3 STRIKES would be better if...

[Nick]

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.

I think this is really where people are discontented by 3 Strikes +.  The game is not too difficult to win because of three strikes in the bag, but the contestants are having a more difficult time pricing the cars.

I did a very quick analysis of all daytime playings since season 44.  Of the 205 number draws across all playings, only 80 of them have resulted in correct guesses, which is about a 39% success rate.  Yes, every incorrect guess does increase the exposure to drawing a strike, insofar as you have to overcome more draws without getting a strike, but if contestants were getting more digits correct the first time, then they wouldn't have to go find them again.  If somebody else wants to pull the figures on how many times in the last ten years contestants have drawn the same digit multiple times before identifying the correct position, that would be cool to dissect.

It seems to me the powers-that-are are aware of 3 Strikes's losing streak enough to be trying to make the prices somewhat easier to guess.  Since season 52, with the exception of one playing, every price has ended with either a zero or five, the digits contestants tend to gravitate towards as being the last digit in every car game.  The first digit should be always be gimmie (and seems to be four most of the time), but I see the the second digit usually is something of a guess, (i.e., you could be working between $45,000, $47,000 or $48,000 as possible prices).  I think the only thing you could do to make the game much easier is make the second digit more of a gimmie based on the first (i.e., if the first digit's a five and your remaining digits are zero, two, six, seven and nine, the two is obviously the second digit if the zero's the last as the others are too high).

[SeaBreeze341]

At the end of the day, while 3X hasn't had any success recently, I'm with Mallory.  It's fine as it is.  The set maybe not; wouldn't be opposed to a 1 strike rule on occasion (specials or primetime).

[jcs290]

I'd like to see the game continue with just 1 strike in the bag, but add a "Home Run" ball to the mix.  Draw it, strike count goes back to zero, and it's discarded from play.

[Nick]

I'd like to see the game continue with just 1 strike in the bag, but add a "Home Run" ball to the mix.  Draw it, strike count goes back to zero, and it's discarded from play.

Except the game wouldn't really be 3 Strikes if you can draw more than three strikes.

[SeaBreeze341]

In a role of a casual fan, I would love it for a 3X version with one strike and a home run ball, especially if I got to play the game.

I think you have to keep all 3 strikes in play with a home run ball.  It is still a car game, and those are supposed to be more difficult than easy.  With a home run ball, rather than wipe away the strikes, maybe everyone would be better off with an instant win upon drawing it.  I don't think the show would have the time to reset the strikes count.  Plus, with such a thing, they'd have to play the game for regular cars as opposed to luxury

[JT]

As I have said in the past, they have to give the contestant the first # for free for the contestant to have a fighting chance. If they can give the first # in other classic games like Any Number, Lucky Seven and Temptation they can do it here. Too many times, the contestant guesses the first # incorrectly in 3 Strikes. They can do this very subtly without drawing attention to it. 

Instead of a Home Run ball, how about adding a GREEN ball to the bag that says "Lose-A-Strike"?  If the contestant has 1 or 2 strikes when this ball is pulled out of the bag, a strike is erased from the scoreboard and a red strike ball would go back in the bag. The Green ball can be played only once even if it is pulled when a contestant has zero strikes. Since the show has been adding some twists to certain games and since Drew likes "Do-Overs" maybe it could work and result in more Wins?

[Nick]

As I have said in the past, they have to give the contestant the first # for free for the contestant to have a fighting chance. If they can give the first # in other classic games like Any Number, Lucky Seven and Temptation they can do it here.

But Any Number, Lucky Seven and Temptation are not luxury car games.  3 Strikes + is.  The moment you give the first digit for free, you're back to 3 Strikes under its original format, and the game was far easier to win by virtue of the fact it took fewer draws.  3 Strikes only became a luxury car game because of the significant difficulty increase in going to five-digit cars with no free digits, so the reward matches the effort.

Too many times, the contestant guesses the first # incorrectly in 3 Strikes. They can do this very subtly without drawing attention to it.

This really shouldn't be happening, though another look at the stats revealed something to me.  Most of the cars in 3 Strikes today are still starting in the $40,000 range.  Well, that's what they were twenty-five years ago, and you certainly don't get as much luxury car for $40,000 now than you did back then.

A very quick look at recent seasons shows that contestants are indeed guessing fives and sixes as the first digit when four is in the offing and correct, so perhaps it's more of an identity problem now.  3 Strikes is being presented as a luxury car game, and contestants are guessing the prices in accordance with what a luxury car should cost, but over the last five seasons, the game has failed to keep up with inflation and is now offering cheaper cars than should be offered.

To quantify this a bit, from seasons 40-46, of the 30 cars offered, only nine of them were under $50,000 (and three of those were above $49,000, so really only six under $50k). Since season 47, of 27 cars, only six of them have been above $50,000.

Instead of a Home Run ball, how about adding a GREEN ball to the bag that says "Lose-A-Strike"?  If the contestant has 1 or 2 strikes when this ball is pulled out of the bag, a strike is erased from the scoreboard and a red strike ball would go back in the bag. The Green ball can be played only once even if it is pulled when a contestant has zero strikes. Since the show has been adding some twists to certain games and since Drew likes "Do-Overs" maybe it could work and result in more Wins?

Aside from the game no longer being 3 Strikes if you can draw more than three strikes (and I'll save my commentary on Drew and "do-overs"), yes, the game has been in a seasons-long losing streak, but combined with the above on how cheap the game has become, the game is also being played far, far less than it used to be.  Naturally, there will be fewer wins, and they will take even longer to realize when the game is being played so infrequently.

Again, by the number, from season 30-36, the game averaged 6.7 playings per season (seven or eight per season, with only five in seasons 30 and 36).  Since season 37, that average has been only 4, with the highest being six appearances in season 41 and only two in season 49.

If we're trying to blame the return of the second and third strike chips, consider that in seasons 30-36, the win rate was 34% (17 wins out of 50 playings).  Setting aside the disastrous season 37, since season 38, that has dropped to 15% (10 wins out of 65 playings).  There's really no argument that the additional strike chips do have an effect on the difficulty of the game, but how much of the losing streak can be directly attributed to that versus them offering cars seemingly more expensive than they actually are (and thus contestants make more incorrect guesses, leading to more draws, leading to more strikes), is what really needs to be quantified if it could be.

If they want a win in 3 Strikes, the solution is not to ditch two of the strike chips, offer the first digit free or introduce some kind of a "do-over" option that allow more than three strikes to be drawn in a playing.  Here's how you achieve it:

• Play the game twice as often as is currently being played.
• Offer cars that look like they are in the $60,000-$80,000 range actually be in the $60,000-$80,000 range, as that's what should be offered by now.
• Have at least one playing where the numbers in the bag are 0, 1, 6, 8 and 9 (or some similar high-low distribution).  The six should be an obvious guess for the first digit and the zero the last digit.  A dolt might attempt the eight or the nine for the second digit, but the one should be what's obviously correct.  Then you're left with a toss-up on the third and fourth digits and the luck of the draw to avoid the strikes to fill in all the spaces on your first guess.

And there, everybody can stop complaining about one of the most exciting games on the show that is more often exciting than not, even if it's lost.

[gamesurf]

This is a good, well-argued analysis that leaves a lot to chew on. Well done.

There's really no argument that the additional strike chips do have an effect on the difficulty of the game, but how much of the losing streak can be directly attributed to that versus them offering cars seemingly more expensive than they actually are (and thus contestants make more incorrect guesses, leading to more draws, leading to more strikes), is what really needs to be quantified if it could be.

The best test I can think of to quantify "do contestants have a reasonable grasp on the price of the luxury car" is by checking how many of them nailed the car's first digit on the first try when they had the opportunity to do so.

So let's check the outcomes of what happened after a contestant said a number belonged in the first digit of the price of the car. We won't include six-digit car playings, since those aren't representative of normal gameplay, and we'll take only the first guess per contestant, to prevent contestants with multiple wrong guesses from being overrepresented in the data. We'll sort them into four categories:

• "Nailed it first try" - they lit up the first number as soon as they had the opportunity to do so. A sign they had a reasonable grasp on what the car cost.
• "Off by 1" - they incorrectly said the first number was "one away" from the actual first digit, i.e. a 3 or a 5 when it is a 4. Still a mistake, but a sign their intuition was in the ballpark.
• "Blew it" - they incorrectly mispriced the first digit in the car by two digits or more. A sign they had no idea what the car cost.
• "No Result" - the game ended without the contestant stating which number they believed was in the first window. (We'll count rare losses where the contestant filled in the final four digits and made no incorrect guesses on the first digit as "Nailed It", since the contestant made it obvious what the first digit was and plausibly used knowledge of the first digit in the car's price to do so, but all others will get "No Result".)

The sample size per season is small, but maybe we can see if trends emerge.

Here's the data in raw numbers of playings:


And here's that same data as a share of playings in a season, correcting for the greater number of playings in years past:


There is a trend. There's lot more dark red as time progresses. This means the "contestants aren't pricing the cars as well" theory holds up.

There is also generally more red colors than green in any given season. This means that contestants are more likely to make a mistake mispricing the car than they are to benefit from whatever mental estimate they have about the car's price going into the game. I think there's a lot of evidence that, yes, contestants aren't doing as good a job at pricing the cars in 3 Strikes as they used to do.

The next step would be to isolate the contestants that mispriced the car and see why they mispriced the car, what were the most common errors, were they too high or too low, what was their most common guess, etc. but that's a job for another day.

Where I think I don't agree is the proposal that this issue can be fixed by offering cars that look like they're a certain range. I think inflation and the wider range of what a luxury vehicle can cost makes that much harder to practically do. I haven't deep dived it yet, but my eyeball test is that in the 2000s, the median contestant could intuit an expensive American car would be around $30-$40,000, limiting the ways most contestants could fail. How do you communicate the car in 2026 is an expensive $60-$70,000 car, and not an expensive $40-$50,000 car or an expensive $80-$90,000 car?

[Flerbert419]

There is a trend. There's lot more dark red as time progresses. This means the "contestants aren't pricing the cars as well" theory holds up.

A reminder that it is likely worse than shown in the graph because in recent seasons incorrect number placements have been edited out of the show as they have no impact to the end result.

Just put one strike in the bag. What's the worst that happens, somebody wins for once?

[Nick]

Excellent analysis once again, gamesurf.  It's nice to see the data backed up by numbers since this is The Price Is Right, after all.

Where I think I don't agree is the proposal that this issue can be fixed by offering cars that look like they're a certain range. I think inflation and the wider range of what a luxury vehicle can cost makes that much harder to practically do. I haven't deep dived it yet, but my eyeball test is that in the 2000s, the median contestant could intuit an expensive American car would be around $30-$40,000, limiting the ways most contestants could fail. How do you communicate the car in 2026 is an expensive $60-$70,000 car, and not an expensive $40-$50,000 car or an expensive $80-$90,000 car?

Fair comment.  My point was really that, for the difficulty of the game, the failure to keep pace with inflation is a strike against the contestants (pun absolutely intended) in that they're having to work harder for a less-valuable prize than in former times.  The game really should be offering more expensive cars because of what 3 Strikes + is supposed to be.

Whether you're offering a $40,000 car or $80,000 car in the game, I maintain that one way to help achieve a win would be to do your best to have only one obvious first-digit choice out of all the numbers in the bag, and the more digits you can make gimmie guesses, the more likely you're going to steer towards a win.

[crazypackersfan]

My biggest problem with 3 Strikes is Drew's "you've got less a chance at picking a strike now!" after someone picks a strike, as if picking a strike was a good thing. Obviously anyone with a calculator could tell you that your odds of winning just dramatically decreased by picking a strike. I know he's just trying to be optimistic, but he actually underscores how next-to-impossible the game is to win. Drew doesn't make many mistakes anymore, but this is one of them.

[sayingsorry]

My biggest problem with 3 Strikes is Drew's "you've got less a chance at picking a strike now!" after someone picks a strike, as if picking a strike was a good thing. Obviously anyone with a calculator could tell you that your odds of winning just dramatically decreased by picking a strike. I know he's just trying to be optimistic, but he actually underscores how next-to-impossible the game is to win. Drew doesn't make many mistakes anymore, but this is one of them.

In almost 20 years I think he knows exactly how next to impossible it is, but as an MC, he has to be optimistic because if he tells the home audience picking an X is basically a death sentence why would they not turn off the TV until the next game or for the day and lose the audience?

[Nick]

In almost 20 years I think he knows exactly how next to impossible it is, but as an MC, he has to be optimistic because if he tells the home audience picking an X is basically a death sentence why would they not turn off the TV until the next game or for the day and lose the audience?

A good MC would find a way to keep the game interesting and exciting despite the difficult odds of winning at that point, and thus keep the viewing audience engaged to see what happens.

I mean, Barker did it.  Drew could learn by watching him.

[Axl]

This really shouldn't be happening, though another look at the stats revealed something to me.  Most of the cars in 3 Strikes today are still starting in the $40,000 range.  Well, that's what they were twenty-five years ago, and you certainly don't get as much luxury car for $40,000 now than you did back then.

According to Kelley Blue Book, the current mean average price of a new car in the US is about $50,000 (and a full-size truck typically goes for >$70,000), so there's no way a car priced in the 40s could be considered luxury anymore.

[PimpinJC]

Axl brings up a good point about car prices.  What the game should be played for, price wise, is an average cost of a new non-luxury car.  The game has lost its uniqueness of being played for a rare car based on price alone.

My preference would be the 1 strike in the bag again.  However, someone in this thread mentioned having the game more baseball themed.  I’ve always envisioned a number being misplaced as a “foul ball”, which would be a strike in conventional baseball but in this game counts as nothing.  Few ideas based on that:
1) Take out all strike balls and just put the number balls in.  A misplaced number gives a strike.  3 misplaced numbers ends the game
2) Play the game with one strike ball but have the first 2 misplaced numbers count as strikes as well (similar to a foul ball).  The strike ball goes back in if drawn.
3) Start the game with no strike balls and have the first 2 misses count as strikes.  Strike ball then goes in at that point, and drawing it ends the game.  Alternatively, if the contestant is perfect at pricing, the strike ball goes in when there’s 1 number ball left and placed back in the bag if drawn until the contestant gets 3 strikes