The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: weaklink75 on April 04, 2012, 08:19:28 PM
-
Per Buzzerblog, (http://"http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/one-plinko-chip-can-be-worth-100000-next-week-on-the-price-is-right/")Plinko will be played every day next week. Publishers Clearing House is sponsoring a special jackpot- if the contestant's last chip goes into the 10K slot, they win 20K. If it's not hit, 20K will be added each day- so the last contestant on Friday might be playing for $100,000.
Actually surprised they didn't save this for May Sweeps...
-
You know what happens when you have a special thing and then you do it a whole bunch of times in a row?
-
You know what happens when you have a special thing and then you do it a whole bunch of times in a row?
It becomes even more special????
-
You know what happens when you have a special thing and then you do it a whole bunch of times in a row?
It becomes even more special????
Before I answer, is there anything in the eligibility requirements about summary executions?
-
The most popular game on the show gets played every day for a week and the biggest cost that can/will be incurred will be covered by the sponsor. Viewers will probably like seeing it pop up more often and will be interested in the final chip jackpot. Win-win, I'd say.
-
The most popular game on the show gets played every day for a week and the biggest cost that can/will be incurred will be covered by the sponsor.
Is that so? That's certainly less dumb. I still say you run the risk of burnout, in the same way as eating leftovers for a whole week. Eventually anyone would tire of steak if that's all you ate.
-
Is that so?
The TVLine story (http://"http://tvline.com/2012/04/04/sofia-vergara-saturday-night-live-debut-the-price-is-right-update/") says "And should the final chip dropped land in the $10,000 grand prize slot, PCH will double that payday, to 20 grand."
I still say you run the risk of burnout, in the same way as eating leftovers for a whole week. Eventually anyone would tire of steak if that's all you ate.
I'd be more inclined to agree if it was more than a week or if we were playing Big Bucks Pick a Number, but it's just five shows with five other games on each one.
-
I'd be more inclined to agree if it was more than a week or if we were playing Big Bucks Pick a Number, but it's just five shows with five other games on each one.
Fair cops to that.
-
Nonsense. Utter nonsense! This is going to be a "sewage chugger"! I hate these rule changes!
/Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.
-
Win-win, I'd say.
I can tell you haven't been to g-r lately.
-
I can tell you haven't been to g-r lately.
Well, the groupthink there wouldn't impact my opinion. I decided to give a look-see and the overwhelming response was predictable. Your comment is a piece of sanity in a flow of - you guessed it - overreaction and underthinking.
-
The chicken littles are indeed coming out of the woodwork at G-R. Happily, there's a balanced number of leveler heads who aren't planning boycots or bemoaning the show's loss of integrity.
And I agree with an earlier post: Why wasn't this done next month?
-
It would be like putting a Corvette on Any Number and play it for a week. Major burnout of a game.
-
I am curious about why we didn't see this kind of dislike about the Super Deal. Just asking for compare/contrast.
-
The complainers on Golden-Road are about as annoying as Facebook complainers.
-
I am curious about why we didn't see this kind of dislike about the Super Deal. Just asking for compare/contrast.
Super Deal is a known quantity that was pulled from the mothballs of history and unchanged except for the chrome. I think there are some problems, but they pertain to the presentation and not the fact that you can win something after the Big Deal.
-
Happily, there's a balanced number of leveler heads who aren't planning boycots
Boycott my ass. EVERY ONE of them is gonna be glued to their set next week, even if George Gray's hi-how-ya-doin' involved him dropping his pants and firing a rocket.
-
I am curious about why we didn't see this kind of dislike about the Super Deal. Just asking for compare/contrast.
The Super Deal is being used 10 times for a special occasion. It isn't a popular facet of the show already played once a week.
I'm in the camp of not liking this much for the overkill factor, plus the lack of variety of small prize games being played next week. With Plinko every day, I assume better games (IMO) such as Rat Race, Punch a Bunch, Pathfinder, Master Key, etc. will be shelved.
-
Happily, there's a balanced number of leveler heads who aren't planning boycots
Boycott my ass. EVERY ONE of them is gonna be glued to their set next week, even if George Gray's hi-how-ya-doin' involved him dropping his pants and firing a rocket.
"Is that a rocket in your pants or are you happy to see me?"
"Son of a bitch, it was a rocket."
-
Viewers will probably like seeing it pop up more often and will be interested in the final chip jackpot. Win-win, I'd say.
I usually reserve this kind of thing for the more, er, shall we say "special" of our members, but you sure are making an awful lot of assumptions based on pure speculations there.
Yes, the marquee game will be played every day. That not only means that other games won't be played (as the Math Beast alluded to) but it also takes away a large part of what makes the show what it is: the suspense and surprise of what game will be played when, or if at all. And what happens if the jackpot doesn't pay off? Letdown city, just like that dopey $100m sweepstakes deal that Hershey's shoehorned into an episode of Deal or No Deal.
If I was doing this (and that's a big if, mind) I would stick it at the end of the show, as a bonus to the winner of the showcase.
-
Happily, there's a balanced number of leveler heads who aren't planning boycots
Boycott my ass. EVERY ONE of them is gonna be glued to their set next week, even if George Gray's hi-how-ya-doin' involved him dropping his pants and firing a rocket.
Hey, I'm just repeating what they were screaming from under their aluminum foil hats. ;) And I agree, none of them will miss it. How else would they pick it apart afterward?
-
It would be like putting a Corvette on Any Number and play it for a week. Major burnout of a game.
I would think it would be more like, playing Any Number for a Honda on Day One. If no one wins the Honda, then the next day, it jumps to a Corvette. If no one wins the Corvette, the next day, it jumps to a Benz. If no one wins the Benz, then it moves to a Porsche. If no one wins the Porsche, then it moves to a Lambo. Which actually, I wouldn't mind watching for a week straight.
-
I would think it would be more like, playing Any Number for a Honda on Day One. If no one wins the Honda, then the next day, it jumps to a Corvette. If no one wins the Corvette, the next day, it jumps to a Benz. If no one wins the Benz, then it moves to a Porsche. If no one wins the Porsche, then it moves to a Lambo. Which actually, I wouldn't mind watching for a week straight.
And part of the deal that I don't like is how someone is in line to take down a huge cash prize just on account of showing up to the "correct" taping. I didn't like it on Super Password, I still don't like it. "The Porsche was won yesterday, so you're starting out with a base model Toyota Tercel. Let's play!"
-
Boycott my ass. EVERY ONE of them is gonna be glued to their set next week, even if George Gray's hi-how-ya-doin' involved him dropping his pants and firing a rocket.
I'd like to know why do they still complain about changes *six years* after the big overhaul? And, like you said, they're going to watch anyway. So, what's the point?
-
you sure are making an awful lot of assumptions based on pure speculations there.
What speculation? Plinko, as shown by an iCount USA (a Fremantle-used research firm) in-depth Price is Right survey last spring, is the favorite game on the program. And has been shown by Millionaire in 1999/2000 and Deal or No Deal in 2005/2006, viewers enjoy it when a lot of what they like is given to them at a frequent rate. This is why I think it is fine for just a week, because as Millionaire in 2002 and Deal in 2008 shows us, when you do too much, it does indeed become ruined. (As I alluded to in my earlier comment about it not being analogous to a month-long marathon, which would be overkill.) Using all of this, I do not believe I am speculating, I'm using facts and prior evidence to make a future conclusion. I don't think five days of the viewership's favorite game is too much.
And what happens if the jackpot doesn't pay off? Letdown city, just like that dopey $100m sweepstakes deal that Hershey's shoehorned into an episode of Deal or No Deal.
I don't think it's fair to compare the odds of a board of 150 (or so?) cases to 9 slots where the chip might fall. The chances of one happening greatly outweigh the other.
-
Using all of this, I do not believe I am speculating, I'm using facts and prior evidence to make a future conclusion.
Neverminding that "using facts and prior evidence to make a future conclusion" is the *exact definition* of "speculation," you're combining tenuously-related facts from disparate sources to draw a conclusion about this one. In formal logic we call this ignoratio elenchi (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi").
Now, I'm not saying the conclusion you drew is right or wrong, but please don't claim it's anything approaching a logical defense, because it isn't remotely close.
-
What speculation? Plinko, as shown by an iCount USA (a Fremantle-used research firm) in-depth Price is Right survey last spring, is the favorite game on the program.
Fremantle had to do a survey to figure out that Plinko was the most popular game? I could have told you that 15 years ago.
-
You know, they've had two--count 'em, TWO--Showcase Showdowns a day for some 35 years and that hasn't worn out. Playing Plinko everyday for a week doesn't seem like that big a deal. The prize money isn't a huge departure. The sponsorship is grating, but if they handle it in a creative way (not that those odds aren't long) it wouldn't have to blow.
-
You know, they've had two--count 'em, TWO--Showcase Showdowns a day for some 35 years and that hasn't worn out.
3/10. You might get some action with this.
-
I would think it would be more like, playing Any Number for a Honda on Day One. If no one wins the Honda, then the next day, it jumps to a Corvette. If no one wins the Corvette, the next day, it jumps to a Benz. If no one wins the Benz, then it moves to a Porsche. If no one wins the Porsche, then it moves to a Lambo. Which actually, I wouldn't mind watching for a week straight.
And part of the deal that I don't like is how someone is in line to take down a huge cash prize just on account of showing up to the "correct" taping. I didn't like it on Super Password, I still don't like it. "The Porsche was won yesterday, so you're starting out with a base model Toyota Tercel. Let's play!"
Would this mean that you're against any building jackpot?
-
Would this mean that you're against any building jackpot?
No.
-
Would this mean that you're against any building jackpot?
No.
Okay, would this mean you're against any building jackpot that does not reset when a new contestant starts trying to win it? Pretty sure that was Cory's question anyhow.
-
Would this mean that you're against any building jackpot?
No.
Okay, would this mean you're against any building jackpot that does not reset when a new contestant starts trying to win it? Pretty sure that was Cory's question anyhow.
He asked if I was against the building jackpot and I said no, because I think shows like Scrabble, Sale, Hot Potato and Blockbusters 87 carried it off just fine. I dislike a jackpot that 1) builds by the seed amount each time and 2) by definition certain players are able to play for more (or they end up playing for less) on account of when their game falls in the schedule, as seen on the Double Jackpot episodes of Catch 21.
/And because some dink is going to ask, no I don't think The Price is Right should have carryover champions for this week, either.
//Part of what I liked about Hot Potato and Blockbusters 87 was precisely what Chris brought up: new champion? new jackpot.
-
I dislike a jackpot that 1) builds by the seed amount each time and 2) by definition certain players are able to play for more (or they end up playing for less) on account of when their game falls in the schedule, as seen on the Double Jackpot episodes of Catch 21.
Okay, that's fair. I don't like progressive jackpots (though I don't really consider the SotC one in that group since it's part of the overall prize package and you really didn't play a game to win it), but I don't have either one of those issues with them; I simply don't like them from an aesthetic point of view.
-
(though I don't really consider the SotC one in that group since it's part of the overall prize package and you really didn't play a game to win it),
It also starts at an enormous height and slowly creeps up. Maybe you win $68,000 instead of $77,000, but so what? $68,000 is still a huge amount to win, and that's in addition to everything else.
Similarly, I was OK with Mega Millionaire: the difference in utility between $1,860,000 and $2,180,000 is almost nil, and the game was exciting enough that the building didn't overshadow it.
-
I always thought SotC's doing a progressive jackpot was a little silly, since if you were a one-game winner, there's no way you can win it. What's the point of escalation if can't be touched without several wins?
I did love the progressive jackpot for Instant Cash, since it required a sacrifice. Even if I had a $30 lead, if it was over $10K, I'd be seriously tempted.
-
I always thought SotC's doing a progressive jackpot was a little silly, since if you were a one-game winner, there's no way you can win it. What's the point of escalation if can't be touched without several wins?
I assume you're going for the same thing I mentioned in Palace the other day.
Yeah, it's kind of funny to see Don Morrow talking about "A CASH JACKPOT OF $73,000!!!" when whatever value it's at at that point is unwinnable because it's going to go up at least four more times before you're even close to winning it.
-
Fremantle had to do a survey to figure out that Plinko was the most popular game? I could have told you that 15 years ago.
Or they could have asked Roger.
-
I am terribly curious as to how that survey shook out. What was on the medal podium, and how far behind? Did Double Prices get a vote because CarShark was in the pool?
-
And I agree with an earlier post: Why wasn't this done next month?
Because it goes with the logic on when some of their other "special" or theme shows have aired. For example, when I saw that they did the CMA Awards episode last Thursday instead of Friday, I had thought they did that in order to do an April Fools ep on Friday. Then the Friday ep was just another normal show.
-
You know what happens when you have a special thing and then you do it a whole bunch of times in a row?
It deflates. Or so I've heard.
This Plinko thing only goes for a week, so I'm not concerned. I'm looking forward to a couple big Plinko wins.
-
And I agree with an earlier post: Why wasn't this done next month?
Is there a PCH drawing soon?
-
My thoughts on this....
I'm usually on the side of Golden Road. I'm not to fond of all the specials here and there, but I can't find myself getting outraged over this. Unlike some specials which target a specific audience, Plinko is almost universal (that's the first thing they got right). Unlike most specials, the money is coming out of someone else's pocket (that's the second thing they got right). Unlike other progressive jackpot game shows where the jackpot is reset if someone merely wins the bonus round, they make it difficult to reset the jackpot. It just doesn't reset if you hit 10K with your 2nd of 5 chips. That increases the odds of the payout reaching its max by Friday (that's the third thing they got right).
Yes, the word overkill comes to mind, but for me something seems different about this week.
Now just because I think the show got a few things right, I don't think it will succeed to their expectations. Yes it is Plinko, but trying to keep people's attention for five days is tough. Also, some people not hip to press releases or who don't hear an explanation for why they see Plinko everyday might indeed get tired of it. People do notice when a bucket of water is overflowing.
But in a nutshell, I look at it this way; this is what it would be like if Plinko was around in 1972.
-
they make it difficult to reset the jackpot. It just doesn't reset if you hit 10K with your 2nd of 5 chips. That increases the odds of the payout reaching its max by Friday (that's the third thing they got right).
Any chip has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing in the center slot. Whether it is first, third or last is immaterial and has no bearing on the difficulty of increasing the jackpot.
-
they make it difficult to reset the jackpot. It just doesn't reset if you hit 10K with your 2nd of 5 chips. That increases the odds of the payout reaching its max by Friday (that's the third thing they got right).
Any chip has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing in the center slot. Whether it is first, third or last is immaterial and has no bearing on the difficulty of increasing the jackpot.
Good point. That was something I hadn't thought about.
Fate still lies within the pegs.
-
they make it difficult to reset the jackpot. It just doesn't reset if you hit 10K with your 2nd of 5 chips. That increases the odds of the payout reaching its max by Friday (that's the third thing they got right).
Any chip has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing in the center slot. Whether it is first, third or last is immaterial and has no bearing on the difficulty of increasing the jackpot.
I get your point, but I'm curious how your math gets you one in four, when the big money slot is only one of 9 possible slots.
-
Any chip has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing in the center slot.
Just curious: where did you come up with that number?
Edit: You meant any chip dropped dead center, correct?
-
Any chip has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing in the center slot. Whether it is first, third or last is immaterial and has no bearing on the difficulty of increasing the jackpot.
I get your point, but I'm curious how your math gets you one in four, when the big money slot is only one of 9 possible slots.
The probability of dropping a Plinko chip from the center of the board to the $10,000 slot is 231/1024, or ~22.5%. I won't get into the math here; a Google search on 231/1024 and Plinko should result in longer explanations. If the chip isn't dropped from the center, the probability of hitting the $10,000 slot drops.
-
Any chip has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing in the center slot. Whether it is first, third or last is immaterial and has no bearing on the difficulty of increasing the jackpot.
I get your point, but I'm curious how your math gets you one in four, when the big money slot is only one of 9 possible slots.
The probability of dropping a Plinko chip from the center of the board to the $10,000 slot is 231/1024, or ~22.5%. I won't get into the math here; a Google search on 231/1024 and Plinko should result in longer explanations. If the chip isn't dropped from the center, the probability of hitting the $10,000 slot drops.
Except Travis never specified where it was dropped; Pascal's triangle gets woefully discombobulated if a chip is dropped in the, say, second slot.
Or am I just splitting obnoxious hairs?
-
Except Travis never specified where it was dropped; Pascal's triangle gets woefully discombobulated if a chip is dropped in the, say, second slot.
It shouldn't be. Shift Pascal's Triangle in whatever direction you move. This situation is handled in some of the pages resulting from the Google search I mentioned previously.
-
Except Travis never specified where it was dropped; Pascal's triangle gets woefully discombobulated if a chip is dropped in the, say, second slot.
It shouldn't be. Shift Pascal's Triangle in whatever direction you move. This situation is handled in some of the pages resulting from the Google search I mentioned previously.
Sure it is. The slot directly beneath where you let go of the chip has the most paths leading to it.
-
they make it difficult to reset the jackpot. It just doesn't reset if you hit 10K with your 2nd of 5 chips. That increases the odds of the payout reaching its max by Friday (that's the third thing they got right).
Any chip has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing in the center slot. Whether it is first, third or last is immaterial and has no bearing on the difficulty of increasing the jackpot.
Let me be sure I'm clear. The jackpot only resets if the LAST plinko chip of the game lands in $10k, right? If that's the case, then that does make it easier for the jackpot to climb as opposed to if any $10k hit reset the jackpot. Isn't that what jjman was driving at?
-
Except Travis never specified where it was dropped; Pascal's triangle gets woefully discombobulated if a chip is dropped in the, say, second slot.
Or am I just splitting obnoxious hairs?
That's kinda my vote. While we've all seen players drop from all over the place, any of us smart enough to care about the percentages ought to be smart enough to assume we're talking about a center drop.
-
Any chip has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing in the center slot.
Just curious: where did you come up with that number?
I think it was nothing more than looking up the ninth row of Pascal's Triangle, taking the middle number and adding all the rest up, and it was 22%.
Edit: You meant any chip dropped dead center, correct?
Correct. If someone wants to reduce the chance of a $10,000 drop by moving all the way over, that's their dime.
-
Edit: You meant any chip dropped dead center, correct?
Correct. If someone wants to reduce the chance of a $10,000 drop by moving all the way over, that's their dime.
Which incidentally, isn't that uncommon and not so horrible a strategy. Remember right next to the $10k, you've got two zeroes. Although you'll (virtually) never win the big money, you should be able to give yourself a modest payday by playing to the side, and if that's good enough for you, go for it.
-
Except Travis never specified where it was dropped; Pascal's triangle gets woefully discombobulated if a chip is dropped in the, say, second slot.
It shouldn't be. Shift Pascal's Triangle in whatever direction you move. This situation is handled in some of the pages resulting from the Google search I mentioned previously.
Sure it is. The slot directly beneath where you let go of the chip has the most paths leading to it.
For one specific trial, it matters. But for a more general "the odds of any given chip landing in $10,000", my gut feeling is that the distribution of where chips are dropped is centered around the middle to the point that it doesn't alter the probabilities of ending up in the center all that much. I would be surprised if the actual rate of chips ending up in the middle slot on the show was below 20%.
-
Which incidentally, isn't that uncommon and not so horrible a strategy. Remember right next to the $10k, you've got two zeroes. Although you'll (virtually) never win the big money, you should be able to give yourself a modest payday by playing to the side, and if that's good enough for you, go for it.
Why would it be? You'd have to hit all five zeros before dropping off to the side comes out ahead, since even one $10k hit is twice as good as the best-case scenario that doesn't hit one. Not to mention that you've STILL got a good shot of missing the center of the board entirely from the middle and ending up in those modest piddling amounts on the edges.
I would be surprised if the actual rate of chips ending up in the middle slot on the show was below 20%.
Believe it or not...
Using historical averages gleamed from Scorpz's site, your typical Price is Right contestant will hit the center slot 14.2% of the time, which means there's a slightly better than even chance (roughly 55%) that the jackpot will not reset before Friday.
-
Using historical averages gleamed from Scorpz's site, your typical Price is Right contestant will hit the center slot 14.2% of the time, which means there's a slightly better than even chance (roughly 55%) that the jackpot will not reset before Friday.
Though I doubt there's any analysis to back this up, even among the analysis-obsessed fans of the show, the difference between what we'd expect (22%) and the actual (14%) is probably most attributable to the players who don't drop from the center.
-
Is all of this going to be on the exam?
-
I was told there would be no math.
-
Is all of this going to be on the exam?
And you must fail to reject the null hypothesis just to get a passing grade.
-
Now I remember why I majored in journalism.
-
I was told there would be no math.
That's a relief to Dick Clark.
-
Using historical averages gleamed from Scorpz's site, your typical Price is Right contestant will hit the center slot 14.2% of the time, which means there's a slightly better than even chance (roughly 55%) that the jackpot will not reset before Friday.
Though I doubt there's any analysis to back this up, even among the analysis-obsessed fans of the show, the difference between what we'd expect (22%) and the actual (14%) is probably most attributable to the players who don't drop from the center.
Also, the Plinko board has 12* rows of pegs, not nine, which I believe is the number that was previously used to construct that 22% figure. The fact that the Plinko chip is bound by the laws of physics and not a binary left/right choice at each peg also increases the board's variance, which I would hypothesize would bring the probability of landing in each slot closer to the uniform distribution.
*technically 13, but the top-most row of pegs never comes into play
-
The fact that the Plinko chip is bound by the laws of physics and not a binary left/right choice at each peg also increases the board's variance, which I would hypothesize would bring the probability of landing in each slot closer to the uniform distribution.
Huh? How does one contradict the other? A chip hits a peg and either falls left or right. And if you have time this week, build yourself a Galton box and check out how uniform the distribution of BBs is.
-
Huh? How does one contradict the other? A chip hits a peg and either falls left or right. And if you have time this week, build yourself a Galton box and check out how uniform the distribution of BBs is.
Or a chip bounces twice to the left, or back up to the previous row of pegs.
/Built a bean machine and got an inverse of the expected bell curve
-
Or a chip bounces twice to the left, or back up to the previous row of pegs.
/Built a bean machine and got an inverse of the expected bell curve
Those cases are so few and far between they're negilible in the simplistic calculations we're dealing with.
/Built a bean machine and got an inverse of the expected bell curve
Jumping beans from south of the border tend to skew the results. Jelly Bellies are far more trustworthy, although I am biased toward some more than others.
/See what I did there?
-
Those cases are so few and far between they're negilible in the simplistic calculations we're dealing with.
Um, I defy you to show me an instance where a Plinko chip DID either choose an immediate left or right path from every peg it hits, all the way down the board. Having a chip roll is WAY more common than it falling in a mathematically natural way.
(That said, I suspect that the rolls even themselves out over time as well, but certainly it introduces enough of an element of randomness over the relatively short drop the chip is making as to explain why the spread might not match up completely evenly with what you would expect from Pascal's Triangle.)
-
Holy crap, I just watched a slew of Plinko clips on the YouTube. It does shoot over more that one space on the majority of drops. I sit corrected.
Now the big question: What's the correct dirstribution?
-
Going back to the site I sourced earlier (Link (http://"http://tpirsummaries.8m.com/Other/PGStats3.html#plk")), there were 1,319 chips dropped that successfully reached the bottom of the board between seasons 29 and 39. Of those, 187 hit $10k, 322 hit $1k, 289 hit $500, 152 hit $100, and 369 hit $0. (22 got stuck along the way.) If we assume the distribution is symmetrical, we get:
5.8% - 11.0% - 12.2% - 14.0% - 14.2% - 14.0% - 12.2% - 11.0% - 5.8%
Relatively flat everywhere except the far sides, which makes sense when you look at the board and realize the corners are tucked away and hard to reach.
-
Relatively flat everywhere except the far sides, which makes sense when you look at the board and realize the corners are tucked away and hard to reach.
One reason I was a fan of the plinko setup on TnPiR '94.
-
That said, I suspect that the rolls even themselves out over time as well
Actually, we all seem to be assuming an absolutely perfectly designed game board. A fraction of an inch here and a fraction of an inch there, and real-world physics starts rearing its ugly head again. Could be that the thing is tilted just enough to throw off the results in a meaningful way. Almost certainly not deliberately, but enough to skew abstract predictions.
-
Little something for the naysayers: I've enjoyed this all week; I don't think it's oversaturated the show, and Drew's done a fine job of pimping today's $80K drop.
Now, I'd rather they not do stunts like this every week, or even every month, but for a special thing I think it's been totally effective.
-
Relatively flat everywhere except the far sides, which makes sense when you look at the board and realize the corners are tucked away and hard to reach.
One reason I was a fan of the plinko setup on TnPiR '94.
Could you refresh my memory about that setup? Had trouble finding a clip on Youtube.
-
Could you refresh my memory about that setup? Had trouble finding a clip on Youtube.
2500-500-1000-zero-5000-zero-1000-500-2500. There was another that had two 5000s and the rest were zero or 500.
-
Could you refresh my memory about that setup? Had trouble finding a clip on Youtube.
2500-500-1000-zero-5000-zero-1000-500-2500. There was another that had two 5000s and the rest were zero or 500.
$2500/$500/$1000/$0/$5000/$0/$1000/$500/$2500 & $2500/$1000/$0/$5000/$0/$5000/$0/$1000/$2500
-
Thanks for the correction, G-R. I hadn't seen the doubled 5000 layout, just going on something I read and mis-retained.
-
Thank you both. Mark's right in that any of them would be an improvement over the current setup.
-
Thank you both. Mark's right in that any of them would be an improvement over the current setup.
I'm partial to bumping the outer slots from $100 to $250, and doubling the whole board for a MDS.
-
I'm partial to bumping the outer slots from $100 to $250, and doubling the whole board for a MDS.
So you can play it 'safe' and perhaps end up with $5000-$10,000? Blah.
-
I'm partial to bumping the outer slots from $100 to $250, and doubling the whole board for a MDS.
So you can play it 'safe' and perhaps end up with $5000-$10,000? Blah.
Ah. Didn't think the second part all the way through. I do stick with bumping the outer slots through.
-
I'm partial to bumping the outer slots from $100 to $250, and doubling the whole board for a MDS.
So you can play it 'safe' and perhaps end up with $5000-$10,000? Blah.
They gave away a $35,000 truck on a playing of Push Over that had a single reasonable right answer. $5,000 isn't going to ruin a primetime special for me.
-
I'm partial to bumping the outer slots from $100 to $250, and doubling the whole board for a MDS.
So you can play it 'safe' and perhaps end up with $5000-$10,000? Blah.
Isn't the half the point of an MDS to Lesko everything?
-
I watched the Friday episode, and I'm going to put everything behind a spoiler tag just in case.
Sure, they carried it off well for the most part, but to have someone zero out on your big event (having won just two chips) takes the air out of it. One of the problems I have with the show is that they do stuff like this, but totally blow dog on the fundamentals, like having your players win the play-in chances to play the game.
-
Sure, they carried it off well for the most part, but to have someone zero out on your big event (having won just two chips) takes the air out of it. One of the problems I have with the show is that they do stuff like this, but totally blow dog on the fundamentals, like having your players win the play-in chances to play the game.
Returning the favor...
Today's contestant was a pinhead and was gonna fark it up no matter how easy you make the play-in items. The guy was too much of a moron to let Drew finish his explanation and drop the chip, fer Gawd's sake.
Further, it doesn't matter how many chips he wins, the "event" was only tied to the last one. And by definition he always gets a last one.
-
To your first point, absolutely. To the second, it absolutely matters how many chips are won (not tied to the event, but in general) because you can't win the top prize with just one or two extra. And instead of contestants winning three and four chips most of the time, it seems like they're getting one and two more. Which, as a viewer, feels dog lame.)
/Yay internet etiquette!
//Next time I'll lift my pinky while typing, too. :)
-
(not tied to the event, but in general)
Yes. I am speaking solely to the event.
-
In which case I read you five-by-five.