The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
Play perfectly, win less?
BrandonFG:
If I'm reading this correctly, you could win a couple games of $ale during the shopping era and still only go home with <$1,000. Think of a contestant like Alice Conkright who didn't buy a single Instant Bargain. I would have to dig through Youtube, but I swear I've seen a shopping era episode where a runner-up went home with more loot than the dethroned champion thanks to an IB or Fame Game prize.
Pretty sure there's been a few J! episodes where the champ won less than the $1,000/2,000/3,000 consolation money. There's also Darryl Scott who infamously won with $1, whereas his opponents won some consolation prizes that were obviously worth way more.
Kevin Prather:
Tic Tac Dough rewards players who fill up the board and produce tie games better than players who make a quick three-in-a-row.
Mike Tennant:
--- Quote from: Kevin Prather on April 21, 2025, 01:14:13 PM ---Tic Tac Dough rewards players who fill up the board and produce tie games better than players who make a quick three-in-a-row.
--- End quote ---
On the other hand, if both contestants play perfectly, every game ends in a tie (until someone makes a mistake), so in that sense, good play is rewarded.
Steve Gavazzi:
Weird example from TPIR -- there was a primetime show this season where Cliff Hangers had cash bonuses for winning with the mountain climber stopped on the upper reaches of the mountain, with the largest bonus attached to stopping him exactly on 25. Playing that perfectly would have won all the prizes but no money.
Depending on how you apply "perfectly" to luck-based formats, you could also make a case for the original format of Punch a Bunch, since the gameplay went to the punchboard every time someone got an item right instead of doing all four items at once.
Balance Game '84 probably fits, as well -- you won every item that you used regardless of the outcome, so while it technically depended on how the game was set up, playing optimally was probably not going to result in winning as much as possible.
On the Spot also qualifies -- it was possible to win as many as four items (possibly more on the last two playings, when they messed with the patterns), but playing perfectly meant you would only win three of them, and even getting four right didn't necessarily mean you'd get the "best" possible group of four.
SamJ93:
--- Quote from: BrandonFG on April 21, 2025, 12:33:43 PM ---
--- Quote from: Marc412 on April 21, 2025, 12:27:24 PM ---On Classic Concentration, contestants could stay until they won the car, so someone could throw the bonus game and rack up more prizes in the main game.
--- End quote ---
I don't remember his name, but I do recall there being a contestant who intentionally lost the car game because he wanted more prizes. I remember thinking it was silly but different strokes.
--- End quote ---
It's definitely a rather off-putting act of bravado, but in the case of a show like Concentration it's somewhat understandable if you honestly think your memory/rebus-solving skills are good enough. It's a much more foolhardy decision on shows involving team play (Pyramid, Password, NYSI)--just way too many variables involved to be assured of a victory.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version