Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1151  
Old 05-19-2020, 01:34 AM
USCDiver's Avatar
USCDiver is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NC
Posts: 5,116
The guy that won was pretty good minus a couple of Daily Double blunders, maybe she didn’t want to risk having to face him again in the next game? I dunno, I couldn’t think of anything else...
  #1152  
Old 05-19-2020, 02:26 AM
Kamino Neko's Avatar
Kamino Neko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alternate 230
Posts: 15,680
She wouldn't face him again in the next game. Several years ago (I want to say circa 2010?) they changed the rules so that a tie results in a tie breaking tossup.
  #1153  
Old 05-19-2020, 10:12 AM
Steven_Maven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Chicago north suburbs
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by notfrommensa View Post
Did Alex give a cryptic clue on who might replace him as host on today's game?
Are you referring to David Faber (of CNBC)? Do you mean when Alex said that he presented the clues in his category very well. IMHO thatís quite a stretch, but not impossible.
  #1154  
Old 05-19-2020, 10:18 AM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycat View Post
Why did the woman in the lead bet anything at all? She would still have ended up tied for the lead.
I hadn't noticed that at the time, but you're right. That was a real blunder on her part.

In my appearance in 1991, I had the lead going into FJ, and I won by betting in to beat the second-place player's best outcome by one dollar. I was rather chagrined when one of my poker buddies pointed out that I could have won almost $1,000 more, with no downside, if I had instead bet to make sure I would remain above the third-place player's bet bet if I got it wrong.

Ever since then, I have mentally derided players who make that same mistake.
  #1155  
Old 05-20-2020, 01:56 PM
TreacherousCretin's Avatar
TreacherousCretin is offline
Horrified Onlooker
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posts: 5,924
If we're now watching the "No Audience" epsiodes, they're disguising the fact pretty well with clever use of "canned applause."
Unlike nearly any earlier episodes I can remember, we haven't seen a single glimpse of the studio audience during intro's, outtro's, or anytime in between. Also haven't seen a contestant so much as glance toward the audience. And no audience laughter where there might have been before.

IF I'm correct, I don't mind the ruse. Works well enough for me.
  #1156  
Old 05-20-2020, 02:27 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,661
Yep this week and the week that will air after the teacher's tournament were no audience. But I don't ever really notice the audience in Jeopardy. It was more obvious on Wheel of Fortune since the always cut to the winner's family in the crowd.
  #1157  
Old 05-20-2020, 05:58 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamino Neko View Post
She wouldn't face him again in the next game. Several years ago (I want to say circa 2010?) they changed the rules so that a tie results in a tie breaking tossup.

I guess it wasn't a mistake after all, then. Or was it? Is it better to be guaranteed at least an even sudden-death confrontation, with the possibility of winning in "regulation" if your opponent gets FJ wrong? Or to guarantee the win if you get FJ right, while still winning if you and he both get it wrong?

Watching today's episode, I wondered if contestants can in real time see their and their opponents' scores? If so, there was what struck me as a clear error by two contestants, although it required thinking on their feet very quickly:

SPOILER:
The last clue on the board was for $2,000. The leading player got it wrong, but he still had more than twice what either of the other two had. But either of them could bring their scores to more than 50% of his by ringing in and getting it right. Alex issued his customary invitation to both of them by name to give it a whirl, but they remained silent, ensuring it was a runaway.

I suppose if they had absolutely no idea about the correct response and wanted to have a better chance at coming in second (thus making $1,000 more than third place), maybe "clear error" is an overstatement. But especially for the player in last place at that point, it sure seems to me like you ought to ring in, take a couple seconds to furiously run through possibilities in your mind, and throw out a guess.

The other thing that pained me today, though not in the same category, was that none of the three contestants knew who Spalding Gray was.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #1158  
Old 05-20-2020, 10:18 PM
notfrommensa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven_Maven View Post
Are you referring to David Faber (of CNBC)? Do you mean when Alex said that he presented the clues in his category very well. IMHO thatís quite a stretch, but not impossible.
Yes. Exactly what I was thinking.
__________________
notfrommensa is clearly awesome - oslo ostragoth
  #1159  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:41 AM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I guess it wasn't a mistake after all, then. Or was it? Is it better to be guaranteed at least an even sudden-death confrontation, with the possibility of winning in "regulation" if your opponent gets FJ wrong? Or to guarantee the win if you get FJ right, while still winning if you and he both get it wrong?
Here are the possibility spaces for Megan betting nothing or something.

Code:
Megan bets $0, Ben bets $9,400

		Ben Right	Ben Wrong
Megan right	Tie		Megan wins
Megan wrong	Tie		Megan wins

Megan bets >$0 (and <$9,400), Ben bets $9,400

		Ben Right	Ben Wrong
Megan right	Megan wins	Megan wins
Megan wrong	Megan loses	Megan wins
By betting 0, the worst outcome for her is a tie, and the chance at the sudden death round. By betting more than 0, she has one additional chance to win, but also the chance of losing, which is what happened. I would have gone for the tie.

Surprisingly, the J!-Archive has not updated its strategy recommendations to reflect the fact that ties now lead to a sudden-death question.

Quote:
Megan: Wager $0 to guarantee your return for the next game, or, if you'd rather lose today than face Ben tomorrow, wager $18,800 to maximize your winnings (or $7,999 to keep from dropping into third place).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Watching today's episode, I wondered if contestants can in real time see their and their opponents' scores?
Yes, the scores are displayed for the contestants, off-camera to the left of the game board. You can sometimes see them looking there (to their left) to check the scores.
  #1160  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:51 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,589
What everyone always overlooks in these wager calculations is the chance of getting the question right. Now, we don't know what that would be, so we sort of have to leave a blank in the calculation for that, especially for the general case. But any player should at least have an idea of how strong they are in any given category, and can probably at least make an informed guess of how well the other players are likely to do, based on their mini-bios and their performance on other categories. This effect is most clearly seen in the extreme cases: If I'm ever on Jeopardy and there's a Daily Double or Final on physics, the only rational wager for me is all of it, regardless of what the other players have: Anything less is just leaving money on the table. On the other hand, if the category is early 20th century fashion, then I'd be a fool to bet anything, because any bet I make is just throwing money away.
  #1161  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:52 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,589
What everyone always overlooks in these wager calculations is the chance of getting the question right. Now, we don't know what that would be, so we sort of have to leave a blank in the calculation for that, especially for the general case. But any player should at least have an idea of how strong they are in any given category, and can probably at least make an informed guess of how well the other players are likely to do, based on their mini-bios and their performance on other categories. This effect is most clearly seen in the extreme cases: If I'm ever on Jeopardy and there's a Daily Double or Final on physics, the only rational wager for me is all of it, regardless of what the other players have: Anything less is just leaving money on the table. On the other hand, if the category is early 20th century fashion, then I'd be a fool to bet anything, because any bet I make is just throwing money away.
  #1162  
Old 05-21-2020, 10:23 AM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
What everyone always overlooks in these wager calculations is the chance of getting the question right. Now, we don't know what that would be, so we sort of have to leave a blank in the calculation for that, especially for the general case. But any player should at least have an idea of how strong they are in any given category, and can probably at least make an informed guess of how well the other players are likely to do, based on their mini-bios and their performance on other categories.
Yes, I was leaving player expertise out of the strategy, and assuming equal knowledge of the subject. If Megan felt she was really strong on "America in the 1700s," betting more than 0 would have made sense. But in that case, she probably should have bet considerably more than the $2,200 she did bet, up to $4,999, which would have guaranteed her no worse than second place. The amount of her actual bet makes me wonder why she made it, and leads me to believe that betting strategy isn't her strong suit. (Not that I was any better when I was on the spot, as I disclosed above. I'm a great armchair strategist, though.)

Quote:
This effect is most clearly seen in the extreme cases: If I'm ever on Jeopardy and there's a Daily Double or Final on physics, the only rational wager for me is all of it, regardless of what the other players have: Anything less is just leaving money on the table. On the other hand, if the category is early 20th century fashion, then I'd be a fool to bet anything, because any bet I make is just throwing money away.
Well, don't forget that the second- and third-place players don't get their final totals in cash, only $2,000 and $1,000, respectively. So, for instance, if you had been third-place Jesse in this game, going into FJ with $5,400, and the category had been Physics, it would have been unwise to bet all of it, because the best getting it right would win you (assuming Megan didn't make a stupid wager) would have been second place, and in the remote chance you were wrong, you could have ended up third. For Final Jeopardy, "leaving money on the table" only comes into play for the winner, who keeps the total in cash.

Last edited by commasense; 05-21-2020 at 10:24 AM. Reason: typo
  #1163  
Old 05-21-2020, 12:04 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,589
I think it more probable that the other contestants would make mistaken bets such that the amount of my bet matters, than that I would get a Jeopardy question about physics wrong.
  #1164  
Old 05-21-2020, 01:29 PM
fjs1fs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 668
There are sometimes cases of really dumb betting by Jeopardy players. This was not one of them. If she had bet zero, she would have to beat him on a sudden death question.

Not knowing the "sudden death" category in advance, she bet on the "known" category and felt that the probability of her getting the FJ answer correct was better than the probability of answering the Sudden Death question Faster than the other player. A very reasonable decision.

You can't just look at results in hindsight and say "Dumb bet."

Last edited by fjs1fs; 05-21-2020 at 01:29 PM.
  #1165  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:49 PM
K364's Avatar
K364 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2,980
A standard example of bad betting, that you will see very often, is when near the end of DJ someone who is trailing badly makes a middling bet on a daily double.

For example: there are only a few questions left, you get a daily double and you have $6,000 compared to the leader's $15,000

Getting the question wrong with bet of 2,000 or 3,000 is going to scuttle any chance of winning the game... you should be it all... why not??
  #1166  
Old 05-21-2020, 06:03 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,589
And in general, you should probably be betting big on daily doubles, anyway. Unlike with Final Jeopardy, the only way you get the opportunity for a daily double is if you picked the category yourself, and picked one of the higher-value clues, so if you're in that situation, it should presumably be a relatively strong category for you (unless it's a situation where it's the last category left, or the like).
  #1167  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:57 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
What everyone always overlooks in these wager calculations is the chance of getting the question right. Now, we don't know what that would be, so we sort of have to leave a blank in the calculation for that, especially for the general case. But any player should at least have an idea of how strong they are in any given category, and can probably at least make an informed guess of how well the other players are likely to do, based on their mini-bios and their performance on other categories. This effect is most clearly seen in the extreme cases: If I'm ever on Jeopardy and there's a Daily Double or Final on physics, the only rational wager for me is all of it, regardless of what the other players have: Anything less is just leaving money on the table. On the other hand, if the category is early 20th century fashion, then I'd be a fool to bet anything, because any bet I make is just throwing money away.

Okay, but outside of extreme cases (the majority of the time), your score relative to other players and the game situation is a very powerful factor. In the scenario yesterday (or was it the day before?), it was such a stark situation. The "chip leader" had already got it wrong so could not ring in again. The other two players could get to within >50% of his score if they rang in and got it right; by just staying quiet as they did, they guaranteed that the only thing either of them could contend for is a one-time difference of $1,000 between first and second, before going home and never (I assume) being able to play again. For the person lagging in third place especially, seems like you just need to ring in and take a wild guess, on the off chance you get it and then have a chance to catch the leader. (Although it also occurs to me that if you think the other player has a better chance to know it, you might actually rather they ring in, because then if they get it, all three players have a chance.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
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 11:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017