OT - Jeopardy!

QuikSand · 05-13-2003, 08:54 AM

I'm a pretty big fan of Jeopardy!, and have been watching pretty regularly lately, especially as they are in the midst of their annual Tournament of Champions.

I have raised this before, but it's been some time - and last night's semifinal match provided the most crystal clear evidence of my pet peeve: brilliant contestants on this show seem to have no fundamenta grasp of strategy or probability when it counts.

Here's the setup from last night - I'll assume that you understand the basic workings of the game. We're in a semifinal match - the winner from these three moves on to the finals, the other two are eliminated: therefore it doesn't matter one whit how much money you make - only that you win the game tonight.

It was tight through the last category, as contestants A & B came ino the last column tied... B got questions for $400 and $800, but B got the question for $1600 and took the lead for good.

As we move into the Final Jeopardy! question, here are the scores (either exactly right, or correct in substance):

A: 16,800
B: 16,400
C: 7,400

Anyway, now they have to decide how much to wager on the final question.

Anyone care to speculate on how much should each person bet, to optimize his chances of winning? I don't think this is too tough, and I think there's perhaps one judgment call here... but all told, this isn't that hard. (And it shouldn't be that hard for proven champions, who have already made big bucks playing this game numerous times)

dacman · 05-13-2003, 08:58 AM

I can guess where you're going with this -- lemme guess that A bet something like $16,001 ?

henry296 · 05-13-2003, 09:01 AM

C needs to bet 0.
A needs to bet 16,001
B will bet it all in a real game, but in this version where all you want to do is win I would bet 1,601.

Todd

QuikSand · 05-13-2003, 09:16 AM

Todd, you and I are on the same page here. I think B has a judgment call, but I ultimately agree that his best bet is to wager practically nothing. I'd even suggest that betting zero is wiser than betting $1,601... you don't want to needlessly risk losing to C, if she bets it all and gets it right.

cuervo72 · 05-13-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by henry296
C needs to bet 0.
A needs to bet 16,001
B will bet it all in a real game, but in this version where all you want to do is win I would bet 1,601.

Todd

I think I'd go with Todd on B, and maybe A. Though it might be dependent on how confident the contestants are with the question.

A is in the lead, and will figure that he/she must protect the lead, and bet enough to win by $1 if B bets everything and gets it right (which is probably what B does most often). On the other hand, as B you should figure that to win, A has to answer incorrectly. So with that in mind, B could be ok betting nothing at all - he can already beat C, and if A bets to cover and gets it wrong, B's already in.

Of course, if A wasn't confident in the category - say it's Opera

, he could gamble and not bet anything, which puts the pressure on B to answer the question correct.

Knowing A & B are *probably* both going to bet a bundle, C should just stand pat.

On a related note, has anyone here been on Jeopardy? I've taken the written test twice, and passed the second time, but they never called me back.

Another note for long-time Jeopardy fans. I was watching World News Tonight, and they had a clip of Charles Forrest, CEO of Indict. "Chuck" Forrest was a 5-time champion way back in season 2, winning over $72k and I believe won the Tournament of Champions as well.

QuikSand · 05-13-2003, 09:21 AM

Anyway, without belaboring this - here's what happened:

The question is a tough one - a possible stumper.
In order, they reveal the results:

C misses the question, and she bet $7,399 and ended up with $1.

B misses the question, and he bet $16,300 and ended up with $100.

A also misses the question, but he made the poper bet of $16,001 - he ends up with $799 and wins the evening.

Point being, of course, that either B or C could have won the evening by simply follwing basic logic here.

The most obvious case is C - she finihed a pretty distant third place to these two guys. By betting all her money, she implicitly is betting that she will get the final question right, and both the other guys who just crushed her will miss it. That's her only way to win.

Her other option - far better - was to bet practically nothing, and to hope that the question is a stumper, which everybody misses. Remember - the only way she wins under any circumstances is if noth the other guys miss the question. She can either bet nothing - and win in that case (assumiong B makes a big bet) or bet it all, and only win if she manages to get that tough question right.

Nitwit!

I'm glad she lost - she was annoying anyway. "Personal success consultant" indeed.

QuikSand · 05-13-2003, 09:23 AM

Incidentally, folks - remember, you make your wager amount before you get to see the question. All you get is the category up front... which isn't that great a guide as to whether you will know it.

TredWel · 05-13-2003, 09:25 AM

I have an old copy of Mathematics Magazine, where one article derives the formulas for optimal betting in Final Jeopardy. The results for this case are as follows:

A bets $16,001
B bets $1,599
C bets $0

I think B should bet the $1,599. It guards against A outguessing B, and betting $0, which is something that will never happen in the real game.

QuikSand · 05-13-2003, 09:36 AM

I completely agree with that, TredWel. Those are the exact numbers I would argue.

cuervo72 · 05-13-2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
Incidentally, folks - remember, you make your wager amount before you get to see the question. All you get is the category up front... which isn't that great a guide as to whether you will know it.

I meant category rather than question...I got it right the second time.

Out of curiosity, what was the question? Honest, I didn't see it last night. Ever since they didn't call I went back to watching News/Seinfeld (with my channel lineup I can watch at 7 or 7:30).

QuikSand · 05-13-2003, 09:40 AM

I confes I cannot even recall the exact question... it was a "movie history" question, and dealt with an actor I've never heard of. The answer they sought was the name of the studio, but none of the contestants (obviously) knew it.

Bee · 05-13-2003, 09:42 AM

Of course, we knew to start that C wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer since she was going in to Final Jeopardy in last place.

cuervo72 · 05-13-2003, 09:43 AM

Hmm, I probably wouldn't have gotten it then anyway. Actually, there's a lot I don't get when it comes to ToC questions

JAG · 05-13-2003, 09:54 AM

Personally, I think this a lot trickier than it looks. For me, the problem is I assume I am going against intelligent opponents that also know probability. First of all, Person C. Obviously this person needs A and B to blow it and to spend big trying to go over the other. Two main options:

1. Bet zero hoping they bet a lot. Probably the most prudent move as it doesn't involve you risking you answer incorrectly.

2. Bet everything and hope they took at least semi-moderate risks.

Person B has a wide variety of ways to play it:

1. Bet $401. If A gets it wrong and B gets it right, win.

2. Bet everything. Even if A gets it right, you have a decent chance of winning. If B gets it wrong, goodbye. Risky.

3. Bet $1599. Guard against C betting everything and getting it right. If A guesses correctly, B is probably gone.

Person A should bet at least $399, as if person B misses, A is a guaranteed winner anyway. Options include:

1. Make it so the opponents can't catch up if A gets it right, thus betting not a cent more than 16,001. Probably the most popular option on Jeopardy.
2. Play that person B will screw up and that A will too, and so betting $399.
3. Play that person B will win but not bet much. Probably bet enough here to cover beating C if C bets everything and wins but would still beat B if A and B win.

Ok, so we know what options they have. But then there's also the fudge factor of player B saying, "Ok, I think A will bet $399 so if I get it wrong, A wins. I'll bet $1599 hedging against C and playing enough to beat A." What if A is tapping into B's brainwaves and says, "Hm, I smell a $1599 bet to hedge against C. I'll wager $1301 which gives me a win if we both get it right or if we both blow it."

I would factor these things into my decision:

1. How much I know about the topic. If I have a better than average knowledge, I'm willing to take a greater risk. The reverse is also true.

2. How much the opponents know about the topic. Tricky to tell of course, but could be gleaned from the two previous rounds. If you're clever, you could watch their reaction after the revelation of the topic to see if their facial expressions yield a clue as to how pleased they are (unlikely to be a bluff I would think, but who knows) You could adjust your bet based on your speculation of their knowledge.

3. Your opponents' risk aversion. This could be difficult to tell too, but if you have any knowledge on that based on what they have done with any Daily Doubles, you could adjust your bet based on that as well.

Whew, I'm a bit burned out now, but in any case, I don't necessarily see it as cut and dried. I'd say Person C probably has to bet nothing since they have to hope for a pretty decent loss for both A and B anyway, plus that they might (and probably should) hedge against C, if they bet small. However, I think A and B have tough choices to make and they need to use whatever external factors they can to guide them to their bet size.

Jamie

Samdari · 05-13-2003, 09:56 AM

Am I missing something? I thought that on Jeopardy, the contestants placed their final wagers during the commercial break after the category, but not the question, had been revealed. The wagers are revealed to the audience at the same time as the answers, thus leading to this confusion, but I am pretty sure they place their wagers before they see the exact question. Otherwise, why show the category and then go to break?

Samdari · 05-13-2003, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
I'm glad she lost - she was annoying anyway. "Personal success consultant" indeed.

WTF is this? She really gave that as her job?

Anrhydeddu · 05-13-2003, 10:04 AM

QS, somehow I knew you were going to post this. I actually thought you were going to bring up last Friday's Final Jeopardy which I thought were bad bets but I can't recall the details. Forgot to watch last night but my wife did tell me the results. I think the wild card in this was the mindset left over from deciding who among those with $0 got chosen as a semi-finalist. But knowing that this round is sudden death it seems that being most aggressive is the only way to go.

Easy Mac · 05-13-2003, 10:39 AM

My theory is, you only live once. Bet all you got and let the cards fall where they may. Of course, 16K may make me change my ideas.

Celeval · 05-13-2003, 12:26 PM

Plus, going into the question betting '$0' lets you answer something like:

"Who are three men who have never been in my kitchen."

Anrhydeddu · 05-13-2003, 12:37 PM

Or in reality, Celeval, $22,000.

RPI-Fan · 05-13-2003, 12:41 PM

Or, like I did when I was in a trivia contest, when asked to give four words starting with 'cu' based on a given definition, lean over to the team representative (who wasn't too well-versed in the 'sex-vernacular') and say you think the third one is 'cunt'.

Priceless were the looks from people watching it when he rattled off our answers.

QuikSand · 05-13-2003, 01:44 PM

JAG, I simply cannot agree with your conclusion that there are really tough choices here. Indeed, I pretty rapidly reach the conclusion that both A and C have absolute no-brainer decisions to be there appropriate sums of $16,001 and $0, respectively.

Particularly since this is the Tournament of CHampions - these are all good players. They all won $50,000 or more when on for the first time, and they all made it this far through the TOC (surviving the first elimination round) - there shouldn't be any real dummies in the group. The only thing that it's not safe to assume here (obviously) is that the people will make rational decisions in their betting plan.

But no matter how risk-averse the players involved, or the other things you raise as assumptions - I don't see any argument for player A betting anything other than $16,001. Only if there were some absurd preponderance of "stumper" FJ questions... which we implicitly know not to be the case, and any Jeopardy! fan would know this as well, not to mention any multi-game winner.

The reasoning behind C is as I laid out above... it's self-evident in this case. Might have been tougher had she had more than half the amount of the second place guy, but here it's incontrovertible.

JAG · 05-13-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
JAG, I simply cannot agree with your conclusion that there are really tough choices here. Indeed, I pretty rapidly reach the conclusion that both A and C have absolute no-brainer decisions to be there appropriate sums of $16,001 and $0, respectively.

Particularly since this is the Tournament of CHampions - these are all good players. They all won $50,000 or more when on for the first time, and they all made it this far through the TOC (surviving the first elimination round) - there shouldn't be any real dummies in the group. The only thing that it's not safe to assume here (obviously) is that the people will make rational decisions in their betting plan.

But no matter how risk-averse the players involved, or the other things you raise as assumptions - I don't see any argument for player A betting anything other than $16,001. Only if there were some absurd preponderance of "stumper" FJ questions... which we implicitly know not to be the case, and any Jeopardy! fan would know this as well, not to mention any multi-game winner.

Ok, after considering that these are all top-notch players, you would assume that the Q's will be answered correctly. I can see where you're coming from then and would agree about player A and C (my assumption was that there was a so-so chance of answering the Q correctly, probably not very accurate based on their past success). That being the case though, I would think it is a no-brainer decision from player B as well to bet $1000 (or some small amount). You need player A to miss the question. If player A misses, you have a guaranteed win. What else is there for player B to think about?

QuikSand · 05-13-2003, 03:37 PM

Okay, JAG - let's just talk about B. I've said this is the closest to a "tough call" among the three, but let's look at it.

A has $16,800
B has $16,400

Let's split this into two scenarios: A gets the question right, and A gets the question wrong.

If A gets it right, in all likelihood it's game over. There is a very high likelihood that A will have bet enough to win the game - dsepite your logic from above, there is a wide basis that most FJ questions are in fact solvable, and that a TOC competitor has a pretty good shot to get it right. That's why you want to have the highest score going into FJ - so you can secure that spot: get this right, and win the night. Whether the chance of getting it right is 60% or 90%, it's still a no-brainer that A bet enough to win period.

However, if A gets the question wrong, now we have two options. Remember, we think it's very likely that A bet something like $16,001 - but it's at least possible that A bet less, and therefore the amount that B bets is relevent here.

Now, there's another fork in the probability tree - will B get the question right?

Here's where this ceases to be a series of independent events. If we already know that A (the leader going into FJ) missed the question, then doesn't that stand to reason that the chances are much higher than ordniary that B will also miss the question? Sure, it's possible that this just happens to be a mixed bag question, and A misses while B hits... but it's also much more possible that the question is simply a "stumper" that practically nobody is going to know. (It happens, maybe 5-15% of the time, I'd guess)

So, if you're B, your options are basically:

-Bet significant money, hoping to pass A if he misses it and I get it right

-Bet practically no money, hoping to pass B in the event that the question stumps him, causing him to lose his lead

Basically, the only circumstance where betting helps you, as B, is if A decided not to bet much of anything at all - $0 or something less then $400, for whatever reason. It's tough in my mind to see that happening, but that's what you're betting on, in essence. And then, it will only pay off in the fairly remote circumstance that the question fits right into the litle band of things that B knows but A doesn't.

Longshot city. Bet a tiny sum, maybe $401, but certainly not a lot here.

JAG · 05-13-2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand

A has $16,800
B has $16,400

However, if A gets the question wrong, now we have two options. Remember, we think it's very likely that A bet something like $16,001 - but it's at least possible that A bet less, and therefore the amount that B bets is relevent here.
So, if you're B, your options are basically:

-Bet significant money, hoping to pass A if he misses it and I get it right

-Bet practically no money, hoping to pass B in the event that the question stumps him, causing him to lose his lead

I'm confused by a couple of things here. First of all, in the first paragraph I'm reproducing here, you're now talking about the possibility of A betting a smaller amount when we just both agreed that he should bet the amount that allows him to guarantee victory should he answer the question right. And if what you're saying is true that most FJ questions are answerable, that is the unquestionable bet to make...gotta play the percentages unless the category is something like Cairo Housing Developments, but let's say it's a 'normal' category.

The first option for B, betting significant money to pass A if A misses and B is right, doesn't make sense. B only has to bet something over $400 dollars to win in the event A misses and B nails it (A will gain no more than $16,800, B will gain over $16,800). It only makes sense if A bets a small amount, which A should not do. What I looked at was 3 potential outcomes:

1. A and B both guess right. If A plays correctly, B loses no matter what B wagers.

2. A guesses wrong and B guesses correctly. If A is bets 'correctly', then B needs only bet over $400 to win in this event.

3. A and B both guess incorrectly. In this case, if A bets 'correctly', B wins if the bet made is anything under $15,199.

So following this, B should bet no more than an amount that would allow C to get back in the game if C bets everything and wins and A and B both miss, and B should bet enough to win if A falters. I picked $1000 in case A tries to bet a really small amount for whatever weird reason to give B another chance to win if A and B both guess correctly.

kcchief19 · 05-13-2003, 10:53 PM

I agree that B is the judgement call. If A bets anything other 16,001 and C anything other than 0, I think those are bad calls.

I also agree that B's best probability is to bet small and hope A misses.

However, these choices are all based on "pure" logic. If you are in B's position, it is easy to let psychology get involved, namely, that you are better off betting the farm to make sure that if you lose, it isn't because you didn't try. Betting small and hoping others miss is the "smart" call but it's not the "gutsy" call. You also don't know what A is going to do. If A makes a stupid bet, such as nothing, and you bet nothing as well, you can lose to someone who bad a "bad" call when you made the "smart call." Tough to stomach.

QuikSand · 05-14-2003, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JAG
2. A guesses wrong and B guesses correctly. If A is bets 'correctly', then B needs only bet over $400 to win in this event.

Read this again, and tell me this is correct.

A is wrong, and has bet $16,001 - leaving him with $799.

B had $16,400 going in, and gets the question right. His total will be at least $16,400 - but in any circumstance it will be far more than A's total.

If A makes his obvious bet and gets it wrong, but B gets it right - B is going to win, period. The amount of the bet is irrelevant in this case.

QuikSand · 05-14-2003, 08:32 AM

And I do agree with kcchief's thining about B. The temptation to "go down swinging" is a strong one, and I can understand people making that judgment call. But fairly pure logic dictates the rational bet for B is a token one. Whether pure logic prevails... well, that's why we watch, right?

Marmel · 05-14-2003, 09:10 AM

I am going to take this topic slightly off topic for a minute.

It pisses me off to no end, that player A would bet 16,001 instead of 16,000.

OK, I know the rules are slightly different in the TOC, but in a regular Jeopardy game, why, why, why do they bet that extra dollar?

If the two players tie they both get to keep the money! And they both get to come back the next day! You couldn't do a nicer thing for somebody, and you don't hurt yourself one bit. I heard the argument that you are bringing back a good player with you and that is crap....you might be introducing two great players on the next show, there is no way to know that.

If I was on that show and somebody beat me by 1 dollar when they could have easily let me tie, and keep some $10,000+ dollars, I would turn to them and knock their block off (of course, I am a poor loser).

QuikSand · 05-14-2003, 09:13 AM

Marmel, in the case where you (the leader) have beaten the other player pretty soundly, I completely agree with you. Let the guy get his money, and have him come back - you know you can beat that guy.

Yes, the TOC environment is different, but in general - I'm with you.

Of course, if you felt you benefitted from lucky categories, etc. to beat the other player, or you felt that he would give you a real threat if you played again for whatever reason -- you may make an appropriate self-interested decision to bet the extra dollar, but in general I'm with you.

Marmel · 05-14-2003, 09:18 AM

Quik, Yes I understand that it wouldn't happen all the time, but I think I remember seeing it happen one time on Jeopardy (not that I watch religiously). I am glad I am not the only one who feels that way.

cuervo72 · 05-14-2003, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marmel

OK, I know the rules are slightly different in the TOC, but in a regular Jeopardy game, why, why, why do they bet that extra dollar?

If the two players tie they both get to keep the money! And they both get to come back the next day! You couldn't do a nicer thing for somebody, and you don't hurt yourself one bit. I heard the argument that you are bringing back a good player with you and that is crap....you might be introducing two great players on the next show, there is no way to know that.

If I was on that show and somebody beat me by 1 dollar when they could have easily let me tie, and keep some $10,000+ dollars, I would turn to them and knock their block off (of course, I am a poor loser).

I actually saw someone do this a while back (a few years) - an outgoing 5-time champion. Was gracious enough to allow a tie, letting the other contestant come back as champion. I wish they'd do it more often, and I'd like to see it happen the other way around - a 4-time champion given a tie to advance them to 5-time status.

JAG · 05-14-2003, 09:48 AM

"Originally posted by JAG
2. A guesses wrong and B guesses correctly. If A is bets 'correctly', then B needs only bet over $400 to win in this event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read this again, and tell me this is correct.

A is wrong, and has bet $16,001 - leaving him with $799.

B had $16,400 going in, and gets the question right. His total will be at least $16,400 - but in any circumstance it will be far more than A's total.

If A makes his obvious bet and gets it wrong, but B gets it right - B is going to win, period. The amount of the bet is irrelevant in this case."

Sorry, what I should have said for 2. above is,

no matter what A bets, B need only bet $401 to win. (say A bet $0 for example)

But really, it didn't change the outcome of what B's strategy should be. To maximize winning chances, B should bet enough to beat A if A should miss the question (>$400) and not so much that B unnecessarily risks losing if B misses it (<$1800 or whatever it was).

As an aside, I also like that idea of giving the other person a chance to tie.

Jamie

QuikSand · 05-14-2003, 10:56 AM

On your point, Marmel - I also think there's something to the notion that a returning player is likely to be more comfortable and settled in the stage surrounding than a brand new player. So, it's probably fair to assume that letting the person return for a second match probably will give them a chance to improve their performance. From a completely self-interested perspective (with which I have no disagreement), that might lend a little weight to the "bet the extra dollar" strategy).

Dutch · 05-14-2003, 12:04 PM

Sticking with Jeopardy! but going OT slightly. Do you think the contestants are given time to study certain topics that WILL be on the show or do they just know this stuff?

It just seems strange when a nice old black lady says, "Who is Iron Maiden, Ozzy Ozbourne, and Motley Crew?"

JeeberD · 05-14-2003, 12:30 PM

I'm pretty sure that the contestants are given info to study beforehand. Nothing too specific, but some study aids none the less.

Marm-

It's all about winning, man. Personally, I'm very competative, and there's no way that I would let someone tie me if I had the chance to beat them. Winning's what it's all about...

TredWel · 05-14-2003, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dutch
Sticking with Jeopardy! but going OT slightly. Do you think the contestants are given time to study certain topics that WILL be on the show or do they just know this stuff?

They just know the stuff. There is a body of knowledge from which Jeopardy gleans most of their information from that a seasoned viewer can recognize, and which contestants study from before going to the studio, but they certainly don't tell the contestants. It even goes so far that no contestant can bring study aids into the green room before they can compete.

cuervo72 · 05-14-2003, 12:40 PM

I don't think you are given anything to study. I think contestants are on their own in that regard. I was told that if you're called by Jeopardy to be on the show, it will be about a month before your tape date. That's when I would have studied. I've read other accounts from past contestants, and I don't think any of them mentioned receiving any materials. But I'd assume a large number bring their own and study right up until taping.

Some advice I've seen is to be up on current events (watch tv, news, etc), and to watch a lot of the old shows, multiple times even. Once to get the subject matter down (you'd be amazed how many impressionist painter/ballerina questions there are

), another to get timing down.

cuervo72 · 05-14-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TredWel
It even goes so far that no contestant can bring study aids into the green room before they can compete.

That I didn't know - that's an interesting tidbit.

Marmel · 05-14-2003, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeeberD
I'm pretty sure that the contestants are given info to study beforehand. Nothing too specific, but some study aids none the less.

Marm-

It's all about winning, man. Personally, I'm very competative, and there's no way that I would let someone tie me if I had the chance to beat them. Winning's what it's all about...

I disagree Jeebs. If you don't bet that extra dollar, you tie....but EVERYBODY knows you won the game and did the second place finisher a HUGE favor by letting him take home thousands upon thousands of dollars.

This is not a 50 yard dash or something, you screw a person out of a (possible) life changing amount of money because you want to be the sole winner (which benefits you in no way that being a tied winner doesn't.)

Who here wouldn't give a complete stranger $10,000 if it didn't come out of your pocket? It would exempt you from ever having to be a good samiritan (sp?) for the rest of your life.

QuikSand · 05-14-2003, 01:12 PM

Yes, you get a few weeks to get "prepared" - and there is a fairly obvious litany of things that are worth studying - though you don't get any advance insights. Obvious areas for brush-ups: Shakespeare, the bible, mythology, major artists (yes, impressionists especially) and composers (especially opera), television and movies (particularly either major classics or stuff from the last few years), world capitals, and European history & geography. There's no advance list - but there are certain topics that you know are old favorites.

Back in my competitive days (in College Bowl) I used to spend my time while the host was making introductions, jotting down some particular useful list on my scratch paper... like the amendments to the constitution, by number, with short topics. You never know when it will come in handy... and the writing itself is sort of therapeutic.

Bee · 05-14-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand

Back in my competitive days (in College Bowl) I used to spend my time while the host was making introductions, jotting down some particular useful list on my scratch paper... like the amendments to the constitution, by number, with short topics. You never know when it will come in handy... and the writing itself is sort of therapeutic.

I used to peel the labels off the beer bottles...I guess to each his own.

Anrhydeddu · 05-14-2003, 01:27 PM

When I was on a College Bowl at UNC, I just sat there intimidated and braindead so I couldn't answer any questions.

Marmel · 05-14-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
When I was on a College Bowl at UNC, I just sat there intimidated and braindead so I couldn't answer any questions.

Hey, pretty much like you are at FOFC, huh?

cuervo72 · 05-14-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
When I was on a College Bowl at UNC, I just sat there intimidated and braindead so I couldn't answer any questions.

I went to one meeting for that once, and immediately knew I didn't belong there. It was like this was all these people did (and considering it was Johns Hopkins, with one of the dweebiest student populations, it probably was). There is something with the medium (years and years of tv watching!!) and how Jeopardy is set up that I'm accustomed to, which is probably why I'd do much better at home than as a contestant anyway.

RPI-Fan · 05-14-2003, 08:51 PM

Yea', there's a certain mentality to this sort of thing.

I'm not that smart, but I do really good in live trivia competitions. I see a couple of reasons for this...

1) I'm a good guesser
2) I, unlike many other competitors, don't get nervous under the gun. I don't get tunnel vision, and never really panic. If worst comes to worst, I always make sure to get out a reasonable answer in the given amount of time.

Also, I pick up as I go along. In one specific contest I'm in, they ask a fair amount of sports questions. I can get all of them. Early on, I waited too long to buzz in, thinking there would be a trick somewhere. There wasn't. There never is (on sports questions). So when I know the obvious answer, I buzz in. And it's helped a bunch.

So anyways, just pointing out that competing in the live show is a whole different ball game from beating your family members in your living room (there's no punishment for guessing, and you don't need to worry about timing of buzzing in).

Oh, and to relate to cuervo's last comment, in the same trivia contest mentioned above, a lot of people suffer what I call "Jeopardy Syndrome". Even though the questions are asked in a standard format, people repeatedly answer "What is... (diarehea)."

~rpi-fan

QuikSand · 05-18-2003, 01:32 PM

Well, just as an update for those who didn't see the conclusion of the Tournament of Champions this last week...

Among the final three contestants, competing for the top prize of $250,000 - the whole thing ended up being decided by... a math blunder.

The contestant with the highest Friday score going into FJ simply had to bet it all and win... and he would win the competition. Instead, he tried to calculate how much he needed to win by $1 over his rival... and apparently made a mistake by $100. So, when both he and his rival got the final question correct, his bet was revealed to leave him $199 short... and the rightful second place contestant won the $250,000.

The guy who "should have won" took home $56,000 or so for second place... but basically blew nearly four times that much by botching his arithmetic at the end. Ouch.

Kodos · 05-18-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marmel
If I was on that show and somebody beat me by 1 dollar when they could have easily let me tie, and keep some $10,000+ dollars, I would turn to them and knock their block off (of course, I am a poor loser).

Hey Marmel. We already know that you're a poor loser. No need to tell us.

Kodos · 05-18-2003, 02:19 PM

BTW, I think Jeopardy is the last game show that I would want to go on. It is so much harder than other game shows. I would probably go on Wheel of Fortune or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. I always do well on Wheel (I'm good at word puzzles), and it's easier to get a decent sum of money on Millionaire. I would just get my ass handed to me on Jeopardy.

kcchief19 · 05-18-2003, 04:42 PM

I was getting ready to make an observation until I reread the original scenario that it was a semifinal match. I haven't had a chance to watch the TOC in a number of years, but the old format was that during the first week, they brought in 15 contestants and the five winners and next four highest scores advanced to the semifinals.

Under that scenario, would what your answers be? Granted, the players on the last day are in the best situation -- they know what total they have to hit to make it if they don't win. But if this is the first day, how would you bet with these same totals?

A: 16,800
B: 16,400
C: 7,400

A and B are good totals. I haven't study what the scores are for the four other semifinalists, but these scores would seem to be at least on the border.

It seems that the "smart" play would be for A to bet nothing, B to bet $401 and C to bet it all. C's only chance of advancing with that total is likely only if A and B both bet big and miss. It seems C has a better chance of answering the question correctly than hoping two others both miss.

$401 is a small bet for B. It seems like a small risk to wager in exchange for the possibility of qualifying automatically. Then again, if we assume that this is a "smart" strategy, is A risking anything by betting to forge a tie if B bets $401 and hits it?

I will defer to my professors in probability and racing forms for an answer.

05-13-2003, 08:58 AM	#2
dacman College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: speak to the trout	I can guess where you're going with this -- lemme guess that A bet something like $16,001 ? __________________ No signatures allowed.

05-13-2003, 09:01 AM	#3
henry296 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Pittsburgh, PA	C needs to bet 0. A needs to bet 16,001 B will bet it all in a real game, but in this version where all you want to do is win I would bet 1,601. Todd __________________ "It's a great day for hockey" - "Badger" Bob Johnson

05-13-2003, 09:25 AM	#8
TredWel High School Varsity Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Old Forge, PA	I have an old copy of Mathematics Magazine, where one article derives the formulas for optimal betting in Final Jeopardy. The results for this case are as follows: A bets $16,001 B bets $1,599 C bets $0 I think B should bet the $1,599. It guards against A outguessing B, and betting $0, which is something that will never happen in the real game. __________________ There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people...religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin. - Linus Van Pelt

05-13-2003, 09:43 AM	#13
cuervo72 Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland	Hmm, I probably wouldn't have gotten it then anyway. Actually, there's a lot I don't get when it comes to ToC questions __________________ null

05-13-2003, 09:56 AM	#15
Samdari Roster Filler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Cicero	Am I missing something? I thought that on Jeopardy, the contestants placed their final wagers during the commercial break after the category, but not the question, had been revealed. The wagers are revealed to the audience at the same time as the answers, thus leading to this confusion, but I am pretty sure they place their wagers before they see the exact question. Otherwise, why show the category and then go to break? __________________ http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price!

05-13-2003, 09:16 AM	#4
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Todd, you and I are on the same page here. I think B has a judgment call, but I ultimately agree that his best bet is to wager practically nothing. I'd even suggest that betting zero is wiser than betting $1,601... you don't want to needlessly risk losing to C, if she bets it all and gets it right.

05-13-2003, 09:21 AM	#6
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Anyway, without belaboring this - here's what happened: The question is a tough one - a possible stumper. In order, they reveal the results: C misses the question, and she bet $7,399 and ended up with $1. B misses the question, and he bet $16,300 and ended up with $100. A also misses the question, but he made the poper bet of $16,001 - he ends up with $799 and wins the evening. Point being, of course, that either B or C could have won the evening by simply follwing basic logic here. The most obvious case is C - she finihed a pretty distant third place to these two guys. By betting all her money, she implicitly is betting that she will get the final question right, and both the other guys who just crushed her will miss it. That's her only way to win. Her other option - far better - was to bet practically nothing, and to hope that the question is a stumper, which everybody misses. Remember - the only way she wins under any circumstances is if noth the other guys miss the question. She can either bet nothing - and win in that case (assumiong B makes a big bet) or bet it all, and only win if she manages to get that tough question right. Nitwit! I'm glad she lost - she was annoying anyway. "Personal success consultant" indeed.

05-13-2003, 09:23 AM	#7
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Incidentally, folks - remember, you make your wager amount before you get to see the question. All you get is the category up front... which isn't that great a guide as to whether you will know it.

05-13-2003, 09:36 AM	#9
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I completely agree with that, TredWel. Those are the exact numbers I would argue.

05-13-2003, 09:40 AM	#11
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I confes I cannot even recall the exact question... it was a "movie history" question, and dealt with an actor I've never heard of. The answer they sought was the name of the studio, but none of the contestants (obviously) knew it.

05-13-2003, 09:42 AM	#12
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Of course, we knew to start that C wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer since she was going in to Final Jeopardy in last place.

05-13-2003, 09:54 AM	#14
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	Personally, I think this a lot trickier than it looks. For me, the problem is I assume I am going against intelligent opponents that also know probability. First of all, Person C. Obviously this person needs A and B to blow it and to spend big trying to go over the other. Two main options: 1. Bet zero hoping they bet a lot. Probably the most prudent move as it doesn't involve you risking you answer incorrectly. 2. Bet everything and hope they took at least semi-moderate risks. Person B has a wide variety of ways to play it: 1. Bet $401. If A gets it wrong and B gets it right, win. 2. Bet everything. Even if A gets it right, you have a decent chance of winning. If B gets it wrong, goodbye. Risky. 3. Bet $1599. Guard against C betting everything and getting it right. If A guesses correctly, B is probably gone. Person A should bet at least $399, as if person B misses, A is a guaranteed winner anyway. Options include: 1. Make it so the opponents can't catch up if A gets it right, thus betting not a cent more than 16,001. Probably the most popular option on Jeopardy. 2. Play that person B will screw up and that A will too, and so betting $399. 3. Play that person B will win but not bet much. Probably bet enough here to cover beating C if C bets everything and wins but would still beat B if A and B win. Ok, so we know what options they have. But then there's also the fudge factor of player B saying, "Ok, I think A will bet $399 so if I get it wrong, A wins. I'll bet $1599 hedging against C and playing enough to beat A." What if A is tapping into B's brainwaves and says, "Hm, I smell a $1599 bet to hedge against C. I'll wager $1301 which gives me a win if we both get it right or if we both blow it." I would factor these things into my decision: 1. How much I know about the topic. If I have a better than average knowledge, I'm willing to take a greater risk. The reverse is also true. 2. How much the opponents know about the topic. Tricky to tell of course, but could be gleaned from the two previous rounds. If you're clever, you could watch their reaction after the revelation of the topic to see if their facial expressions yield a clue as to how pleased they are (unlikely to be a bluff I would think, but who knows) You could adjust your bet based on your speculation of their knowledge. 3. Your opponents' risk aversion. This could be difficult to tell too, but if you have any knowledge on that based on what they have done with any Daily Doubles, you could adjust your bet based on that as well. Whew, I'm a bit burned out now, but in any case, I don't necessarily see it as cut and dried. I'd say Person C probably has to bet nothing since they have to hope for a pretty decent loss for both A and B anyway, plus that they might (and probably should) hedge against C, if they bet small. However, I think A and B have tough choices to make and they need to use whatever external factors they can to guide them to their bet size. Jamie

05-13-2003, 10:04 AM	#17
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	QS, somehow I knew you were going to post this. I actually thought you were going to bring up last Friday's Final Jeopardy which I thought were bad bets but I can't recall the details. Forgot to watch last night but my wife did tell me the results. I think the wild card in this was the mindset left over from deciding who among those with $0 got chosen as a semi-finalist. But knowing that this round is sudden death it seems that being most aggressive is the only way to go.

05-13-2003, 10:39 AM	#18
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	My theory is, you only live once. Bet all you got and let the cards fall where they may. Of course, 16K may make me change my ideas.

05-13-2003, 12:26 PM	#19
Celeval Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Cary, NC, USA	Plus, going into the question betting '$0' lets you answer something like: "Who are three men who have never been in my kitchen."

05-13-2003, 12:37 PM	#20
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	Or in reality, Celeval, $22,000.

05-13-2003, 12:41 PM	#21
RPI-Fan Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Troy, NY	Or, like I did when I was in a trivia contest, when asked to give four words starting with 'cu' based on a given definition, lean over to the team representative (who wasn't too well-versed in the 'sex-vernacular') and say you think the third one is 'cunt'. Priceless were the looks from people watching it when he rattled off our answers. __________________ Quis custodiets ipsos custodes?

05-13-2003, 01:44 PM	#22
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	JAG, I simply cannot agree with your conclusion that there are really tough choices here. Indeed, I pretty rapidly reach the conclusion that both A and C have absolute no-brainer decisions to be there appropriate sums of $16,001 and $0, respectively. Particularly since this is the Tournament of CHampions - these are all good players. They all won $50,000 or more when on for the first time, and they all made it this far through the TOC (surviving the first elimination round) - there shouldn't be any real dummies in the group. The only thing that it's not safe to assume here (obviously) is that the people will make rational decisions in their betting plan. But no matter how risk-averse the players involved, or the other things you raise as assumptions - I don't see any argument for player A betting anything other than $16,001. Only if there were some absurd preponderance of "stumper" FJ questions... which we implicitly know not to be the case, and any Jeopardy! fan would know this as well, not to mention any multi-game winner. The reasoning behind C is as I laid out above... it's self-evident in this case. Might have been tougher had she had more than half the amount of the second place guy, but here it's incontrovertible.

05-13-2003, 03:37 PM	#24
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Okay, JAG - let's just talk about B. I've said this is the closest to a "tough call" among the three, but let's look at it. A has $16,800 B has $16,400 Let's split this into two scenarios: A gets the question right, and A gets the question wrong. If A gets it right, in all likelihood it's game over. There is a very high likelihood that A will have bet enough to win the game - dsepite your logic from above, there is a wide basis that most FJ questions are in fact solvable, and that a TOC competitor has a pretty good shot to get it right. That's why you want to have the highest score going into FJ - so you can secure that spot: get this right, and win the night. Whether the chance of getting it right is 60% or 90%, it's still a no-brainer that A bet enough to win period. However, if A gets the question wrong, now we have two options. Remember, we think it's very likely that A bet something like $16,001 - but it's at least possible that A bet less, and therefore the amount that B bets is relevent here. Now, there's another fork in the probability tree - will B get the question right? Here's where this ceases to be a series of independent events. If we already know that A (the leader going into FJ) missed the question, then doesn't that stand to reason that the chances are much higher than ordniary that B will also miss the question? Sure, it's possible that this just happens to be a mixed bag question, and A misses while B hits... but it's also much more possible that the question is simply a "stumper" that practically nobody is going to know. (It happens, maybe 5-15% of the time, I'd guess) So, if you're B, your options are basically: -Bet significant money, hoping to pass A if he misses it and I get it right -Bet practically no money, hoping to pass B in the event that the question stumps him, causing him to lose his lead Basically, the only circumstance where betting helps you, as B, is if A decided not to bet much of anything at all - $0 or something less then $400, for whatever reason. It's tough in my mind to see that happening, but that's what you're betting on, in essence. And then, it will only pay off in the fairly remote circumstance that the question fits right into the litle band of things that B knows but A doesn't. Longshot city. Bet a tiny sum, maybe $401, but certainly not a lot here.

05-13-2003, 10:53 PM	#26
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	I agree that B is the judgement call. If A bets anything other 16,001 and C anything other than 0, I think those are bad calls. I also agree that B's best probability is to bet small and hope A misses. However, these choices are all based on "pure" logic. If you are in B's position, it is easy to let psychology get involved, namely, that you are better off betting the farm to make sure that if you lose, it isn't because you didn't try. Betting small and hoping others miss is the "smart" call but it's not the "gutsy" call. You also don't know what A is going to do. If A makes a stupid bet, such as nothing, and you bet nothing as well, you can lose to someone who bad a "bad" call when you made the "smart call." Tough to stomach. Last edited by kcchief19 : 05-18-2003 at 04:26 PM.

05-14-2003, 08:32 AM	#28
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	And I do agree with kcchief's thining about B. The temptation to "go down swinging" is a strong one, and I can understand people making that judgment call. But fairly pure logic dictates the rational bet for B is a token one. Whether pure logic prevails... well, that's why we watch, right?

05-14-2003, 09:10 AM	#29
Marmel Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Manchester, CT	I am going to take this topic slightly off topic for a minute. It pisses me off to no end, that player A would bet 16,001 instead of 16,000. OK, I know the rules are slightly different in the TOC, but in a regular Jeopardy game, why, why, why do they bet that extra dollar? If the two players tie they both get to keep the money! And they both get to come back the next day! You couldn't do a nicer thing for somebody, and you don't hurt yourself one bit. I heard the argument that you are bringing back a good player with you and that is crap....you might be introducing two great players on the next show, there is no way to know that. If I was on that show and somebody beat me by 1 dollar when they could have easily let me tie, and keep some $10,000+ dollars, I would turn to them and knock their block off (of course, I am a poor loser). __________________ 81-78 Cincinnati basketball writer P. Daugherty, "Connor Barwin playing several minutes against Syracuse is like kids with slingshots taking down Caesar's legions."

05-14-2003, 09:13 AM	#30
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Marmel, in the case where you (the leader) have beaten the other player pretty soundly, I completely agree with you. Let the guy get his money, and have him come back - you know you can beat that guy. Yes, the TOC environment is different, but in general - I'm with you. Of course, if you felt you benefitted from lucky categories, etc. to beat the other player, or you felt that he would give you a real threat if you played again for whatever reason -- you may make an appropriate self-interested decision to bet the extra dollar, but in general I'm with you.

05-14-2003, 09:18 AM	#31
Marmel Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Manchester, CT	Quik, Yes I understand that it wouldn't happen all the time, but I think I remember seeing it happen one time on Jeopardy (not that I watch religiously). I am glad I am not the only one who feels that way. __________________ 81-78 Cincinnati basketball writer P. Daugherty, "Connor Barwin playing several minutes against Syracuse is like kids with slingshots taking down Caesar's legions."

05-14-2003, 09:48 AM	#33
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	"Originally posted by JAG 2. A guesses wrong and B guesses correctly. If A is bets 'correctly', then B needs only bet over $400 to win in this event. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read this again, and tell me this is correct. A is wrong, and has bet $16,001 - leaving him with $799. B had $16,400 going in, and gets the question right. His total will be at least $16,400 - but in any circumstance it will be far more than A's total. If A makes his obvious bet and gets it wrong, but B gets it right - B is going to win, period. The amount of the bet is irrelevant in this case." Sorry, what I should have said for 2. above is, no matter what A bets, B need only bet $401 to win. (say A bet $0 for example) But really, it didn't change the outcome of what B's strategy should be. To maximize winning chances, B should bet enough to beat A if A should miss the question (>$400) and not so much that B unnecessarily risks losing if B misses it (<$1800 or whatever it was). As an aside, I also like that idea of giving the other person a chance to tie. Jamie

05-14-2003, 10:56 AM	#34
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	On your point, Marmel - I also think there's something to the notion that a returning player is likely to be more comfortable and settled in the stage surrounding than a brand new player. So, it's probably fair to assume that letting the person return for a second match probably will give them a chance to improve their performance. From a completely self-interested perspective (with which I have no disagreement), that might lend a little weight to the "bet the extra dollar" strategy). Last edited by QuikSand : 05-14-2003 at 10:57 AM.

05-14-2003, 12:04 PM	#35
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	Sticking with Jeopardy! but going OT slightly. Do you think the contestants are given time to study certain topics that WILL be on the show or do they just know this stuff? It just seems strange when a nice old black lady says, "Who is Iron Maiden, Ozzy Ozbourne, and Motley Crew?"

05-14-2003, 12:30 PM	#36
JeeberD General Manager Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Town of Flower Mound	I'm pretty sure that the contestants are given info to study beforehand. Nothing too specific, but some study aids none the less. Marm- It's all about winning, man. Personally, I'm very competative, and there's no way that I would let someone tie me if I had the chance to beat them. Winning's what it's all about... __________________ UTEP Miners!!! I solemnly swear to never cheer for TO

05-14-2003, 12:40 PM	#38
cuervo72 Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland	I don't think you are given anything to study. I think contestants are on their own in that regard. I was told that if you're called by Jeopardy to be on the show, it will be about a month before your tape date. That's when I would have studied. I've read other accounts from past contestants, and I don't think any of them mentioned receiving any materials. But I'd assume a large number bring their own and study right up until taping. Some advice I've seen is to be up on current events (watch tv, news, etc), and to watch a lot of the old shows, multiple times even. Once to get the subject matter down (you'd be amazed how many impressionist painter/ballerina questions there are ), another to get timing down. __________________ null

05-14-2003, 01:12 PM	#41
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Yes, you get a few weeks to get "prepared" - and there is a fairly obvious litany of things that are worth studying - though you don't get any advance insights. Obvious areas for brush-ups: Shakespeare, the bible, mythology, major artists (yes, impressionists especially) and composers (especially opera), television and movies (particularly either major classics or stuff from the last few years), world capitals, and European history & geography. There's no advance list - but there are certain topics that you know are old favorites. Back in my competitive days (in College Bowl) I used to spend my time while the host was making introductions, jotting down some particular useful list on my scratch paper... like the amendments to the constitution, by number, with short topics. You never know when it will come in handy... and the writing itself is sort of therapeutic.

05-14-2003, 01:27 PM	#43
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	When I was on a College Bowl at UNC, I just sat there intimidated and braindead so I couldn't answer any questions.

05-14-2003, 08:51 PM	#46
RPI-Fan Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Troy, NY	Yea', there's a certain mentality to this sort of thing. I'm not that smart, but I do really good in live trivia competitions. I see a couple of reasons for this... 1) I'm a good guesser 2) I, unlike many other competitors, don't get nervous under the gun. I don't get tunnel vision, and never really panic. If worst comes to worst, I always make sure to get out a reasonable answer in the given amount of time. Also, I pick up as I go along. In one specific contest I'm in, they ask a fair amount of sports questions. I can get all of them. Early on, I waited too long to buzz in, thinking there would be a trick somewhere. There wasn't. There never is (on sports questions). So when I know the obvious answer, I buzz in. And it's helped a bunch. So anyways, just pointing out that competing in the live show is a whole different ball game from beating your family members in your living room (there's no punishment for guessing, and you don't need to worry about timing of buzzing in). Oh, and to relate to cuervo's last comment, in the same trivia contest mentioned above, a lot of people suffer what I call "Jeopardy Syndrome". Even though the questions are asked in a standard format, people repeatedly answer "What is... (diarehea)." ~rpi-fan __________________ Quis custodiets ipsos custodes?

05-18-2003, 01:32 PM	#47
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Well, just as an update for those who didn't see the conclusion of the Tournament of Champions this last week... Among the final three contestants, competing for the top prize of $250,000 - the whole thing ended up being decided by... a math blunder. The contestant with the highest Friday score going into FJ simply had to bet it all and win... and he would win the competition. Instead, he tried to calculate how much he needed to win by $1 over his rival... and apparently made a mistake by $100. So, when both he and his rival got the final question correct, his bet was revealed to leave him $199 short... and the rightful second place contestant won the $250,000. The guy who "should have won" took home $56,000 or so for second place... but basically blew nearly four times that much by botching his arithmetic at the end. Ouch.

05-18-2003, 02:19 PM	#49
Kodos Resident Alien Join Date: Jun 2001	BTW, I think Jeopardy is the last game show that I would want to go on. It is so much harder than other game shows. I would probably go on Wheel of Fortune or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. I always do well on Wheel (I'm good at word puzzles), and it's easier to get a decent sum of money on Millionaire. I would just get my ass handed to me on Jeopardy.

05-18-2003, 04:42 PM	#50
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	I was getting ready to make an observation until I reread the original scenario that it was a semifinal match. I haven't had a chance to watch the TOC in a number of years, but the old format was that during the first week, they brought in 15 contestants and the five winners and next four highest scores advanced to the semifinals. Under that scenario, would what your answers be? Granted, the players on the last day are in the best situation -- they know what total they have to hit to make it if they don't win. But if this is the first day, how would you bet with these same totals? A: 16,800 B: 16,400 C: 7,400 A and B are good totals. I haven't study what the scores are for the four other semifinalists, but these scores would seem to be at least on the border. It seems that the "smart" play would be for A to bet nothing, B to bet $401 and C to bet it all. C's only chance of advancing with that total is likely only if A and B both bet big and miss. It seems C has a better chance of answering the question correctly than hoping two others both miss. $401 is a small bet for B. It seems like a small risk to wager in exchange for the possibility of qualifying automatically. Then again, if we assume that this is a "smart" strategy, is A risking anything by betting to forge a tie if B bets $401 and hits it? I will defer to my professors in probability and racing forms for an answer.