Time for a $500 minimum in Punch?

[Roadgeek Adam]

Interesting discussion I want to bring up. Two of the small prize cash games including Punch tonight, 3/31/23, and Half Off On 3/30/23 (and other playings of both games) have exposed something that's bothered me for a while. Adding up the four small prizes in tonight's Punch is $390, above the level of the 2 lowest card options on Punch. The Half Off SP total yesterday was $816 and we had a $900+ one earlier this season.

Maybe it's just me, but with the rate of inflation of small prizes, maybe it's time to can the $100 and $250 cards on Punch a Bunch. I don't think it makes a ton of sense to have won more in small prizes leading up to the main game than the main game itself. We had that occur on Punch's last playing (3/9), where the small prize winnings ($373 out of a possible $403 in SP) was higher than they earned on the board in 3 punches ($250). The December 6 playing came really close ($402 in small prizes with the $500 card pulled in the main).

To me, it's time to get rid of the $100 and $250 cards and redistribute the rest. Since Season 49, we've not had a single $100 card winnings and only 2 of $250. The last $100 card winner was in Season 48. (December 13 of that season). I think $500 is a reasonable starting point for the Punch cards.

[SeaBreeze341]

I can respect that.  I have to partially agree.  Though I'd keep the $250 in play; an earned punch guarantees the contestant something.  It's dissimilar to Plinko where perfect pricing doesn't guarantee anybody anything.  Yes, I know the SP amounts are inferior in Plinko, but my point is $250 is better than nothing.

Same could be said for $100, but having both $100 & $250 as we move forward is just not cool

[bigdodgeram]

while I agree more money should be available on those games fremantle is busy spending money to start new shows

[PatrickRox80]

If they're going to raise the minimum, $250 would be fair. $500 seems to be too big a jump, considering $50 was the minimum prize until 2011. And even back then, there were ten of those slips on the board compared to five $100 slips now.

If there ever was a time for an inflation upgrade, why not increase Plinko's furthest slots from $100 to $250? They've more or less used the same non-top dollar slots for nearly 40 years now.

[gamesurf]

I disagree.... I actually think the minimum value should be lowered back to $50. And then the second lowest value can be something like $500.

I see you sharpening your pitchforks. Hear me out.

Even in 1979, $50 was just a booby prize. $50 was less than what some SPs were worth. It wasn't meant to be a good prize. It was "the obviously bad outcome".

The fun of Punch-a-Bunch is in the "should you take the sure thing or go on knowing you might get much less". For something to be tempting, there has to be something at stake. It isn't tempting to quit with $500 if the worst you can get is $250. It isn't tempting to quit with $1000 if the worst amount on the board is $500.

(This is why the Barker-era distribution kinda stunk, there was no incentive to keep 40 of the 50 slips. Risking $450 for the chance at gaining $9,500? Duh. Anybody would throw that back.)

I want to see, like, ten $50 spots on the board that rear their ugly heads every so often. And once or twice a season or so I want to see somebody throw back, like, $2,500 only to end up with $50 on the last punch. I want to see some bad endings and a little bit more negative reinforcement. Just a little. Just enough to know that it's out there, so that not winning the booby prize feels a little bit more like a small victory. Currently it feels like "you ran out of punches without finding the $25K, so here you go, have some cash." I want to see a little more danger on the punchboard.

"But Plinko and Let 'em Roll--" yes, but those are different games. I'm thinking of what's best for Punch a Bunch that plays to what makes Punch a Bunch fun.

[imhomerjay]

while I agree more money should be available on those games fremantle is busy spending money to start new shows

Those are different line items.

[Superballer]

One thought would be keeping $100 as the minimum, but perhaps keeping them at a minimum on the board--perhaps 2 or 3 at most, as a counterpoint to the small number of grand prize slips, so that ending up with $100 would indeed be a psychologically losing outcome if that would be the last slip you'd have. 

[MSTieScott]

I don't think it makes a ton of sense to have won more in small prizes leading up to the main game than the main game itself.

But that's been the case in Punch a Bunch since day one.

The last $100 card winner was in Season 48. (December 13 of that season).

That's because there are only five $100 slips on the board. If anything, there should be more of them so they're more of a threat.

The contestant has already won a nice prize to get onstage and a handful of small prizes to earn punches. They don't need to also be guaranteed a decent handful of cash just for playing the game.

[Briguy]

I’m a fan of keeping the game as-is.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Brian

[urbanpreppie0004]

I’m a fan of keeping the game as-is.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Brian

...that doesnt work here. Come on dude, you cant dig your heels on giving contestants a little more money?

[Punchboard91]

I disagree very much with this idea - there needs to be more $100 slips, or else bring the $50 slips back.

You already are guaranteed $100 if you only price 25% of the items correctly. Why would you raise that? Sure, someone will do 100% of the pricing and pick all the $100 slips. And someone will miss all but one and win $10,000. But that’s how the game itself is designed - better pricing gives you a better CHANCE to win more.

Raising to $500 as the minimum takes away a risk factor - now, everyone throws back $1,000 with no hesitation, most throw back $2500 too. This would ruin the game in my opinion.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I'd be ok with $250 being the minimum, but I really would prefer $500. I just don't think $100 is worth it anymore. I realize the conundrum I bring up has been the same since the game's debut, but we don't have to always do it because we did it before.

I don't think $500 minimum is gonna stop anyone from tossing $1000 or even $2500 in hopes of more.

I just don't know if having SP > winning in the main game is a good show either. The 4 SP are supposed to be just the leadup to win big money. Potentially winning more in SP than you do in the main game is just not good television in my eyes.

[Superballer]

Or another thought:  how about the ultimate risk, of one or more $0 slips on the board for contestants to avoid at all costs?

[Briguy]

...that doesnt work here. Come on dude, you cant dig your heels on giving contestants a little more money?

Nope.

And I'd be re-quoting everyone else by giving my reasons why the current setup works.

The only thing I'll add is it proves a life's lesson. Just like with some of the other pricing games that you play perfectly (i.e., answer all the pricing questions correctly), things can still not work out in your favor. Just like going to a job interview and giving the perfect interview and doing everything else you possibly can right ... only someone else is offered the job and he/she accepts (because he/she, too, did everything right as well and only one could get the job).

Just like someone else said, there is always the chance of someone pulling all $100 slips with four guesses. I'm sure something similar – only $50 and/or $100 prizes, despite winning four punches – happened during the Barker era (and multiple times). Sure, it's disappointing to watch, but that's sometimes how lady luck and real life go.

If this is Big Money week or a primetime special in the traditional vein – i.e., bigger stakes, a la 1986 – then maybe I could see a larger minimum prize (e.g., $500) to go along with larger top-end prizes, natch (i.e., $50,000 and $100,000). But we're talking the daytime show, so $100 is my pick for the lowest-possible prize.

Brian

[SeaBreeze341]

Nope.

And I'd be re-quoting everyone else by giving my reasons why the current setup works.

The only thing I'll add is it proves a life's lesson. Just like with some of the other pricing games that you play perfectly (i.e., answer all the pricing questions correctly), things can still not work out in your favor. Just like going to a job interview and giving the perfect interview and doing everything else you possibly can right ... only someone else is offered the job and he/she accepts (because he/she, too, did everything right as well and only one could get the job).

Just like someone else said, there is always the chance of someone pulling all $100 slips with four guesses. I'm sure something similar – only $50 and/or $100 prizes, despite winning four punches – happened during the Barker era (and multiple times). Sure, it's disappointing to watch, but that's sometimes how lady luck and real life go.

If this is Big Money week or a primetime special in the traditional vein – i.e., bigger stakes, a la 1986 – then maybe I could see a larger minimum prize (e.g., $500) to go along with larger top-end prizes, natch (i.e., $50,000 and $100,000). But we're talking the daytime show, so $100 is my pick for the lowest-possible prize.

Brian

Fair points, Brian.  However, I guess you'd agree that they might have been better off keeping the structure that was in place from 1978-2008 ($50 minimum & $10,000).

I might not agree here but I respect it (and there's nothing wrong with keeping things as they are which I think they'll definitely do).  On one hand, there is something to learn for not being too greedy, but OTOH, this is TPIR.  There should be a little more focus on pricing, which has been my stance forever.  Luck is involved, I understand, but Punch A Bunch is tough enough as it is through no fault of the contestant.  That's why I wouldn't mind some sort of increase ($250).  People want to see decent outcomes, and really not $100 winners.  Of course, the show has a budget to maintain; that's why I'd be willing to compromise if the option was there