Slight correction for clarification: I believe commasense meant to write “Daily Double” rather than “Double Jeopardy” in post 1858. $5 is the minimum bet for a Daily Double. That’s the thing about Daily Doubles–they have the potential for huge rewards, but you do have to incur at least some risk as well.
OK, so bear with me here, while I create a probably-will-never-happen scenario.
I have $14,000. The next closest contestant has $8,000. There are two answers left on the board, both of which happen to be the two Daily Doubles in Double Jeopardy. I have control of the board, so naturally I choose one of the two remaining answers, which is a Daily Double.
I wager $2001. I give the correct question (answer), and now have $16,001, which is, of course, more than twice the amount of second-place, so the game is right now out of reach. But then I have to choose the last answer, which is also a Daily Double. But instead of betting zero, which essentially gives me the game, I have to bet at least five bucks, which, with an incorrect answer on my part, will open the door for the second-place person to catch me on Final Jeopardy.
But consider this: the time ran out before I could choose the last answer on the board. In that case, I could bet zero on FJ and win the game, no matter what else happens.
I guess I don’t see the difference between betting on a Daily Double and betting on Final Jeopardy. Why should the rules be different?
Then you should have bet $2006 on the first Daily Double, so you could lose $5 on the second one and still have the game locked up heading into Final.
Personally, I think the minimum bet in Daily Doubles should be the lowest amount on the board.
Oops! Thanks for the correction, @MrAtoz.
Or there could be this scenario: I’m in dead last with only $4, while the other two contestants are tied at $15,000, with only one clue left in Double Jeopardy: a Daily Double. The Daily Double is all mine. I’m obligated to wager $5, which means I’m in danger of finishing DJ with minus one dollar and being eliminated from the game. If I were allowed to wager $0, I could assure myself of staying alive for Final Jeopardy, but tough shit.
Then, in FJ, both contestants with $15,000 wager everything and get the response wrong. Had I still been alive for FJ, I would have wagered $0 and won with $4.
Yep, another plausible scenario, one that I hadn’t considered. I’m still curious as to why one can bet zero in FJ, but must bet at least five bucks on a Daily Double.
Since no one in this thread had anything to do with formulating the rules, all anyone can do is speculate. I imagine, like any rule, it’s because they think it makes the game more exciting.
In general, the Daily Double offers big potential rewards, but to get those rewards you have to put the money you already have at risk. Unlike every other clue, where if you don’t know it you can just decline to ring in, with a Daily Double you must answer. That’s why you will often see players grimace when they find a Daily Double in one of their weak categories. They know that they’ve got to bet at least something. I imagine that if you asked the producers the reason for that rule, they would say that it makes for good TV. That, after all, is their primary consideration.
The game is called “Jeopardy” for a reason.
The only way you could have gotten to $4 would have been from a wager on a previous Daily Double. Either you wagered $xxx4 and got it right, or you wagered $xx96 and got it wrong. If you’d wagered $xx50 on that earlier Daily Double, you wouldn’t now be in a position where the mandatory $5 wager could put you into the red.
Every clue on the board is a multiple of $200. Any Daily Double wager that isn’t a multiple of $200 is almost pointless. There’s no difference between wagering $25 and $50; the extra money that you win (or lose) won’t be significant in determining the places at the end of the game.
Both @Ponch8 and I described scenarios which will almost certainly never happen, but could happen, albeit very unlikely. But we both used those scenarios to point out how the DD wagering rule could harm a contestant. But as @MrAtoz stated, it’s probably in place to make the game more exciting.
Back on topic, I completely whiffed on today’s FJ. It was obvious when I heard the correct answer, but I was totally clueless until then.
Both of those situations could happen, but they could also both be prevented. If you don’t want the mandatory $5 wager to cause a problem, don’t put yourself in a situation where it could.
It would be different if this rule was a surprise. If you got into either of these two scenarios, tried to wager $0, and the host said you had to bet at least $5, that would be bad. But, as commasense said, they tell the contestants about this rule in advance. Make your wagers accordingly and it won’t ever be an issue.
HOLY CRAP!!! 
How boneheaded could they be?!?
I’m going to go with “Not that boneheaded,” since I was 100% certain it was Notre Dame.
Just cause you know something doesn’t mean it’s easy or that people are stupid for not also knowing it.
I was referring to their betting strategy. I didn’t know the correct answer either, but I sure as hell wouldn’t have wagered everything!
Me too.
But what else could either of them do? When two are tied for first place, either you go all in and hope that if you’re both right you can win the tie-breaker, or go for less than everything and hope the other guy is wrong. Betting that the other guy will be wrong is not a winning strategy.
But that is what they should have done. They all bet correctly. The two who were tied bet it all knowing the other would also bet it all, and if they both got it right would go to a tie-breaker.
They both bet that they would be right, not that the other person would be wrong.
I’d have bet nothing and hoped for a tie breaker as long as ending up with zero was an alternative…
In this case you would have won, but if you bet nothing, and the other guy bets it all (because that is what you do when you’re tied) you’d lose if he got it correct. In that scenario you’re not betting that you know it, you’re betting that the other guy doesn’t.
There wouldn’t be a tie breaker unless the other guy also bet nothing.
Winning by betting it all requires two things, first, you get it right, and second, you win tie breaker. Betting nothing or a little means you win simply by the other guy getting it wrong. Unless it’s a category in my wheelhouse, I think I like my chances better hoping he muffs it.
It was a pretty tough category. The correct response wouldn’t have been anything as obvious as Notre Dame (though that’s what I thought of; certainly not the Arc de Triomphe). I would be willing to stand pat in the hope that the other guy would miss it…