5 Least Favorite Current Pricing Games

[Mike Tennant]

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.

Plus, TPIR episodes do not necessarily air in taping order, and they go into reruns in the summer, so an ongoing progressive jackpot is pretty much out of the question.

[TimK2003]

Plinko has been around for so long, the suggested changes to the gameplay would be about as appaling as changing The Joker's Wild from the original format to (as you all know) a Game of Definitions.

The S.S. Plinko ship has sailed.

[TLEberle]

Except I happen to enjoy Joker90.

Perhaps a bit of actual creativity beyond fried chicken showcases and crossing touch screens would be called for.

[alfonzos]

Rather than progressive jackpots which add a lot math and call for additional props and electronics, why not do what the Brits did? The center slot is worth zero but the slots immediately to its left and right are worth $10,000.

[TLEberle]

What does that accomplish besides tweaking the average payoff per chip?

[Kevin Prather]

What does that accomplish besides tweaking the average payoff per chip?

Taking the odds of a perfect game from 1/59,049 to 1/1845.

You could even do what PiR94 did. Have two top slots and three zeros.

[WilliamPorygon]

Rather than progressive jackpots which add a lot math and call for additional props and electronics, why not do what the Brits did? The center slot is worth zero but the slots immediately to its left and right are worth $10,000.

Why not have them gamble their winnings for a car while they're at it?

[TLEberle]

What does that accomplish besides tweaking the average payoff per chip?

Taking the odds of a perfect game from 1/59,049 to 1/1845.

You could even do what PiR94 did. Have two top slots and three zeros.

Assuming each fall towards the bottom means one left or right move the chance of a $10,000 win on any chip is roughly one in four, not one in nine. (Note that for someone win $100 the chip can only come in from one side--there's a 50/50 shot to win $500 or $100 from the edge.)

Chances of a perfect run assuming all of the variables are ironed out is about one in a thousand. Taking a page from Jeremy I might have a top prize (let's say $25,000) and every correct either/or choice converts a zero into the top prize. Maybe pull a chip from a hopper to make the choice.

[Mr. Brown]

1. Stack the Deck: it's just too damn hard and not fun to watch, especially given the fact that it gives away "normal" cars. Maybe if it gave away luxury vehicles it might be more enjoyable.

2. Gridlock!: This is easily the worst of the newest games. It's clunky as hell, slow for what it is, and what the heck is the theme? Traffic? Were they really going for a stuck in traffic theme?

3. Gas Money (under its current rules): I would LOVE to see the show bring back the original "Deal or No Deal"-style rules, where you're stuck with your original choice throughout the game.

I don't have a 4 & 5. lol

[Kevin Prather]

What does that accomplish besides tweaking the average payoff per chip?

Taking the odds of a perfect game from 1/59,049 to 1/1845.

You could even do what PiR94 did. Have two top slots and three zeros.

Assuming each fall towards the bottom means one left or right move the chance of a $10,000 win on any chip is roughly one in four, not one in nine. (Note that for someone win $100 the chip can only come in from one side--there's a 50/50 shot to win $500 or $100 from the edge.)

Chances of a perfect run assuming all of the variables are ironed out is about one in a thousand. Taking a page from Jeremy I might have a top prize (let's say $25,000) and every correct either/or choice converts a zero into the top prize. Maybe pull a chip from a hopper to make the choice.

Well whatever the chances are right now, doubling the number of $10,000s increases the chances by 2^5, or 32x.

[bossjock967]

1. Microwave The Cat

I only liked this one when Gene Wood was doing the fee plugs.

[whewfan]

1. Stack the Deck: it's just too damn hard and not fun to watch, especially given the fact that it gives away "normal" cars. Maybe if it gave away luxury vehicles it might be more enjoyable.

2. Gridlock!: This is easily the worst of the newest games. It's clunky as hell, slow for what it is, and what the heck is the theme? Traffic? Were they really going for a stuck in traffic theme?

3. Gas Money (under its current rules): I would LOVE to see the show bring back the original "Deal or No Deal"-style rules, where you're stuck with your original choice throughout the game.

I don't have a 4 & 5. lol

From when I first saw Stack the Deck, I thought "It's an okay game." Certainly more fun if the contestant gets all three choices right, and this game is easy to set up a loss.

Gridlock is definitely flawed in terms of execution. In the first playing, I thought it was cool to see the animation of cars crashing with the wrong choices, but apparently when they showed the numbers the contestant chose on the screen, the audience thought the contestant was right (maybe the contestant too). So, I think they stopped using the screen. It's too bad the cars they use DON'T "crash" with the wrong choices.

Gas Money- I know Roger didn't like the rule change. I recall he said that their rule change made the game more like a clone of Danger Price, with it being "Don't pick the right price for the car and eliminate the wrong prices" For me, the original format was basically a reverse of 5 Price Tags. With the rule change, you're not committed to a choice for the right price. I think they felt eliminating picking the right price first making the game easier to win.

[Jeremy Nelson]

This Plinko idea is intriguing.

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

Yep. Every small prize you get right increases the multiplier on your one drop. My concern in my idea was that there'd be a lot of buildup for only one seven second moment, but really, that's no different than Rat Race or Hole in One.

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?

Get rid of the zeroes. The $100 slots can stay.

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.

i don't think it's cheapening the outcome if nobody has won the top prize over roughly 1,000 playings of the game. We can't point to a single example of "this is a doable feat", and rarely have we ever been able to see someone do it three times, let alone five.

I'd be more amenable to your thought on this if the money half of Plinko was a game of skill, but it's got lottery game show-levels of randomness. If the game were Hole In One-ish, where contestants aimed for a $10,000 cup (there's an idea), then sure, ultimate goal and all that jazz.

[aaron sica]

Gas Money- I know Roger didn't like the rule change. I recall he said that their rule change made the game more like a clone of Danger Price

Actually, when he discussed the rule change, he never mentioned Danger Price.