Perry's Nighttime Card Sharks

[SuperSweeper]

Did Cross-Wits or the Vegas Squares have returning champs? I\'m pretty sure the \'81 version of Treasure Hunt did.

 

Neither one did.  I believe that Vegas Squares had a big tournament at the end of the season, but I\'m not sure what you had to do to qualify.

[golden-road]

 

Did Cross-Wits or the Vegas Squares have returning champs? I\'m pretty sure the \'81 version of Treasure Hunt did.

 

Neither one did.  I believe that Vegas Squares had a big tournament at the end of the season, but I\'m not sure what you had to do to qualify.

 

 

From what I read, you merely had to win your game. 

[Johnissoevil]

I would counter with the eventual syndicated edition initially having three questions per game and still not being self contained. I don\'t think you could do it with just that.

Maybe instead of 2-of-3, 3-of-five?

 

 

For the past few years, I had an idea of what a future Card Sharks revival should be like.  The idea would be the old format, two rows of cards, and survey questions, mixed with a few elements of the 2001 format that were actually tolerable.  Have two contestants play each other, two out of three match.  Then have two other contestants play each other.  The two winners would then face each other in a final showdown, where it\'s a one game match.  In the Money Cards, you bet the $2,100 you won in the front games, $700 starts each line.  Traditional money cards, must bet at least $50 until you get to the big bet, where you must bet at least half.  And the push rule applies, if the next card is of equal value, you win nothing, but you also lose nothing.  Like in the Eubanks version, you can change any one card per line.  But I\'m not sure that would\'ve fit a half hour self contained show, the only way you could\'ve done something like that is if all matches were one game, something, IMO, would have left way too much time left over after all was said and done.

[Bryce L.]

 

I would counter with the eventual syndicated edition initially having three questions per game and still not being self contained. I don\'t think you could do it with just that.

Maybe instead of 2-of-3, 3-of-five?

 

 

For the past few years, I had an idea of what a future Card Sharks revival should be like.  The idea would be the old format, two rows of cards, and survey questions, mixed with a few elements of the 2001 format that were actually tolerable.  Have two contestants play each other, two out of three match.  Then have two other contestants play each other.  The two winners would then face each other in a final showdown, where it\'s a one game match.  In the Money Cards, you bet the $2,100 you won in the front games, $700 starts each line.  Traditional money cards, must bet at least $50 until you get to the big bet, where you must bet at least half.  But I\'m not sure that would\'ve fit a half hour self contained show, the only way you could\'ve done something like that is if all matches were one game, something, IMO, would have left way too much time left over after all was said and done.

 

Perhaps have the play-in games be one-and-done, and the championship match be two-out-of-three, maybe?

[TLEberle]

For the past few years, I had an idea of what a future Card Sharks revival should be like.  The idea would be the old format, two rows of cards, and survey questions, mixed with a few elements of the 2001 format that were actually tolerable.  Have two contestants play each other, two out of three match.  Then have two other contestants play each other.  The two winners would then face each other in a final showdown, where it\'s a one game match.  In the Money Cards, you bet the $2,100 you won in the front games, $700 starts each line.  Traditional money cards, must bet at least $50 until you get to the big bet, where you must bet at least half.  But I\'m not sure that would\'ve fit a half hour self contained show, the only way you could\'ve done something like that is if all matches were one game, something, IMO, would have left way too much time left over after all was said and done.

Just do what Scrabble did: go into sudden death after the first question of game two.

[Johnissoevil]

Perhaps have the play-in games be one-and-done, and the championship match be two-out-of-three, maybe?

 

I like that.  And if there\'s still a bit of time, do one of the two post-Money Cards car games.  I will admit, I should\'ve thought of your suggestion before.  But thank you. :-)

[TLEberle]

Question to John: Why do you have the semi-final games? They take up quite a lot of time without adding to the proceedings other than two people who use up eligibility.

[Bryce L.]

Something that just occurred to me... if you want it self-contained, and using just two players, do it sort of like how the 1975-1976 syndicated High Rollers did... after each game, the winning player gets a shot at the Money Cards, then plays another main game against the other player... if time runs out with a game in progress, have the last question be Sudden Death, with the winner of that round getting one last crack at the Money Cards to close out the show, and have two new players every day.

[calliaume]

- My thought for game play:  first game, $25 for each card turned successfully (and kept by freezing or winning the game), $100 for winning the game itself.  Second game and beyond, $50 and $200, respectively.  High scorer when time is called goes to the Money Cards.

- There were plenty of syndicated strips beside the ones mentioned here:  Truth or Consequences, Beat the Clock, He Said She Said, Dealer\'s Choice, Diamond Head Game come to mind.  But you\'re right; I don\'t remember any with returning champs until The Joker\'s Wild.

[BrandonFG]

To answer Chris P.\'s question, Pitfall also had returning champions.

 

As for Card Sharks, I like the idea of having two rounds, then a third championship match. Problem is, making each round a best-of-three would take too long, and a single elimination will prolly leave the host tap dancing for a few minutes. I like Curt\'s idea of each player accumulating a bank, and playing to a time limit (say 5 minutes).

 

I think you could still make round three a \"championship\" round...a best-of-three match, but with 3 cards instead of five.

[PYLdude]

I don\'t see what the problem is with just leaving the game as it is and just using an extra win to decide it if that was the route they wanted to go.


Goodson wasn\'t really big on having returning champs in his syndicated programs from what I gather- not that he fielded too many where he could have but from my count before his death only Card Sharks and Combs Feud did that, right?

[sshuffield70]

Several years ago, I had proposed a format where the first two games were worth 250, game 3 worth 500, and 4 and after at 750.  I could tweak that a bit using some ideas I see here.  I like the idea of earning money for card advancement.

[byrd62]

Damn that Firestone. They could syndicate Barris shows (yeah I knew some of them had no daytime counterparts) but couldn\'t do the Goodson-Todman shows. 

Not quite.  Didn\'t (Len) Firestone (the syndicator, not the tire company) distribute the Garry Moore/Joe Garagiola version of TTTT?

[bulldog_06]

I think you are right about that. Firestone did syndicate TTTT for their syndicated version.

[Neumms]

... if you want it self-contained, and using just two players, do it sort of like how the 1975-1976 syndicated High Rollers did... after each game, the winning player gets a shot at the Money Cards, then plays another main game against the other player...

 

This could be cool. Play two main games, not matches. Winner of each plays Money Cards. For a finale, the higher money winner gets to play for a car at the end. Instead of Eubanks\' versions, make it a row of four cards, call them perfectly (allowing one change) to win the car.