pricing correctly.

[BillCullen1]

I recall at least once a woman won all 4 Plinko chips and she ended up getting all zeroes.  Perfect pricing and she won ZERO dollars.  Yes she won the 4 small prizes, each worth less than $100, but for a huge cash game such as Stinko...but I imagine the powers that be on the show and CBS would never consider trying this idea.  For one budgetary issues are considered and for another, so many past players of Plinko might feel slighted by the rule changes but that's just how it goes.  Rule changes happen with games all the time.

I remember this with Bob as host. After the woman got five zeros, Bob had a model (Janice?) go up and try her luck for the woman. She got a zero as well.

[Kevin Prather]

I think the last thing they need to do is cheapen a Plinko win by making it easier. By all means, eliminate the zeros and beef up the other prizes, but leave the ultimate goal alone. Five chips in the center.

[Dbacksfan12]

Nope, still a top prize of $50,000.  If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.

Bob Stewart is not a good person from whom to steal payout structures.

I'm sure half of you have heard this already, but here's what I've been saying they should do since I can't even remember when anymore if they absolutely need to get Plinko won:  If and only if the contestant wins all five chips, after they've all been dropped, they should let the player give up the cash they've won to drop the golden Plinko chip from the MDSs.  Whatever it lands in gets multiplied by five, so if they hit $10,000, they get the full $50,000.

On the other hand, if it hits zero...well, 5 x 0 = 0.

It realistically allows the game to be won without absurdly cranking the odds, and it maintains the need to do all the pricing correctly.

I swear I saw Steve's reply before Bill's 10:09 post ever populated.

Bill, I'm sorry, but your idea of making Plinko progressive is a non-starter.  I don't understand the logic behind making the middle slot worth more as the game goes on.

[BrandonFG]

Nope, still a top prize of $50,000.  If the first four chips all go into $1,000 and the 5th and final chip lands in the center, the player would win another $46,000, thus augmenting their total cash prize to $50,000.

Keep in mind that even though this is a game show centered around numbers, you're gonna confuse a lotta people at home - not to mention the contestants - with this progressive jackpot. And is this progressive jackpot only for every playing? In other words, if they play it tomorrow and the jackpot gets to 50K, will it still be 50K when they play Plinko in a few weeks or reset back to 10K? Because while a say, $130K jackpot sounds appealing, it's hell on the budget and will likely confuse the viewers who don't watch every day.

[Denials]

And while Plinko is a luck-based game, it's not a *completely* luck based game.   Where you drop the chip from influences the odds, despite few contestants ever seeming to understand that.