Pricing Game Tweaks

[JasonA1]

I originally wished to post a thread about TPIR games you'd retire, but then realized we've done it to death and, might I add, incorrectly (let's retire Double Prices! Yeeeehaw!). That led me here. Tweaks/fixes to pricing games. And let's make it a nice tidy thread and say...uhh....the network/producers/somebody is limiting you to five. Whatever.

Grocery Game - while there has been a number of wins very recently, I still think the range could be more fair...say $20-$22? In playing a bunch of simulation games where I had a rough idea of the prices, I still managed to overshoot by less than a dollar about half the time. No where near scientific, but the extra dollar would give you a lot more leniecy with the higher priced items.

Hit Me - I dislike this and Pick-a-Pair because of the amount of prize copy v. game play. At least with Pair it feels like some skill is being used, but Hit Me has become the worst example of playing the show like a fiddle. To make it more interesting, I'd get rid of the ace or ten on each playing. Make them try for two or more products that add up to 10/11 (depending on what you have out there). This one has the lowest probability of happening due to how truly confusing the game is to begin with...

Pick a Number - it's really not that bad a game. People always talk about how they want this and Joker sent to the wood chipper, but the only problem I have with it is the number they often choose. If they keep it to figuring out the first or second number, then it's fine - anything else is an exercise in pointlessness.

Poker Game - I'd suggest giving the player a $1,000 bonus if they keep their oirignal hand and win. I figured just handing them $1,000 to make up for the prizes' cheapness was arbitrary, so that's what I came up with. I also had an alternate format in mind, but I see it baffling contestants.

Most games involving cash - Fine, so I broke my own rule. But this is fairly quick. $10,000 really isn't bad - I'm not saying everything needs more money. It needs refinement. For example, $10,000 for finding the right box in 1/2 Off seems fair. For winning Grand Game? $20,000 would be nice, IMO. Punch a Bunch doesn't necessarily need an upgrade, just a new configuration of some sort to make the decisions more interesting. Pass the Buck needs a bit of deflation I feel - picking up 5k so easily is a real kick in the pants for somebody who won $3,000 of furniture in Check Out.

Now for your suggestions...

-Jason

[jmangin]

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM\']Grocery Game
While there has been a number of wins very recently, I still think the range could be more fair
[/quote]
This game, from seasons 29 through 33, has a 48% win rate.  There really is no basis for fiddling with the rules.

Card Game, on the other hand, had a win rate of only 33% in five years.  There clearly was a problem and rules needed to be adjusted.

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM\']Hit Me
amount of prize copy v. game play
[/quote]
Do you like Golden Road or Triple Play?  There is more time involved with setup and copy for those two than there is with Pick a Pair.
 
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM\']I'd get rid of the ace or ten on each playing. Make them try for two or more products that add up to 10/11 (depending on what you have out there). This one has the lowest probability of happening due to how truly confusing the game is to begin with...[/quote]
It's not confusing at all.  The game was won 13 out of 14 times last season with seven blackjacks.

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM\']Pick a Number
...The only problem I have with it is the number they often choose. If they keep it to figuring out the first or second number, then it's fine - anything else is an exercise in pointlessness.[/quote]
How do you feel about Golden Road?  Using the hundreds digit in a $80,000 car to determine a winner is just as arbitrary.

[snapback]100326[/snapback]

[Dbacksfan12]

Was it really necessary of you to break down everything he said?

Anyhow, you cite that 7 players got a blackjack in Hit Me.  That means 7 idiots didn't get a blackjack.

Anyhow:
I would change Plinko; to the follow config:
$250-$750-$1500-$50-$10000-$50-$1500-$750-$250

That way, a good player doesn't get completely screwed.

I would also change Pass the Buck to this config:
$500-$500-$1000-$2000-Car-Lose Everything

[JasonA1]

Now, maybe strictly in seconds the game play issue is "worse" with Golden Road or Triple Play, but that truly is an event on the show. To see the main prize described, and all six items, followed by the contestant going "uh, index cards" and "uh, beans" compared to somebody going for three cars is a different animal IMO.

I personally don't find Hit Me confusing, but how many of those contestants truly know what they're doing? Considering many haven't grasped Check Game yet, even given several on-air explanations by Bob, who can say that many really understand Hit Me based on a bunch of playings that start with "well, so-and-so knows how to play, so what do you want?"

This is hypocritical of me, but the GR version of Pick a Number is a bit different than the stand alone game. In Golden Road, one can ascertain a logical pick for the hundreds digit by going on the past prizes, whereas in Pick a Number trying to guess whether a barrel sauna is $3663 or $3683 is really just dumb. I say it's hypocritical of me, because I lambasted Hit Me for the same type of "insider tricks." *sigh* Sorry.

And on Grocery Game...my bad, I guess. I'm sorry I don't pore over the numbers. And no, that's not a backhanded comment against such practices, I really do like the things you can learn from looking at the stats so well provided by members of the fan community. I didn't realize it was doing that well. After seeing last season's record of embarassing losses, however, I felt something could be done to at least give the contestant more of a fair shake - more possibilities to win. Oh well.

-Jason

[LA the DJ]

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:19 PM\']
Anyhow:
I would change Plinko; to the follow config:
$250-$750-$1500-$50-$10000-$50-$1500-$750-$250

That way, a good player doesn't get completely screwed.

I would also change Pass the Buck to this config:
$500-$500-$1000-$2000-Car-Lose Everything

[snapback]100330[/snapback]

[/quote]

I've been saying for some time now tha tthe other dollar values in Plinko need upped. I agree with those, except for the $50s. A truly good player won't put all five chips in the $0, anyhow. How unlucky you'd have to be...

PtB needs two Lose Everythings, because then, if you happen to pick it on the first try, where's the suspense? (Yes, I know it happened recently with two, but that's an incredibly rare occurrance, and she only got one prize) Plus, I think the higher dollar values make the decisions to stay or go a lot trickier sometimes... Who the hell's gonna stay with $1000? or even $3000? against a $15K+ car.

I can't think of too many changes that I'd make. Possibly put $1,000 in a second box in Half Off, so that a perfect winner is guaranteed something?

I'd make the 15 and 5 on the wheel worth something like $25,000 on a million dollar spin.

That's about all I can think of at the moment. I guess I'm kind of an "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guy, and I think the ways that the show still remains relatively the same are what keep it so popular.

That is, until Bob hangs it up, and we're treated to TPiR94 Part Deux.

[WilliamPorygon]

Hit Me - Set the contestant cards up so there is a 10, A, a pair totalling 10 and a pair totalling 11.  Get rid of the dealer cards, and just have the contestant draw until they bust or win by getting 21.  
Reason:  I'm sick of seeing clueless contestants totally blow the game and still win because the house busted.

Bullseye - Get rid of the hidden bullseye.  
Reason:  This game is pick-a-pair level easy, especially given how there's usually a $5-$6 product up there, and anybody that can't get it right in 3 shots doesn't deserve to win.

Pocket Change - The contestant gets one shot at each digit, and if they're wrong, no envelope for that guess (as well as increasing the price of the car).
Reason:  As it is you know they're going to end up with 4 envelopes + the free 25 cents, and picking one after every right guess just drags things out.

Spelling Bee- Instead of giving all 5 cards and 3 SPs automatically for guessing one exactly right, award 1 card for being within $10 and 2 cards for being exactly right (for potentially up to 8 cards).  Also make the bailout option $1000 per remaining card.
Reason:  None really, I've just always felt the game would be better this way.  Also $2500 is not tempting enough these days.

Clock Game - Play it for 3 prizes instead of 2.  Award the contestant an additional $500 on winning the 2nd prize and another $1000 on the 3rd prize.
Reason:  A decent player should still be able to win everything every time, and it wouldn't be so cheap anymore (as it is the maximum Clock Game could be played for is $2998).

[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\']A truly good player won't put all five chips in the $0, anyhow. How unlucky you'd have to be...[/quote]
It did happen, once.  I agree though, the 0s next to the top amount are a necessary evil.

[Frank15]

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 10:38 PM\']For winning Grand Game? $20,000 would be nice, IMO. Punch a Bunch doesn't necessarily need an upgrade, just a new configuration of some sort to make the decisions more interesting.[/quote]Color me confused, but why would Grand Game, probably the easiest cash game to win, need an upgrade more than Punch a Bunch, not won considerably more often, even in a good season for the game?  Not to say Punch a Bunch needs an upgrade, mind you, but moreso than Grand Game, at least.

[jmangin]

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:19 AM\']Was it really necessary of you to break down everything he said?
[/quote]
To keep my points organized, yes.

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:19 AM\']Anyhow, you cite that 7 players got a blackjack in Hit Me.  That means 7 idiots didn't get a blackjack.
[/quote]
True, but six of those idiots still won the game.

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:19 AM\']I would change Plinko; to the follow config:
$250-$750-$1500-$50-$10000-$50-$1500-$750-$250

That way, a good player doesn't get completely screwed.
[/quote]
Why?  The last time someone got $0 was in December of 2003.  I don't really think it  is necessary to change the slot values.

[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:46 AM\']Possibly put $1,000 in a second box in Half Off, so that a perfect winner is guaranteed something?

[snapback]100334[/snapback]

[/quote]
Why add confusion to the reveal of the game?  Let's say the contestant has a choice between box A and box B.  They open their chosen box and money falls out...everyone is excited...but...WAIT it's only $1,000.  "Sorry to get your hopes up, you did not win $10,000."  Then what would happen?  We'd get an executive decision from Bob just like when he incorrectly read a $1,000 slip from Punch-a-Bunch and awarded the contestant $10,000 anyway.

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'jmangin\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:11 PM\'][Grocery Game], from seasons 29 through 33, has a 48% win rate.  There really is no basis for fiddling with the rules.[/quote]That is wrong. The actual winning percentage was 32%.

Card Game, on the other hand, had a win rate of only 33% in five years.  There clearly was a problem and rules needed to be adjusted.

This is also wrong. The winning percentage was 25%.

[jmangin]

CarShark your calculations are absolutely right; how could I make such an elementary mistake!  Sorry for the error!

Based on that, then yes, maybe Grocery Game does deserve a small change, but I wouldn't go overboard like they did with Card Game.

Sorry again for the confusion!!

[JasonA1]

Based on this new refined data, would you then consider $20-$22 to be a fair range?

-Jason

[jmangin]

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Oct 25 2005, 12:26 PM\']Based on this new refined data, would you then consider $20-$22 to be a fair range?
[/quote]

Yeah that would be fine.  Does anyone have any idea how many times in recent history that a contestant lost with a total between $21 and $22?

[JasonA1]

Since people were so nice as to bring stats into this, I did a bit of research on the topic.

Last season they had 11 losses out of 14 plays - a win percentage of 21.4%. Of those 11 losses, the totals were...

May 10 - $31.98
April 11 - $21.24*
March 30 - $23.22
March 1 - $25.03
February 7 - $28.24
January 24 - $23.48
December 23 - $21.87*
December 6 - $21.26*
November 3 - $24.87
October 27 - $21.52*
October 1 - $21.70*

Now we don't know for sure if the new range would change play significantly, but with these stats alone, the win percentage goes to 8/14, or 57.1%.

-Jason

[MSTieScott]

Personally, I would limit Pick-a-Number to always have the first digit missing. Guessing the hundreds digit on a $6,000 prize is kind of random, too. (Well, once they had the last digit missing, but the choices made it obvious -- something like 1, 4, or 9, with the 9 being right. That would be okay.)

My solution to repair the "do everything right and lose" problem of Secret "X": Allow the contestant to win with three in a row vertically. They'd still get a free X and could still earn two more. But instead of having the smaller prizes already in plain sight, a model would wheel them in one at a time. So if the contestant wanted to try for a vertical win, they'd have to gamble on the hope that they could price the second smaller prize correctly before they see what it is.

--
Scott Robinson

[mrchips]

[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' date=\'Oct 24 2005, 11:53 PM\']Pocket Change - The contestant gets one shot at each digit, and if they're wrong, no envelope for that guess (as well as increasing the price of the car).
Reason:  As it is you know they're going to end up with 4 envelopes + the free 25 cents, and picking one after every right guess just drags things out.

[snapback]100336[/snapback]

[/quote]
Yeah, the knowledge that picking four pockets is a constant is draggy. What's more, it allows the player to go 0-for-10 on the digits and still win. Maximum tag price is $2.75, so the two-dollar pocket plus any three other pockets totaling 50 cents or more wins. (Just one example; aren't there four-pocket sets totaling $2.50 or more without the two-dollar pocket?)

I've thought about two guesses per digit rather than just one, with each wrong guess still bumping the tag price . . . so with each digit the tag price increases by zero, 25 cents, or 50 cents.

And did that new picked-pocket rack have five slots? I favor having the player guess the first digit anyway. Blowing that should--should--be rare, especially with two guesses.

The last digit is a special case here. Given a starting field of six numbers for a five-digit price, only two candidates will remain for the last digit; so here a pocket is guaranteed. However, does this really allow a player to win with no correct guesses at all? Hmmm.

Say the player blows each of the first four digits (eight wrong guesses in all). Going into the final digit the player has 25 cents and no pockets, and the tag price is $2.25. Assuming a top pocket value of two dollars, the player will need to get the final digit on the first guess to have that 1-in-however-many chance of winning. If that guess is wrong, the tag price goes to the insurmountable $2.50. Therefore the player cannot win without earning a pocket.

Is missing out on a pocket too much jeopardy here? Too complex? Too slow? Just plain bad television?