Talk:Safe Crackers

Strategy

Subtracting the possible combinations from the total given is not a strategy because there is no need to decipher the price of the larger prize.

The only time you would need to determine the price of the larger prize is when Safe Crackers is played as the Million Dollar Game, and in that instance the total of the two prizes is not given. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If your options for the smaller prize are 2-5-0, the price options are 250 or 520. If the prize total is, say 3000 dollars, you may be able to say "is 2750 or 2480 a more reasonable price for [large prize]" and thus have another piece of information to assist you in picking the price of the small prize. I'm not suggesting it's a commonly used strategy or even useful in all cases (a lot of the time the digits are like... 4-5-0, making it very close prices), but it technically is true, and I think it's at least worth noting the unusual step TPIR takes of noting the price total instead of just telling them what the irrelevant large prize price is separately. TheHYPO (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If (in your words) it is an ineffective or uncommonly used strategy, what is the purpose of mentioning it? In your response it does not sound like a strategy at all by anyone's standards. The only time using your calculation as a strategy would be helpful is when you know the exact price of the large prize.

Also, it is not an unusual step to note the total price of the two prizes. It would be incredibly awkward to describe the large prize, describe the small prize and then say "Oh and the large prize is worth $x,xxx," rather than just say "A prize package worth $x,xxx." Sottolacqua (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your job as a Wikipedian is not to determine what is a GOOD and BAD strategy. And twisting my words doesn't help (I never said it was ineffective, I said there are times when it can be ineffective). The purpose of mentioning it is is that, as I already said, the game unusually offers the total price of the prizes, as opposed to just telling you what the large prize is worth. This offers information that could be used in the game. Including it makes note of an unusual practice the show takes and its potential impact on the game. I don't know what "standards" you are talking about.

For example; If you look at the game show "let's make a deal", there was a common set of games in which two people would play; each offered a price for a given item and the one nearer to the price won money. The person going 2nd always had an advantage, but for some reason, people NEVER figured out that if the first person guessed 2.99, you should bid 3.00 or 2.98; they would always go something like 3.75. Does this mean that you think bidding one penny away from the first bid is "not a strategy by anyone's standards" just because contestants back then never seemed to use it? It's certainly a strategy that would work. Similarly, I can't think of ANY contestant in price as right who has ever explicitly said they were picking numbers in Money Game based on "El Cheapo", but that is still apparently a "strategy" listed in that article based on a practice of the show in hiding the car card there.

And no, it wouldn't be awkward to say "Here's a nintendo wii [describe], and you could also win a trip to spain, worth 3000 dollars! [describe]. It's unusualness comes from how USUAL it is; not how awkward the alternative is. I don't know of too many other TPIR games in which the price of one prize in a package needs to be found, and the price of the whole package is given.

Basically the situation is this: The price of the package is given - true; the price of the small prize has to be found with several available options - true; the options would leave different prices for the large prize - true; Nothing in the statement in the article is false; you simply dispute the fact that anyone actually takes this into account. I suggest that these pricing game articles are so small that it is not bloating the article to mention this, and it's certainly a true fact that is somewhat unusual in pricing games. I see no reason to simply strike it from the article, even if you want to debate its use as strategy, the factual part is unique and worth mentioning. TheHYPO (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The "El Cheapo" reference listed in the Money Game article is not presented as a strategy in the sense that you describe it. It is presented as a common practice used by the producers of the show.

Using your strategy of subtracting the possible choices from the total amount of the prize package leaves you with no additional factual informiaton than you had before: a list of possible choices. You would still be assuming the price of the larger prize in order to determine the possible price of the smaller prize.

By your own example, when a digits such as 0-2-5 are used, a more successful strategy would be to determine whether a prize is $250 or $520 (a $270 difference in price should be easily determined by looking at the prize), a result that can more easily be deciphered rather than subtracting the possible prices from the total of the two prizes.

Furthermore, there is only one other game in which determining the price of a smaller prize will win both it and a larger prize: 2 for the Price of 1. In the edit history[1] of that article you claim that the similar strategy is "speculative" and that "there is no evidence that knowing about the combination pricing will assure victory."

Sottolacqua (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't present anything; I'm merely reverting another person's edit, and in this case, the producer's practice is to offer the total prize package price. Your opinion on what the best strategy for playing the game is has absolutely no bearing on this argument.

As for your blatent twisting of facts again, what I said was "At best, it should be written neutrally.", and proceeded to rewrite the edit neutrally. It's one thing to argue I deleted the same information from another article, but I merely rewrote it to read:

The various options for the price of the three-digit prize may be subtracted from this combined value to also reveal options for the price of the four-digit prize, which may help narrow down the price.

Whereas the original copy read simple math is all you need to win this game should you know the price of the larger prize., which is as silly as saying "If you know the price of the small prize, THAT'S all you need to win the game" - the presumption is that a contestant DOESN'T know the exact price of the prizes, or else there's no need for ANY strategy. The point is merely that, since the combined price is offered, not only are [in safe crackers] the two price options options for the small prize, but also [due to the total being announced], options for the large prize as well. You simply cannot dispute that as fact, and just because you think "It's easier to just guess the small prize" does not mean that you can unilaterally decide that this strategy (which you seem to now admit it is, but worse of the two) is not in anyway helpful in addition to the obvious purpose of the game of comparing the two prices for the small prize. I believe it is a FACT that the preannounced prize total gives you some additional information which you would not have if they did not announce it. This information might or might not help every player in every playing of the game, but it at least always has the potential to provide more information. (I'm sure the case has come up where the price of the large prize could have either been something like either 2399 or 2669, to which someone might suggest that a price ending in 99 might be a more likely price, whereas the smaller prize's price might not be as clearcut. I've seen 2 or even 3 hundred dollar differences in the small prize's price which I personally was not sure which way the price should go just based on the small prize.)

It is clear that there is no way you and I are going to agree. It seems like it would be better to get additional opinions on the issue and create some consensus. TheHYPO (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe that the strategy of the game is not really appropriate for the article. Just how it is played.  Marlith (Talk)  03:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)