Improve One Pricing Game...

[JasonA1]

I would have kept the goal of Grocery Game at $21 and allowed a win at $19.

I didn't think making the range $20-$22 was all that necessary. I haven't seen the show much lately so I don't know how many have fallen short of the original $21 mark to necessitate the change.

The change to Grocery Game was made in season 45. A quick look at seasons 42 through 44 shows the game had a win-loss record of 2-9, 3-6 and 0-9 in those years respectively. But had the range been changed earlier, those ratios would have improved to 6-5, 5-4 and 4-5.

Inflation affected that game suddenly, as season 41's record was 4-1.

-Jason

[Joe Mello]

My longstanding suggestions were to update Grocery Game and Range Game for inflation's sake. They got to Grocery Game within the past decade, so now it'd be Range Game's turn. It's gone so long without changes, a $1000 rangefinder on a $4000 scale would be most inflation-appropriate. For someone who grew up with '90s shows, that's sort of eye-opening as to what the original intent of the game was.

The problem I would forsee with this is the precision of the scale. I assume the current scale is $1 for every 1/8 inch because that was the most manageable at the time to make, view on camera, and quickly adjudicate. Maybe with the advances in printing and cameras you might be able to get the scale down to, say 1/32 inch you still have to deal with the impact of the range being manually operated. You could also just change the scale so it's 2 or 5 per tick, but I feel like that feels also feels imprecise and displeasing.

I think my request would be to tweak Pocket Change to turn the zeros into nickels. It may only change the expected value of all 4 envelopes by 2 cents (from 1.19 to 1.21), but it may turn a loss or two into a win and makes bad luck feel slightly less bad (or a different kind of bad from drawing a 0).

[MSTieScott]

Maybe call it Cash Advance or Do the Math or something

Hey!



Let me have my one significant contribution!

[BrandonFG]

Okay so there is a game that goes by that name. This is what I get for not Googling.

[Kevin Prather]

My longstanding suggestions were to update Grocery Game and Range Game for inflation's sake. They got to Grocery Game within the past decade, so now it'd be Range Game's turn. It's gone so long without changes, a $1000 rangefinder on a $4000 scale would be most inflation-appropriate.

I'm reminded of the time we played "Gag Price is Right" in Palace. We played Range Game for a house, and kept the $150 range.

[Brian44]

Start Pathfinder off by pricing all three prizes. Give the contestant some kind of insurance marker/pendant of life for each one they get right, then take them away as they misstep on the disco floor.

Except if a contestant gets all three prizes correct and then steps to the second and third digits in the price of the car without making a mistake, they've guaranteed themselves a win. So either the game ends awkwardly with the contestant celebrating without having finished walking the correct path (and the host having to explain why) or everybody has to wait while the contestant finishes walking the path -- possibly having to backtrack in the process -- before the foregone conclusion.

Then how about about a cash bonus for a perfect playing? This would offset being rewarded with prizes for making mistakes.

[pds319]

Spelling Bee - The walk away mechanic should escalate. Almost no one takes the money on the fifth card if they've flipped 4 already because they're already so deep. If the walk away grew, then it could make the end of the game more interesting. When they play the game for cash, it would make a world of difference because no one is taking $1000 (5 cards for guaranteed $5000, or risk it for $25000).

Instead of $1000 printed on the back of the cards, escalating amounts would be on the holding slots ($1000-$5000). Walk away before the first card is revealed, you get $1000 and so on. So if they get 3 cards, they could walk away with up to $3000, but they at least have to play the first two cards. And if they got an R (or N in W-I-N), then they have a more meaningful choice before deciding to flip the last card.

[aaron sica]

Then how about about a cash bonus for a perfect playing? This would offset being rewarded with prizes for making mistakes.

Speaking of a perfect playing this is what I've come up with............In Money Game, if the contestant picks the car numbers first and wins it, they get the total of the money from the cards they didn't pick.

[SRIV94]

20 years ago upon the first playing of "Pocket Change" I wrote about this potential tweak.  Still think it would work.

You get 25¢ to start with, but the car costs 50¢ (and stays there).  Getting a digit right means you pick an envelope, but getting it wrong means you forego the pick (the "cost" of the car stays the same).  This way, you don't automatically pick five envelopes.  Rearrange the distribution of the 22 envelopes so that 8 of them are 5¢, 6 of them are 10¢, 4 are 15¢, 2 are 25¢ (and an automatic win, since you'd have 25¢ to start with) and two zeroes, so that you don't get the automatic win for pricing every digit correctly.

This way, the game doesn't take six minutes (as yesterday's playing did).  And Bob Drew can still milk the suspense, because if you have even one digit right you have a shot to win the car.  A total idjit leaves the stage quickly (as he wouldn't even get an envelope).

[Brian44]

Then how about about a cash bonus for a perfect playing? This would offset being rewarded with prizes for making mistakes.

Speaking of a perfect playing this is what I've come up with............In Money Game, if the contestant picks the car numbers first and wins it, they get the total of the money from the cards they didn't pick.

Haha, you read my mind! Was thinking the exact same thing after submitting my previous comment!

[aaron sica]

Great minds think alike!

[Clay Zambo]

Then how about about a cash bonus for a perfect playing? This would offset being rewarded with prizes for making mistakes.

Speaking of a perfect playing this is what I've come up with............In Money Game, if the contestant picks the car numbers first and wins it, they get the total of the money from the cards they didn't pick.

But these days that's not much of a bonus--the max possible would be $672. It's not my money, but how about the two highest-remaining pairs as a four-digit amount? Max possible $9998, that'd really feel like something.

[chrisholland03]

I'd take $672, just sayin

[aaron sica]

Another one I was thinking of that's not likely to be won anytime soon - "Perfect" Plinko game, all the chips landing in the top spot, and your money is doubled.

[MikeK]

Since fewer people write checks anymore, does Check Game really make sense for today's audience esp. given how young the average contestant is? It confused people going back to the 80s, and I don't imagine much has changed. But...I like the concept of the game, and the idea of the contestant having to more or less work in reverse to figure out the price. Maybe call it Cash Advance or Do the Math or something and just have them flat out state how much they want? Give them a snazzy touchscreen to punch in the numbers.

Somewhere, I mentioned going from a check-based game to a debit card-based game.  You go to an ATM and can withdraw as much money as you want.  If the amount of the withdrawal plus the price of the prize is within a range, winner.  And in lieu of a giant oversized voided check, you get a giant ATM receipt.