Author Topic: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019  (Read 2230 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JayC

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 4936
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2019, 12:02:02 PM »
Say they raise it to $9,000 to $10,000. They'll just start to use $7,500+ prizes when they're in budget mode, and we'll be right back where we started with the same exact same complaints about imbalance between the prize and the check. That proposed solution would only drive the game's average payout up even higher without really solving anything.
Raising the range would likely cause some kind of dip in playings in favor of games that the prize must be under $10,000 like Flip Flop, Coming or Going, Side by Side, and Freeze Frame, which I don't think the staff would mind and only some true LFaTs would miss the game. As has been said, no matter what the range is they can adjust the prize to have it continue being a game that fits the budget need.

Offline ThomHuge

  • In Contestant's Row
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2019, 12:05:46 PM »
Check Game is very broken right now. Plain and simple, because they have insisted since Season 43 on offering a minimum of a $5,000 prize package in every game (not counting any bonus money that may be accumulated), this gives them a very limited range to use in Check Game and still fit the 7k-8k range. The range needs to go up if the $5,000 minimum continues. Today shows what happens when they experiment with the high end of the range - it turns into an unwinnable setup.

Why are you guys having such a big problem with this? The game is not broken. Period. It's being set up the way it is--with expensive prizes/prize packages and such a narrow winning range--on purpose. When you see a low winning range, it means the game is being set up for a forced loss. It's no different than setting up games like Lucky $even with lots of 1s and 9s, or Dice Game with 3s and 4s, or That's Too Much with the right price at either end of the board instead of closer to the middle.

If they wanted the game won, they'd be using less expensive prizes. Do you guys not understand that your proposed fix--increasing the range--would result in the game being played less often? Use of larger and more expensive prizes, plus the risk of having to offer cash in the amount of the check, would pose a substantial budgetary risk.

Let me say this again to make sure everyone gets it: Check Game is not broken.

Raising the range would likely cause some kind of dip in playings in favor of games that the prize must be under $10,000 like Flip Flop, Coming or Going, Side by Side, and Freeze Frame, which I don't think the staff would mind and only some true LFaTs would miss the game. As has been said, no matter what the range is they can adjust the prize to have it continue being a game that fits the budget need.

The first part of this is, candidly, dumb. I'll grant that only LFaTs would miss Check Game for its own sake, but there's a larger problem--if Check Game is played less, something else has to get played more often to make up the difference. Do you want to start seeing Flip Flop or Pick a Number or any of those other quickies even more than we already do? That'd be the inevitable result.

Why are you people so determined to argue for fixing something that ain't broke, and which fix would actually create other problems we don't need?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 12:11:08 PM by ThomHuge »

Online Casey

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1221
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2019, 12:53:12 PM »
Check Game is very broken right now. Plain and simple, because they have insisted since Season 43 on offering a minimum of a $5,000 prize package in every game
So it sounds like an astute viewer would be rewarded with this piece of knowledge by writing the check for $1200 if itís so consistent.  How is that different than the 20-30-40 rule in Cliff Hangers, the 0 rule in 10 Chances, or the $3000 always wins rule in Magic #?  Are these games all broken also?

Offline DarkShockBro

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1191
  • Celeste is the best.
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2019, 02:31:14 PM »
Why are you guys having such a big problem with this? The game is not broken. Period. It's being set up the way it is--with expensive prizes/prize packages and such a narrow winning range--on purpose. When you see a low winning range, it means the game is being set up for a forced loss. It's no different than setting up games like Lucky $even with lots of 1s and 9s, or Dice Game with 3s and 4s, or That's Too Much with the right price at either end of the board instead of closer to the middle.

If they wanted the game won, they'd be using less expensive prizes. Do you guys not understand that your proposed fix--increasing the range--would result in the game being played less often? Use of larger and more expensive prizes, plus the risk of having to offer cash in the amount of the check, would pose a substantial budgetary risk.
Iíve actually been thinking about this, and honestly, Iím not a huge fan of Check Game to begin with, because thereís little to no variation in the price of the prizes, which I enjoy in one-prize games, and when variation is introduced, the game turns into, as you say, a Ďforced loss.í So maybe raising the range wonít fix it, Iíll give you that, but that doesnít mean itís a good game if thereís no variation in prizes. At least raising the range will allow them to offer $5,000 to $8,000 prizes, thus allowing for more diverse and thus more interesting set-ups. As it stands, they canít really do that with this small variable range.

The first part of this is, candidly, dumb. I'll grant that only LFaTs would miss Check Game for its own sake, but there's a larger problem--if Check Game is played less, something else has to get played more often to make up the difference. Do you want to start seeing Flip Flop or Pick a Number or any of those other quickies even more than we already do? That'd be the inevitable result.
Actually, yes, I would. Why? Because both of those games, even if they arenít great, have more prize variation and thus, more difficulty and intrigue to see if the contestant will correctly or incorrectly guess the range of said prize. Moreover, youíre forgetting that The Price is Right can and has created many new, fun pricing games to replace or update ones that have fallen by the wayside. I donít want a game thatís only played for a $4,500-5,500 prize every single time it pops up, and a $6,000 prize is considered to be a forced loss, because I wouldnít consider that to be fun to watch as a viewer, guessing the price with the contestant.

Quote from: ThomHuge link=topic=30214.msg468633#msg468633date=1561478746
Why are you people so determined to argue for fixing something that ain't broke, and which fix would actually create other problems we don't need?
Because we think our fix would create a more enjoyable pricing game and thus, a more enjoyable show than we currently have. We are not making this argument because we hate this show and want to see it fail, and I donít appreciate if youíre even implying that. Weíre all fans of this show, and as fans, we have opinions and critiques that we put thought into and genuinely think will help the show. Forum participation is encouraged in general, so weíre going to make our voices known. If you donít agree with our opinions, that's your decision and I respect it. But theyíre our voices, and weíll use them because we want this show to be even better than it currently is.
Stop the madness.

Offline ThomHuge

  • In Contestant's Row
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2019, 02:54:01 PM »
I'm just going to come out and say it: everyone who is claiming Check Game is broken is wrong, plain and simple. (There, I've said it.) If the only thing we could offer in the game were prize packages like the game room, then you might have a point. But there are less expensive four-digit prizes they could offer. This day's setup was a forced loss. Claiming that a forced-loss setup means the game is broken is, in a word, dumb. The fix of raising the range so they can offer more expensive prizes, as has been pointed out, wouldn't solve anything, because they could just set the game up the same way with more expensive prizes, and would create a new problem by making them play the game less, upping the frequency of the other quickies.

Plain and simple, your suggestions are poorly thought out and don't take into account the real-world business reasons the game likely works the way it does, or the second- and third-order issues your alleged "fix" would cause. Wins cost money, and there's only so much of it the show can afford to spend.

Iíve actually been thinking about this, and honestly, Iím not a huge fan of Check Game to begin with, because thereís little to no variation in the price of the prizes, which I enjoy in one-prize games, and when variation is introduced, the game turns into, as you say, a Ďforced loss.í So maybe raising the range wonít fix it, Iíll give you that, but that doesnít mean itís a good game if thereís no variation in prizes. At least raising the range will allow them to offer $5,000 to $8,000 prizes, thus allowing for more diverse and thus more interesting set-ups. As it stands, they canít really do that with this small variable range.

You keep saying this, I'm going to keep pointing out that upping the range means this game would start taking a (possible in the event of a win) larger bite out of the budget, both from the prizes offered and the cash offered. That sounds like an excellent reason to play it less often, or to set it up for losses more often, neither of which I want to see.

Actually, yes, I would. Why? Because both of those games, even if they arenít great, have more prize variation and thus, more difficulty and intrigue to see if the contestant will correctly or incorrectly guess the range of said prize. Moreover, youíre forgetting that The Price is Right can and has created many new, fun pricing games to replace or update ones that have fallen by the wayside. I donít want a game thatís only played for a $4,500-5,500 prize every single time it pops up, and a $6,000 prize is considered to be a forced loss, because I wouldnít consider that to be fun to watch as a viewer, guessing the price with the contestant.

There's a fundamental flaw in this premise--namely that any new games would be as good/fun as the ones we have. Yes, they've had some nifty ideas in the past, but we've also had some real flops, like On the Spot and Time is Money I (and those are just the ones that have been retired). What makes you think any prospective new games they create would be more interesting or fun than the ones we have?

Why, in short, would you want them to take a classic game, play it less often, and then bring in another potentially off-the-wall idea (Rat Race) to replace it?

Because we think our fix would create a more enjoyable pricing game and thus, a more enjoyable show than we currently have. We are not making this argument because we hate this show and want to see it fail, and I donít appreciate if youíre even implying that. Weíre all fans of this show, and as fans, we have opinions and critiques that we put thought into and genuinely think will help the show.

"I don't appreciate if you're even implying that"--where did you even get that idea? Your "fix" might create a more enjoyable game and show than what we have now...in your opinion. But it doesn't happen in a vacuum. More expensive prizes means the game gets played less often, in favor of games that (at the very least) don't offer a cash bonus. That means more playings of quickie games like Coming or Going or Side by Side, which I don't think anyone really wants.

Do I think you're looking to ruin the show? No. I do think you're trying to fix something that's not broken, without understanding the (likely) business reasons why the game works the way it does, and the financial/business problems your solution would cause. "Solutions" that create more problems than they solve wouldn't "help" the show at all.

Forum participation is encouraged in general, so weíre going to make our voices known. If you donít agree with our opinions, that's your decision and I respect it. But theyíre our voices, and weíll use them because we want this show to be even better than it currently is.

I want the show to be better too. But I also have something you apparently don't--an ability to recognize business and financial reasons behind why things work the way they do. And when you or anyone else post an idea that doesn't look like it was thought through, I'm going to call you on it.

My gut says that the range was probably only raised the last time because inflation made it impractical not to--it was either that or let "forced loss" type setups be the norm because of market prices.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 03:00:05 PM by ThomHuge »

Offline Roadgeek Adam

  • Moderator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3076
  • We're going to miss you, Neil.
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2019, 04:28:53 PM »
Thom, can we try to not get condescending please? I don't want to lock the threads, but your posts have been reported for tone. I think we've made it clear we're going to have to agree to disagree here.
Season 41 - Season 43, Season 46 - Present Recap Guide.
Headmaster of Golden-Road.net After Hours on Skype.
Masters of Arts in History, Western Illinois University, 2017.

CSS Season 14 Cash: $729,601
CSS Season 15 Cash: $888,251 - All time CSS high for myself in 8 years.

Offline GuyWithFace

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 2925
  • Attempted Sane Person
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2019, 06:35:19 PM »
I see everyone talking about raising the range, but I believe it should be widened instead -- $7,000-$9,000.

The primary issue, however, is the cash offered as part of the game. As cash always costs money, it is therefore in the best interest of the show to make Check Game setups such as this one which shrinks the monetary award to a rather small figure.
The above is my opinion and mine alone.

To answer your questions: yes, I am a guy and yes, I have a face. (I also have the occasional spurt of weirdness.)

Quote from: thepriceis_J
People are tired of the f**kery and drama, but if we'd actually talk to each other sometimes instead of a whole bunch of private conversations with other people, it'd go a long way to perhaps fixing the problems most seem to see in the site.

Offline SteveGavazzi

  • Director
  • **********
  • Posts: 17232
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2019, 05:34:54 AM »
In playings like this, at the end of the season, the check-to-prize ratio is imbalanced on purpose because they don't want it to be won.

Except this is the December 5 episode.
"Every game is somebody's favorite." -- Wise words from Roger Dobkowitz.

Offline GR_Man_9009

  • Walking the Golden Road
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
  • BBT Rules!
    • My Facebook Page
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2019, 06:23:42 AM »
Except this is the December 5 episode.
Steve, I don't know what you mean, but this is the June 24th episode, not the December 5th episode.
The Big Bang Theory Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Online Casey

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1221
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2019, 07:34:08 AM »
Steve, I don't know what you mean, but this is the June 24th episode, not the December 5th episode.
From the top of the recap:  Episode #8523K
Aired Ė 6/24/2019; Taped Ė 10/1/2018

Look how long ago it was taped.  Steve is saying this episode was intended to air on December 5, 2018, not 6/24/2019.

Offline Counterpoint

  • Outside in Line
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2019, 09:50:55 AM »
From the top of the recap:  Episode #8523K
Aired Ė 6/24/2019; Taped Ė 10/1/2018

Look how long ago it was taped.  Steve is saying this episode was intended to air on December 5, 2018, not 6/24/2019.

Yes, and Drew mentioned something about the holidays coming up.  And on Tuesday's ep he talked about Hanukkah.  Were these episodes preempted from their original airdates?

Offline Roadgeek Adam

  • Moderator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3076
  • We're going to miss you, Neil.
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2019, 11:46:24 AM »
George HW Bush's death.
Season 41 - Season 43, Season 46 - Present Recap Guide.
Headmaster of Golden-Road.net After Hours on Skype.
Masters of Arts in History, Western Illinois University, 2017.

CSS Season 14 Cash: $729,601
CSS Season 15 Cash: $888,251 - All time CSS high for myself in 8 years.

Offline Teddy

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 5144
  • One of the great multitaskers on G-R.net!
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2019, 08:11:30 AM »
The less said about Check Game, the better...

Offline ThomHuge

  • In Contestant's Row
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: TPiR Recap - 6/24/2019
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2019, 08:33:28 AM »
The less said about Check Game, the better...

Except...you just brought it up. Needlessly.