Great point, Bootis. I can’t believe how much hype is given to his “style of play,” his speed, the “game theory” aspect, and all that other nonsense. The bottom line is this guy seems to know EVERYTHING! Those other factors may have some importance but they’d be meaningless if he didn’t know such a high % of answers.
Even if you know 100% of the answers, if you’re always second best on the trigger, you’re not going to do well.
If you can always answer first, then you only need to be right 2/3rd of the time to have the same expected value as the 100% contestant if they go second and you have to be even less right if the third player sometimes snipes them.
Necessary but not sufficient.
I am of the opinion that Jeopardy should change their rules to make button timing less of a factor.
It… doesn’t seem like an interesting thing for victory to be based on? Like, people watch Usain Bolt race because he’s a fast person. Do people watch Jeopardy because the people on it can press a button quickly? I think they do it for the trivia contest.
The simplest way would be that you can ring in at any time before the light turns on, and everyone who does has an equal chance of getting to answer the question first. If no one rings in before the light comes on, then it goes to the first to press the button.
Some people need to *hear *the clue being read before they buzz in. I know I would. No way would I take a chance that I just *might *give the correct response after seeing it in print for a split second. I need more time to make sure I understand the clue and can frame the correct response.
Equal chance as in by random draw? I’d hate to be responsible for a computer program tasked with generating the random numbers, as any such set will contain suspiciously long streaks after an arbitrary amount of time. “Returning champ was ‘randomly’ selected every time that game. FIX!”
They could do it old-school with dice or something, but that would slow things down too much.
Could you alternate it, somehow? Like all three pre-buzz, first tiebreaker goes to A (champ), all three pre-buzz again so this time it goes to B. Next time C, then back to A, etc…
It gets more complicated when only two people buzz in, but I think it could hold together.
No, not after a split second. His suggestion would mean all you have to do is buzz in a split second faster than they’re allowing you to now. That’s still early. Everyone early gets an equal shot at winning the buzzer for that question.
They all have to wait until the clue is read. So they all have an equal advantage.
How would allowing them to buzz in earlier than that rectify anything? It would favor those who can read faster than the others, increase the probability of giving wrong responses, and encourage those who can’t come up with a response at all to press their buttons prematurely.
In other words, it would open up a huge can of worms.
Why would your brother not qualify for Jeopardy? If he knows as much as this guy, he should take the next online test and get on the show!
The suggestion put forth is that the timing when you’re allowed to buzz in is still maintained, but you’d also be allowed to buzz in earlier than that. Instantly if you want, or after a quick scanning of the clue yourself, or after waiting until Alex is almost done reading it. Which is still too early.
Everyone who buzzes in early would go into a pool of tied buzzers, and everyone in the pool has equal chance to win the tiebreaker regardless how early they buzzed in.
I was mostly interested in brainstorming the selected with “equal chance” part; wondering if pseudo-random would cut it.
Is anyone else surprised to learn that announcer Johnny Gilbert will turn 95 years old in July?!?
I knew he had been around for a long time, so I looked him up. But I didn’t think he was that old!
His contemporary, Don Pardo, also did lots of game shows, but is best known as the announcer for Saturday Night Live, which he did till he was 96! Unlike Gilbert, who’s there in the studio for every show, for the last few years, Pardo recorded his stuff in his home in Arizona.
I wasn’t, but only because I found out his age when I was on the show last year.
Johnny Gilbert entertains the audience between games, while Alex is changing his suit and the next batch of contestants is getting ready to go on. He had stories about announcing for The Price is Right. I’m talking about the original, black-and-white Prince is Right, hosted by Bill Cullen. How many folks here even remember Bill Cullen?
The experiment does not imply that his brother knows as much as James Holzhauer. In fact a worse than average person would win most of the time if they were allowed first shot at every single question.
Precisely. I get a lot right at home. All that means is I know trivia, it doesn’t mean I’d do good in an actual game.
And I don’t want to be on TV, and have people I never met opinionating on on-line forums and message boards about me, and making fun of my appearance or my character.
That said, Austin is still a goofy-looking jerk. 
I think you misunderstand my suggestion, or one of us misunderstands the current case.
Right now, at time t_0, the question appears on the screen. You can read it. Alex starts reading it aloud. At some time shortly after Alex finishes reading it, a light comes on that the contestants see. At that point, t_light, the buzzers are active, and the first person to buzz in gets to answer.
I am proposing that anyone who rings in between t_0 and t_light+t_human_reaction_time be given an equal chance to answer.
Essentially, remove “quick on the buzzer” as a component of the game. “Quick to find the answer” is still relevant, because reading the question as Alex reads it still doesn’t give you that much time to figure it out.
This is a well-solved problem. The Nevada Gaming Commission, for one, has figured out how to regulate it. I’m sure that whoever makes sure that Jeopardy is a true contest could manage it too.
Sure, you could. That is also fair, but probably less interesting.
What do you mean, slots? That’s not really related to what I’m talking about.
You can play a slot machine and lose 20 times in a row and nobody bats an eye. If you enacted a tiebreaker for early buzzers on Jeopardy, and the champ gets picked 20 times in a row, you’ve opened yourself up for criticism.
If you introduce a “forced shuffle” effect where you prevent too many duplicates in a row, you’re no longer generating “pure” random numbers, but instead more or less doctored ones, again opening yourself up for criticism and/or inspection. (And, it should be pointed out, if you do do this, you’re only a very short half-step away from the alternating method I proposed instead of random. Just set the duplicate limit to 1.)
It’s possible you were talking about something other than slots; if so, apologies for the assumption.
That doesn’t sound bad to me. I also don’t understand why it would encourage people who have no idea what the answer is to press their buttons prematurely. You know they lose money if they answer incorrectly, right?
Seems pretty similar to slots to me. In both cases you need something that generates random numbers, there’s real money on the line, and people are worried about whether the process is fair.
And there’s a known solution. The process to mechanically generate a list of random numbers is well known and studied. A regulatory agency tasked with determining if the process is fair already exists in other contexts.
Obviously, losing at a slot machine 20 times in a row is much more common than winning a 2- or 3-way tiebreaker on jeopardy because your chance of winning on a slot machine is a lot less than 1/3. But so what?
Notice that in this thread there’s already speculation that Jeopardy is moving the Daily Doubles to thwart Holzhaur, that they are changing the difficulty of the questions, etc. People are always going to speculate that the process is unfair and criticize things. The question is: is the process fair, and can you reasonably prove it to an impartial observer. It is easy to make a random tiebreaker that satisfies both of those.
It’s not like the current process is any less open to criticism. People sort of assume that Holzhaur is winning because he is faster on the buzzer, but… maybe the producers are letting him win the buzzes because they want the ratings of having someone go on a tear? To be clear, I’m not actually suggesting that. I’m just saying you have to have some amount of trust in the system. The machine that determines who buzzed in first could be just as rigged as a random number generator.
No, currently people who have a very quick reaction time have an advantage, and people who have experience with the buzzer timing because they’ve played Jeopardy before have an advantage. Everyone who is going to buzz in is poised to do so as quickly as possible as soon as the window to buzz in opens.
Instead of having them all be ready and then race to buzz in quickly, they can just buzz in as soon as they’re ready. Everyone who does so gets an equal chance to answer.
No. Under my proposed rules, there’s no advantage to buzzing in earlier than someone else, as long as you buzz in by the latest time that someone could have buzzed in under the current rules. Jeopardy already favors those who can read faster because they have more time to think about the question. But this rule change doesn’t give any more advantage to those who can read faster.
For anyone playing Jeopardy, at some point during the reading of the question and before they are allowed to buzz in, each player has to make a determination of whether they think they can answer the question correctly. If they think they can, they get ready to buzz in as soon as the light comes on. Then they all race to be the first to do so.
My rule just means that as soon as they decide they think they can answer the question, they just press the button. It doesn’t incentivize you to buzz in earlier, or to buzz in on questions you don’t know the answer to. It simply removes the “race to be the fastest one to press a button” part of the game.
Importantly, this change levels the playing field between new players and returning champions. Every successful Jeopardy player has pointed out how familiarity with the buzzer timing is a big advantage. Is that really the skill we want Jeopardy to reward?
Do new contestants get a chance to practice on the buzzers? I feel like everyone should get 2 or 3 minutes to get a feel for it before they go on the show.
There’s absolutely no reason to do so, as the Jeopardy! format is well established and enjoyed by almost all, but I just don’t understand all the arguing about the buzzer stuff. If you want to do it like everyone else does it, just don’t show the answer(question) to the contestants (feel free to show it to those at home), have Alex read it out, and whenever anyone wants to buzz in thinking they know the direction the answer/question is headed, have at it, and Alex stops reading the clue.