So split your prize money.
Yes, that’s exactly the same thing, clever boots.
Locally Jeopardy is on the ABC affiliate and ABC news was the first to broadcast the story of the social medias Chu kerfuffle. Has this been the case in other markets? The question came up elsewhere; could this all just be a PR rumble?
js-Please explain what post 20 means then.
I think I’ve put about as much effort into this as it warrants.
Yes, exactly. I want to win. If my opponents also win, that’s fine, as long as I win too.
It’s not at all like agreeing to split the prize money. If I split the prize money, I get half of my total winnings. If I let the other guy tie, I get all of my winnings. All is more than half.
But a tie is NOT a win!
In what way?
A win has only 1 winner.
Most people hate board skipping. The belief is “start the category at the top and proceed down.” Makes sense and creates a rhythm and yes, the clues get harder as the value increases. Most people also hate the idea of DD hunting just so the other players can’t have it. Plus Arthur is humorless and annoying but many other players have also been humorless and annoying and I dislike them just as much. I don’t get the media hype about him. I do hope he loses his next game in a spectacular fashion.
One easy rule that Jeopardy! can change that will discourage ties.
Co Champions split the winning amount rather than each getting the whole amount.
If two players tie at 20,000, then the co-Champs get 10K apiece.
My previous comment was not Jeopardy specific. You’ve surely heard the saying,“I’m with you win or tie.”
In this thread, it is wrong. As an absolute statement, it is still wrong.
Really? Have you ever studied game theory? Sometimes it is every man for himself. Sometimes, it requires cooperation. The ultimate point is to get yourself the most you can get in the long term.
Chu’s whole point was to keep the people he knew he was better than around, that way he could always win the money he earned. The losers of the game don’t keep their earnings. Who cares that he shared the victory? He got to keep the money. The fact that someone else got to keep theirs has no bearing on him. So he gave up a bit of money in the short term to do it. So what? He knows he can come out ahead in the long term.
Here’s a book for you to read. It’s basically a “Game Theory for Dummies” book.
I brought this up (the PR aspect) back on Feb 5th (post #11). If you get an answer let me know.
Life is also very much not every man for himself.
Seriously BigT? If you get a job, BY DEFINITION, nobody else gets it. Usually, if you get a raise, it’s only you getting it. Life is built to be zero-sum, not saying that’s good, it just is.
But if you get the Jeopardy prize money, someone else can get it too.
And if life in general were zero-sum, then we would have hit a Malthusian collapse before we ever left Africa.
The object of the game is to win money. It’s not to deny other people winning money. The measure of a player’s success is how much money s/he wins. Jeopardy! players are not measured by how many players they eliminate, in regular play (tournament play is different.) They are measured by the size of the checks they’re handed at the end of their run. Nothing else.
By playing to tie, Chu is
-
Slightly reducing the likelihood he will lose by a dollar (it’s a tiny possibility but it could happen) and
-
If playing to tie from ahead, attempting to ensure he will face a player he has already demonstrated he can defeat.