Catch 21

I previously wrote a critical review of "America Says" for the same reason I'm criticizing the new Catch-21: the show's producers are greedy, too greedy:

When I reviewed "America Says," I pointed out that the "grand prize" is difficult to win, and the occasional group of four people who are smart and/or lucky enough to win it have the privilege of dividing $15,000 among themselves. In other words, $3,750 each. Although I haven't reviewed "Common Knowledge," the same criticism would apply: A group of three wins the right to divide a "grand prize" of $10,000 among themselves, or $3,333.33 per contestant.

The paltry nature of these "grand prizes" for a TV game show is highlighted when GSN viewers watch contestants on the original "Deal or No Deal" routinely turn down offers of amounts well into six figures.

Although "Deal or No Deal" is admittedly an outlier when it comes to showering their winning contestants with life-altering amounts of money, and GSN and/or "Catch 21's" producers might well be unable to turn a profit if they gave away six-figure prizes, I suspect that they could be a helluva lot more generous and still pocket tidy sums.

Since times have never been better for this nation's wealthiest people, I find it very difficult to understand why the producers of shows Like "America Says" and "Common Knowledge" and/or GSN don't offer more generous prizes to their shows' winning contestants. Unless the answer is the obvious one: plain old garden variety, insatiable greed.

Which brings me to "Catch 21" because it seems like runaway greed must be contagious among the producers of these three shows and the Game Show Network. This excessive "frugality" - to use a kinder term - is why I only gave five stars to "Catch-21" instead of the nine I would give to the original version when the producers were substantially more generous.

As opposed to others who have reviewed this program, the new seating arrangement doesn't bother me in the least, and, while Mikki Padilla is an example of the universal truth that the original (anything or anyone) is almost always the best, I think Whitney Carson does a more than creditable job of stepping into a pair of very difficult shoes to fill.

Nevertheless, I have been colossally disappointed in the reincarnation of one of my very favorite game shows for one main reason: the same reason why I stopped watching "America Says" and "Common Knowledge" altogether. If I could divine any other reasonable explanation for the relatively microscopic amounts of money given away on these shows except pure, unadulterated greed, it wouldn't bother me in the least, certainly not enough for me to pen this review. But I have to believe that the producers of game shows, which are broadcast four times a day, five days a week can well afford to award sums of money that are far in excess of the relatively paltry sums they think they can get away with. And, sadly, are getting away with.

As to "Catch-21" specifically, the "tell" is revealed by several changes from the original rules which are not nearly as subtle as the producers presumably believe they are. I'm referring to three rule changes in particular, each of which operates to significantly disadvantage the winning contestant:

(1) The most obvious is the elimination of the extra power chip that used to be automatically awarded to the contestant who moved on to the final round. It may not seem like much, but, as a former blackjack dealer, I can unequivocally state that the ability to avoid one more card that the player doesn't want is an enormous advantage for the contestant. This rule change will consistently make it more difficult for players to win the $5,000 and $25,000 top prizes.

(2) In the show's original iteration, the player who emerged from the first three rounds with the right to play for the cash prizes was awarded $1000 for winning those rounds and was automatically allowed to keep that money regardless of how he or she did in the final round. So, if the player didn't get any 21s in the last round, they would nevertheless be allowed to keep the thousand dollars they had won earlier. And, if they managed to get one, two, or three 21s in the final round, the thousand dollars would be added to the $1,000, $5,000, or $25,000 they won in that round.

But now, the player only keeps the $1,000 if he or she doesn't win anything else in the final round. Granted the prize for getting one 21 has been increased from $1,000 to $2,500 in the new version. However, the benefit to the player from this rule change is only $500 because, in the show's previous iteration, the player who made one 21 was allowed to keep the $1,000 they had won earlier in addition to the $1,000 they pocketed for the one 21 they got in the final round for a total $2,000. So even though they are currently being awarded $2,500 for getting one 21 at the end, the $1,000 they had won earlier is NOT added to that amount so $2,500 is the total amount of winnings they take home. (Before taxes of course.) So the seeming increase from $1,000 to $2500 for building one 21 is only a $500.00 benefit to the player. However, if the player in the current version wins the $5,000 or $25,000 enhanced prizes, the $1,000 they won in the earlier rounds is N OT added to those amounts. So, once again, Advantage: House.

(3) The final rule change that benefits the house is that the forts player to draw a 21 no longer receives a separate prize for just doing that. Granted. the prizes in the former version of the show weren't exactly extravagant: either a two-night hotel stay in Reno, Santa Cruz or San Francisco or a vacuum cleaner(?) However, it was something that added fun to the game and, I imagine, it was especially significant to the contestant who received that prize but did not move on to the final round. At least they left the stage with something.

Again, the only plausible rationale that I can figure out for these three rule changes, each of which benefits the house and negatively impacts the contestants, is to enhance the bottom line for the network and the show's producers, bottom line which, I presume, is already reasonably lucrative, especially in light of the number of times these shows are repeated.

Finally, I have one more criticism that does not pertain to the prize amounts. In the previous iteration, the contestants received 100 points for each question they answered correctly, and the number of questions that each contestant answered correctly frequently came into play in the determination of which two players would move on to the final round, which in turn determines which contestant wins the right to play for the largest prizes at the end.

Whenever one contestant won each of the first two rounds, their opponent for the third round would be the player with the larger number of points of the two remaining, i.e. the one who answered more questions correctly than the other player whom didn't win a round. The number of correct answers determined who would challenge the player who won the first two rounds for the right to play for the prizes in the final round. The only time the cards were essentially cut to determine which player would move on to challenge the winner of the first two rounds was when the the remaining players each had the same number of points. However, in the current version, points don't matter so answering questions correctly doesn't improve a player's chance to advance to the final round (beyond the obvious advantage of controlling the card that is dealt when the question is answered).

In the current version, if one contestant the first two rounds, the other two engage in what is tantamount to a coin flip which to determine who moves on and who is done for the night.

In other words, this rule change often diminishes the fairness of the contest because if one player wins the first two rounds, it is not unusual for their opponent in Round 3 to be a player who didn't answer a single question correctly but happened to prevail in a coin flip.

We Americans prefer fair sporting contests. After all, isn't one Electoral College enough?

The bottom line is this program can be enormously entertaining especially for those of us who have spent a time or two seated in front of the green felt, and the host - Alfonso Ribero, is one of the best ever. So it would be a shame if the small handful of quick fixes that I suggested in this review aren't acted upon.