Time for a $500 minimum in Punch?

[Briguy]

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

Actually, I like the top-end prize right now – $25,000. (To go along with the $5,000 and $10,000 second and third prizes.)

But that's just me.

While I agree that people don't like to see $100 winners, I also agree they don't like to see people who lose a whole bundle on "Wheel Of Fortune" for any reason (e.g., a mis-solve, incorrect letter guess, hit a Bankrupt or Lose-a-Turn while having $25,000 or more), and then the next contestant in line immediately solves for the house minimum (currently $1,000). Card Sharks was a notorious example in my book, where there were a fair share of contestants who gambled big, only to lose most or all of their winnings.

And I could go on.

In my opinion, that's the fun of game shows ... you just never know when someone's going to win big, either by luck or skill, or someone blows it or – despite doing everything correctly – falls victim to bad luck.

And the trade off with winning $100 and an assortment of small prizes (maybe $150-300 worth), of course, is the possibility of winning $26,000 in the Showcase Showdown and then going on to win both showcases.

Honestly, I never thought too much of luck and so forth with Punch-a-Bunch until coming across this thread, and now this is among the primary examples in my book.

Brian

[Roadgeek Adam]

Well. I started this to come up with discussion and see if it wasn't just me. It's certainly inspired discussion.

[SuperSweeper]

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

They did $0 slips on the (already cheap) Crowther version in the UK, and it absolutely stunk. No thanks.

Punch is already one of the games with the lowest median winnings. I don't think we need to be making it worse. I do like the idea of more money (and I think most of the cash games in general need to be offering more), but I'm also not in favor of a $500 minimum. It's a little too high. I'd prefer $250.

[SuperSweeper]

I'm also in favor of something near the pre-S37 distribution chart. The current distribution is not the best, especially the $100 distribution. 5 is such a weird amount.

I'd do something like:

10x $250, $500, $1000, $2500
5x $5000
3x $10,000
2x $25,000

With how inflation has been going, and how difficult it is to win this game, I'd be fine with a $50,000 top prize, but I'm not holding my breath.

[gamesurf]

10x $50
10x $500
8x $1,000
8x $2,500
6x $5,000
2x $7,500
2x $10,000
2x $15,000
2x $25,000

Higher risk, higher reward. Higher median, lower minimum.

• Every so often somebody will take $5,000 and it’ll turn out they could have had one of the 8 slips worth more.
• Every so often somebody will throw back a four-figure amount and end up with $50. Danger on the board is *good*. Contestants getting occasional bad beats is *good.*
• No $100 or $250 slips. There should be one clear “bad” amount to boo. It should feel almost insulting to be asked to quit with $50. Why $50? Because it’s 10x less than the next closest slip. It’s the only two-digit prize on the board and that sets it apart psychologically.
• More variety on the board. More higher-end slips and a higher number of them. Outcomes should be less predictable. As a viewer it shouldn’t be obvious when to bail and when to go on.
• We’re not trying to make the game more “fair”. We’re trying to make more interesting decisions happen more frequently. To guarantee that the contestant wins a decent amount of money every time is to miss the point of Punch-a-Bunch.

Mean amount is $3,570. Median amount is $1,000. This is almost double the current mean of $2,060 but not much higher than the current median of $750. You’ll see more outliers, with bigger winners on average but more painful losses.

[jhc2010]

Regarding frequency, the current set-up with just 5 slips for the lowest amount ($100) makes the most sense. I don't understand why there are so many in this thread trying to increase the frequency of the lowest amount as there is literally no decision when that amount is revealed. When the contestant still has undiscovered holes remaining, Drew always tells them that it's the lowest amount on the board and insists that they give it back. The fewer times there is no decision, the better.

[gamesurf]

That’s probably the logic behind having five slips instead of ten.

But 1) they’re not threatening when they never appear and 2) nobody’s going to quit with $250 and nobody’s going to quit with $500, so there’s no real “decision” being made with those slips either. I’d rather have a “whammy” that appears frequently enough to be a threat.

Yes, hitting the minimum means the contestant makes no decision, but their appearance makes other decisions more meaningful. Nobody on PYL ever passes after hitting a whammy, but if you took half the whammies off the board all of a sudden the calculus behind “play or pass” would become much more obvious and predictable to watch.

[SeaBreeze341]

First things first: several people have (actually) passed after hitting a whammy, so that statistic is sort of false.

That being said, after given this some thought, or a lot of thought, I can totally get behind your idea with $50 as the lowest and $500 as the second lowest.  For one, it might give Roadgeek Adam his minimum $500 amount but only when you don’t count the lowest amount as part of a risk.  Ten $50 amounts is okay; it makes up 20% of the board.  Your reasoning is one I have to respect especially when you factor in the game over the past couple of years.  There’s only been one win, while several of people just pretty much play through until they’re out of punches (or until $2500, $5000 etc arrives).  Punch A Bunch hasn’t been too exciting FWIW; having a $50 amount would change that.  Heck, a $0 slip would really make it exciting (maybe 10 of them or 5 zero, 5 fifty bucks).

One thing I keep forgetting to post about that jhc2010 brought up is there are only 5 $100 slips, so if you think about it, they really don’t need to change much.  $250 as the lowest is reasonable, not counting 10% of the board that features $100.

Hopefully I’ll get a thread started in relation to this (which I planned to do in advance but real life happens).  However, since this is here, I might as well mention the fact that I’m okay with Punch A Bunch as it stands now, in reference to the dollar amounts.  If I were to tweak it, it would be more directed in the number of punches or an opportunity to punch a fifth hole.  I’ll admit I wasn’t a fan of losing the second-chance slips at first, especially when reaching the top amount is less frequent than before.  I don’t think 4 SC slips are needed.  Maybe one (or two); or maybe play the game with 5 SP for up to 5 punches

[TPIRighteous]

We’re not trying to make the game more “fair”. We’re trying to make more interesting decisions happen more frequently. To guarantee that the contestant wins a decent amount of money every time is to miss the point of Punch-a-Bunch.

Mean amount is $3,570. Median amount is $1,000. This is almost double the current mean of $2,060 but not much higher than the current median of $750. You’ll see more outliers, with bigger winners on average but more painful losses.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Punch a Bunch has gotten boring because there are so many low amounts. Watching someone give back $500 and $250 to win $1,000 isn't exactly riveting television.

Here's how many times contestants have won $10,000 or more in each cash game since the start of Season 46:

Pay the Rent	31 / 49	63%
Plinko	67 / 129	52%
To the Penny	8 / 20	40%
Hot Seat	22 / 65	34%
Grand Game	35 / 109	32%
1/2 Off	23 / 97	24%
Time is Money	18 / 76	24%
It's in the Bag	8 / 73	11%
Punch a Bunch	7 / 82	9%

The only comparable is It's in the Bag, and that's because you have to win the whole game to get over $10,000; adding in $8,000 wins gets you to 20/73 (27%).

[StacksOfCash]

What ever happened to the second chance slips. I didn't think those ate away too much time and retrofitting all of the lowest amount with them (5x$100), and perhaps half of the 2nd lowest amount (5x$250), would make the game more interesting. Contestants would have a chance to make a decent chain with them.

Plus there would always be the opportunity of the famous line "You're The first contestant to win MORE than $10,000"

On a completely different note, I was always of the opinion that bailouts are the leastexciting way a contestant could win - taking a small prize over the chance of losing something. The suggestion to reintroduce $50 would, in my opinion, potentially increase this chance.

So an alternative is to raise the minimum to something a bit more substantial, but not enticing enough to encourage a bail like say $1000, putting it in line with grand game.

Second, force the contestant to earn each punch one at a time. And if they throw away the previous amount, they risk winning nothing if they fail to earn a punch on the last small prize. The danger of winning nothing should always be present in every game. Which is why i think plinko should NEVER get rid of the $0 spaces.

[blozier2006]

...force the contestant to earn each punch one at a time. And if they throw away the previous amount, they risk winning nothing if they fail to earn a punch on the last small prize...

That's exactly how the game worked when it debuted in 1978.

[NOTE: Forgive the weird link, but the original YT upload seems to be either private or gone.]

https://xotv.me/channels/333-wink-martindale/vod_videos/14269-the-price-is-right-punch-a-bunch-original

[jhc2010]

Here's how many times contestants have won $10,000 or more in each cash game since the start of Season 46:

Pay the Rent	31 / 49	63%
Plinko	67 / 129	52%
To the Penny	8 / 20	40%
Hot Seat	22 / 65	34%
Grand Game	35 / 109	32%
1/2 Off	23 / 97	24%
Time is Money	18 / 76	24%
It's in the Bag	8 / 73	11%
Punch a Bunch	7 / 82	9%

It is becoming obvious that the producers are now hiding the big money slips in holes that are rarely punched out by the contestant. There is some sort of psychological effect that causes contestants to avoid certain holes on the board. For some reason, it is rare that contestants punch out the holes adjacent to the corners and the holes in the second row from the bottom.

This link shows the last date that each hole was punched out. http://tpirstats.com/Season51/Pricing/PunchHoles.htm Some holes haven't been punched out by the contestant in 4+ years.

The show knows that they can save money by placing the big money amounts in the holes that are least likely to be punched out.

[FranciscoGarza]

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.

It's an interesting observation you've made about the small prize cash games, and it does make sense to re-evaluate the prize amounts in these games from time to time, especially in light of inflation. However, it's important to keep in mind that the prize values are carefully planned by the show's producers and are meant to balance the excitement of the game with the overall budget for the show.

While it's true that the value of the small prizes has increased over time, it's also possible that some players may prefer the chance to win smaller amounts more frequently rather than waiting for a larger prize. Additionally, the $100 and $250 cards on Punch a Bunch may be included to add variety to the game and increase the suspense as players hope to avoid these lower value cards.

[b_masters8]

Card Sharks was a notorious example in my book, where there were a fair share of contestants who gambled big, only to lose most or all of their winnings.

And IIRC, that bust on a double that the NBC Perry show had up until late 1980 (where if you let it ride, and you had the same card as the other, you lost everything) was very much a downer ending for many (IMO, it would have been far better right off the top if the only way one could really lose is to let it ride and then have it be opposite to what you called [i.e. if you said, all lower on a King, and then it was an Ace, or if you said all higher on a 3, and then have it be a 2]); of course, that was remedied very well with Bob Eubanks from 1986-89 on CBS, and Bill Rafferty from 1986-87 in syndie, where it was safer to let it ride on deuces and aces (being that doubles on either one neither benefited nor penalized the player; this is why Bob quite excitedly wanted to see his Money Cards players going all in when either a deuce or ace came up).

The ABC run with Joel McHale was the first way (loss-on-a-double) for the first season, and the other way (no benefit or loss on a double) for the second one, as I recall.

[Game Girl]

i think 250 at least should be the smallest there is really no reason to have 100 there was no one who is going to want to 250 and when I watch it I just think the hundred is stupid, really 500 would work with cheering at home. I think there should be a bonus for getting a good amount of the punches because there are times when I am thinking watching this game why would anyone want to win all the punches The same way when I watch press your luck that is probably a bad idea to get more than 8 spins. (I enjoy press your luck but that is just my view on it.) though in terms of the 50 Dollar idea considering that 100 is the minimum to have a contestant have to follow the 'wait one year to do another game show' rule, it is unlikely any Game would ever go under that.