TPiR Recap - 11/7/2017

[tpir7215]

They could also choose to force the contestant's hand by eliminating the bailout option, although that wouldn't be fair for those who roll between 0-2 cars before the last roll.

There also wouldn't exactly be a point in having the cash sides of the cubes

[Briguy]

They could also choose to force the contestant's hand by eliminating the bailout option, although that wouldn't be fair for those who roll between 0-2 cars before the last roll.

Why?

Brian

[SamJ93]

Why?

Brian

"Oh look, you rolled no cars but $5000 in cash! Too bad you won't ever get a chance at it. Now roll them all again." Pulling the rug out from under contestants like that would be extremely bad TV.

If I roll a substantial amount of cash, you can bet I'm taking it. Just like this ep's contestant, I already have a car that I am more than happy with and would much prefer winning a few thousand bucks. (Yes, I realize I could sell the car, but that's much more of a hassle than just collecting a check.)

[GR_Man_9009]

"Oh look, you rolled no cars but $5000 in cash! Too bad you won't ever get a chance at it. Now roll them all again." Pulling the rug out from under contestants like that would be extremely bad TV.

If I roll a substantial amount of cash, you can bet I'm taking it. Just like this ep's contestant, I already have a car that I am more than happy with and would much prefer winning a few thousand bucks. (Yes, I realize I could sell the car, but that's much more of a hassle than just collecting a check.)

I would also bail if I won a substantial amount of money because I do NOT drive so for me winning a car would be useless because I can't use it.

[Briguy]

"Oh look, you rolled no cars but $5000 in cash! Too bad you won't ever get a chance at it. Now roll them all again." Pulling the rug out from under contestants like that would be extremely bad TV.

If I roll a substantial amount of cash, you can bet I'm taking it. Just like this ep's contestant, I already have a car that I am more than happy with and would much prefer winning a few thousand bucks. (Yes, I realize I could sell the car, but that's much more of a hassle than just collecting a check.)

Exactly.

It just seems like several people on here are trying to make a call for the show to change the rules of Let 'em Roll ... that's how I'm reading these posts, anyway. I mean, it seems like every time someone chooses a "sure thing" option and decides not to play on for a grand prize, especially if someone might find it totally desirable, we get these discussions.

I can just picture it now: A poster on here actually gets his/her wish and runs the game, and eliminates bail-out options for games like Let 'em Roll ... and then we have something develop just as you suggest: "Oops ... you rolled $5,000 ... (model), give him back the chip ... ah, ah, ah (as the contestant wants to stop and begins to object to playing on for a prize he doesn't want) ... no, no-no-no-no, you can't stop (pulling an Edd Byrnes from the infamous "Wheel of Fortune" pilot) ... go ahead and roll 'em again. Try to roll five cars so you can go home in that beautiful car!!!"

Indeed, bad TV.

Brian

[tpir7215]

"Oh look, you rolled no cars but $5000 in cash! Too bad you won't ever get a chance at it. Now roll them all again." Pulling the rug out from under contestants like that would be extremely bad TV.

If I roll a substantial amount of cash, you can bet I'm taking it. Just like this ep's contestant, I already have a car that I am more than happy with and would much prefer winning a few thousand bucks. (Yes, I realize I could sell the car, but that's much more of a hassle than just collecting a check.)

That would also be like forcing contestants to go all the way on Pay the Rent without giving them the option to quit with smaller amounts of money.  That would also actually have produced a full win on at least one or two separate occasions, as I remember that there was at minimum one instance where the contestant had a winning combination (which actually was THE winning combination) but he bailed with $10,000.

[JayC]

I wasn't advocating for eliminating the bailout option, I was just putting the idea out there as something the show could decide to do if they decide they don't want people just taking the money even if they have 4 cars and rolls left anymore.

[Flerbert419]

Even if you do sell it, you're looking at a loss, because as any car dealer with tell you, the value drops the minute you drive off the lot.

I understand your point about the additional fees, but are you saying that if you win a car and then immediately turn around and sell it that you would not make a profit? Because I find that very difficult to believe.

There would still seem to be a gap between taxes/fees and the private party practically new car selling price.

[b_masters8]

Exactly.

It just seems like several people on here are trying to make a call for the show to change the rules of Let 'em Roll ... that's how I'm reading these posts, anyway. I mean, it seems like every time someone chooses a "sure thing" option and decides not to play on for a grand prize, especially if someone might find it totally desirable, we get these discussions.

I can just picture it now: A poster on here actually gets his/her wish and runs the game, and eliminates bail-out options for games like Let 'em Roll ... and then we have something develop just as you suggest: "Oops ... you rolled $5,000 ... (model), give him back the chip ... ah, ah, ah (as the contestant wants to stop and begins to object to playing on for a prize he doesn't want) ... no, no-no-no-no, you can't stop (pulling an Edd Byrnes from the infamous "Wheel of Fortune" pilot) ... go ahead and roll 'em again. Try to roll five cars so you can go home in that beautiful car!!!"

Indeed, bad TV.

Brian

Or worse, if on Card Sharks, you got a middle card (7, 8, 9) on the Big Bet, and were disallowed from betting just the half of your money that was generally required at that point, and required to go all the way and bet it all (and you had to be right, or you would bust); of course, as Brian said w/this Let 'Em Roll thing, that would probably make for bad TV, so that didn't happen (that's why Jim Perry said, IIRC, "You must bet at least half; you can bet more" [that was, IMHO, one of the fairest rules ever there was on a game show, because the half-bet Big Bet requirement was a safeguard against the "middle cards," as Jim called them; those middles could be tricky]).