First IUFB: Camera (Canon: 18MP DSLR camera, 55-200m lens, speedlight flash, tripod stand); ARP: $1,430 (James)
| MARISA | EDUARDO | STEPHANIE | JUAN |
| 1000 | 1100 | 1200 | 850 |
Stephanie, from Los Angeles, California, is playing 2 for the Price of 1 for pair of surfboards (8ft surfboards) (Rachel) and a trip to Australia (RT Coach to Portsea, AUS for a 6n stay in a 1br apartment at Portsea Village Resort + private surf lesson for 2; ARP: $10,540) (James).
Stephanie will be guessing the price of the surfboards...
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
| $ | $ | $ |
| 7 | 5 | 6 |
Stephanie picks the second number for free...
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
| $ | 5 | $ |
| 7 | 6 |
Stephanie picks the $750 for the price of the surfboard...
| 3 | 1 | |
| 7 | 5 | 0 |
| 6 |
ARP is...$750
| 3 | 1 | |
| 7 | 5 | 0 |
| 6 |
WIN
Second IUFB: Tool Package (DeWalt: 3 nailers, stapler, compressor, 4drawer tool chest); ARP: $1,181 (James)
| MARISA | EDUARDO | MICHELE | JUAN |
| 1252 | 1253 | 1251 | 950 |
Juan, from San Jose, California, is playing Money Game for a 2018 Soul Red Mazda 3 Sport (2L engine, 6-speed AT, FWD, cargo tray, cargo net, paint/fabric protection) (Rachel).
MONEY GAME
| 20 | 47 | 68 | ||
| 96 | 73 | 19 | ||
| 54 | 18 | 85 | ||
| F | 7 | R |
Juan picks [20] - [F]
| F | 47 | 68 | ||
| 96 | 73 | 19 | ||
| 54 | 18 | 85 | ||
| 20 | 7 | R |
Juan picks [85] - [$$]
| 85 | F | 47 | 68 | |
| 96 | 73 | 19 | ||
| 54 | 18 | $$ | ||
| 20 | 7 | R |
Juan picks [73] - [$$]
| 85 | F | 47 | 68 | |
| 73 | 96 | $$ | 19 | |
| 54 | 18 | $$ | ||
| 20 | 7 | R |
Juan picks [68] - [R]
| 85 | F | 47 | F | |
| 73 | 96 | $$ | 19 | |
| 54 | 18 | $$ | ||
| 20 | 7 | 68 |
WIN (Total Winnings: $20,926)
Third IUFB: Ladies Designer Accessories (Michael Kors: 3 handbags, ankle boots, sandals and suede pumps); ARP: $1,790 (Rachel)
| MARISA | EDUARDO | MICHELE | THEODORE |
| 1000 | 1800 | 1801 | 1300 |
Theodore is playing Check GAME for a new game room (7ft pool table with maple frame; 1TB XBox 1 with 4 games; 65in A7 4K OLED smart TV) (James).
TOTAL
SCSD #1
| Contestant | Winnings | Spin 1 | Spin 2 | TOTAL | RESULT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theodore | $1,790 | 65 | 50 | 1.15 | |
| Stephanie | $11,970 | 90 | STAY | .90 | *SHOWCASE* |
| Juan | $22,107 | 75 | 90 | 1.65 |
Fourth IUFB: Trip to Lake Tahoe (RT Coach to Reno, NV then to Lake Tahoe for a 3n stay at the DEerfield Lodge at Heavenly + daily breakfast); ARP: $2,445 (Rachel)
| MARISA | EDUARDO | MICHELE | KYLIE |
| 3300 | 2301 | 2500 | 2300 |
Eduardo is playing One Away for a a 2019 Kia Soul (1.6L engine, 6-speed AT, FWD, rear bumper applique, etch protection, cargo tray) (James).
Oh, mighty sound effects lady!!! Does he have...
One right? HONK!
Two right? HONK!
Three right? HONK!
Four right? HONK!
Five right? HONK!
Fifth IUFB: Electric Guitar (Vintage electric guitar with amp); ARP: $950 (James)
| MARISA | LOUIS | MICHELE | KYLIE |
| 1 | 1800 | 1500 | 1300 |
Marisa, the last of the First Four, from Corona, California, is playing Grand Game for a chance to win up to $10,000!
The target price is...
Marisa starts out at $1.00:
The items are:
Pick 1: Whipped Cream
Pick 2: Coffee Filters
Pick 3: Frozen Meal
Pick 4: VapoRub
WIN
Sixth IUFB: Cutlery (Wusthof: 4 knives, shears, steel, block; 4 cutting boards with stainless steel storage case); ARP: $1,048 (Rachel)
| SAMUEL | LOUIS | MICHELE | KYLIE |
| 750 | 699 | 1 | 751 |
Kylie, from Toronto, Ontario, is playing SQUEEZE PLAY for a barbecue island and day bed (Bull: Outdoor kitchen island with 4-burner grill; Zuo Mod: Wicker day bed with 2 ottomans, 2 end tables, 6 throw pillows) (James).
| 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 5 |
| $ | 1 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 5 |
| $10295 | |||||
| WIN | |||||
SCSD #2
| Contestant | Winnings | Spin 1 | Spin 2 | TOTAL | RESULT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marisa | $10,950 | 5 | 75 | .80 | |
| Kylie | $11,343 | 60 | 20 | .80 | |
| Eduardo | $21,923 | 90 | – | .90 | *SHOWCASE* |
THE FABULOUS SHOWCASES
Eduardo has the honors...
SC1 - Stephanie
SC2 - Eduardo
Results: 5 out of 6
Winnings: $117,048
Biggest Winner: Stephanie
This Recap is solely intended for the purpose of Golden-Road.net.
Reproduction of this without authorized consent is prohibited.
Recap produced by Roadgeek Adam
Templates by Visualbasicwizard and WhammyPower788
CSS work provided by cu2010.
Raise the damn Check Game range already!
- I concur with mechamind. The winning range was $651 to $1,651. That’s absolutely unacceptable.
IMO it is an issue for Check Game to be possible to win with a check for less than $1,000. The game is about the cash amount as much as about the prize, and using prizes over $6,000 makes the cash amount possible to win a lot lower than it should be. It used to be the norm to get at least $2,000 or more in a winning playing. I'd like to see a raise to something like $9,000-$10,000 or even a $2,000 range personally and keep the prizes around $6,000-$8,000 so the contestant can win at least $2,000 with the prize.
Well, it is called Check Game. The price of the prize doesn't have to be easy to figure out, but I do think the ratio of cash to prize value needs to be a bit more balanced.
So, in other words: "The fact that the winning range was low doesn't mean the game is broken. It means that (in all probability) they didn't want it won today. Losses in a game don't mean that game is broken."I completely disagree, and I don't think you're completely understanding the perspective of someone who wants to raise the Check Game range. The prizes have slowly increased in value to match how prices are rising due to inflation. As such, Check Game had to naturally rise from $5,000-$6,000 to $7,000-8,000.
I really wish folks around here would quit complaining that a game is broken every time it gets lost. It's always been possible for Check Game to be won with a check written for less than $1,000, even on its first playing. What makes the difference is how the game is set up.
Even That's Too Much, during that horrible stretch when it was never won, wasn't broken. It was being overplayed and set up each time to force a loss, which was why the prices were so far to the edges instead of closer to the center. That's what a TTM forced loss looks like; a situation where a check for less than $1,000 wins the day is what a forced loss in Check Game looks like.
I completely disagree, and I don't think you're completely understanding the perspective of someone who wants to raise the Check Game range. The prizes have slowly increased in value to match how prices are rising due to inflation. As such, Check Game had to naturally rise from $5,000-$6,000 to $7,000-8,000.
And all JayC, mechamind, and I are saying is that we think that, due to the one-game prizes not falling below $5,000 as of the past few seasons, there is too much prize and not enough check, thus making the game unbalanced.
Increasing the range would re-balance the game, which is what we want. We don't want to see $1,000 checks winning anymore, just as we don't want to see Clock Game with only the $1,000 bonus. So yes, I think it's time to increase the range of Check Game a bit; not because it'll make the game easier, but because it'll make it more balanced.
due to the one-game prizes not falling below $5,000 as of the past few seasons
So, in other words: "The fact that the winning range was low doesn't mean the game is broken. It means that (in all probability) they didn't want it won today. Losses in a game don't mean that game is broken."I don't care so much about the winnability of the game, I care about the game being set up properly. Keeping up with inflation is definitely a consideration as well. Raising the range offers more wiggle room for the prizes they can offer while offering a more fitting amount of cash for the check amount required to win ($1,000 at the least) and still be manipulated as needed for the budget. It's honestly pretty surprising though they continue playing the game since check writing is outdated and even when check writing was common for people of all adult ages the game was known for being one of the show's more confusing. Of course, the game's budgetary benefits are what keeps it being played I assume.
This isn't new. Even when the range was $5K-$6K Roger and co. snuck in the occasional $4K+ prize in Budget Mode™.That's true, even though I don't recall the prizes hovering that much more over $4,000 like they've been hovering considerably over $6,000 in recent playings. They could still do the same budget mode tricks if the range increased as they've always done.
That's true, even though I don't recall the prizes hovering that much more over $4,000 like they've been hovering considerably over $6,000 in recent playings. They could still do the same budget mode tricks if the range increased as they've always done.
Today shows what happens when they experiment with the high end of the range - it turns into an unwinnable setup.
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.
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.
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.
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 gameSo it sounds like an astute viewer would be rewarded with this piece of knowledge by writing the check for $1200 if it’s 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?
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.I’ve actually been thinking about this, and honestly, I’m not a huge fan of Check Game to begin with, because there’s 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 ‘forced loss.’ So maybe raising the range won’t fix it, I’ll give you that, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good game if there’s 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 can’t really do that with this small variable range.
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.
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 aren’t 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, you’re 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 don’t want a game that’s 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 wouldn’t consider that to be fun to watch as a viewer, guessing the price with the contestant.
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 don’t appreciate if you’re even implying that. We’re 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 we’re going to make our voices known. If you don’t agree with our opinions, that's your decision and I respect it. But they’re our voices, and we’ll use them because we want this show to be even better than it currently is.
I’ve actually been thinking about this, and honestly, I’m not a huge fan of Check Game to begin with, because there’s 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 ‘forced loss.’ So maybe raising the range won’t fix it, I’ll give you that, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good game if there’s 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 can’t really do that with this small variable range.
Actually, yes, I would. Why? Because both of those games, even if they aren’t 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, you’re 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 don’t want a game that’s 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 wouldn’t consider that to be fun to watch as a viewer, guessing the price with the contestant.
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 don’t appreciate if you’re even implying that. We’re 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 we’re going to make our voices known. If you don’t agree with our opinions, that's your decision and I respect it. But they’re our voices, and we’ll use them because we want this show to be even better than it currently is.
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.Steve, I don't know what you mean, but this is the June 24th episode, not the December 5th episode.
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
From the top of the recap: Episode #8523K
Aired – 6/24/2019; Taped – 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.
The less said about Check Game, the better...