I always found the cash ladder confusing in the game - it took me a long time to figure out you received $3,000 for a perfect playing, and not the $1,500 shown at the top. If I were to change something, I would make it $1,500 as the top cash prize, gaining $500 each time.
I don't see where that improves things, but where there could have been an improvement was in the explanation of the rules. I feel Barker should have explained it this way:
"I want you to pick out the least expensive prize first, then the least expensive of the remaining prizes. As long as the second prize you pick is more expensive than the first, you win both of those prizes and $500. Then I want you to pick the less expensive of the two remaining prizes. As long as it's more expensive than your last choice, you will win those three prizes and an additional $1,000. Then, if you pick the most expensive prize of all last, you will win all four prizes, an additional $1,500, for a total of $3,000. Now, if you feel that there are no more prizes left you can choose, you can always quit with what you've won."
Simple and actually guides the contestant towards the fact that they are supposed to choose in order from least to most expensive. Barker only ever seemed to shoehorn this important fact in his explanation at the end having focused only on the progression of choices. Yes, it should have been obvious that contestants should work from least to most expensive, but anyway...