The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Cafe Society

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:54 PM
Leaper Leaper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 9,122
Jeopardy: is Daily Double hunting "dishonorable"?

David, the current Jeopardy champion, is one of the first to have a run of more than three or so days since Ken Jennings. However, many people, especially those on Television Without Pity, have come to hate him. A lot of this comes from being irritated by personal habits, and by a perception that he's arrogant or smug. These I can understand; he has a few qualities about him that annoy me a lot too.

There is, however, also dislike of his strategy, which is, instead of starting at the lowest amount question on a category and working downards, of going instead for the second to the highest or middle one immediately, in an evident attempt to find Daily Doubles before his opponents. When he does, he often further infuriates a lot of people by wagering low amounts, no matter what his lead.

Some have called this style of play "mean-spirited" for doing so "just to keep anyone else from getting [the Daily Doubles]," "without honor," and that he's "hurting" other people's play and "making everyone work harder," since categories often set up a pattern with the earliest question.

My POV is: so the hell what? If it helps him, and it seems to have, why shouldn't he be doing this, especially since he's apparently not bothered with it and others are. The only reason he's not "supposed" to do what he does is because people rarely do it. And how is that his problem? True, it robs some enjoyment from viewers, but that's the producers' problem, not his; they could easily add a rule forbidding that strategy if they wanted to (and if they felt it hurt ratings, they would, in a heartbeat). There's a lot about David that's annoying, maybe even smug, but I feel this criticism of his strategy is just a case of his personality coloring everything he does badly, deservedly or not.

Whaddya all think?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:57 PM
Soapbox Monkey Soapbox Monkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
It's a great strategy. More power to him.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:58 PM
fubbleskag fubbleskag is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
what monkey said
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:58 PM
Stephe96 Stephe96 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
What is.....no?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:06 PM
Jurph Jurph is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper
David, the current Jeopardy champion, is one of the first to have a run of more than three or so days since Ken Jennings. However, many people, especially those on Television Without Pity, have come to hate him. A lot of this comes from being irritated by personal habits, and by a perception that he's arrogant or smug. These I can understand; he has a few qualities about him that annoy me a lot too.
The WWF found out long ago that "heels" make for good ratings. Sure, the strategy is more optimal -- he is lowering his own risk and simultaneously draining the pot of available points. The more of a cutthroat asshole this guy is, the sweeter it will be when someone more likeable runs the board, small-to-large, left-to-right, never letting him get a buzz in edgewise.

This guy will give Jeopardy! fans something to talk about in the absence of His Majesty Ken "the Buzzer" Jennings. See? It's working.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:10 PM
VegemiteMoose VegemiteMoose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
I haven't watched Jeopardy in over a decade. Even then it was computerized. Are you saying that they haven't figured out how to randomize the daily double placement? Wasn't it randomized even then?

Or are you saying that it appears that this guy is "hunting" for daily doubles and it is the appearance that makes him look like a tool? Has he stated he's a hunter? If so, doesn't that just make him look like an idiot, regardless of his winnings?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:12 PM
Bearflag70 Bearflag70 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
There's nothing wrong with playing offense AND defense.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:13 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,647
If the other players can't beat the guy, they don't deserve to win, period. It's not like they don't have the same chance to answer every question, and if they did that, they could get the Daily Doubles instead.

I can understand why people don't like his style. He's looking to take the drama out of the game. But that's the way it works.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:16 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegemiteMoose
I haven't watched Jeopardy in over a decade. Even then it was computerized. Are you saying that they haven't figured out how to randomize the daily double placement? Wasn't it randomized even then?
It's randomized, but it's usually at the bottom of the board and rarely or never higher than the third row ($600/$1200) up.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:24 PM
VegemiteMoose VegemiteMoose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23
It's randomized, but it's usually at the bottom of the board and rarely or never higher than the third row ($600/$1200) up.
NOT randomized then. How can it be if out of what? 30 squares or however many it is, it (the daily double) shows up in a certain pattern over x number of years?

Don't mean to be dense, but I really don't get this. I understand the if they get the daily double they bet low to minimize risk = less drama thing but the finding the daily double part! It is either random or it isn't and if it isn't that is the producer's fault and kudos to the player that takes advantage until they fix it.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:27 PM
VegemiteMoose VegemiteMoose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Please ignore bad grammar and parse for content, thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:30 PM
ISiddiqui ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Without honor?! WTF?

It's a game to win money. Whenever money is involved at the end of the day, honor goes out the window. Furthermore, it's a brilliant strategy. It probably makes it harder for his opponents to go on a run in a category (as you said, there is a pattern sometimes).

More power to him.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:32 PM
nivlac nivlac is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Golden State
Posts: 2,356
Jeopardy: is Daily Double hunting "dishonorable"?

Nope, you do whatever it takes to win as long as it is within the rules. But I can't stand the current champ; I can't cheer for someone who exudes smirkiness. Another thing I notice that he does is that he picks the low money answers when he gets far ahead. That's a smart tactic because it prevents the other contestants from catching up quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:38 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegemiteMoose
understand the if they get the daily double they bet low to minimize risk = less drama thing but the finding the daily double part! It is either random or it isn't and if it isn't that is the producer's fault and kudos to the player that takes advantage until they fix it.
There are six categories and if you stick to the bottom two rows, that's only 12 possible locations. You're right, randomized is the wrong word. It follows a pattern, and it's not like this David guy figured out something nobody knew or found a flaw in the game. He's just using the system to his advantage.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:59 PM
VegemiteMoose VegemiteMoose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23
There are six categories and if you stick to the bottom two rows, that's only 12 possible locations. You're right, randomized is the wrong word. It follows a pattern, and it's not like this David guy figured out something nobody knew or found a flaw in the game. He's just using the system to his advantage.
And nobody used this knowledge before?

Thank you Marley23for trying to help but this makes no sense to me.

Jeepers, check out threadthis (which made my head implode!!). If the "obvious to ME and I'm a moron cheat" hasn't been used before why haven't greedy mathematicians been all over this game?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:02 AM
VegemiteMoose VegemiteMoose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Garrrh!! Coding Baaad !! Fire Baaad !!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:10 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegemiteMoose
And nobody used this knowledge before?
Maybe not this often or successfully. I've seen players start categories at the middle row before.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:07 AM
KJ KJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
If you ask me, it's only dishonorable if the other players don't have a chance to do it. If all three players started "daily double hunting" it would make the game less interesting, but perfectly fair.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-15-2005, 05:35 AM
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
VegemiteMoose:

Quote:
And nobody used this knowledge before?
Most people don't want to get the Daily Doubles until they've built up a significant amount to wager...i.e., as late as possible in the game.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-15-2005, 05:46 AM
TJdude825 TJdude825 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
This sounds like the infamous Michael Larsen case. He noticed something about the way the game works, and figured out how to use that to his advantage. The producers may get mad, and what they do is their choice. But it's not cheating unless and until there's a rule against it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-15-2005, 06:23 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
"I'll take Pointless Kvetching for $600, Alex."
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-15-2005, 06:40 AM
Eureka Eureka is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,095
I don't believe that it is true that the daily doubles are usually found lower in the columns. I believe that the Daily Doubles are randomized. Daily Doubles are most noticiable when found near the end of a round, which usually also means low in the last category- but that doesn't mean that that is the only place they are found. Alex Trebec did comment to someone on the fact that Daily Doubles get harder the farther down the column they are located-just like the rest of the clues.

And I don't see anything "dishonorable" in skipping around from category to category and not going down the line of values.

I'm just happy that for the first time in at least a couple of weeks there is someone who is capable of being champion for more than five minutes.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-15-2005, 06:51 AM
An Arky An Arky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,325
Choosing high dollar amounts first is a risky strategy. If someone else gets ahead of you, it will be a lot harder to catch up with only small dollar amounts left on the board.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-15-2005, 07:49 AM
ivylass ivylass is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Wah! He's winning and not giving me a chance to beat him! Wah!

He's employing a strategy that's helping him to win. It's within the rules (there's no rule that one must start at the topmost lefthand corner and work your way down, then start with the next column and do the same thing) and if the others were quicker on the buzzer they could do the same.

I find it pointless for someone to bet less than the amount of the clue if it weren't a Daily Double, but hey, that's your choice when you land on it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-15-2005, 07:53 AM
h.sapiens h.sapiens is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
The Daily Doubles usually are on the 3rd to 5th rows, but technically they can be anywhere. When I was on the show, the contestant coordinators, who go over the rules before the first game of the day, mention some possible tactics, and hunting for the Daily Doubles is not discouraged. One former big-winning champ (can't remember which, right now) jumped all over the board, which may have thrown off his opponents, and helped him win. This isn't discouraged either. There's nothing unfair about it. The tactic is available to anyone. It's a game.

By the way, when one of the categories is a "Video" category, contestants have to go in order, from top to bottom. This is purely a technical issue.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-15-2005, 08:40 AM
Brynda Brynda is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
I think he would win even without this strategy. He's smart, no doubt about it. That said, it makes the show less fun to watch, so I don't like it. Betting next to nothing on the Daily Doubles is boring.

I don't think he is smug, although I see why others might think that. IMHO, he has at least a mild case of Asperger's. Listen to his inflection. It is definitely off, as are his social interactions. You can tell that he is socially unskilled. He reminds me of the mega-nerd in American Splendor.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:18 AM
vibrotronica vibrotronica is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
First off, I don't like the guy. I don't know why, but he just rubs me the wrong way.

But I don't think he's "Daily Double hunting", I think he's trying to throw his opponents off their game by behaving in an unorthodox manner and forcing them to react to it. Eveybody's used to seeing the top-down approach. Staying in the same category makes it easier to get into a groove once you get the gist of the questions. But he doesn't need a groove, so he jumps around the board.

I don't think the Daily Doubles are usually in the middle, I think they're randomized. I've seen them in the top row and I've seen them in the bottom row. I've played enough Battleship in my life to know that a systematic search is better than plugging away randomly like he's doing.

Now his betting strategy, that pisses me off. There's nothing wrong--indeed, there's everything right--about not risking too much on DD if you have an insurmountable lead, but he should at least bet enough so that he still maintains his lead AND makes as much money as he can so there's actually something riding on the question. For example, if I've got $20,000 and my nearest opponent has $7,000, i can risk up to $5,999 without endangering my insurmountable lead. In reality, i'd probably risk like $4,000. This guy would risk $5 in that situation. Get some stones, man.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:21 AM
bordelond bordelond is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by h.sapiens
The Daily Doubles usually are on the 3rd to 5th rows, but technically they can be anywhere. When I was on the show, the contestant coordinators, who go over the rules before the first game of the day, mention some possible tactics, and hunting for the Daily Doubles is not discouraged. One former big-winning champ (can't remember which, right now) jumped all over the board, which may have thrown off his opponents, and helped him win.
To back up what you and Marley have written: I have absolutely seen players employ the "jumping around" strategy before, even going as far back as the late 80s. It's not a new thing.

There seem to be other strategies that most people prefer that tend to diminish the number of folks who actually willl skip around, though. For instance, when a player feels they know a category well, there is great temptation to try to burn through it all in a row with a bunch of quick triggers.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:22 AM
fubbleskag fubbleskag is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by vibrotronica
I don't think the Daily Doubles are usually in the middle, I think they're randomized. I've seen them in the top row and I've seen them in the bottom row. I've played enough Battleship in my life to know that a systematic search is better than plugging away randomly like he's doing.
can anyone clarify how either one of these approaches is statistically any better than the other?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:28 AM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by h.sapiens
One former big-winning champ (can't remember which, right now) jumped all over the board, which may have thrown off his opponents, and helped him win. This isn't discouraged either. There's nothing unfair about it. The tactic is available to anyone. It's a game.
I think this was Chuck Forrest. The advantage to running a category is that you can get into a rhythm with the clues, or notice a pattern that will assist you in solving it, so by jumping all over the board, you prevent others from being able to do this. Of course, it requires that you keep control of the board.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:48 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
You're free to select any answer you want on the board. Hunting for the daily doubles on the bottom rows is perfectly ok if that's what you want to do. The drawbacks are that you're not going to get the feel of how the answers are worded if you start with the more difficult answers. And of course your hunting only works if you keep getting to select.

Betting small on Daily Doubles makes sense if you look at it this way: On a normal answer, you're free not to buzz in if you don't know the question. Since you don't have the chance to not provide the correct question for a daily double, betting small is the thing to do if you're conservative.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:53 AM
h.sapiens h.sapiens is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by fubbleskag
can anyone clarify how either one of these approaches is statistically any better than the other?
Because most players start at the top of each category, by keeping Daily Doubles mostly in the bottom half of the board, it is (a little) more likely that when someone hits a DD, they will have more money to wager. A contestant that is behind might bet a lot to try to move up, or one that is way ahead could wager a lot because there is less risk. Basically, it makes the game more interesting if the DDs happen in the second half of the round.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:56 AM
fubbleskag fubbleskag is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by h.sapiens
Because most players start at the top of each category, by keeping Daily Doubles mostly in the bottom half of the board, it is (a little) more likely that when someone hits a DD, they will have more money to wager. A contestant that is behind might bet a lot to try to move up, or one that is way ahead could wager a lot because there is less risk. Basically, it makes the game more interesting if the DDs happen in the second half of the round.
i was referring to the context of the post i quoted - specifically finding the double, including the reference to battleship.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:09 AM
h.sapiens h.sapiens is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by fubbleskag
i was referring to the context of the post i quoted - specifically finding the double, including the reference to battleship.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Strategy was never my strong suit, and statistics even less so. From a pure math point of view, I couldn't say.

This is still slightly off-topic, but as far as randomization goes, I now seem to remember being told by the contestant coordinators that they do specifically place DDs in the bottom two rows, but only in the second round. In the first round, they can be anywhere. Don't know why this slipped my mind until just now. I guess I didn't pay it much mind at the time because DD hunting never appealed to me. I would rather concentrate on categories that I thought I had some chance with, when I had control of the board. If I hit a DD, all the better.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:24 AM
vibrotronica vibrotronica is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
fubbleskag, to tell you the truth, I don't know if there is statistical justification for a systematic search or not. But if the DDs are placed randomly, why would either strategy be better or worse?

I did used to win most of my Battleship games, though.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:34 AM
VarlosZ VarlosZ is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,670
Quote:
Choosing high dollar amounts first is a risky strategy. If someone else gets ahead of you, it will be a lot harder to catch up with only small dollar amounts left on the board.
I disagree. Assuming that you'll run through all of the big money questions eventually (which happens a large majority of the time), and assuming that your expected value on those questions is the same whether you answer them early in the round or late, it should make no difference. If anything, I would think you could mentally prepare yourself for facing the the big questions while your opponents might not be ready, giving you a slight edge.

The only difference is that you might know you're beat earlier if you run through the expensive questions first.

Quote:
Now his betting strategy, that pisses me off. There's nothing wrong--indeed, there's everything right--about not risking too much on DD if you have an insurmountable lead, but he should at least bet enough so that he still maintains his lead AND makes as much money as he can so there's actually something riding on the question. For example, if I've got $20,000 and my nearest opponent has $7,000, i can risk up to $5,999 without endangering my insurmountable lead. In reality, i'd probably risk like $4,000. This guy would risk $5 in that situation. Get some stones, man.
With a little diligence and an understanding of arithmetic, you can work out whether an extremely risk-averse strategy is the correct one, given a particular situation and payout structure. In the example above, unless this is the last clue before Final Jeopardy, a 20-7 lead is a lot more insurmountable than a 14.001-7 lead. Given the huge advantage of coming in first (getting your total in cash, coming back tomorrow for a chance to do the same), it may make a lot of sense to play it very safe with a lead. The more confident you are in your likelihood of winning a given match, the truer this becomes.

Your confidence in your superiority will also dictate how soon you should start hunting down those DDs in order to reduce everyone's variance.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:42 AM
Trunk Trunk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by vibrotronica
fubbleskag, to tell you the truth, I don't know if there is statistical justification for a systematic search or not. But if the DDs are placed randomly, why would either strategy be better or worse?

I did used to win most of my Battleship games, though.
They're not placed randomly. They're overwhelmingly placed in the lower three rows of the board. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

If they were placed totally randomly, then "hunting" wouldn't make a difference beyong the fact that you know where you're going before your competitors know where you're going. Whether that helps to have the millisecond lead on switching your brain into "Opera" mode instead of "Sports" mode, I don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:09 PM
vibrotronica vibrotronica is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunk
They're not placed randomly. They're overwhelmingly placed in the lower three rows of the board. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
Thanks to the miracle of DVR, I watch the show every day. I pay close attention, since getting on the show is one of my life's ambitions. DD distribution looks random to me.

But since this is the Dope, I'll stop guessing. Starting today, I'll keep track of the category and dollar amounts of all of the DDs for a month, then we'll see if there's a pattern. Fair enough?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:18 PM
Uncommon Sense Uncommon Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunk
They're not placed randomly. They're overwhelmingly placed in the lower three rows of the board. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

If they were placed totally randomly, then "hunting" wouldn't make a difference beyong the fact that you know where you're going before your competitors know where you're going. Whether that helps to have the millisecond lead on switching your brain into "Opera" mode instead of "Sports" mode, I don't know.
That contradicts what h.sapiens just said above. That the first round has the DD's placed at random and the second round has them placed in the lower two rows.
We'll see what vibrotronica finds out.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:33 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
If I ever have the good fortune to be summoned to Jeopardy! (I've passed the test three times but never gotten the call to L.A.) my aim will not be to play a good game but to take home as much money as I can. I have no interest in a trip to Merv Griffin's Arkansas Casino or a crate of Rice-a-Roni, I want cash. I'll do anything that's in the rules to beat the other players, and I'm pretty sure they'll be doing the same thing. (I wonder if Jeopardy! allows you to bring airhorns...)
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:54 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
I don't remember ever seeing a Daily Double in the top row. I always figured that was deliberate, but I'll be curious to see if there's a definitive answer. Also, in Double Jeopardy, I've never seen both Daily Doubles in the same column. So if you are hunting for them and find one in a particular category, you know not to select that one again.

The strategy I'd be tempted to try is to select my weakest categories first. Usually, all the answers on the board are uncovered, and if the Daily Double turns out to be on a subject I know a lot about, I'd like to have enough of a bankroll to make a big wager. (This assumes I can get control of the board back, and that the scores are such that a big wager won't be a bad play.)
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:59 PM
Trunk Trunk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncommon Sense
That contradicts what h.sapiens just said above. That the first round has the DD's placed at random and the second round has them placed in the lower two rows.
We'll see what vibrotronica finds out.
Still, in the first round, I don't think you ever see them in the first row.

And, technically, they're not random because they're never in the same column. I'd ask vibrotronica to check if they're ever in the same row in the second round, too.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-15-2005, 01:09 PM
Sean Factotum Sean Factotum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncommon Sense
That contradicts what h.sapiens just said above. That the first round has the DD's placed at random and the second round has them placed in the lower two rows.
We'll see what vibrotronica finds out.
My money is on h. sapiens on this one. I'll take the word of a five-time champ and participant in the Ultimate Tournament of Champions over any viewer.

I remember reading Forrest (and Mark Lowenthal) talk about this method of going through the catagories as opposed to just starting at the top and running through them in ascending dollar order. The big advantage using the jump around method, according to his experience, is that it completely disrupts the other contestants, reducing them to mere onlookers. You've got a mental advantage of being in charge, which slows down the other two. Not dishonorable.

I personally don't like the guy. He's boring to watch, and I cringe whenever he's got a chance to bet big, 'cause I know he won't. (Although he made a $2000 bet last night, I think, in one of the DDs.) But I have a lot of respect for him.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-15-2005, 01:11 PM
DanBlather DanBlather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by vibrotronica
fubbleskag, to tell you the truth, I don't know if there is statistical justification for a systematic search or not. But if the DDs are placed randomly, why would either strategy be better or worse?

I did used to win most of my Battleship games, though.
Battleship is different because the ships occupy more than one space. You can use that fact to help you come up with a pattern of searching. IF DJs are randomly placed then there is no system that would help.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-15-2005, 01:17 PM
Bosstone Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Being random doesn't necessarily mean it's not weighted. If there was an equal probability for all 30 squares, it's a 3.33~% chance per square, but they could very easily have it set to 0.1% chance for each square in the top row, 1.5% for the second row, and have the probability curve up sharply in the bottom rows. That'll pretty much guarantee the DJ not showing up except on the bottom.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-15-2005, 02:04 PM
Trunk Trunk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Factotum
My money is on h. sapiens on this one. I'll take the word of a five-time champ and participant in the Ultimate Tournament of Champions over any viewer.
Except seeing as how he said, "it's totally random in the first round" and "random, but restricted to the bottom 2 rows in the second round", no one has really disagreed with him.

And, that's the crux, apparently, of the new guy's strategy. . .trying to grab the daily double from the bottom two rows without running the category down to them, as is typical -- though not required.

Seriously, does anyone recall EVER seeing a daily double in the first row of the board in ANY round. Big prize to the next person who sees it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BayleDomon
Being random doesn't necessarily mean it's not weighted.
Correct, but I think that's what we're all meaning by "random" in this discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-15-2005, 02:16 PM
Bosstone Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunk
Correct, but I think that's what we're all meaning by "random" in this discussion.
True enough, but if all the coordinators told h.sapiens was that it was random, without specifying whether or not it was truly uniform distribution random, the definition used by Jeopardy and the definition in this discussion may not match.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-15-2005, 03:12 PM
Uncommon Sense Uncommon Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayleDomon
True enough, but if all the coordinators told h.sapiens was that it was random, without specifying whether or not it was truly uniform distribution random, the definition used by Jeopardy and the definition in this discussion may not match.
True, and 'random' may mean (to Jeopardy!) all rows except the first. Less in the second and then whatever happens in the third and fourth.
Not really random, but it also means they aren't placed purposely in certain row/columns.
Or,
Random within the parameters of the program.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:12 PM
HPL HPL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I've never really watched Jeopardy much but I know how the game is played and from what I've read here, I really have no problem with how he's playing. He's not breaking the rules, he's not placing kick-me signs on the other players hats and he's(apparently) not making innuedo about Trebek's Mother. He's just playing a really sucessful game, but he's not doing anything the other players aren't allowed to do. More power to him to win
__________________
"I've worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty"
-Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:15 PM
Draelin Draelin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 6,886
I have my tryout for the show on Monday ... and if I make it to the mock game, you bet I'll be Daily-Double-Hunting. Only in the categories I'm confident I can answer, though.

It's not how you play the game, it's whether or not your a smarmy bastard that counts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.