Author Topic: Currently, what are your thoughts on To The Penny? [Spoilers for 12/9/2021 Show]  (Read 4252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eddie

  • Walking the Golden Road
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
I think To The Penny is great.  Those who've watch the show a long time will notice it's played very similar a lot like the original Penny-Ante.
Eddie

Offline SeaBreeze341

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1255
  • Everyone knows the damn thing's not there!
Honestly, guessing the last price for $50,000 is not something I'd disagree with. Getting to the last item with all five pennies intact will be rare in and of itself (more difficult than it currently looks), so the bonus guess wouldn't even happen all that often. It would reward especially smart shoppers, which is the entire concept of The Price Is Right.

In that case, the question would be, "should the bonus guess be risk-free or for double-or-nothing?"


It would have to be risk-free, unless they risked $25,000 for $100,000.  Still, I hardly think anyone's saying no thanks to $25,000 for $50,000.  On the other hand, if they had more than one chance to guess the final price, I could see someone going for it.

I think I completely agree with Eddie about TTP being somewhat similar to Penny Ante.  Not something you'd think about often, but the connection is definitely there
"Times change; people change" -- Casey Affleck

Offline StacksOfCash

  • Outside in Line
  • *
  • Posts: 14
As it stands now, I don't see any point in using pennies other than to recover turns from wrong guesses. You rarely ever see contestants spend pennies to eliminate wrong answers, and most of the time its only one they choose to eliminate before guessing. Then when a contestant has 2 pennies left, they will force a guess, and if it's wrong, recover themselves and predictably and rather boringly bail out.

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I see two ways of getting around this.

1) One wrong guess and you lose everything. This will force players to strategize more about when to spend their pennies - sometimes deciding to spend more than just one to maximize their chances when making a guess.

2) Only allow bailouts when a contestant guesses a correct price - meaning if you choose to go on, you must continue until you get the price right or run out of pennies.

Perfect playings will still rightly allow the player to automatically skip the last price and win.

Offline monomandan

  • In Contestant's Row
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
I really enjoy this game, and I think it's less complicated than it appears. I agree that there's not a real incentive to spend the single pennies until the end at this point, though - I'm curious to see how/if the show adjusts gameplay.

It could be worthwhile to consider making buying back in more costly - say, 3 pennies, so you can only do it once. And I'd fully support only allowing a bailout after a correct pick.

I like the similarities to Penny Ante - it provides a little nostalgia for longtime fans while being a very modern game.

Offline SteveGavazzi

  • Director
  • **********
  • Posts: 17722
Forget the discussion -- I'm just amazed to see someone post for the first time in 15 years!

Welcome back to the fold, Dan.
"Every game is somebody's favorite." -- Wise words from Roger Dobkowitz.

Online brosa0

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1034
  • The answer is meat
I remember when we were speculating how the game was going to be played from various press releases, user gamesurf suggested that maybe the game is played like Duel, where you cover up all the choices you think could be correct. If you don't cover the right choice, the game is over, but if you do, you lose any pennies that are covering wrong choices.

This would help solve my biggest issue with the game, namely that the contestant can spend 1 penny to remove a price, but the producers are the ones in control of which price is removed, so spending a penny may not help at all.   For example, if the range is 0.99 to $5.99 and the item is clearly around $4-5.99, I'd feel a bit ripped off if I spent a penny only for the 0.99 option to be removed.

Having that Duel-like gameplay to have the option to cover up potential prices would solve this, as it would mean the contestant is fully in control of how their pennies are spent and how useful they are to them.   If a contestant chose to auto-win their way to the $6000 step by covering all of the options in the first two steps, they'd spend 3 pennies on incorrect options and be left with two pennies for a potential 50-50 play at the $6000 step, which I think is reasonable given it's a similar amount to what is won on normal pricing games.

I would keep the 2 (or maybe even 3) pennies cost for an incorrect choice though, so the game can't end on the $1000 step.

I agree with the bailout options being an issue.   Perhaps it would work better by removing the bailout option altogether and only having the $6000 and $25000 values on the board as 'safe levels'.  The $1000, $3000 and $12000 values would be removed and just be steps between the safe levels.   I don't think every game has to have bailout options for the sake of it.

Offline StacksOfCash

  • Outside in Line
  • *
  • Posts: 14
The way I see it, bailouts are probably the least exciting thing a contestant could do to end the game. Losses are substantially more exciting than bailouts.

It's probably part of the reason why I think Step Up was one of the most boring games to watch, because contestants would often pick 2 prizes then bail.

When temptation was giving almost 6-8k in prizes for a while, the prizes alone were worth so much the game devolved to - do nothing and win prizes - for a while.

The lack of a bailout option is essentially what keeps Triple Play exciting. Imagine if you could bail out with one or two cars.  You'd practically never see the 3rd car being played for.

I think a couple of other games could use a bit of tweaking as well (though i'm sure many would disagree):

For Let' Em Roll, I would make the last roll - must win the car or win nothing. This way there would be at least some excitement and a chance that the player will actually walk away with nothing as opposed to at least $500.

In Punch-A-Bunch, I would let the contestant play for one punch at a time. Then after the punch and the money amount is revealed, the contestant can choose to keep the money or risk it by throwing it away, but needs to guess the higher/lower of a small prize. If they guess wrong, and run out of prizes, the contestant leaves with nothing.

Offline blozier2006

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1935
In Punch-A-Bunch, I would let the contestant play for one punch at a time. Then after the punch and the money amount is revealed, the contestant can choose to keep the money or risk it by throwing it away, but needs to guess the higher/lower of a small prize. If they guess wrong, and run out of prizes, the contestant leaves with nothing.
Those were the original rules when the game debuted in 1978 (along with a more confusing way of determining how much a punch was worth). There's a reason that ruleset was junked.

Offline pannoni1

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1096
The $1000 level is really pointless, since its basically impossible to bailout at that stage since the least you can have is three pennies going into $3000, and then after blowing the first guess at that level with one penny left, either spend the last penny to assure $3000 (and presumably bail), or take the 50/50 guess and either win $3000 (and possibly continue) or end up with nothing. It would be better if there were four choices at each level, much like classic Penny Ante. A certain other game show always had four choices at each level without the gimmick of few choices during the cakewalk questions and six choices at the levels where the studio audience is completely dark. It makes it tough to end up with a base bank, but with not quite as many options at the upper levels, even with few or no pennies remaining, makes going for it more tempting. I doubt most people would spend three pennies to guarantee $1000 and spend two more for a 50/50 shot at $3000 like they could already do for $6000.


For Let' Em Roll, I would make the last roll - must win the car or win nothing. This way there would be at least some excitement and a chance that the player will actually walk away with nothing as opposed to at least $500.

With this, I wouldn't mind if they redesigned cubes be redesigned to allow the cash amounts to become $0's on the final roll, or simply make alternate cubes where Drew takes out the original remaining cubes and replaces them with cubes with $0's on them. It also means that if you blow the GP portion, it's very difficult to win, and pricing is what really matters.


« Last Edit: January 25, 2022, 09:22:17 AM by pannoni1 »
Now open for tape trading! Please PM me for an offer with a list included.

The list: http://pannoni1.angelfire.com/

Offline Chris88

  • Outside in Line
  • *
  • Posts: 5
The way I see it, bailouts are probably the least exciting thing a contestant could do to end the game. Losses are substantially more exciting than bailouts.

It's probably part of the reason why I think Step Up was one of the most boring games to watch, because contestants would often pick 2 prizes then bail.

When temptation was giving almost 6-8k in prizes for a while, the prizes alone were worth so much the game devolved to - do nothing and win prizes - for a while.

The lack of a bailout option is essentially what keeps Triple Play exciting. Imagine if you could bail out with one or two cars.  You'd practically never see the 3rd car being played for.

I think a couple of other games could use a bit of tweaking as well (though i'm sure many would disagree):

For Let' Em Roll, I would make the last roll - must win the car or win nothing. This way there would be at least some excitement and a chance that the player will actually walk away with nothing as opposed to at least $500.

In Punch-A-Bunch, I would let the contestant play for one punch at a time. Then after the punch and the money amount is revealed, the contestant can choose to keep the money or risk it by throwing it away, but needs to guess the higher/lower of a small prize. If they guess wrong, and run out of prizes, the contestant leaves with nothing.
No!!!! The way the games the games are right Now are good as they are!!!!!

Offline mechamind

  • Taking a Bonus Spin
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
    • Buy a Vowel Boards
For Let' Em Roll, I would make the last roll - must win the car or win nothing. This way there would be at least some excitement and a chance that the player will actually walk away with nothing as opposed to at least $500.

This would create a problem if the contestant only gets 1 roll. How could you announce to the contestant right off the bat that the cash values don't count? Besides, with 2 or 3 rolls, there's usually going to be a pretty big difference between the value of the final roll and the price of the car.
It's another Adam who is another recapper for another game show on another site.

Fan of The Price is Right since the 1990's, my early childhood...and really happy that summer break was a thing.

Online imhomerjay

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1922
If anything, creating more situations where playing the pricing portion correctly still leaves you with a good chance of nothing is the wrong way to go. Of course some of those exist, but not seeing how it benefits the viewership to create another one.

Offline gamesurf

  • Taking a Bonus Spin
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
Losses are substantially more exciting than bailouts.

Agree, to a point. Would probably disagree on "substantially". I think you have a point regarding Step Up though.

For Let' Em Roll, I would make the last roll - must win the car or win nothing. This way there would be at least some excitement and a chance that the player will actually walk away with nothing as opposed to at least $500.

1. This increases people's incentive to bail on the second-to-last roll. You'd see more people bailing early in Let 'em Roll, not less.

2. I don't think "no car and $0" is that much more exciting of a final outcome than "no car but $500". It's still easy to recognize that a $500-$1,500 win is the bad outcome compared to a car.

In Punch-A-Bunch, I would let the contestant play for one punch at a time. Then after the punch and the money amount is revealed, the contestant can choose to keep the money or risk it by throwing it away, but needs to guess the higher/lower of a small prize. If they guess wrong, and run out of prizes, the contestant leaves with nothing.

Same deal. The fun part of the game isn't the pricing portion, it's the punching and the host revealing the slips. You don't want the game to end on the pricing portion.
Quote from: Bill Todman
"The sign of a good game, is when you don't have to explain it every day. The key is not simplicity, but apparent simplicity. Password looks like any idiot could have made it up, but we have 14 of our people working on that show. There is a great complexity behind the screen. It requires great work to keep it simple."

Online Josh444

  • TPiR Alumnus
  • *
  • Posts: 345

1. This increases people's incentive to bail on the second-to-last roll. You'd see more people bailing early in Let 'em Roll, not less.

2. I don't think "no car and $0" is that much more exciting of a final outcome than "no car but $500". It's still easy to recognize that a $500-$1,500 win is the bad outcome compared to a car.

For LER, what if they changed the values of the cubes to be: 2 Cars, 2 $1,000, 2 X ($0). Then it wouldn’t be a guaranteed $500 for just playing, and the stakes would certainly be raised on that final roll. The guaranteed $500 doesn’t sit well for me. At least with Plinko there is the chance (as has been seen before) to win $0. Rare, but it happens.

To the Penny absolutely needs to be locked on each level. If you decide to play on, you can’t bail out.

Offline gamesurf

  • Taking a Bonus Spin
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
For LER, what if they changed the values of the cubes to be: 2 Cars, 2 $1,000, 2 X ($0). Then it wouldn’t be a guaranteed $500 for just playing, and the stakes would certainly be raised on that final roll. The guaranteed $500 doesn’t sit well for me. At least with Plinko there is the chance (as has been seen before) to win $0. Rare, but it happens.

Let 'Em Roll currently has about a 40% win rate, in line with most other car games. Getting rid of 1/3 of all the car cubes would drive the win rate down significantly. I'm sure somebody else could do the math, but I would estimate easily below Lucky Seven, which is something like a 29% win rate.

I could see the argument of "oh, what about three cars and $0/$1000/$1500 on the cubes" having some merit.  But, again, I don't think it's that big of a deal. $500 and no car isn't that big a deviation from $0 and no car. There's still something big at stake, it's still easy for viewers to be disappointed the contestant got the bad outcome.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2022, 04:36:22 PM by gamesurf »
Quote from: Bill Todman
"The sign of a good game, is when you don't have to explain it every day. The key is not simplicity, but apparent simplicity. Password looks like any idiot could have made it up, but we have 14 of our people working on that show. There is a great complexity behind the screen. It requires great work to keep it simple."