First IUFB: Television and Video Game Package (49in QLED television; Nintendo: Switch with 4 games); ARP: $1,470 (James)
JOANNA | CRYSTAL | TODD | ANALIESE |
450 | 2500 | 1200 | 1650 |
Todd, from Del Mar, California, is playing Money Game for a 2019 Ford EcoSport S Crossover (1L engine, 6-speed AT, FWD, roadside assistance kit, first aid kit) (Rachel).
MONEY GAME
Todd picks [21] – [F]
Todd picks [57] – [$$]
Todd picks [48] – [$$]
Todd picks [93] – [$$]
Todd picks [75] – [$$]
WIN (Total Winnings: $273; ARP: $21,184)
Second IUFB: Ladies Designer Sunglasses (4 sunglasses); ARP: $1,225 (Rachel)
JOANNA | CRYSTAL | DANIEL | ANALIESE |
1 | 575 | 625 | 2000 |
Daniel from St. Paris, Ohio, is playing SWITCH? for:
These prices are either correct or need to be switched:
ATV | FRIDGE | |
$2728 | $3599 | |
SWITCH? | SWITCH? |
Daniel chooses to stay...
ATV | FRIDGE | |
$2728 | $3599 | |
$2728 | WIN | $3599 |
Third IUFB: Countertop Appliances (Instant Pot: 5-piece set with 6-piece accessory package); ARP: $512 (Rachel)
JOANNA | CRYSTAL | MARCIA | ANALIESE |
500 | 550 | 497 | 625 |
Joanna, from California, is playing Cliffhangers for designer outfits and accessories (Badgley Mischka, St. Laurent, etc., with dresses, men’s suits, stilettos, dress shoes, etc.; ARP: $10,001) (Rachel and James).
Small prizes: Shower Speaker, Electric Griddle, Carafe
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
The ARP is...
$250 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
The ARP is...
$360 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
The ARP is...
$49WIN (Total Winnings: $10,111)
SCSD #1
Contestant | Winnings | Spin 1 | Spin 2 | TOTAL | RESULT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Todd | $1,743 | 95 | STAY | .95 | |
Daniel | $7,552 | 70 | 30 | 1.00 | *$1,000!* |
Joanna | $10,623 | 40 | 75 | 1.15 |
Contestant | Winnings | Spin 1 | TOTAL | RESULT |
---|---|---|---|---|
Daniel | $8,552 | 85 | .85 | *SHOWCASE* |
Fourth IUFB: Desktop Computer (Dell: 23.8in all-in-one PC with 8GB RAM); ARP: $750 (Rachel)
JERRY | CRYSTAL | MARCIA | ANALIESE |
800 | 1 | 799 | 801 |
Crystal, a Children's Hospital of Los Angeles nurse, is playing Ten Chances for:
PRIZE | WATER FLOSSER 506 |
EXERCISE BIKE 2907 |
CAR | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ARP | 60 | 920 | |||||||||
GUESS | 60 | 790 | 907 | 927 | 970 | 290 | 720 | 729 | 209 | 920 | |
LOSS |
Fifth IUFB: Collection of Headphones (Pair of headpones with Bluetooth and noise cancelling options, audio player included); ARP: $960 (Overhead)
JERRY | KERRI | MARCIA | ANALIESE |
701 | 628 | 577 | 700 |
Jerry is playing Double Prices for a trip to Finland (RT Coach to Rovaniemi, FI for a 6n stay an all-glass apartment with private sauna and spa at Glass Resort + daily breakfast, 3 course dinners) (James).
Analiese had bad luck in bidding position last time up, being upped by Jerry. Can she escape a trip to Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey? She bids 4th this time.
Sixth IUFB: Tool Package (DeWalt: 3 nailers, stapler, 27in 2-drawer cart); ARP: $1,674 (James)
LATASHA | KERRI | MARCIA | ANALIESE |
600 | 730 | 997 | 1000 |
Analiese is playing Time is Money for a chance to win $20,000 in cash!
The grocery items today:
Is she right? *BUZZ!*
LOSS
ARPs:
SCSD #2
Contestant | Winnings | Spin 1 | Spin 2 | TOTAL | RESULT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Analiese | $1,674 | 45 | 50 | .95 | *SHOWCASE* |
Crystal | $1,730 | 80 | 85 | 1.65 | |
Jerry | $10,838 | 55 | 70 | 1.25 |
THE FABULOUS SHOWCASES
Daniel has the honors...
SC1 - Analiese
SC2 - Daniel
Results: 3 out of 6
Winnings: $59,980
Biggest Winner: Analiese
This Recap is solely intended for the purpose of Golden-Road.net.
Reproduction of this without authorized consent is prohibited.
Recap produced by Roadgeek Adam
Templates by Visualbasicwizard and WhammyPower788
CSS work provided by cu2010.
Would it be a good idea to reveal the rule that each of the 10 chances items ends in a zero? I know it would guarantee the first 2 items as a win but the quicker they guess the right answer, the more chances to go for the car.That would ruin the game in my opinion.
That would ruin the game in my opinion.
That would ruin the gamein my opinion.
Not necessarily. The price of the car is still hard to guess correctly.The game has been played since the 1970s. It would change the game’s dynamic. And it’s been said and shown so often: watching the show regularly and/or doing research can be very helpful. I think that with this in mind, there’s no need to explicitly state “the zero rule” on air.
The game has been played since the 1970s. It’s been said and shown so often: watching the show regularly and/or doing research can be very helpful. I think that with this in mind, there’s no need to explicitly state “the zero rule”.
The game has been played since the 1970s. It would change the game’s dynamic. And it’s been said and shown so often: watching the show regularly and/or doing research can be very helpful. I think that with this in mind, there’s no need to explicitly state “the zero rule” on air.
I understand now.Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Welcome to the site, fellow Price fan. :-)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Welcome to the site, fellow Price fan. :-)
FTFY. That's not an opinion--it's a fact.
Declaring the zero rule--in effect giving away the first prize, and making the second insanely easy to win--would undercut the tension that the game builds in. Smart shoppers (or LFaTs) can indeed knock out the first few in only a few chances, giving them more opportunities to win the car. But the game's fun lies in seeing them try to reason it out, and my favorite playings are the ones where players go through six or more chances on the first two prizes combined and then only have a few tries to win the car. It makes for much better TV.
Change for the sake of change isn't a good thing. Neither is trying to fix something that isn't broken.
There was a playing from November of 1993 where a contestant used SIX chances on the first prize and still managed to win the car. One of the best moments I've ever seen in that game.
I didn't know about this particular playing, but it perfectly illustrates my point.
To Priceisrightsuperfan93--nobody here will disagree that it would be nice if people won their games more often. I enjoy seeing excited winners and let's face it, who doesn't love seeing those high winning totals flash onto the screen at the end of the show. But as often as I see people around here complaining about people not winning often enough, and coming up with ways to make games easier, no one ever stops to think about two inescapable realities of the show:
1) They have a budget.
2) They're in this for the ratings.
Making games easier may increase the frequency of winners, but that would also bust the budget. We all (rightly) made fun of the low-budget version of the show that had everything sponsored by the same company--I think the logo was a big yellow "W," someone help me here--because the prizes were cheap. That's the future of the show where everyone wins all the time. There has to be some reward for people being smart shoppers, since that is (after all) what the show's all about. It's no different than Jeopardy rewarding trivia-saavy people for their knowledge...it's the object of the game. Likewise for smart viewers. (At least, it worked for Michael Larsen...)
Then we have ratings. The show stays on the air only as long as it's good TV. Like it or not, that means not everybody can win (although that said, I would like to see more perfect shows than we get nowadays). There has to be some reasonable possibility of failure in order to celebrate wins. Otherwise everyone starts to take winning for granted, and then there's less reason to tune in. Ratings go down, budgets get slashed, and...you get the idea.
So moral to the story...don't try to fix what ain't broke, and I suggest steering away from change for the sake of change.
I didn't know about this particular playing, but it perfectly illustrates my point.
To Priceisrightsuperfan93--nobody here will disagree that it would be nice if people won their games more often. I enjoy seeing excited winners and let's face it, who doesn't love seeing those high winning totals flash onto the screen at the end of the show. But as often as I see people around here complaining about people not winning often enough, and coming up with ways to make games easier, no one ever stops to think about two inescapable realities of the show:
1) They have a budget.
2) They're in this for the ratings.
Making games easier may increase the frequency of winners, but that would also bust the budget. We all (rightly) made fun of the low-budget version of the show that had everything sponsored by the same company--I think the logo was a big yellow "W," someone help me here--because the prizes were cheap. That's the future of the show where everyone wins all the time. There has to be some reward for people being smart shoppers, since that is (after all) what the show's all about. It's no different than Jeopardy rewarding trivia-saavy people for their knowledge...it's the object of the game. Likewise for smart viewers. (At least, it worked for Michael Larsen...)
Then we have ratings. The show stays on the air only as long as it's good TV. Like it or not, that means not everybody can win (although that said, I would like to see more perfect shows than we get nowadays). There has to be some reasonable possibility of failure in order to celebrate wins. Otherwise everyone starts to take winning for granted, and then there's less reason to tune in. Ratings go down, budgets get slashed, and...you get the idea.
So moral to the story...don't try to fix what ain't broke, and I suggest steering away from change for the sake of change.