A friend who’s also into The Price Is Right claimed to have noticed something peculiar about the “Any Number” game. Let me give context before the peculiarity.

This pricing game is the show’s oldest — it was actually the first one played when the current series began in 1972, and also the first pricing game won — and it’s got a wonderful simplicity: four digits from the price of a car (the first digit, nearly invariably a 1 or a 2, is given to the contestant and not part of the game), three digits from the price of a decent but mid-range prize, and three digits from a “piggy bank” worth up to $9.87 are concealed. The contestant guesses digits from zero through nine inclusive, and they’re revealed in the three prices. The contestant wins whichever prize has its price fully revealed first. This is a steadily popular game, and one of the rare Price games which guarantees the contestant wins *something*.

A couple things probably stand out. The first is that if you’re very lucky (or unlucky) you can win with as few as three digits called, although it might be the piggy bank for a measly twelve cents. (Past producers have said they’d never let the piggy bank hold less than $1.02, which still qualifies as “technically something”.) The other is that no matter how bad you are, you can’t take more than eight digits to win *something*, though it might still be the piggy bank.

What my friend claimed to notice was that these “Any Number” games went on to the last possible digit “all the time”, and he wanted to know, why?

My first reaction was: “all” the time? Well, at least it happened an awful lot of the time. But I couldn’t think of a particular reason that they should so often take the full eight digits needed, or whether they actually did; it’s extremely easy to fool yourself about how often events happen when there’s a complicated possibile set of events. But stipulating that eight digits were often needed, then, why should they be needed? (For that matter, trusting the game not to be rigged — and United States televised game shows are by legend extremely sensitive to charges of rigging — *how* could they be needed?) Could I explain why this happened? And he asked again, enough times that I got curious myself.

Estimating how often the game should take eight digits to solve — let me call it the Suspenseful case — struck me as practically impossible to do by reason alone. Some little problems, like working out the probability of sweeping the piggy bank or mid-range prize or the car, are certainly doable and might make decent Intro to Probability questions. But it seemed to me there are so many ways to select seven digits out of ten without getting a prize that I’d become trapped in the labyrinth of subcases trying to work that out.

With reasoning out as being too much work, empirical estimates start looking good. We could watch The Price Is Right an awful lot, pay attention each time “Any Number” comes up, and count how many digits it takes to win a prize. I suspect we’d probably need a couple hundred rounds to get anything a little bit plausible; if “Any Number” is played one or two times a week, then, that’s a couple seasons of watching before we can say something. I don’t actually know that it’s played one or two times a week; that just feels like about how often it turns up, and I know what I just said about impressions. But it’s a popular game, it doesn’t require any complicated props, and it seems (again with the unexamined impressions) to take about the same amount of time to play each game, so it should be very attractive to the people who schedule the show’s games.

With the actual show being out as too much work, we would seem to be stuck. This is what computers are for: what I could do is model the playing of the game and then run a whole bunch of games, and see how often it goes to the Suspenseful case. So, I wrote a little function in Octave (an open-source clone of Matlab, which does numerical computing and plotting quite well) which simulated the contestant picking digits, figures how long it takes to win a prize, and reports how many digits were picked and what prize was won. (I might talk about how the details of the model were chosen later.)

There are in principle — well, let’s leave that for a homework exercise — quite a few ways to select eight digits out of the ten possibilities. It’s a big number, but it’s not one so enormous that a laptop computer like mine can’t do it without even requiring its full attention. I tried running it with a bunch of likely-looking numbers, to get an idea of how frequently each outcome came up. Here’s the results from as few as a hundred to as many as ten million simulated games; I could fill in more rows but that would be crushingly boring as you can see the Law of Large Numbers take full effect:

Prize Takes (N) Digits | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

In 100 Games | 0 | 3 | 12 | 25 | 31 | 29 |

In 10,000 Games | 164 | 525 | 1,155 | 2,041 | 3,087 | 3,028 |

In 10,000,000 Games | 166,390 | 547,691 | 1,189,033 | 2,094,016 | 3,002,429 | 3,000,441 |

So my friend has a perfectly good reason to think the game takes to the last digit “all the time”: it actually does, three times out of ten. It takes to the 7th or 8th digit about three-fifths of the time, which is probably why the game seems to take such a steady amount of screen time. It also suggests the game really does naturally tend towards the Suspenseful case, which might be part of what makes it popular among viewers.

And if you were curious, the number of times the car, the mid-range prize, and the piggy bank are won are just what you might have guessed, at least qualitatively. Here let me just use the breakdown from the set of 10,000,000 simulated games, which suggest that while the car is given away a comfortable quarter of the time, the contestant will on average have winnings worth a couple hundred dollars, which might be part of what makes it popular among (I imagine) the show’s budget directors:

Prize | Car | Mid-Range Prize | Piggy Bank |
---|---|---|---|

Occurrences | 2,570,752 | 3,715,785 | 3,713,463 |

Now, some weaknesses to this: this little model assumes that contestants are guessing randomly, that the contestant has absolutely no idea what numbers might possibly go where. A dedicated Price Is Right fan will probably say this is perfectly correct, based on the number of people who can’t get the hang of “Clock Game”, and who haven’t noticed how to crack “Cliffhangers”. (I won’t spoil it, but if you’re figuring to be on the show, wouldn’t you look for tips on the games that you can strategize for?) But there’s no actual guarantee that contestants are guessing randomly. A sharp contestant would be able to make fairly good guesses about what the car’s prices are, and throw these percentages off.

Of course, it’d take a long round of watching the show and counting the results to tell whether contestants were, on average, better or worse than random chance. You can try counting.

(Or just mining the past data: the good people at Golden-Road.net have daily recaps of the episodes in the sort of detail that baseball statistics enthusiasts would understand. Some commenters even keep track of how long the games take to play.)

I know I’m coming to the party three years late, but for what it’s worth I agree with your friend that this game seems to end with one digit missing in each price more often than not. Did you need to include in your calculation the second 1 or 2 that is available to be chosen?

LikeLike

Not to worry; stuff stays on the Internet forever, until you fall into a fit of self-doubt and start deleting stuff.

There’s not a need to include the second 1 or 2 in the prices (the ten-thousands digits in the price of the car); that digit is always revealed to the contestant before digit-calling begins.

If I remember rightly, I didn’t simulate this by generating random prices and simulating contestants picking numbers at random. I instead had the program pick, at random, which of the ten concealed digits the contestant matched first, then which of the remaining nine the contestant matches next, and so on. They’ve won something somewhere between the third and the eighth matched digits; it’s just a question which of the three prizes they did.

LikeLike

Thanks much for the quick reply, For what it’s worth today’s TPIR had an Any Number that once more came down to one digit in all three prizes. On other pricing game news, I assume yesterday’s Canada vacation showcase got your goat. The announcer started a parody of a ‘which train arrived quicker’ word problem ending it with “The answer is Who Cares? You’ve got this brand new automobile!”

LikeLike

Ah yeah! I did see that. (Well, heard it; I usually leave the TV on in the other room and listen.) But I’m easy on the show’s writers. There’s an art to doing a proper Showcase Segue and sooner or later everything gets caught in it.

LikeLike

I also just stumbled over this 2013 post of yours — and include a tidbit I researched back in 2013 about “Any Number” — I quickly just scanned the 2 most recent seasons — and , if anything, the pattern is even more pronounced — Anyway:

A cheat in “Any Number” exists

Simply stated: There is a very strong bias towards placing the HIGHEST of the 3 Piggy Bank #s in the FIRST slot — for example, if 1-6-9 are the Piggy Bank #s, then the Piggy Bank will be either 961 or 916.

OVER 5 SEASONS (37-41) , THIS RULE WORKED 80.3 % OF THE TIME (118/147) VERSUS AN EXPECTATION OF 33.3 %.

The breakdown: Season 41 21-8 , S40 20-7, S39 23-6, S38 31-3, S37 23-5 (chart gives no piggy bank data for Nov 12 show) TOTAL 118-29

ALSO, OVER THOSE SAME 5 SEASONS, “0”, AND “1” HAVE — NEVER– APPEARED IN THE FIRST PIGGY BANK SLOT. “2” ONLY 5 TIMES. SO……5 instances out of 147 (3.4 %) when the expectation would be 44 instances (30 % of 147) for those 3 digits.

Game theory implications : If a mid or lowish # like 6 appears in the 1st Piggy Bank square, there’s a good chance the contestant has a deep reservoir of “safe” non- Piggy Bank #s to call i.e. 7,8,9 .

Also, if the final 2 slots of the Piggy Bank are filled , as in “blank-6-8” and 3 numbers remain uncalled (say 0,1, and 5) IT BECOMES ALMOST IMPERATIVE TO CALL “5”.

The reason is fairly obvious, I think. A contestant uncovering the Piggy Bank “wins” that amount — of course, in reality they’ve just lost the 2 bigger prizes. The show producers do not want to appear particularly cheap — giving the contestant $2.57 when $7.52 was possible with the same digits— so, they clearly decided long ago to give a ” higher” amount with the 3 Piggy Bank digits. A sensible decision ……….

but……..with huge game theory implications

LikeLike

You are right! This is an important consideration to anyone playing the game. The show runners don’t want the game to be too obviously unsporting, and as you say, $7.52 is a less-awful losing prize than $2.57. So it should help people who’re trying to figure out which of the likely car price digits to call next.

My analysis (for people confused by the comment here) was built on the premise that the contestant was effectively just guessing, and as likely to get the first digit in the car price right as they were likely to get the last digit in the piggy bank right. This isn’t

quitetrue. A skilled contestant can probably work out whether the presented car looks more likely to be in the 19 thousand or the 17 thousand dollar range. But since I’m working without knowledge of the range of car prices offered, or of how skilled contestants are, guessing in ignorance should get answers that are approximately right on average. The skilled player who know the first three digits of a Honda Civic’s price is likely balanced by the contestant who can’t even keep straight whether they’ve called a “5”. (The game board lists what numbers have been used already.)LikeLike

Correction: NOT to call 5

LikeLike