The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: toetyper on July 20, 2012, 04:58:37 PM
-
ive been trying to find a list of players with 10 + wins but all the lists rank the champs by money won
-
1. David Madden (19).
Did you go to the Jeopardy website, and after looking at the top, say, twenty or so, plug those names into the Jeopardy Archive to se how many wins each person had?
-
to quote rose after dorothy smashed the spider in the envelope
'you're wise..youre just wise'
-
so after extensive research i can say that in the 8 years since jennings' streak only 1 player had a streak of 10 wins
my question. isn't that low/ does that surpise you//
-
so after extensive research i can say that in the 8 years since jennings' streak only 1 player had a streak of 10 wins
my question. isn't that low/ does that surpise you//
Yes and no. Yes, mainly because I can't believe it's been eight years.
That being said, no because 10 or more wins is one hell of a streak to pull off. Of course, there have been quite a few 6-10 win champs, and to me, that's pretty tough to do. Winning five pre-2003 is a feat that shouldn't be overlooked either.
It's kinda like the fact that 40 years after the Dolphins, there's only been one NFL team to go undefeated, and they lost in the Super Bowl. Just like plenty of contestants have come close to 10 wins, plenty of teams have started off 13-0 or 14-0, and usually lose a game or two before running through the playoffs. On one hand, it's surprising that it took 35 years for someone to do so, while on the other, 16-0 is no easy task.
-
so after extensive research i can say that in the 8 years since jennings' streak only 1 player had a streak of 10 wins
my question. isn't that low/ does that surpise you//
Yes and no. Yes, mainly because I can't believe it's been eight years.
Wow. It HAS been 8 years. That's crazy.
It doesn't surprise me. In the past five seasons, the show has only produced 29 players who have won five or more matches. On average, it looks like the show produces about 100 different champions a season; so out of roughly 500 people who have won a game, only 29 could produce 5 or more wins. Playing multiple shows in a row has to take its toll on you, and to pull off a win streak that long, you have to keep your focus and just lay waste to your opponents. Having a high number of lock games is key, only because missing the clue or playing catch up in Final is bound to get you knocked off sooner than later. Case in point? Ken Jennings had 65 lock games in 75 appearances. I think that in all 10 contested matches, he was leading going into Final.
-
IIRC there's only been two who even got TO 10, if not past it...
ETA: and besides David, the only one I could find was Dan Pawson. And this was one who I thought had won 10, not gotten to it (he lost there).
I still say Roger Craig dropped a relatively easy Final in his loss, but that's just my opinion. (I think he could've kept it going for at least three more, at the rate he was going.)
-
I still say Roger Craig dropped a relatively easy Final in his loss, but that's just my opinion.
Trust me, we all know your opinion.
-
I still say Roger Craig dropped a relatively easy Final in his loss, but that's just my opinion.
Trust me, we all know your opinion.
ALL RIGHT, it's over.
-
I still say Roger Craig dropped a relatively easy Final in his loss, but that's just my opinion.
Trust me, we all know your opinion.
ALL RIGHT, it's over.
And the next ball is...."Taking your ball and going home".
-
Why shouldn't he? No reason for anyone to get wound up here. Let it go.
Back to the OP: If we assume a straight 1/3 chance to win any game, given that someone wins one game, there is a 1-in-81 chance they'll win five.
Given that someone has won five games, there's a 1-in-729 chance they'll win eleven.
Therefore, since there have been fewer than 729 five-time champions, I'm not all that surprised that we haven't seen it.
(Yes, I know that a five-time champion is more than 1/3 to win any given game. However, if we assume that there are roughly 10 five-game winners per season, then there would have been 80 of them since Ken's run, roughly. To get a 1-in-80 chance that a five-game winner will win six more, the probability of a five-game winner to beat two random opponents would have be roughly .4817.)
-
(Yes, I know that a five-time champion is more than 1/3 to win any given game. However, if we assume that there are roughly 10 five-game winners per season, then there would have been 80 of them since Ken's run, roughly. To get a 1-in-80 chance that a five-game winner will win six more, the probability of a five-game winner to beat two random opponents would have be roughly .4817.)
And the odds are even worse than your estimates- I counted 29 winners of 5+ games in the past five seasons, so even then, your estimate is almost cut in half. making the probability substantially lower.
-
(Yes, I know that a five-time champion is more than 1/3 to win any given game. However, if we assume that there are roughly 10 five-game winners per season, then there would have been 80 of them since Ken's run, roughly. To get a 1-in-80 chance that a five-game winner will win six more, the probability of a five-game winner to beat two random opponents would have be roughly .4817.)
And the odds are even worse than your estimates- I counted 29 winners of 5+ games in the past five seasons, so even then, your estimate is almost cut in half. making the probability substantially lower.
I have a real problem with a blind statistical analysis of something that is so performance-based. Certain people do better in this game than other people do, and that is not something you can calculate. Even starting with the idea that three players have an equal chance to win gets you off on the wrong foot as far as I'm concerned.
-
Go to the Jeopardy Archive. Pick a random game from the last year or two. Try and correctly question the Final Jeopardy clue. Now do that again for the next nine FJs. That should give you a rough idea of how hard it is to retain the title belt so many times.
-
From what I've heard, the people at Jeopardy tell every contestant prior to going on to remember that everyone loses at Jeopardy, most lose sooner than others.
Looking at the Hall of Fame members (who each won $50K+), you have to figure that's quite a short list when considering all the contestants the show ever had. Just from that perspective, 5 is hard, 10+--wow!
Just guessing, but I would think 3 wins is average for a champion.
-
Just guessing, but I would think 3 wins is average for a champion.
Maybe if you let Ken Jennings skew the average. I'd think it'd be closer to two, considering how prevalent one-day champs are.
-
And the odds are even worse than your estimates- I counted 29 winners of 5+ games in the past five seasons, so even then, your estimate is almost cut in half. making the probability substantially lower.
Sorry, I somehow read your post as 'three seasons' instead of five.
I have a real problem with a blind statistical analysis of something that is so performance-based. Certain people do better in this game than other people do, and that is not something you can calculate. Even starting with the idea that three players have an equal chance to win gets you off on the wrong foot as far as I'm concerned.
I wasn't really intending that to be scientifically accurate; I was trying to justify why we have only seen one ten-game winner in the last eight years since I would have guessed we'd have more.