3 STRIKES would be better if...

[chc-avl]

I don't know about you, but 3 Strikes has always bothered me -- they offer a lavish car and have a lavish set but the chance of winning is outrageously slim.  And the process of losing (almost always losing) is so painful and drawn out, unless the hapless contestant spares him/herself (and us) the misery by quickly striking out.  I always say "Oh No" when it looks like 3 Strikes is going to be played.

I will post my own 3 Strikes improvement idea as a comment, and invite you to do the same.  Or, you could say the game is good as is, and that's OK too.

[Plinkoman]

I wish they would go back to the old rule of only one strike in the bag. It seemed a bit easier and more enjoyable with that rule.

The game can be an exciting one, but it can sometimes be boring and over quickly with bad luck.

[chc-avl]

In my opinion, 3 Strikes would be better if it weren't so hard, and if it involved more "baseball" analogy.  To the first point, what makes the game hard, and long-and-drawn-out, is trying to put the number you've drawn in the right space on the board.  Even if you don't draw a strike, you realistically only have a one-in-four or one-in-five chance of guessing the right position for the number, at least at the outset.  (Foul balls, if you will).  And the more draws you have to make, the greater the chance of just striking out.

My suggestion for this game is to give the player three "balls".  By that I mean, the player gets three free "placements" of the number he/she draws.  When the player has used his 3 free placements, then the player has to guess the right space for the remaining draws before striking out.

I would assume the player would begin by using his/her "balls" at the very beginning, but maybe not if he/she were certain of the first number in the price, say.

Two problems with my suggestion, which I think could be overcome.  One, the set would have to be modified to count "balls" as well as strikes.  Two, the producers would have to develop a clear and quick way to explain the "ball" rule.  I don't think it would be any more complicated than Drew saying "do you want to guess, or use one of your balls?"

[chc-avl]

And here is more a design suggestion than an improvement idea -- don't make Drew walk halfway across the set to drop the ball into the "strike" slot.  They could just hang a wire basket (like at the batting range) on the set next to Drew for him to drop all the used balls into.

[gamesurf]

A year and a half ago we paid Fake Brad Pitt to do a comprehensive Moneyball analysis about why 3 Strikes isn't being won frequently, and that analysis came to this conclusion:

Fake Brad Pitt recommends, "Don't play 3 Strikes more often. Keep it a luxury car game that's rarely seen. Take two strikes out of the bag."

[CaptainPrice]

I do think the one strike in the bag has to return. The biggest problem is how luck-based this game is: you could end up drawing all three strikes before you get a number drawn. Even in four-digit 3 Strikes that was a problem. I remember one episode when Bob was the host and the contestant drew all three strikes before the contestant got a chance to guess a number back when 3 Strikes referred to the 4-digit version.

Reducing the luck factor is tricky because you're going to have those types of playings where one contestant either gets four of the numbers lit and then draws the third strike, a win or a "three-strike out." I'm not sure which is the best course of action other than removing the two strikes in the bag.

[whowouldeverhurtawhammy]

I wish they would go back to the old rule of only one strike in the bag. It seemed a bit easier and more enjoyable with that rule.

The game can be an exciting one, but it can sometimes be boring and over quickly with bad luck.

This 

[Mallory16]

The game is great as it is... though I think the old bag worked better than the current tumbler. That doesn't really help quicken the pace. It doesn't need other changes, though. It's meant to be hard.

[illustriousrocket]

, the producers would have to develop a clear and quick way to explain the "ball" rule.  I don't think it would be any more complicated than Drew saying "do you want to guess, or use one of your balls?"

This may not be as simple as it sounds on paper. 3 Strikes already has a relatively large amount of information the player has to keep track of, so I think adding an entirely new strategic resource to be managed on top of that might become too much when the player is under the lights and in front of a crowd. There have been simpler games and concepts that have been misunderstood in the past.

I back Fake Brad Pitt's conclusion. Keep it rare, play it for luxury cars, go back to one strike in the bag.

[DYC]

Well, in theory, I guess there has to be a game that is statistically the “hardest” out of the 75 or so. 3 Strikes plays a role in the show: a huge set piece where they can brandish a larger-ticket prize, assuming a majority of the “big” prizes are sponsored, before the viewers. It doesn’t need to be won, it just needs to be shown.

Reminds me of Temptation from years back when it went through a seasons-long winless streak. On this site there were calls for its’ retirement or retooling. Over time, the win rate balanced out, and now that era of the game is a distant memory. I feel we’ll see the same happen with 3 Strikes in time. Could go back to the 1-strike rule, though. I mean come on it’s so logical.

To the OP, the “balls” concept is not a bad one (kinda turns it into a Stack the Deck-type situation with the free digits buffer)

[Nick]

I don't care if the statistics show going back to one strike in the bag would make the game easier to win. It doesn't feel like 3 Strikes without three strikes in the bag. It's one post-Barker era change that has been very good.

3 Strikes + is one of the most exciting games on the show, win or lose. Don't change a thing with it.

[TPIR98665]

Keep the three strikes in the bag..BUT if the player's first three picks are the strikes.  Automatic win.

[ThisDayinWeather]

Keep the three strikes in the bag..BUT if the player's first three picks are the strikes.  Automatic win.

That would be called shooting the moon. If you're familiar with a card game called "Hearts", in that game, you normally want to avoid all the heart cards and the Queen of Spades, but if you manage to collect them all, instead of a negative score you'd otherwise get, you get more points than you otherwise, normally would, that's called shooting the moon.

[Axl]

Three Strikes has its own Catch-22, which is that it is played for luxury cars so it's a special game that has to be somewhat difficult. But contestants are less likely to know the price of a luxury car versus a more common one, so even when they draw numbers (and the odds favor them drawing at least two numbers), they're clueless about placement, exposing them to more strikes. Not sure how to solve that problem.

Certainly going to one strike in the bag would help, and someone responding to the previous Moneyball analysis came up with the idea of a one-time-only ball you could draw that would reset the strike count, which sounds like a good idea.

[apparentlydoge]

While I do think that yes, having the one strike in the bag rule should be here again... I also think that they should also once again show the first digit automatically in daytime.

For primetime, both rules can stay but as an extra, the contestant should be able to pick a number of their choice up on the board that they want for free. Basically in a similar vein to Stack the Deck.