Author Topic: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020  (Read 2685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Priceisrightsuperfan93

  • In the Audience
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2020, 09:30:00 PM »
 :-D
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Welcome to the site, fellow Price fan. :-)

 :-D

Offline educationman76

  • Outside in Line
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2020, 09:17:36 AM »
I am like everybody else, we had strong starts and then fizzle.  Here are my two pet peeves from Friday's show:

Money Game- People need to learn not to pick the Season's number, because it is never the price of the car.  I have feeling that next season (which will be season 49), people are going to pick 49 more, because the price ends in a nine.  When a contestant picks the season number it is a wasted chance.

Ten Chances- She got off a great start, then wasted 5 chances on the second prize by writing prices that did not end in 0 or pricing the item in the $200 range.  Lady, this is not 1970's.

Offline wink87

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1056
Re: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2020, 11:05:39 AM »
FTFY. That's not an opinion--it's a fact.

Declaring the zero rule--in effect giving away the first prize, and making the second insanely easy to win--would undercut the tension that the game builds in. Smart shoppers (or LFaTs) can indeed knock out the first few in only a few chances, giving them more opportunities to win the car. But the game's fun lies in seeing them try to reason it out, and my favorite playings are the ones where players go through six or more chances on the first two prizes combined and then only have a few tries to win the car. It makes for much better TV.

Change for the sake of change isn't a good thing. Neither is trying to fix something that isn't broken.

There was a playing from November of 1993 where a contestant used SIX chances on the first prize and still managed to win the car. One of the best moments I've ever seen in that game.

Offline ThomHuge

  • Walking the Golden Road
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
Re: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2020, 11:51:58 AM »
There was a playing from November of 1993 where a contestant used SIX chances on the first prize and still managed to win the car. One of the best moments I've ever seen in that game.

I didn't know about this particular playing, but it perfectly illustrates my point.

To Priceisrightsuperfan93--nobody here will disagree that it would be nice if people won their games more often. I enjoy seeing excited winners and let's face it, who doesn't love seeing those high winning totals flash onto the screen at the end of the show. But as often as I see people around here complaining about people not winning often enough, and coming up with ways to make games easier, no one ever stops to think about two inescapable realities of the show:
1)  They have a budget.
2)  They're in this for the ratings.

Making games easier may increase the frequency of winners, but that would also bust the budget. We all (rightly) made fun of the low-budget version of the show that had everything sponsored by the same company--I think the logo was a big yellow "W," someone help me here--because the prizes were cheap. That's the future of the show where everyone wins all the time. There has to be some reward for people being smart shoppers, since that is (after all) what the show's all about. It's no different than Jeopardy rewarding trivia-saavy people for their knowledge...it's the object of the game. Likewise for smart viewers. (At least, it worked for Michael Larsen...)

Then we have ratings. The show stays on the air only as long as it's good TV. Like it or not, that means not everybody can win (although that said, I would like to see more perfect shows than we get nowadays). There has to be some reasonable possibility of failure in order to celebrate wins. Otherwise everyone starts to take winning for granted, and then there's less reason to tune in. Ratings go down, budgets get slashed, and...you get the idea.

So moral to the story...don't try to fix what ain't broke, and I suggest steering away from change for the sake of change.

Offline Priceisrightsuperfan93

  • In the Audience
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2020, 01:39:40 PM »
I didn't know about this particular playing, but it perfectly illustrates my point.

To Priceisrightsuperfan93--nobody here will disagree that it would be nice if people won their games more often. I enjoy seeing excited winners and let's face it, who doesn't love seeing those high winning totals flash onto the screen at the end of the show. But as often as I see people around here complaining about people not winning often enough, and coming up with ways to make games easier, no one ever stops to think about two inescapable realities of the show:
1)  They have a budget.
2)  They're in this for the ratings.

Making games easier may increase the frequency of winners, but that would also bust the budget. We all (rightly) made fun of the low-budget version of the show that had everything sponsored by the same company--I think the logo was a big yellow "W," someone help me here--because the prizes were cheap. That's the future of the show where everyone wins all the time. There has to be some reward for people being smart shoppers, since that is (after all) what the show's all about. It's no different than Jeopardy rewarding trivia-saavy people for their knowledge...it's the object of the game. Likewise for smart viewers. (At least, it worked for Michael Larsen...)

Then we have ratings. The show stays on the air only as long as it's good TV. Like it or not, that means not everybody can win (although that said, I would like to see more perfect shows than we get nowadays). There has to be some reasonable possibility of failure in order to celebrate wins. Otherwise everyone starts to take winning for granted, and then there's less reason to tune in. Ratings go down, budgets get slashed, and...you get the idea.

So moral to the story...don't try to fix what ain't broke, and I suggest steering away from change for the sake of change.

That is actually some very valid reasons!! Thanks for explaining this to me.

Offline Priceisrightsuperfan93

  • In the Audience
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2020, 02:11:42 PM »
I didn't know about this particular playing, but it perfectly illustrates my point.

To Priceisrightsuperfan93--nobody here will disagree that it would be nice if people won their games more often. I enjoy seeing excited winners and let's face it, who doesn't love seeing those high winning totals flash onto the screen at the end of the show. But as often as I see people around here complaining about people not winning often enough, and coming up with ways to make games easier, no one ever stops to think about two inescapable realities of the show:
1)  They have a budget.
2)  They're in this for the ratings.

Making games easier may increase the frequency of winners, but that would also bust the budget. We all (rightly) made fun of the low-budget version of the show that had everything sponsored by the same company--I think the logo was a big yellow "W," someone help me here--because the prizes were cheap. That's the future of the show where everyone wins all the time. There has to be some reward for people being smart shoppers, since that is (after all) what the show's all about. It's no different than Jeopardy rewarding trivia-saavy people for their knowledge...it's the object of the game. Likewise for smart viewers. (At least, it worked for Michael Larsen...)

Then we have ratings. The show stays on the air only as long as it's good TV. Like it or not, that means not everybody can win (although that said, I would like to see more perfect shows than we get nowadays). There has to be some reasonable possibility of failure in order to celebrate wins. Otherwise everyone starts to take winning for granted, and then there's less reason to tune in. Ratings go down, budgets get slashed, and...you get the idea.

So moral to the story...don't try to fix what ain't broke, and I suggest steering away from change for the sake of change.

And the show you were referring to was the 2012 australia version and the sponsor was big W (think that was blue)

Online tpirfan28

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 3387
Re: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2020, 07:30:33 PM »
I'm gonna kick this up to the top because I saw it for the first time today.  I would assume Drew gets the zero rule?  He was pretty positive on the first couple zero guesses, then got...almost frustrated it appeared on the wrong guesses.
Any closer and Bob gives it away.
(except this was a Drew MDS)

Offline rockyboy34

  • In the Audience
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • I think it's my turn...
Re: TPiR Recap - 2/7/2020
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2020, 06:51:53 PM »
Also, Money Game should be labeled as a loss, I believe.