The Jeopardy thread [was James Holzhauer][contains spoilers]

Cafe Society
701

I never said they should do anything. As to why they would, I made two speculative comments, and I’m not sure which you are referring to in Og’s name:

So to take them in order: I figured they might stop trying to advise contestants to do that if everyone is routinely ignoring the advice. It ends up just being awkward, and it’s weird to advise something that is widely known to be bad strategy.

As for why they might change the rules: clearly they think it makes for better TV if people go through the categories in order. So if they want that, but it’s bad strategy as currently understood, the obvious remedy would be to change the rules.

It’s a lot like the shot clock in basketball. For a long time, teams would shoot the ball within a reasonable amount of time just because, and the flow of the game was preserved. But then Dean Smith at North Carolina realized there was no reason to give up the ball once his team had the lead. So he was doing the right thing strategically, but that cut the entertainment value way down, and they changed the rules to require teams either shoot the ball within 45 seconds or lose possession.

The analogy is not perfect, because it’s not as obvious that jumping around the board cuts down the entertainment value. But I do think it’s possible that many people who are not super strategic prefer it that way, and the producers have to worry about the broad audience, not just analytical “quant” types like us. Surely you don’t think the show would be completely ruined if they added this rule?

I hadn’t realized that he was the beneficiary of both contestants’ errors! But Colin really should have known better. What possible point was there in betting more than $2,701?

702

If he was (mistakenly) confident about his ability to get the right answer, he might have wanted to get more money.

703

The jeopardy writers often put some sort of progression into the categories so that they’re more interesting when you go down the line, often a sort of joke or reference that becomes clear when you do them in order. I kinda like that, but the new style ruins it obviously.

704

None that I can see

Many Many times, I have seen Jeopardy contestants temporarily become Wheel of Fortune Contestants in the commercial break after the Final Jeopardy Category is revealed and before the FJ clue is revealed.

Must be some sort of time released potion that put into the contestant’s water.

705

I too would have been inclined to make a large bet, since “National Anthems” is not all that difficult a topic. There aren’t that many that are well known, and the writers are not going to select one that’s obscure (like, e.g., Botswana’s).

What should have tipped them (and me) off is that “La Marsellaise” was just too *obvious *a choice. The writers would never choose one that obvious, especially for FJ; it would have to be something that required at least a little thought, and the second (less obvious) choice would be “O Canada.”

They don’t give “trick” clues on Jeopardy!, but they sometimes give ones that are pretty damned close. Any time you see the contestants writing down their answers immediately with little or no thought, you can bet the correct response is *not *the first one that comes to mind.

706

The second (less obvious) *Francophone *choice, that is.

707

There you go, by Og!

LOL, right. Anyway, I think Jason deserves an asterisk on his ultimate win record given that he survived only because both opponents made wagering errors. I don’t think James ever was the beneficiary of such luck, was he?

708

Wagering is part of the game. If you have bad (or good) luck, that’s the way it goes.

709

I’m not saying he should lose his winnings and be taken off the show. But in baseball recordkeeping, you don’t get credit for continuing your hitting streak if you hit an easy fly ball and the other team’s outfielder drops it and lets you get on base.

710

James only got Final Jeopardy wrong once, and it was already a runaway.

711

You think we should discount the performance of someone with a nineteen-game winning streak (fourth highest), averaging about $28,000 and winnings of over $532,000 (third highest) because in one game he won by “only” $5,400? That’s really harsh grading.

712

No, because as I said: he is only still there because of a gross error by both of his competitors. As I said, if a baseball hitter reaches base in a game only because the other team drops a lazy fly ball, his hitting streak is over—even if they won the game as a result. Hell, even if they won the World Series as a result. I am saying the same about comparing Jason and James.

There ya go.

713

I don’t see how they could stop players from choosing the higher-value answers first short of making a rule that you have to go in order, at which point the game becomes just like any other quiz show. They could change the distribution of the daily doubles to make their locations truly random, as likely to be under a $200 answer as under a $1,000 answer. But there would still be an incentive to choose higher value answers first in order to build a bankroll for when you do find a daily double.

How about this? All answers start at $200. When a player gets one right all following answers in the same category increase in value by $200 (start at $400 and increase by $400 in the second round). To make the most you have to go in order but you’re not forced to. It also gives a strong disincentive for buzzing in on every answer whether you know it or not (Ken Jennings has said that he always buzzed in on the assumption that he would figure out the answer before time ran out). This could help mitigate the issue some people have with the game often coming down to who has the best reflexes.

I just fixed Jeopardy!

714

Right now Daily Doubles are most likely found in the 600-800 range. Holzhauer’s strategy was all about build up your bankroll first with the $1000 clues before hitting the DD. His worst games were when he hit a DD under a $1000 clue. It seems to me, that the best way to stop this strategy is to push the DDs more towards the $1000 clues. So you want to start higher up to try and build your bankroll.

The other thing to do is have more “word game” type categories, where it’s really not clear how you’re supposed to answer unless you’ve seen the first one.

715

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was referring to the possibility of changing the rules.

There is, of course, zero chance that after more than 50 years of Jeopardy! they would change the rules in this way. So all of this discussion is moot.

Although I hadn’t considered this, I expect they may very well stop offering this advice, if they haven’t already. The occasional categories in which there is a progression of the type SenorBeef mentioned are very rare, and IMO it is clear that the Holzhauer strategy is viable for some, if not all, contestants. So as you say, continuing to suggest it seems pointless.

I assumed that you held this position. If you do, please explain why, because I think it would make the game extremely dull. If you don’t, my apologies for thinking you did.

Sorry, I don’t know anything about basketball, so that analogy was completely lost on me. (No, please don’t try to explain it.)

Uh, yeah. Pretty much.

I have rarely watched the show since my appearance in 1991. The only times I tuned back in was for Ken Jennings and James H., who were doing amazing things. Ordinary play from top to bottom is very dull, and makes it very hard for players to dominate the game unless they are smart enough and quick enough to simply deny their opponents any chance to answer.

716

Maximizing his potential winnings, of course.

If Jason is right and bets at least $17,601, Colin can’t win. By betting $2,701 to beat Jason by $1 in the unlikely circumstance that he bets nothing, Colin would have left money on the table if he got it right. (I am puzzled as to what led him to pick $20,199: if Jason had made his optimal bet, and they were both right, Colin would have come in second, but if he was wrong, he would almost certainly have dropped to third.)

Colin’s optimal bet (IMHO) was $9,499: enough to beat Helen if he was wrong and she was right and went all in (although her optimal bet was $0). If he got it right, his total would have been $29,799. Assuming Jason either bet nothing or was wrong, Colin would have won $6,798 more than if he had bet $2,701. If he got it wrong, and Jason was right, he would still have been in second place, regardless of what Jason or Helen bet.

In the case of a Triple Stumper (which is what actually happened) and assuming Jason bet more than $12,199, Colin would have won the game with $10,801 (less than if he had bet $2,701 by that same $6,798). So the question becomes, which scenario is more likely?

The players’ level of confidence in the category undoubtedly played a large role in their betting, but I think it’s safe to say that all three players could have made much more rational wagers than they did. notfrommensa may be right that the pressure of the moment led to fuzzy thinking or bad calculations. (I know I was a bit nervous when I had to make my FJ wager, and what seems like simple math on the living room couch was much harder and more uncertain under the studio lights.)

The numbers in this particular case are very interesting, because the difference between the amount Jason needed to bet to tie Colin if they both got it right was exactly the amount Helen had. IOW, if he wants to be sure to beat Colin, Jason has to bet at least $17,601. But if he does that and is wrong, he ends up with $1 less than Helen’s total going in. As I mentioned above, Helen should have bet nothing for exactly this reason. If she had, she would have beaten Jason in this game.

Which makes Jason’s bet of $17,700 – $100 more than needed to beat Colin – rather strange. He seems to have been counting on Helen betting at least $100. (Which she did, but shouldn’t have.) I would never have assumed that of another contestant.

On the other hand, if he had bet $17,600 he would have tied Colin if they both got it right, and tied Helen if he and Colin got it wrong and she bet nothing. I think I would have taken that gamble: either way you get to come back for another game. As it happened, his strange bet paid off, but as we have noted, only thanks to strange bets by both of his opponents.

717

They changed the rule about ties. Now instead of both winners playing another game they have a tiebreaker question to determine the winner and only that person will play again.

718

Ah, I didn’t know that. Okay, well so much for that plan. :smiley:

Anyone know when that rule change happened?

When I was on, back in 1991, and the limit for champions was still five games, one of my fellow contestants said, rather pointedly, while we were still backstage, that if he got to his fifth game, he’d try to end in a tie with the second-place player, so that person would be able to come back for another game. I had never considered that option, but I thought it would have been a nice thing to do for a fellow player, with no downside for the departing champ. He didn’t manage it, but I wonder if anyone ever did.

719

According ‘Jeopardy!’ contestants tie, forcing rare sudden death clue the change was made in November 2014. Some sources say “in 2016”.

720

I thought for sure the several new posts would be about Jason‘s loss (I think we are late enough at night that it’s safe for me to mention that without spoilers).

You’re saying if they make the official rule that you have to play the way the vast majority of people have played on the many thousands of Jeopardy episodes over the years, it would become like any other game show? :confused:

My vision of what a rule like that would look like, by the way, would not force people to start at the upper left and go down to the bottom left and then go to the second column and so on. Anyone could start at any category they like when they take control of the board, but would have to start with the lowest value clue not yet revealed and must continue in that category as long as they have control or until it is finished. If someone steals control of the board, they can instantly switch to a different category.

Again, this would simply require people to play the way the game has been traditionally played for 99%-plus of all extant episodes.

As noted upthread, they have made multiple rule changes, including around ties and allowing champions to repeat more than five times. This change would simply make the game play out as it has almost always done over many years. Why is it so hard to imagine they might do that if they were already asking people to play that way?

(Didn’t anyone appreciate my shot clock comparison?)

Wouldn’t that mean you believe the game has been very dull over almost its entire existence? Oh, wait:

It’s cool that you appeared on the show years ago, but what you are saying is that you are the type of Jeopardy fan they have no real incentive to please. The show has lasted all these years and been so successful because of other people who are not you and who have different preferences.