Contestant #1 bids on the showcase. Contestant #2 guesses whether the ARP is higher or lower than that bid.  If #2 is right, he wins the showcase. Otherwise #1 wins it (see Card Sharks).

Quote from: chrisholland03 on June 16, 2025, 12:42:14 PM

Quote from: MikeK on June 16, 2025, 12:19:20 PM

I think the easiest way to save time is one showcase with both players locking in secret bids.  That would save four or five minutes, at least.  Editing out/down the hemming and hawing while listening to 180 different bids from 180 audience members saves time too.  Within $250 doesn't win both showcases, obviously, so the bonus could be $25,000, a car, or some combination of cash and transport.

Cash equivalent bonus was what I was thinking in lieu of DSW.  Would still need a solution for a tie - fastest finger?  Sub-bidding on one of the prizes?

Just give them both the showcase. The current rule provides for awarding both players both showcases under the right condition, so awarding duplicate prizes is not off the table.

But then what's to prevent all contestants from bidding the same amount every time, thereby guaranteeing everyone who makes it to the Showcase a win? It might not happen right away, but it wouldn't take long for people to figure it out once they learned the rule.

For any game show that asks the contestant, "Can you name this_______?" or any question similarly written, a simple "Yes" or "No" answer counts as much as a correct answer in addition to the actual answer.

Cash equivalent bonus was what I was thinking in lieu of DSW.  Would still need a solution for a tie - fastest finger?  Sub-bidding on one of the prizes?

Bidding on one of the smaller prizes is a great throwback to the tiebreaker in home viewer showcases from the original show.

The real issue with any attempt to pare the show down is that it would mess with its symmetry. The "rule of threes" is very much in force on TPiR--having three pricing games per half, with the Big Wheel neatly putting a bow on them, just feels right, and is a big reason why it's lasted so long (same reason why the set has three Big Doors even though they could easily do the show with just one). If they cut back to just four pricing games or whatever, I'm not sure that Drew getting to have longer interviews with the contestants would make up for the anemic feel that would result.

Besides that--and this is an admittedly cynical take--TPiR is a quintessential "background show" to a lot of people. In the '70s housewives half-paid attention to it while they did chores; nowadays it's on as a distraction at the doctor's office or on lunch break. These viewers aren't analyzing every single minute detail and probably don't care that three out of the six games are quickies--as long as they get a glimpse of Plinko every week, they're happy.