Author Topic: Progressive Jackpots (Read 13042 times)

Don Howard · « **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:42:08 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'207234\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 04:58 PM\']
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'207232\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 01:51 PM\']
Was there actually a ceiling on SP's jackpot? I believe the highest won in one shot was $55,000, but I didn't think it was because of a ceiling (more like one smart person finally got in after 10 idjits played

).[/quote]
Maybe there wasn't, if you can confirm a $55K hit. I was certain it topped out at $50K.
[/quote]
The $50000 ceiling was for Alphabetics during the closing months of Password Plus. As far as I know, there was no ceiling for The End Game of Super Password. If there was, I don't recall it being mentioned. I did wonder what would happen if it reached $100,000 since there wasn't sufficient room for it on the readout.

Loogaroo · « **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:45:58 PM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'207239\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 07:33 PM\']
It seemed that Barris & Co. budgeteers didn't mind adding one G to the kitty each day the check was not won (it's far better than a potential $50K payout each day -- back to back wins @ $25K each), but why stop at $50K?
[/quote]

Probably because $50K was the biggest hit they were willing to take to their budget at any one time. Prize budgets don't carry over one week to the next, to the best of my knowledge - if you're under budget one week, that extra money doesn't get added to the prize budget the following week. So if the jackpot just kept growing for three months unabated, then you'd have to deal with the eventuality that someone's going to sock you for a $100K+ payday - which would probably put you in the red for a good long while. Capping the jackpot at $50K helps mitigate the shock to your finances that a jackpot win would cause while still generating the kind of excitement that a progressive jackpot is intended to create.

(Besides, considering that it would take five weeks to reach the maximum payout, they probably figured viewers would be less interested in the amount and more interested in just giving the damn thing away already.)

TLEberle · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:10:03 PM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'207224\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 11:50 AM\']Do they make you more excited about the vying for the grand prize or don't you give a damn?[/quote]Nope. I think they're a cheap way to generate excitement rather than having that excitement come from the game itself.

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'207237\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 03:57 PM\']What about the way Hot Potato did it, by having the jackpot progress only for returning champions? That removed the "swooping in" part, though the jackpot never grew that high.[/quote]I actually liked this way best of all, for precisely that reason. They're not "progressive jackpots" in the same sense, but I also liked the way that Jeopardy! 1978 and Sale of the Century's Big Money Game handled the bonus prize.

The worst offender of the lot? Lingo. At least on Scrabble you had the increment only 20% of the base prize, so you were still playing for at least $5,000 if you made it to the Bonus Sprint. But on Lingo, the one-ball jackpot may as well have been drawn randomly before each show, because it had no bearing on when you showed up.

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'207243\' date=\'Jan 30 2009, 05:42 PM\']I did wonder what would happen if it reached $100,000 since there wasn't sufficient room for it on the readout.[/quote]My guess is that if the jackpot got anywhere near that level a throwaway bonus round would be cobbled together.

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #18 on:** February 01, 2009, 12:42:24 AM »

Blockbusters 87 also restarted the jackpot for each new player, but that system, albeit on a smaller scale, still rewards those who don't play well.

Player A goes on a John Hatten-like run and wins all ten of his gold runs. He takes home $50K in bonus round money. Player B loses his first nine runs, and wins the tenth. Not only does he win $50K, but he also gets the $4-7K in consolation money from the nine losses.

For me, shows should either offer the same cash/prize every time, or have a tiered bonus prize system like Hollywood Squares '03.

TLEberle · « **Reply #19 on:** February 01, 2009, 02:13:24 AM »

[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'207306\' date=\'Jan 31 2009, 09:42 PM\']Player A goes on a John Hatten-like run and wins all ten of his gold runs. He takes home $50K in bonus round money. Player B loses his first nine runs, and wins the tenth. Not only does he win $50K, but he also gets the $4-7K in consolation money from the nine losses.[/quote] But here's the thing. If I'm on the show, I'm not going to torpedo my bonus round today in order so that I can increase my winnings from the $10,400 I win if I go 2-0 in the bonus to $11,000 or so if I win the next day. And the farther along this goes, the less likely I am that I'm going to say "Why yes! I'll take $500 today rather than $5,000."

Quote

For me, shows should either offer the same cash/prize every time, or have a tiered bonus prize system like Hollywood Squares '03.

I really dug the trip-$10k-car-$25k-world holiday setup from the last year of the most recent run of Hollywood Squares.

PYLdude · « **Reply #20 on:** February 01, 2009, 03:17:02 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'207310\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 02:13 AM\']
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'207306\' date=\'Jan 31 2009, 09:42 PM\']Player A goes on a John Hatten-like run and wins all ten of his gold runs. He takes home $50K in bonus round money. Player B loses his first nine runs, and wins the tenth. Not only does he win $50K, but he also gets the $4-7K in consolation money from the nine losses.[/quote] But here's the thing. If I'm on the show, I'm not going to torpedo my bonus round today in order so that I can increase my winnings from the $10,400 I win if I go 2-0 in the bonus to $11,000 or so if I win the next day. And the farther along this goes, the less likely I am that I'm going to say "Why yes! I'll take $500 today rather than $5,000."
[/quote]

And besides, I think someone might say something if you ended up "torpedoing", for lack of a better term, and made it seem obvious.

(Not to mention the lack of guarantees in game shows, as anyone who's watched or played can attest to...)

Quote

Quote
For me, shows should either offer the same cash/prize every time, or have a tiered bonus prize system like Hollywood Squares '03.
I really dug the trip-$10k-car-$25k-world holiday setup from the last year of the most recent run of Hollywood Squares.

Meh, I thought the car-$25K-world trip-$50K-mystery was better...smacked of too cheap the last season.

I mean, downgrading is fine, but not so much as that.

Craig Karlberg · « **Reply #21 on:** February 01, 2009, 04:01:35 AM »

$ale of the Century's Winner's Big Money Game had a bonus system where you start at $5K & it goes up by $1K each time you win sucessive matches up to $10K. On winning match #7, a car is at stake & then $50K on the 8th trip. However, if at any time a player fails to win the WBMG, s/he must win another match to try again at a particular level. I'm not sure but someone may've attempted the $50K prize during its run It's a good system to have when it was time to cut the strains on the budget back in 1988, but apparently, viewers weren't interested enough to keep the show going hence its demise in 1989.

PYLdude · « **Reply #22 on:** February 01, 2009, 04:28:09 AM »

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'207315\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:01 AM\']
$ale of the Century's Winner's Big Money Game had a bonus system where you start at $5K & it goes up by $1K each time you win sucessive matches up to $10K. On winning match #7, a car is at stake & then $50K on the 8th trip. However, if at any time a player fails to win the WBMG, s/he must win another match to try again at a particular level. I'm not sure but someone may've attempted the $50K prize during its run It's a good system to have when it was time to cut the strains on the budget back in 1988, but apparently, viewers weren't interested enough to keep the show going hence its demise in 1989.
[/quote]

O...........................kay.................................

Don Howard · « **Reply #23 on:** February 01, 2009, 08:18:32 AM »

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'207315\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:01 AM\']
I'm not sure but someone may've attempted the $50K prize during its run
[/quote]
Rani {spelling could be wrong} White (bride of former $otC big winner Richard White) attempted and won the $50000 in April 1988.

Loogaroo · « **Reply #24 on:** February 01, 2009, 08:24:31 AM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207311\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 03:17 AM\']
And besides, I think someone might say something if you ended up "torpedoing", for lack of a better term, and made it seem obvious.

(Not to mention the lack of guarantees in game shows, as anyone who's watched or played can attest to...)
[/quote]

I distinctly remember a story about a Classic Concentration contestant who plowed through 6 of the necessary 7 matches in the bonus round and basically said "I'm going to stop here so I can win more prizes."

Three guesses as to how this story ends, and the first two don't count. (Hint: He lost the next game.)

Not a progressive jackpot, but still.

tvwxman · « **Reply #25 on:** February 01, 2009, 09:01:14 AM »

This may or may not sound odd, but I did not like the progressive jackpots on Super Password, or Now You See It 89, that helped keep the prize budgets in place by allowing for a set $5000 to be won per game...

I much rather preferred growing jackpots that awarded good play - that is, jackpots that start at $5,000 that went up $2,500 per game - like on Wordplay... which gave the potential for big jackpots after a few misses, but still rewarded more money for more frequent success...

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #26 on:** February 01, 2009, 02:39:31 PM »

With payouts like those on Blockbusters '87, or Whew! for that matter (win the bonus round and you're done), it's not so much that you're giving more money to contestants who are worse at the end game. Rather, the "problem" (if you think it is one, and I do somewhat) is that there's a point where the contestants are kicked out of the studio due to # of wins or amount of money won. Blockbusters players who are very good at the bonus round are, on average, going to have a better chance of sticking around for 30 or 40 consecutive games and winning tons of money than are the endurance types.

PYLdude · « **Reply #27 on:** February 01, 2009, 04:33:31 PM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'207319\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 08:18 AM\']
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'207315\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:01 AM\']
I'm not sure but someone may've attempted the $50K prize during its run
[/quote]
Rani {spelling could be wrong} White (bride of former $otC big winner Richard White) attempted and won the $50000 in April 1988.
[/quote]

And Phil Cambry did it again in October...came up short.

Craig could've found it out...what with this big thing called the Internet and all...

Just remember this, though.

Brig Bother · « **Reply #28 on:** February 02, 2009, 05:43:00 AM »

I've never minded progressive jackpots - the day we eliminate being lucky in being in the right place at the right time from gameshows is the day we might as well all pack it in and go home.

The problem is what happens after a large uncapped Progjack (thanks) gets won and it goes back to the minimum. Schlag den Raab offers €500,000 a throw on a monthly basis which rollsover when it isn't won, but when it is won then €500,000 is still worth getting excited about. Does anyone know what the €1.8m jackpot on Passaparabola dropped to after it got won? If it's just €10,000 that's going to seem... rather disappointing.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 02, 2009, 08:06:29 AM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'207352\' date=\'Feb 1 2009, 04:33 PM\']Craig could've found it out...what with this big thing called the Internet and all...[/quote]Anything can be found out using the internet.

I'm fairly certain you've asked a few questions in your time on the board, and I don't think anyone has hopped on your case for doing so.