If you say you intended that sentence to clearly convey that you were not referring to the post to which you replied, I’ll take your word for it.
Looks pretty unclear to me, but I won’t continue to belabor the point.
\
To change the subject a bit: on the topic of ‘throwing the game’–I’d suspect that many use that phrase loosely, not to mean any sort of plot-for-money, but instead something like what some observed about both Ken Jennings and James Holzhauer at the ends of their long runs. Namely, that they had a sort of 'okay, whatever’ attitude about them on those last days. A ‘okay, enough’ kind of air about them. And some of us who did see that in Ken and James, did not see it in Matt.
That’s what I was referring to by saying that I don’t think Matt ‘threw’ the game. I suspect others using the phrase may have meant something similar. Certainly it never occurred to me that a crime (~sports betting) was at the root of Matt’s loss, though I can see how the use of the word ‘throw’ could give the wrong impression.
I again removed the spoiler tags in the quoted material.
Jonathan, the champ, had $15,800
Mary had $12,600
Bilal had $5400
All three got the question right. (It was a damn easy answer, I thought).
Bilal bet $5495 and finished with $10,795
Mary bet $3300 and finished with $15,900
Jonathan bet $2400 and finished with $18,300
Bilal’s only chance was if the other two missed and bet big. If he bets and misses, he has no chance. But he needs more than his current score, so his bet was certainly understandable.
Mary’s bet was weak. She was counting on getting the question right and Jonathan missing it. If she thought she was going to answer it correctly, she should bet it all. Had she done so, she would have finished with $25,200.
And Jonathan should bet enough to cover Mary doubling up, which would have been $9401. He would have finished with $25,201.
Had Mary doubled up and won the game, (as she should have), Jonathon’s bet wouldn’t have been very wise.
I think Jonathan’s wager was a hedge against him and Mary both getting it wrong. But that was extremely risky, as there was very little downside for her to bet a lot more than she did, and had she done so it would have bit him.
Jonathan’s a good player and he could win a few more games. Hopefully he realizes how lucky he got today and learns from it.
Mary: You’ll want to wager $3,201, and you’ll win the game if Jonathan wagers enough and gets it wrong.
If she wagers $3201, as suggested, she wins ONLY if she gets it right and Jonathon misses, or bets zero. If she bets big, she forces Jonathon to get the right answer AND also bet big.
She was a good player. But she showed no confidence in herself with that bet.
You have to make certain assumptions when you’re wagering for Final Jeopardy. If you’re in second place, one of those assumptions is that the first place player will bet enough to cover your total if you bet it all. That Jonathan didn’t do so makes him something of an outlier. Betting just enough to get over the leader’s current total means that you can win if you’re right and the leader is wrong, but also can leave you enough money to potentially end up in the lead if you’re both wrong. That gives you two potential winning scenarios (you’re right, leader is wrong AND you’re wrong, leader is wrong) versus just one (you’re right, leader is wrong).
That Jonathan didn’t bet that much is weird, and makes this scenario unusual. But in most cases, the leader can be expected to bet more aggressively. As a general rule, Mary’s betting strategy was the correct one.
Although the question was not difficult, the category might have scared her off the idea of a big bet. For example, if Opera came up in FJ for me, I’d start calculating the best way I could win without getting the question right.
Yes, that’s an excellent point, and that might be why Jonathan bet what he did, as @Wheelz suggested. But in this case, with the betting being as it was, she loses in both situations. And, in fact, even if Jonathan had bet big and if he and Mary both answered incorrectly, but Bilal had the correct answer, Bilal would have won.
That has been the common strategy for a while; the leader bets enough to clinch the game if they are correct. The second-place player assumes the leader will do that, and then places their own wager. But if that strategy becomes common (and I have been seeing it more often), then the leader can use that assumption when making their own wager.
You’re not wrong. But I think, psychologically, “I was leading going into FJ, got it wrong, and lost the game” is easier to swallow than, “I was leading going into FJ, got it right, and lost the game.”
Jonathon was apparently willing to risk that; most people would not be.
Yeah, but how would you like to finish the game with “I was in second place before Final Jeopardy. The leader was arrogant and over-confident, so I knew he’d make a big wager. I didn’t need to get the question right, just gave him enough rope to hang himself, and I won.”
That happens too. You’ll occasionally see someone in second place bet nothing. That can also be a strategy, hoping that the leader bet big and guesses wrong. That way it doesn’t matter whether the second place player gets it right or not. It depends on what the various totals are.
Well, Matt should feel better that his successor has 4 wins so far. Jonathan’s FJ bets are a bit strange but he’s doing well with the questions. His win against Matt wasn’t a fluke.
I’m surprised so many people are surprised that the cauliflower question was a triple stumper. It certainly stumped me. I frequently see cauliflower imitations/substitutions of countless different types of starch: cauliflower rice (as one contestant guessed,) cauliflower mashed “potatoes,” cauliflower lasagna, etc. Granted, the clue mentioned “gluten” which tells you it must be something made out of wheat so rice was a bad guess and potatoes would be ruled out as well, but is it somehow common knowledge that this trend started with pizza crust specifically? How is that supposed to be obvious?
