He’s there to WIN.
Not to make friends or to make people “happy.”
If they want to be happy…play the home version.
This controversy smacks a little of racism,methinks. When Ken Jennings was winning, there was no complaining.
I’m confused now. Trebek hasn’t criticized Arthur Chu. What’re you referring to?
He definitely was off his game for the last couple of days.
Rapunzel, Rapunzel, give me a Caesar salad!
And I don’t know when these games air in other markets, but in ours Jeopardy! is on the ABC affiliate at 7:30. At the end of the ABC News, Diane Sawyer plugged Good Morning America, saying that Arthur Chu would be on to tell it all.
That’s when I knew he lost, a half hour before we even had a chance to see the match.
He gave interviews before, too, though. The shows aren’t shot on the day they air.
When I was on, I hit a Daily Double in the category “Washingtonians”. My thought process: what the hell do I know about Washingtonians? Who knows? Total crap shoot. So I bet $500.
It turned out to require that I be able to name Jimi Hendrix based on the opening verse of “All Along the Watchtower”. I literally named that tune in 2 notes, and was disgusted with myself (and it showed on my face).
Oh, there was plenty, though usually not over his gameplay. More often the revocation of the 5-game limit and the lack of suspense during the streak, partly because Ken was so dominant, and partly because of various leaks from various sources regarding game results. There was also the occasional outrage over some silly thing or other, such as Ken once responding “what be ebonics?”. By and large, though, the show was very very lucky such an inoffensive player was the one to go on the big streak.
I do agree that a player ought to be there to win, mainly, and that it would be a more entertaining show if more players gave more thought over to how to do that.
But he didn’t discuss his time on the show, he addressed the hate towards him on the Interwebs. He was contractually obligate to not discuss the outcome of any show until after his last appearance aired.
I’m sure Bob Harris told the truth about how it was done then, but when I was there, we weren’t kept in the Green Room. I don’t know when or why they changed it.
For me, the hard part was doing the math. I noticed there were more contestants than they needed, and the more episodes they taped without using me, the antsier I got (“Surely, they wouldn’t bring me halfway across the country and then send me home without using me!”).
I finally did get on, before choking!
Just kidding- I played very well. Problem is, the other two were no slouches either. Jody and George were both very good, and more importantly, they had better reflexes than I did.
My comments started with this statement back in post 9.
I asked why does Trebek criticize betting under face value.
Because the clue has a value over what the player bet.
Perhaps, but that makes no sense whatever. The higher the $ value of the clue, the tougher the clue is likely to be, and the more a $5 bet makes sense.
While the production team, of which Trebek is the public face, feel that this sort of cautionary play takes away from the excitement of the home audience. Their focus groups must tell them the audience wants a show full of ups and downs and switching leads and close finals and :smack: moments and dramatic come-from-behind endings and the DD must cause a BIG change in the lead picture. Playing to not lose means not dancing to the production team’s research-tested drum.
Again, this isn’t consistent with observed facts. Daily Doubles are answered correctly over two thirds of the time, and so the likelihood that a Daily Double will result in a huge gain is much greater than the likelihood it’ll result in a huge loss. The only exception would be if you’re very bad at the category - in which case, of course, why did you pick the clue at all?
This is a really basic game theory concept. If you’re a favorite to win the bet, you want to increase the stakes. Most of the time on a DD, you are a heavy favorite to win the bet. The only circumstances you shouldn’t are if you’re really sure you suck at the category or if there is no tactical advantage to betting a lot (e.g. you are already over double the second place contestant’s score and there aren’t enough clues left for them to catch up.)
If I get on, I hope to acquit myself as well as you did. My goal is to not finish in the red before Final Jeopardy! - anything after that is gravy.
Perhaps, but this has nothing to do with anything I said. I was talking about the likely difficulty of a DD in the bottom row compared to a DD in the top row.
If I’d been as logical as you and Chu, I’d have helped myself. The one Daily Double I got was in the last spot in the EUropean Literature category. The logical thing to do would have been to bet the max. But I didn’t.
As it turned out, I DID get it right. But in the heat of the moment, we don’t always think logically. It’s funny- I’d watched the game for 40 years, but still didn’t have any plan other than “Try to answer a lot of questions right.”
Chu was smart enough to have a plan. I wasn’t.
Then why did the game theory guys who Chu took his strategy from say to do what he did? He stated that the Daily Doubles introduce too much chaos into the system and make the game less predictable. Therefore it’s in his best interest to get rid of them as cheaply as possible.
Getting rid of them early is definitely good strategy, because the longer they are on the board, the more the 2/3 advantage of someone else getting them applies. And, early on, you don’t have much money.
You have to realize that he played to win, not to make the most money. As long as he wins, he gets to come back and make more money. That’s what he said was his primary motivation. A 2/3 win rate is not very high when you are going after Daily Doubles all the time. And if he lost a lot of money, the game could be over.
Chu bet large amounts in any category he felt comfortable with. He did do throwaway bets in the situation you should - categories he knew he sucked at.
Remember that Trebek’s admonishment against low DD bets was directed at most players who take the “just go from top to bottom” strategy.
I am mystified by the people who are not going to win in FJ but do not bet in such a way as to put themselves in a position to possibly win the $2000 second place.