TPiR Recap - 10/15/2013 (TPiR Season 42 Big Money Week - Day 2)

[therealcu2010]

Is it me or were Dice Game's displays replaced with much brighter bulbs?

It looked brighter to me too, so it's not just you.

Of course, after the technical glitch today, you watch, they'll take and replace the last remaining SportsType displays on the show with a boring monitor.

[TPIRighteous]

The near tech win was pretty funny, but rolling a 4 was quite ironic, which took care of the tech win, altogether.

As Adam said in the recap, it would not have been a technical win. The game was already lost when Matthew said the second number was higher than 2.

Coming or Going may as well have been called "Do the Math" today as it was mathematically impossible for the right price of both motorscooters to be $8,207 with all prices being rounded to the nearest dollar.

Double Cross was a shocker. Perhaps I'm too used to seeing the 3D TVs, but, I thought there was no way two LED TVs of that size would be only $1,725.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

In fact, Double Cross had me fooled expressly because of the 5. Did I miss some throw-in here that made the price odd?

[PriceFan07]

I'm a little confused as to why some people are blaming Mike for the Triple Play loss. We don't have any idea what the prices would've been for the Corvette (they also could've been fairly easy - we'll never know!) and it was never more clear in the history of Triple Play that the contestant should've at least made it to the third car. I was actually a little excited when I seen the prices because it was so obvious what the right choice was.

[MannyCav]

Triple Play: I was calling it out to my wife on the Range Rover. With only $147 in difference between those top two prices, it made no sense to go with the lower one. We should have had a chance to try for the Corvette with that setup. Though I'll bet that some of you were probably thinking "Oh, it's $41,000! They're doing the Gas Money trick again!"

Am I interpreting this wording correctly in reading that you're Triple Play Richard?

In spite of that, I still don't buy into the argument of "evil" setups for games. Everything's winnable, you just know it or you don't, sometimes. So trust your instincts, but also (usually) trust the math.

I must respectfully disagree with this statement. In no other game than Pay the Rent is this more exaggerated where some contestants can get stuck with as few as one winning combination, while others can have considerably more (like last season's big money week playing with ten). You yourself repeated what I (and maybe others) pointed out about today's Double Cross playing with a very unusually inexpensive pair of HDTVs that didn't even end with an even number. Those here that have been watching the show for years and had the privilege of contact with those that worked on the show know that even before there was a Mike Richards on the show, they were very skilled with being able to balance the show's budget by carefully staging pricing game, showcase, and other setups to favor less wins when needed, and to relax those setups when this was either no longer a concern or more wins were desired. Now, of course, things can and do go occasionally go wild in this direction. Those here in the know know that calculated or, if you prefer, evil, game setups are a present fact of life on the show. That doesn't mean those games aren't impossible to win or not winnable. That just means that they can be set up to be not very winnable by less informed (or even informed) contestants if that's what the show wants for that time and place.

I'm a little confused as to why some people are blaming Mike for the Triple Play loss. We don't have any idea what the prices would've been for the Corvette (they also could've been fairly easy - we'll never know!) and it was never more clear in the history of Triple Play that the contestant should've at least made it to the third car. I was actually a little excited when I seen the prices because it was so obvious what the right choice was.

I agree--that was a part of my first post. Triple Play, like yesterday's first game of Half Off, was about as plain and easy a setup as you could hope for under these circumstances.

[Kyle]

Do you see what I'm getting at here?
In fact, Double Cross had me fooled expressly because of the 5. Did I miss some throw-in here that made the price odd?

Yes, that does seem a bit strange... the only explanation I can offer is one of the TVs being slightly different than the other, but I can't see that being the case. In fact, the second the right prices lit up after Double Cross was over (after I made a WTF? face), I half expected that in the next segment Drew would announce there was a problem and the wrong price was lit up.

Maybe one of the TV remotes came with batteries and the other didn't?

[MannyCav]

In fact, the second the right prices lit up after Double Cross was over (after I made a WTF? face), I half expected that in the next segment Drew would announce there was a problem and the wrong price was lit up.

You're not the only one that was doing something like this. While I did have my eyes peeled on the credits roll for a typed announcement, I suspected that they did their research on the TVs and got the price they wanted.

[GameShowKid]

Just a short note now, as it is past my bedtime currently: I just can't get that excited anymore about Bonus Game being played. I miss the classic turntable reveal shot of the game board, the explanation of the rules before the bonus prize is shown, and the days when "Light up the bonus!" meant just that. I'm still not a fan of the display change; no real purpose for it in my opinion.

With the way things currently stand, no more "Bonus Game! Yay!" from me. 

[htmlcc92]

Don't know about anyone else, but I didn't particularly care for the camera work on Triple Play. I liked it when the camera would zoom in to each door in turn from way back near Contestants Row. Today, if I remember correctly, the first car, the camera was tight on Door #1, and for Door #2, it zoomed in as they used to, but I can't quite remember how it was for Door #3. Either way, it wasn't that great.

Other than that, I really enjoyed the show today, even though Triple Play wasn't won. I always enjoy seeing Dice Game show up, and a blooper makes it nice every now and then. I do hope that it was just a one or two time thing where they don't have Bonus Game's turntable reveal, because it sounds weird to me seeing the prize described and saying "A bonus worth $X,XXX" without seeing that the contestant will be playing Bonus Game beforehand.

[SteveGavazzi]

Well, Triple Play certainly was a neat idea.  It's too bad it ended with a clearly wrong answer.  The game was probably supposed to be won.

Incidentally, it bothers me that the second car in Triple Play was less expensive than the first car.  That just looked weird.

God, I hate what they've done to Bonus Game this past year.  Adam didn't even show it coming around on the Turntable today.

I'm glad Drew made Matthew roll the fourth die in Dice Game.  That is totally something Bob would have done.

You know, if they're going to edit Drew's recaps of the showcases out almost every day so that it looks like he's doing it Bob's way, somebody needs to have him just start doing it Bob's way.  It is next to impossible to edit that so that it doesn't sound like there was a rip in the space/time continuum.

Because finance guys know the prices of every car in the universe.  Asinine assumption.

You need a new sarcasm detector.

Coming or Going may as well have been called "Do the Math" today as it was mathematically impossible for the right price of both motorscooters to be $8,207 with all prices being rounded to the nearest dollar.

Not true.  When a one-prize game offers a package, the prizes in the package are all added together and then rounded.

I was speaking for myself, but given what Mr. Gavazzi said about the show that aired yesterday I felt it appropriate to try and predict what he would say.

It's pretty hard to go wrong with playing Triple Play.

Yes, but the 3 cars already exist in their inventory

You don't know that.

[PriceFanArmadillo]

Yes, that does seem a bit strange... the only explanation I can offer is one of the TVs being slightly different than the other, but I can't see that being the case.

As Steve mentioned, prices are added together and *then* rounded.  If each TV has an MSRP of $x,xxx.50 instead of $x,xxx.99 or $x,xxx.00, then they will be added together, making an odd number, without any rounding necessary.

[DJTorgo]

You need a new sarcasm detector.

I would prefer for PriceBusterXL to tell me his inflection - which he did.  It's over, man.

[Kyle]

As Steve mentioned, prices are added together and *then* rounded.  If each TV has an MSRP of $x,xxx.50 instead of $x,xxx.99 or $x,xxx.00, then they will be added together, making an odd number, without any rounding necessary.

Yeah, I get that... he just posted that right before this reply.

[SonicWhammy]

Am I interpreting this wording correctly in reading that you're Triple Play Richard?

I'm definitely missing an inside joke here.

That doesn't mean those games aren't impossible to win or not winnable. That just means that they can be set up to be not very winnable by less informed (or even informed) contestants if that's what the show wants for that time and place.

Ah, there's all the magic words that compliment all my points. I like how you think.

Yes, I read a lot of complaints on the "evil" setups, some of the prizes that were never given away in Bob's day, etc. But I also notice that slowly, those thoughts have started to slow down, and the biggest reason why: an understanding that the times have changed. We've had 6 years to get used to having new prizes around ever since the perfect Showcase. And that's the current regime's choice if they wanted to make the contestants work for their prizes more. The trouble is that you still have plenty of "less informed" contestants who haven't kept up. That can't be blamed on the producers. So can you win? Sure. Just don't expect them to hand it to you with the same 50 or so prizes anymore (though in a nod to the old days, we still see those $899 Jumpsport trampolines every couple weeks  ).

In the midst of all this, yes, there is that disgusting Pay the Rent debacle. What I said last year about it still stands. That period where they intentionally went from one winning combination to as many as ten was abominable. If I was a former player, I'd be extremely ticked off.

Moral of all this: I take Price for what it is, as I always have, and I enjoy it, as I always have.

[JokerFan]

I'm definitely missing an inside joke here.

He's asking if you are the Richard that played Triple Play on stage.  I believe it was when you typed "I was calling it out to my wife on the Range Rover" that led him to believe you are Richard.

[MannyCav]

He's asking if you are the Richard that played Triple Play on stage.  I believe it was when you typed "I was calling it out to my wife on the Range Rover" that led him to believe you are Richard.

That combined with, "We should have had a chance to try for the Corvette with that setup."

Ah, there's all the magic words that compliment all my points. I like how you think.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, though it comes across as a compliment, so I don't want to look the other way from that.

Yes, I read a lot of complaints on the "evil" setups, some of the prizes that were never given away in Bob's day, etc. But I also notice that slowly, those thoughts have started to slow down, and the biggest reason why: an understanding that the times have changed. We've had 6 years to get used to having new prizes around ever since the perfect Showcase. And that's the current regime's choice if they wanted to make the contestants work for their prizes more. The trouble is that you still have plenty of "less informed" contestants who haven't kept up. That can't be blamed on the producers. So can you win? Sure. Just don't expect them to hand it to you with the same 50 or so prizes anymore (though in a nod to the old days, we still see those $899 Jumpsport trampolines every couple weeks  ).

Hmm.... Well, based on the above comments, it looks like you read my post. I made my opening case, and won't hammer the point further. I will, however, add that simply the prizes being show not being ones shown before, or being new, isn't the sole mitigating factor in whether or not a setup is or can be evil, hard, or what have you. There are lots of subtle and not subtle ways to have a game staged (definitely not rigged--there is a difference) to favor a desired outcome. Also, while this isn't the topic of interest to me, there is some discussion going on in the recap threads about how the showcases are offering the same types of prizes over and over and over again (i.e., not new) that also overlap with the pricing games. Just throwing that out there.