Pyramid hour proposal

[Neumms]

The problem is that, ultimately, it\'s damned near impossible to either lower the risk or increase the reward in a sensible manner sufficient to make keeping the dice an appealing option...

 

Yep. I think the only fix it is to make the winning the game or match somehow depend on how many prizes you have.

 

What the heck, consider this: Two players, three games per show, Big Numbers at the end. I\'d go back to a prize under every number instead of the columns, but either works. Instead of best-two-out-of-three, they play all three games. The one who won more loot plays Big Numbers. Presumably the prizes are bigger in each subsequent game. 

 

It doesn\'t change all that much--not like adding a celebrity\'s face concealed by puzzle pieces--but it does add at least a slight bit more strategy to the decision to pass, especially in the third game. It also means it won\'t straddle, so then GSN might run it.

[clemon79]

Either utterly anticlimactic when you realize someone has a big enough lead that it doesn\'t matter, or you render the first two games meaningless when you try to fix that problem. Thank you, drive through.

[Jimmy Owen]

How did they format the once-a-week HR syndicated?  It wasn\'t cleared in my market.

[Bryce L.]

According to the Game Shows Wiki, the 1975 syndicated show had the same two players competing for the entire half-hour, with the Big Numbers played after each game. If time ran out with a game in progress, whoever had knocked off more numbers was declared the winner and got their prizes (or $100 if they hadn\'t claimed any prizes that game).

[TimK2003]

Here is my only suggestion for an HR revival:

 

If you bring back the 3-column main game format, one thing that might be worth rolling for, instead of passing when there is only a few bad rolls, is to offer a car.  Have one letter (C-A-R) per column and if a contestant can clear all 3 columns (thus obtaining all 3 letters), they win the car on top of the other prizes in each column.  In the original Ruta Lee years, they would offer two 1/2-car prizes under two of the numbers, albeit hidden, which sometimes created the same pass-or-go-for-the-car scenario.

 

You\'re not going to give away a warehouse full of cars since how many times will all 3 columns get cleared in one game, let alone by one person?  But it does create an extra layer of strategy for both players to consider and it rewards a contestant for clearing all 3 columns in a single game.

[clemon79]

And why would I take that risk versus a shot at $5,000 AND a car in teh Big Numbers?

C\'mon, folks, at least try to think these things out a little.

[TimK2003]

Was there always a car available in the Big Numbers, or wasn\'t it just cash at one time in the 3-column Trebek/Martindale eras?  My mind seems to remember a non-car, cash-only Big Numbers era, in which the idea was based upon.

[TLEberle]

Car was sometimes available in the Trebek years, never in the 1987 revival; you could only win them in games like Dice Derby or Driver\'s Test, or winning five times.

[clemon79]

Was there always a car available in the Big Numbers, or wasn\'t it just cash at one time in the 3-column Trebek/Martindale eras?  My mind seems to remember a non-car, cash-only Big Numbers era, in which the idea was based upon.

Okay, even then:

1) Your idea \"fixes\" a situation once out of maybe every ten games.

2) Let\'s say, in the late 1980\'s, the car is also worth something in the $10,000 range, just as a fr\'instance. Why would I take a risk that has a high probability of losing me the game when I can play it safe, win the game, and then have a (no-risk) shot at $10,000...with which I could buy a car?

Sorry, no player with a brain in his/her head is going to make a foolhardy decision based on the chance to win your maybe-car.

[Kevin Prather]

I don\'t see what needs fixing. Sure towards the end of the round, the dice become a hot potato due to all the bad rolls, but what\'s wrong with that? If a correct answer meant you HAD to roll, then it\'d be broken.

[clemon79]

I don\'t see what needs fixing. Sure towards the end of the round, the dice become a hot potato due to all the bad rolls, but what\'s wrong with that? If a correct answer meant you HAD to roll, then it\'d be broken.

 

The argument is that \"the optimal strategy is to avoid playing the game as much as possible as soon as it\'s dangerous to do so, and that\'s bad.\" I like High Rollers enough that I\'m willing to overlook it, but I acknowledge that a format centered around the gimmick of giant dice on a big dice table probably wants the players incented to want to interact with that gimmick as much as possible.

[TLEberle]

Don\'t have a bonus game, players play as many games as they can over the half hour, they keep whatever they win for clearing columns/turning over numbers, and then they\'re thanked for their participation and they go home with whatever they won.

[clemon79]

Don\'t have a bonus game

 

Axe the Big Numbers? http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/140/200813-bookert.jpg\'>Tell me you did not just say that.

[parliboy]

My two cents, adding stupid ideas that don\'t make good TV sense.

 

Each player gets their own box to shut instead of working on a communal box.  The prize-per-column still happens, so that each player\'s 1st column activates the same prize, etc.  The winner of the game keeps the prizes he claimed.  There\'s no need to worry about awarding $100 to the winner, since it\'s impossible to win without having claimed at least one column first.  (If your opponent claimed all of the columns first, he shut his own box.).

 

To really fuck with the odds: 1) You can still force your opponent to roll and 2) the penalty when you make a bad roll is that your opponent can clear a number off of his board.  This also addresses what to do if all you have left is the 1.  It also makes later turns more important than early ones, which is still important to TV.

[TimK2003]

I\'m not saying that it\'s a great idea, but I remember plenty of times when people would pass without hesitation when there was only one or two bad rolls out of the 11 possible number combinations.  I just want to see less of those early \"chicken\" passes, when the odds are 80-95% that you\'ll land a good roll, and see some more players keep control & roll their own demise. High Rollers is one of those shows where, in theory,  someone could become champion by doing as little as possible -- or nothing at all.  I think a game show should require contestants to have to make some sort of effort in order to win. 

 

I just don\'t buy into the idea that the \"effort\" should be to keep passing as soon as there is a >0% chance to lose. If there are incentives in place where the pass factor comes into play later in the game, I think that makes for better TV.  \"Millionaire\" uses the \"Survive the first 10 Questions to win 100% of your winnings\" incentive to keep people from being chicken too early.  \"Deal or No Deal\" used the \"Banker will only offer you about 50% of the sum of all the remaining amounts that you could still potentially win\" to keep people from wimping out.  What is wrong with having an incentive(s) on the board to keep the \"active\" play strategy happening more often than the \"passive\" play strategy?