I’ve long thought that if I were ever on Jeopardy and found myself in contention at the end, I’d play for the tie, too. What’s important to me directly is that I come back the next day. It is irrelevant to me directly whether my opponents come back the next day. It might, however, be indirectly relevant, in a couple of ways, and both of those tend to favor me if they come back: One, they might be in a position to return the favor, and two, it puts me up against opponents I know, rather than unknowns.
This is, of course, subject to change depending on the category. If I ever get to choose my wager on a topic where I’m extremely strong (in my case, most sciences), I’m betting the absolute maximum, like RickJay.
I didn’t play that way the time I was on ***Jeopardy!, ***and neither did my opponents… but I can’t think of anything immoral or objectionable about it.
If either of my opponents had gone Daily Double fishing, it wouldn’t have bothered me a bit. There’s no rule against it, after all.
As for betting $5 on a Daily Double, again, I have no problem with that. If I hads picked a Daily Double in a category I knew little or nothing about, I might have decided to play it safe, depending on the scores.
Chu isn’t cheating, so I’d say let him play however he wants.
The counterargument to this is that your opponent will have more experience in the second game. They’ll have less stage fright, and be more comfortable with the buzzer. Overall I agree with you though.
The other thing about playing for a tie is that if your opponents know that’s your strategy, then they may change their betting strategy in a way that favors you. For example, say these are the scores before Final Jeopardy:
P1: $10,000
P2: $7,000
The standard strategy is for P1 to bet $4001. Knowing this, P2 realizes that he can’t win if P1 answers correctly. So he assumes P1 will be wrong and have $5,999, and so bets a small amount - $1000 or less. The outcome now just depends on P1 - if he’s right he wins, if he’s wrong, he loses.
But if P1 is known to bet $4,000 instead, playing for the tie, then P2 might change strategy and bet everything. This gives him a new way to win, by answering correctly, but also gives P1 a new way to win, by both players being wrong.
There is/was another Doper who has made several appearances on Jeopardy! - 5 time champ, IIRC - including a couple of tournaments. I wonder what she has to say about this?
Not just a known but someone you’ve “beaten” once already and thus are more likely to be able to beat again, compared to an unknown who could be better than you.
Plus, not only is playing for the tie more likely to encourage your opponent to return the favor should the occasion arise but it’ll increase the likelihood of them playing more rationally since you’re not playing for strict wins as expected.
About the playing for a tie… as we contestants were on the bus from the hotel to the studio, one of them (I forget who) said semi-jokingly, “Hey, what if we all agree now to play for a tie?”
I replied, “Even if we all agreed to that, if I was in the lead at Final Jeopardy time, would you trust me to keep my word if I knew the answer?”
Immediately, almost everyone on the bus said simultaneously “No!” And that was the end of that idea.
Are people actually accusing him of not giving his opponents a chance to answer? What kind of bullshit is that? Isn’t that what Jeopardy is about: buzzing in with your answer before your opponents do?
As for his bouncing and DD hunting: more power to him. It’s legit play. No where in the rules does it say that you must select answers from Left-Right, Top-Bottom.
Everyone up there has the same opportunity to buzz in first with the correct answer and take control of the board. Don’t whine because he’s faster on the buzzer. From what I remember reading from Ken Jennings, there’s an art to buzzing in before anyone else. Good on this dude for figuring it out.
You want to be commended for helping an opponent win, and hope he’ll hook you up in the future. Game shows, like all competitions, are meant to be WON.