WWTBAM Bored

I don't watch Jeopardy very often, but last night I caught Final Jeopardy and I"m still scratching my head over the dumbest strategy I can recall on the show.

The champion was in second place with exactly half the leader's total ($10,800-21,600). The third place contestant had a few hundred less. Now at this point, the runner-up can virtually guarantee being a co-champ by betting everything because no one with a brain in his head in first place would risk losing by betting a single dollar. However, for some reason, she bet an amount caluculated to beat the third place contestant by a dollar if he bet it all.

Naturally, she was the only one to get FJ correct and found herself finishing a few hundred behind the leader, who missed it but bet nothing.

I can understand making a choice if you're in second place and you have to decide how aggressively to bet when you might or might not be able to catch the leader depending on his strategy, but the strategy here was a complete no brainer. Am I missing something or did she just have the biggest brain freeze of all time?

BTW, the FJ category was World Rivers. "It's the only river that goes through four world capitals, more than any other." I actually knew that this one is

Spoiler

the Danube. The leader guessed the Nile.

silverscreenselect wrote:I don't watch Jeopardy very often, but last night I caught Final Jeopardy and I"m still scratching my head over the dumbest strategy I can recall on the show.

The champion was in second place with exactly half the leader's total ($10,800-21,600). The third place contestant had a few hundred less. Now at this point, the runner-up can virtually guarantee being a co-champ by betting everything because no one with a brain in his head in first place would risk losing by betting a single dollar. However, for some reason, she bet an amount caluculated to beat the third place contestant by a dollar if he bet it all.

Naturally, she was the only one to get FJ correct and found herself finishing a few hundred behind the leader, who missed it but bet nothing.

I can understand making a choice if you're in second place and you have to decide how aggressively to bet when you might or might not be able to catch the leader depending on his strategy, but the strategy here was a complete no brainer. Am I missing something or did she just have the biggest brain freeze of all time?

BTW, the FJ category was World Rivers. "It's the only river that goes through four world capitals, more than any other." I actually knew that this one is

Spoiler

the Danube. The leader guessed the Nile.

You'd understand better if you'd watched her previous performances. There's a good discussion on the J! message board, but in a nutshell she was very conservative in her wagering in all three of her games with respect to Daily Doubles and Final J! She also tended to give out too much information, which bit her on one question last night.

what comes to mind is

Spoiler

Danube

. In a time-limited no research game, this is what I would say.

We must have tuned in at almost the same time. I had exactly the same thoughts about the champion's wager as you. Any comments on the J! board about it?

gsabc wrote:We must have tuned in at almost the same time. I had exactly the same thoughts about the champion's wager as you. Any comments on the J! board about it?

Oh, yes, the "Betting Police" are out in force.

http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/s ... hp?t=40288

earendel wrote:You'd understand better if you'd watched her previous performances. There's a good discussion on the J! message board, but in a nutshell she was very conservative in her wagering in all three of her games with respect to Daily Doubles and Final J! She also tended to give out too much information, which bit her on one question last night.

IIRC, she had a similar game last week- didn't she?

Where she was the leader, and the second place person had 2/3-3/4 of her score, and if the second place finisher had known the FJ, she would have lost with the bet she made, even had she gotten the question right (they all missed FJ, IIRC).

earendel wrote:

gsabc wrote:We must have tuned in at almost the same time. I had exactly the same thoughts about the champion's wager as you. Any comments on the J! board about it?

Oh, yes, the "Betting Police" are out in force.

http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/s ... hp?t=40288

Are they like the spelling Nazi over here?

earendel wrote:

gsabc wrote:We must have tuned in at almost the same time. I had exactly the same thoughts about the champion's wager as you. Any comments on the J! board about it?

Oh, yes, the "Betting Police" are out in force.

http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/s ... hp?t=40288

I liked the exchange where she guessed twice on one question and Alex said "Uh, Jeanie, you're only allowed one incorrect response per question".

Rexer25 wrote:

earendel wrote:

gsabc wrote:We must have tuned in at almost the same time. I had exactly the same thoughts about the champion's wager as you. Any comments on the J! board about it?

Oh, yes, the "Betting Police" are out in force.

http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/s ... hp?t=40288

Are they like the spelling Nazi over here?

Not at all!

The Betting Police only deal with issues of the greatest ontopicosity!

Jeemie says:

I liked the exchange where she guessed twice on one question and Alex said "Uh, Jeanie, you're only allowed one incorrect response per question".

I believe the 2nd response was actually correct. What I heard Trebek (we're not on 1st name terms, not yet) say was "you're only allowed 1 response per question".

Which is not exactly true; they often take a 2nd, clarifying answer. But she changed her answer.

ghostjmf wrote:Jeemie says:

I liked the exchange where she guessed twice on one question and Alex said "Uh, Jeanie, you're only allowed one incorrect response per question".

I believe the 2nd response was actually correct. What I heard Trebek (we're not on 1st name terms, not yet) say was "you're only allowed 1 response per question".

Which is not exactly true; they often take a 2nd, clarifying answer. But she changed her answer.

I posted it according to how the transcriptionist at the provided link posted it. I actually was out of the room briefly when the question came on, so don't know what was said.

ghostjmf wrote:Jeemie says:

I liked the exchange where she guessed twice on one question and Alex said "Uh, Jeanie, you're only allowed one incorrect response per question".

I believe the 2nd response was actually correct. What I heard Trebek (we're not on 1st name terms, not yet) say was "you're only allowed 1 response per question".

Which is not exactly true; they often take a 2nd, clarifying answer. But she changed her answer.

He said "incorrect" - the transcriptionists on the J! board provide a literal account, not paraphrased as most of ours are.

ghostjmf wrote:Jeemie says:

I liked the exchange where she guessed twice on one question and Alex said "Uh, Jeanie, you're only allowed one incorrect response per question".

I believe the 2nd response was actually correct. What I heard Trebek (we're not on 1st name terms, not yet) say was "you're only allowed 1 response per question".

Which is not exactly true; they often take a 2nd, clarifying answer. But she changed her answer.

Jeemie quoted Alex correctly. Alex was wrong about Jeanie's second response being incorrect, which may have been the reason the other players paused before one of them finally rang in.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:Jeemie says:

I liked the exchange where she guessed twice on one question and Alex said "Uh, Jeanie, you're only allowed one incorrect response per question".

I believe the 2nd response was actually correct. What I heard Trebek (we're not on 1st name terms, not yet) say was "you're only allowed 1 response per question".

Which is not exactly true; they often take a 2nd, clarifying answer. But she changed her answer.

Jeemie quoted Alex correctly. Alex was wrong about Jeanie's second response being incorrect, which may have been the reason the other players paused before one of them finally rang in.

The transcriptionist wrote that she said "What is 'he' or [*]"

What the heck does THAT mean?

Jeemie wrote: The transcriptionist wrote that she said "What is 'he' or [*]"

What the heck does THAT mean?

That's their way of non-spoiling the correct answer, which is listed at the bottom of the transcript.

BTW, I went back to Friday's archives and confirmed I was right about her betting strategy.

Her bet would have essentially only worked on a Triple Stumper.

It was a lousy bet- not enough to cover an all-in bet, and enough to lose if she didn't get it and either of the other two bet $0.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Jeemie wrote: The transcriptionist wrote that she said "What is 'he' or [*]"

What the heck does THAT mean?

That's their way of non-spoiling the correct answer, which is listed at the bottom of the transcript.

OK- thanks.

Once Alex says "Incorrect," there's no changing or modifying allowed. Before that . . .

Actually, in my TOC game on 3/13, I think you'll see just how long Alex will let someone fish around for an response before he says "Incorrect." At least my recollection is that it was a long time on one particular clue where I offered a recitation (no spoiler about whether I did eventually land on the correct response).

As for Jeanie, as I posted on the J! board, she had a lot of time to brush up on wagering strategy between appearances - she taped the first two games Dec 3 and last night's in mid-January. Unfortunately, the break seems to have made her even more timid.

From the Jeopardy Board:

Thursday:
Dan: $5,000 + $4,701 = $9,701
Matt: $6,900 + $3,101 = $10,001
Jeanie: $9,700 + $6,901 = $16,601

Friday:
Jessie: $14,800 - $11,200 = $3,600
Gavin: $16,800 - $13,801 = $2,999
Jeanie: $18,000 - $9,000 = $9,000

Monday:
Jerome: $10,200 - $5,100 = $5,100
Jeanie: $10,800 + $10,201 = $21,001
Kenneth: $21,600 - $0 = $21,600

This is what happened to Jeanie during her three day run. I have to say I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about possible strategies when everyone is fairly closely bunched together as on Friday, so I'm not sure there is a sure right or wrong there.

However her Thrusday strategy seemed almost as bad as Monday's. She would have needed a $4101 wager to freeze out the second place player on Thursday. I can see an argument of sorts for betting less than that if she was not confident about the category, but to wager more increases her chances of losing the game if she misses the question without any possible real gain in return. So she bets more than she should and lucks out on Thursday and bets less than she should in a more obvious situation and loses out on Monday.

I think there is no excuse for the leader not to bet to close out the 2nd place player. The only times not to bet to win by $1 are the situation we had yesterday and a situation in which 2 players are tied for the lead and the 4rd place player is locked out. In that case, I believe the right strategy is for both to bet $0, but how can you be sure your tied opponent will bet rationally?

In normal situations, the 2nd place player should not bet to double up.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:The only times not to bet to win by $1 are the situation we had yesterday and a situation in which 2 players are tied for the lead and the 4rd place player is locked out.

I guess I missed the episodes when they had four players.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I think there is no excuse for the leader not to bet to close out the 2nd place player.

I believe Bob #s has a Conjecture named after himself on the J! board, regarding this issue. The problem is that by always betting to double the second place player, that leaves open the opportunity for that other player to win by betting small, in the case of a double (or triple) stumper.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I think there is no excuse for the leader not to bet to close out the 2nd place player. The only times not to bet to win by $1 are the situation we had yesterday and a situation in which 2 players are tied for the lead and the 4rd place player is locked out.

The evidence appears to suggest otherwise. I believe I found at least one circumstance where the leader can improve his or her odds of winning by electing to take the chance of being caught from behind. --Bob

MarleysGh0st wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I think there is no excuse for the leader not to bet to close out the 2nd place player.

I believe Bob #s has a Conjecture named after himself on the J! board, regarding this issue. The problem is that by always betting to double the second place player, that leaves open the opportunity for that other player to win by betting small, in the case of a double (or triple) stumper.

It's a Prisoners' Dilemma. You have no idea if the 2nd place player will wager "smart," so I think you have to cover the all-in.

Let me put it this way, I will never put myself in a position where if I lead going into FJ!, I can lose the game even if I get the FJ! correct.

Only exception would be a Tie game between me and another player, leading the 3rd player.

If Player #3 is at $0, I bet $0 and hope my tied opponent has the good sense to do the same.

If Player #3 has anything less than 1/2 my score, I bet A-(2C+1) and hope my tied opponent is also good at math.

If Player #3 is more than 1/2 my score, I bet 2C-A+1 and again hope my tied opponent is good at math.