Worst playings of pricing games

[Grand_game2004]

IOW? What's that mean?

[JhayPrice]

He pressed the button without even flipping or flopping a panel, even after Bob showed him what to do.

[pricefan18]

IOW? What's that mean?

In other words. I had to look it up too. Is it me, or do we have WAY too many acronyms. Far too often I find I need to look up what it means, it's annoying. Ok I'm done ranting now....back to our regularly scheduled thread lol.

[SeaBreeze341]

I guess the overuse for acronyms comes from the norm as it relates to Twitter, Facebook, etc.  IIRC, those were common during the AOL days.  Speaking for myself, but I've believe the habit comes from the fact that there's a character limit (for Twitter and AOL AIM (America Online's Instant Messenger))

He pressed the button without even flipping or flopping a panel, even after Bob showed him what to do.

Probably a worse act since that woman from Shell Game back in the the 80s.  While not cool (given the rules added to the fact that the game's been played several times before the contestant's appearance), I personally had to laugh, because, come on man!

[JhayPrice]

Probably a worse act since that woman from Shell Game back in the the 80s.  While not cool (given the rules added to the fact that the game's been played several times before the contestant's appearance), I personally had to laugh, because, come on man!

Your signature says it all! It's Deborah playing Shell on 1986. She still placed the chip under shell, even after Bob told her to put it by the shell. Like Bob's words, she cheated and got away with it!

[actual_retail_tice]

The time on Make Your Move when the contestant wouldn't make a decision and Bob had to play the game for her. Looking back on it, I wonder if the lady was unwell.

[pricefan18]

Probably a worse act since that woman from Shell Game back in the the 80s.  While not cool (given the rules added to the fact that the game's been played several times before the contestant's appearance), I personally had to laugh, because, come on man!

You know when I watched it back yesterday for first time in years, I wonder if he somehow wanted to do the flop to 95.....but either something happened or he thought he could lock in his answer or something by hitting the button. I say this because he went through all the motions of getting audience support, tried to flop seemingly, and was "right" in his reveal. Could be wrong on all this but just thinking here.

[Briguy]

The time on Make Your Move when the contestant wouldn't make a decision and Bob had to play the game for her. Looking back on it, I wonder if the lady was unwell.

I think on this one, this contestant simply did not have a clue as to how to play the game, despite Bob explaining it about as thoroughly as he could. I've seen the clip and she seemed to have a deer-in-the-headlights look, and she seemed to be looking to the audience for someone to help her.

Sometimes, this happens ... and not just on game shows: You explain something to about the simplest of terms and they still don't understand. A non-game show example might be "Homer's Triple Bypass," where Dr. Hibbert is explaining to Homer the heart surgery they are going to perform on him.

Which leads me to wonder: How many game shows has this been the case, where you explain the rules and they either are completely clueless or, perhaps they say they understood what they were just told and then they prove (by their gameplay) they really didn't?

Brian

[goldroadfanatic]

From October 18, 2006: A contestant is playing for a car in Bonus Game, and ends up wiping out. With a car on the line, I understand pricing the small prizes has to be more challenging, but I wonder if these fake prices were too tricky, or if the contestant missed at least one that could have been won with a reasonable guess.

That said, I do feel bad for the contestant. She commented she was "the biggest loser" when she lost. Bob tried his best to sympathize with her.

[MSTieScott]

EDIT: Could that be considered the first "tech win" in the show's history?

It looks that way. Although the win wasn't awarded until after the taping ended -- giving the contestant the second prize would have made her the top winner in the showcase, but she was positioned as the runner-up.

(She wound up winning the much nicer showcase, so I don't think she was complaining about it.)

[pricefan18]

It looks that way. Although the win wasn't awarded until after the taping ended -- giving the contestant the second prize would have made her the top winner in the showcase, but she was positioned as the runner-up.

(She wound up winning the much nicer showcase, so I don't think she was complaining about it.)

I wonder if there was ever discussion to give her both given that discrepancy.

[MSTieScott]

I wonder if there was ever discussion to give her both given that discrepancy.

Not when the double showcase rule had yet to be introduced.

[ThatDonGuy]

It looks that way. Although the win wasn't awarded until after the taping ended -- giving the contestant the second prize would have made her the top winner in the showcase, but she was positioned as the runner-up.

(She wound up winning the much nicer showcase, so I don't think she was complaining about it.)

I remember a tech win in the half-hour days where the producers took showcase positioning into account. There was a Race Game playing where the indicator lit up "4" but only one price was right. Bob commented that, since she would qualify for the showcase as the runner-up anyway if only the one actual correct prize was counted (I am assuming it was the third pricing game that day), they could give her all four prizes.

[pricefan18]

Not when the double showcase rule had yet to be introduced.

Did she get what woulda been the first showcase? Was it passed to her?

[ThatDonGuy]

How could I forget...the two (that I know) playings of Hole in One (not "...or Two"; that would have really been disastrous) where the contestant got to the nearest line, and missed the putt.