We had a thread about it. #1 had $16,000 even, and the runnersup had $8000. Everyone got it right; the runnersup bet everything, the leader bet nothing, so they all won $16,000.
The leader, just before they revealed the answers, turned to the other contestants and said “You guys owe me,” jokingly. But it was the strategically logical thing for all three to do. By betting nothing, the leader guaranteed his money. Betting everything was the only thing the trailers could do, or else they risked getting it right and still losing. It was exactly what should happen in a situation where the three contestants go X, .5X, .5X.
Maybe it’s changed since I used to watch, but the second place person would almost always bet it all or almost all, even when the third place is way behind. First place can’t assume anything other than that the second place person will bet it all and win.
Probably true, but…
One of the “key levels” is second place (2) having more than 2/3 of the leader (1) going into FJ. In this situation 2 threatens to bet everything forcing 1 to make a bet that, if unsuccessful, will drop them below 2’s original… so, 2 knowing that, can make no bet at all and win without needing to answer the FJ question at all. This is discounting any influence that (3) will have of course.
For example:
(1) has 6000, (2) has 4001
1 has to protect against 2’s possible final of 8002 by betting 2003. 2 knows this a bets nothing and wins whenever 1 doesn’t answer correctly.
This is not possible if it is 6000/3999… in this situation 2 has to bet something *and *get FJ correct to have any chance of winning (unless 1 is a moron and bets more than 1999)
With due respect to intelligent and experienced posters, I think most people are missing the point here. Betting the farm when you are in the lead is not an action predicated on mathematics. It is the embrace of an ephemeral opportunity.
Put the tactics of the individual game aside. Look at the moment in the context of a lifetime. Unless you are Brad Rutter or Ken Jennings (and let’s face it — it’s not particularly likely that you are), your Jeopardy! winnings are not going to be a life-changing amount of money. Sure some extra cash would be nice, but it’s probably not going to be more than you make from one or two years at your day job.
This is something of a cliché, but when you are facing death and reflecting on the content of your life, there is an incalculable value to being able to say, “Yeah, I went for it. I grabbed for the brass ring.” There is a majesty to the gesture that cannot be measured in dollars.
Most people will never get the chance to make that kind of all-or-nothing play. Unless you are in dire financial straits, I think it is absolutely worth it. At the worst, you will go home with a thousand dollars and some mockery on message boards. Regardless of the outcome, you will have glory known by only a few. And, incidentally, you can sing Weird Al’s I Lost on Jeopardy with a special kind of gravitas. That counts as +EV for me.
I know - I’m referring specifically to a three way zero tie - where all contestants bet their entire stake and fail. Unlike the 2007 game, none of the contestants appeared again. The issue was complicated slightly by it being during a tournament, but the gist is that ending the game at zero is a loss, even if no other contestant did better.
An unresolved game show question I still have is based on 1 vs, 100 in whch a single contestant answers multiple-choice questions in competition with a group of 100, whose numbers are reduced by any who answer a question incorrectly (assuming the contestant answers correctly). The goal of the player is to outlast as many of the 100 as possible, with the big prize coming if they all get eliminated before him.
I recall one game in which this happens and the (male) contestant defeated 100 women. Thing is, one of the contestant’s “lifelines” is being able to briefly talk to two people randomly selected from the surviving 100, one of whom answered correctly and one who answered incorrectly. What’s left unanswered is what happens if a contestant uses this lifeline and none of the 100 has the right answer, as was the case that night.
And given the gender thing, I was vaguely disappointed the victorious man didn’t make pelvic thrusts toward the defeated 100 in masculine contempt.
If I had a game of Jeopardy won and blew it with a careless bet, I wouldn’t be proud of myself for reaching for the brass ring - I’d be annoyed I got overconfident and threw away money and Jeopardy glory. The value (for me) is in saying you competed and won, not proving your boldness by neglecting common sense. She had $9,599 in the bag and a chance to win more on the next episode; instead she got $1,000 or whatever you get for tying for second/last place.
Yeah. Unfortunately I don’t think she was making some kind of life-affirming statement. I think she just overestimated her knowledge of U.S. Presidents and wound up missing a question that wasn’t very hard under pressure. I do feel bad for her, but it wasn’t a gutsy, heroic moment. It was a poor decision.
That is true DMark, but still baffling to me. Most people I know who would do well on Jeopardy are at least competent enough mathematically to figure out the simple “how much should I wager” puzzle. I have a buddy who was a multiple day winner, winning something like 130 grand, and I think he came in 3rd in that year’s tournament of champions. He told us how much time he spent studying various potential categories. I would bet that anyone who reaches champion status would prepare similarly, given how much money is on the line. I would also think that they should devote about 15 minutes less to the studying part (clearly they know the trivia stuff pretty damn well), and use those 15 minutes to strategize wagering). And 15 minutes is Generous, even to a math novice. The primary rule when in the lead is pretty simple: just bet enough to double (or double +1) the 2nd place contestant’s score prior to final jeopardy.
Not exactly–the leader had 13,400, and the other two 8000 each. The two trailers were smart enough to bet it all, as being under 2/3 the leader’s total, they each needed to be right to have a chance to win against any sort of rational wager by the leader. He chose to bet exactly 2600 for whatever his reasons were, but it certainly was not a forced bet.
I remember watching that game and thinking that maybe the leader was confident he could beat those same two contestants the ‘next day’ and so bet to keep them both around. Better to keep around two players you have already beaten handily than two unknowns I guess.
weird, because i got the sense that he was NOT confident at all with the FJ category, wussed out, knew the answer, and then in an act of feux bravado, tried to act as if his bet was an act of benevolence rather than ignorance.
I got all three – I figured the third one had to be McKinley because I was sure that all the other Presidents who died in office were in their first (or fourth for FDR) term, and Nixon already covered the only other case of a President failing to finish out a term.