The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Don Howard on July 12, 2012, 06:46:04 AM
-
All this wagering to win by a buck if you're right and the opponent closer in score to you bets it all and is right.
"The person you tie today could beat you tomorrow".
Well, the person you tie today could tie you tomorrow, too.
Fess up, producers, you suggest not to tie because that's a potential heap of extra money you have to pay out.
Even during the five wins and you're out period, there'd be people on their fifth day with a lock game who'd still bet to win by a buck if they question the FJ! answer incorrectly. What's that to prove? That you're a great big dick?
Your thoughts, please.
EDITED MUCH LATER: To clarify that those going for their 5th win and an undefeated championship with a lock score for a win would still venture for winning by $1 even if they were to respond incorrectly.
-
Even during the five wins and you're out period, there'd be people with a lock game who'd still bet to win by a buck if they question the FJ! answer incorrectly. What's that to prove? That you're a great big dick?
If I'm competing, I want to get the optimal advantage that I can. I'd rather have two people unfamiliar with the buzzer system than one. How is it a dick to beat your competition?
I have the same beef with NFL coaches who go for the tie and hope to win the coin toss in overtime. Go for the dang win.
-
How is it a dick to beat your competition?
If you're guaranteed the fifth win and instant qualification to the tournament, what harm is there in throwing your opponent a bone?
That's where, in my belief, the dickishness kicked in.
-
If I'm competing, I want to get the optimal advantage that I can.
Generally, if there's any way I can convince my opponent to bet the lot in Final, I'd love for him to, since that means he can't possibly win if we both miss.
There's also the fact that, if you were beating him by a considerable margin going into Final, you'd rather play someone you've already "beat" once than a fresh player from the pool.
-
Here's another angle: Jeopardy has about a dozen people back in the green room ready to go on the show. If you have tying co-champs all the way through, that's five people who either have to wait until "tomorrow" or just won't get on the show.
If it ever got to the point where there were revolving co-champions and the show was paying out an additional $2.5 million or so in prize money, you'd probably see a fix of some sort.
-
During the first season, after the announcement of the 2nd- and 3rd-place prizes, Alex explained (more or less daily) that if there was a tie for second and third, second place would go to the player who led going into FJ. I assumed that they'd do the same thing for first place until I saw it happen. That would be the easy fix to make.
ETA: Nevertheless, when the limit was five games and someone bet to win by $1, I always asked, "What are you afraid of? Do you think he's going to come back and beat you in the Tournament of Champions?"
-
During the first season, after the announcement of the 2nd- and 3rd-place prizes, Alex explained (more or less daily) that if there was a tie for second and third, second place would go to the player who led going into FJ. I assumed that they'd do the same thing for first place until I saw it happen. That would be the easy fix to make.
What if they're tied going into FJ?
ETA: Nevertheless, when the limit was five games and someone bet to win by $1, I always asked, "What are you afraid of? Do you think he's going to come back and beat you in the Tournament of Champions?"
It is entirely possible that the victory was ingrained into the players's heads, and the idea that you would leave the back door open just didn't occur to people that it was a possibility.
-
The "fix" is easy: If you tie, you split the prize money. Jeopardy obviously doesn't believe it has to worry about that, so I doubt prize money is much of a consideration.
Most people come down on the "don't tie" side. I agree with Don, but only in some respects and not as passionately. I don't believe you're being a dick to play for the win, except possibly in that narrow window of the fifth game retiree, which isn't even relevant anymore. Still, as our scaly friend pointed out below, if I'd dominated my opponent and a tie was still possible, I'd be tempted to leave open that possibility. There are never guarantees, but in a Jeopardy pool, I'll take the somewhat-known vs the unknown just about every time. However, Mark's also right that familiarity with the buzzer is HUGE, and giving a player a second chance with it could come back to bite you. I don't think there is one "right" answer, which is one more reason why this game is so much fun to dissect.
-
I don't believe you're being a dick to play for the win, except possibly in that narrow window of the fifth game retiree
Yas.
-
I have the same beef with NFL coaches who go for the tie and hope to win the coin toss in overtime. Go for the dang win.
Doing some 'research,' I found out that the PAT was made 95% of the time last year, and 2-point conversions a little less than 50/50. Why is it not "going for the dang win" if you intend to do so during the fifth quarter instead of the fourth?
-
Tom Walsh was one of my favorite players.
I have the same beef with NFL coaches who go for the tie and hope to win the coin toss in overtime. Go for the dang win.
Doing some 'research,' I found out that the PAT was made 95% of the time last year, and 2-point conversions a little less than 50/50. Why is it not "going for the dang win" if you intend to do so during the fifth quarter instead of the fourth?
I don't know. Why don't you go over to the Off-Topic section to discuss this?
-
I don't know. Why don't you go over to the Off-Topic section to discuss this?
I thought you didn't listen to what I had to say because I was a detestable human being. Why should I extend you any courtesy at all?
(I think it is very on topic because it deals with the same sort of tactics and strategy of when to press an advantage if you have it. and when to hang back.)
-
The "fix" is easy: If you tie, you split the prize money. Jeopardy obviously doesn't believe it has to worry about that, so I doubt prize money is much of a consideration.
My hunch is that prize money absolutely is the primary consideration. The occasional tie is interesting and not appreciably detrimental to the budget. But if contestants started regularly betting to tie and the show found itself paying out twice as much money per episode, then they'd have to do something to keep their budget in check. So either they'd split the prize money (changing a firmly-established rule while simultaneously making them look stingy) or they'd write more difficult Double Jeopardy and Final Jeopardy clues to keep players from racking up high scores. Either way, it doesn't look good to the viewers at home.
Still, as our scaly friend pointed out below, if I'd dominated my opponent and a tie was still possible, I'd be tempted to leave open that possibility.
I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where you can thoroughly dominate an opponent but still have less than twice their score (unless they succeeded on a large Daily Double wager).
Technically, you can always bet to tie -- if you have a lock game, wager enough to fall back to twice your nearest opponent's score if you get Final Jeopardy wrong. But odds are that in that situation, your opponent isn't going to wager everything, so what's the point, I suppose.
I would also argue that this is a game, and we've been conditioned to expect a game to have one winner. I'm not sure it would be as satisfying for the average home viewer if episodes regularly ended with nondefinitive co-champions.
-
Why should I extend you any courtesy at all?
Such a big man you are. Your parents must be very proud.
-
I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where you can thoroughly dominate an opponent but still have less than twice their score (unless they succeeded on a large Daily Double wager).
Well...yeah, pretty much that, I guess. As I've said before, DDs and FJ are the closest thing Jeopardy has to a random equalizer, and if not for them, Ken Jennings might still be playing today. Jeopardy uberfans have something called a "Coryat Score" that purports to show how you performed separate from those wager clues. You're not going to be calculating that score in your head while you're playing, but I bet you could have a good sense of how things are going.
Technically, you can always bet to tie -- if you have a lock game, wager enough to fall back to twice your nearest opponent's score if you get Final Jeopardy wrong. But odds are that in that situation, your opponent isn't going to wager everything, so what's the point, I suppose.
To allow for a tie in a lock game might seem the greatest heresy of all, but this is actually one of the things I'm talking about. If I've got a lock, I can see betting the round number instead of the protective 999. If I get it right, or if he misses, it doesn't matter. If I get it wrong and the guy below me didn't wager everything, then it's his problem. But if all the stars align for him, then I'm bringing along a player I decisively beat the first time AND a new best friend, stunned by my generosity, who might be willing to return the favor if our situations are reversed tomorrow.
-
I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where you can thoroughly dominate an opponent but still have less than twice their score (unless they succeeded on a large Daily Double wager).
$19,000 to $3,000, double up on clues 59 and 60. I think that would qualify as a shellacking. :)
Even if it was $19,000 to $5,000 and the opponent doubles up, that's someone I would think about keeping around. If I'm stronger in every category than my opponent, how much incumbency on the buzzer is going to help him out? Plus I have the advantage that he knows he got thrashed in that game and survived only on my largesse and a right response in FJ. There's also the possibility that he'll offer the same thing back to me on the chance that the positions are reversed "tomorrow."
Much of Jeopardy is about assessment of risk tolerance and how to act on it, and I think this is a fascinating part of the game.
-
But if all the stars align for him, then I'm bringing along a player I decisively beat the first time AND a new best friend, stunned by my generosity, who might be willing to return the favor if our situations are reversed tomorrow.
Out of curiosity, any idea if this has ever actually happened? Someone returning the tie after receiving it the first time?
-
Wasn't there a three-way tie a few years back?
I seem to recall the reasons the leader allowed it was to be nice and thought the idea of everyone coming back was cool.
-
I seem to recall the reasons the leader allowed it was to be nice and thought the idea of everyone coming back was cool.
Helped a great deal by his two opponents being joint second, and them both betting all $8000 and being right.
-
I seem to recall the reasons the leader allowed it was to be nice and thought the idea of everyone coming back was cool.
Helped a great deal by his two opponents being joint second, and them both betting all $8000 and being right.
Yes, it all had to work out right, but the leader could have locked the others out and yeah, evidence is he just did it 'cause he thought it was cool. As I recall, he lost to one of them the next day. So there's that.
Seems like there was one other time where a leader was exactly 2x ahead of two tied players, but one of the dingbats below him held back a dollar and lost.
-
I would always go for the win.
It is difficult enough to get on the show, and everyone that does is good enough to be there. Jeopardy is very much a game of reaction time as it is about recall on demand. You can clearly see all three contestants trying to buzz in first on an overwhelming amount of questions (I'll just leave the definition of overwhelming up to each individual here, but I think many readers can agree with me about many questions have all three pushing the button).
Studies have shown that the more a person does a task, the more automatic and easier it becomes (just ask anyone certified to test drivers for DUI for those studies); and I would much rather play against someone with less experience on that buzzer.
-
My hunch is that prize money absolutely is the primary consideration. The occasional tie is interesting and not appreciably detrimental to the budget. But if contestants started regularly betting to tie and the show found itself paying out twice as much money per episode, then they'd have to do something to keep their budget in check. So either they'd split the prize money (changing a firmly-established rule while simultaneously making them look stingy) or they'd write more difficult Double Jeopardy and Final Jeopardy clues to keep players from racking up high scores. Either way, it doesn't look good to the viewers at home.
I have no idea how I came up with this, but I did anyway: if you really want to tamp down on rampant ties (if it gets to that point) an easy and evil fix is to have everybody come back and nobody gets any money for that episode.
-
I have no idea how I came up with this, but I did anyway: if you really want to tamp down on rampant ties (if it gets to that point) an easy and evil fix is to have everybody come back and nobody gets any money for that episode.
Not sure if this is exactly what you are going for, but isn't that how WoF handled ties in the old days? All three players came back, and they continued the same game the next day, building off the same scores?
-
Not sure if this is exactly what you are going for, but isn't that how WoF handled ties in the old days? All three players came back, and they continued the same game the next day, building off the same scores?
That's what prompted the idea, but instead of building from "yesterday," I would zero it out, as if there was no show that day at all. If you want to discourage something, you penalize it. Obviously, we're nowhere near that point yet.
-
Not sure if this is exactly what you are going for, but isn't that how WoF handled ties in the old days? All three players came back, and they continued the same game the next day, building off the same scores?
That's what prompted the idea, but instead of building from "yesterday," I would zero it out, as if there was no show that day at all. If you want to discourage something, you penalize it. Obviously, we're nowhere near that point yet.
So if all three players are tied at the end of DJ, or two are tied and one has exactly double, everyone is more or less borked?
-
So if all three players are tied at the end of DJ, or two are tied and one has exactly double, everyone is more or less borked?
I would choose to look at it from the perspective of they all get to play the game again, and that's assuming you get a tie, because people still have to be right in FJ.
(I also did say that it would be an evil solution.)
-
So if all three players are tied at the end of DJ, or two are tied and one has exactly double, everyone is more or less borked?
I would choose to look at it from the perspective of they all get to play the game again, and that's assuming you get a tie, because people still have to be right in FJ.
This is perhaps the lamest idea I've read in some time. Put yourself in the contestant podium. You, Travis Eberle, passed the test, the audition and are on the show. You have racked up $28,000. The two contestants below you end the game at $14,000 apiece. You don't get $28,000. You come back the next day and blow it on a daily double. You get $1,000 instead. How little sense does this make? And please don't tell me that you're not disappointed about making $27,000 less.
-
(I also did say that it would be an evil solution.)
Sorry, Travis. It's so beyond evil that it's not even a solution, IMO. "A dominating game, Travis and Ken! But since you two are tied, no soup for either of you."
I wouldn't mind seeing the WoF approach though. "Travis and Roger are tied, so we'll all come back tomorrow and continue this game. Someone must be the champion."
-
I wouldn't mind seeing the WoF approach though. "Travis and Roger are tied, so we'll all come back tomorrow and continue this game. Someone must be the champion."\
Do you start them with their total from the previous day (because that would actually make the SJ Daily Double interesting) or treat it like day two of a Grand Final?
(Mark will get his own back when I'm home from work in a couple.)
-
I wouldn't mind seeing the WoF approach though. "Travis and Roger are tied, so we'll all come back tomorrow and continue this game. Someone must be the champion."\
Do you start them with their total from the previous day (because that would actually make the SJ Daily Double interesting) or treat it like day two of a Grand Final?
I'd just carry over the scores.
That said, this is just hypothetical. I don't really support doing anything to discourage tying. But if you're gonna do it, I like this way best.
-
Do you start them with their total from the previous day (because that would actually make the SJ Daily Double interesting) or treat it like day two of a Grand Final?
Watching everyone win nothing is bad television. Simple as that.
Your ideas are clever, but I don't think they'd work in real life.
-
Maybe somewhere in between? Do it tournament-style and it basically means the initial game becomes meaningless, other than awarding a bonus to whoever happens to win day 2. Start over with the previous day's scores and the entire second game comes down to who gets the Daily Doubles and how much they wager.
What comes to mind is something like adding day 1 totals at the end of Double Jeopardy. Makes it pretty much impossible to have a runaway, but there's still a big advantage to going in with the lead and opens up the possibility of the third-place player beating the other two and being a spoiler.
-
This is perhaps the lamest idea I've read in some time.
Really? Were you around for Teen TPIR? 'Cuz that was awful. And I know you were here when Bobby suggested that the contestants on Biggest Loser who mutinied should get a share of the prize money.
You have racked up $28,000. The two contestants below you end the game at $14,000 apiece.
What you've done is provided the perfect setup for why you want to discourage playing it safe. If I know that I don't win the $28,000 by standing pat I know have a choice to make. If I get Final Jeopardy right I'm made anyhow. I have to decide if I want to minimize the downside of being wrong. If my opponents are wrong I win $27,500. If they're right and I'm not, I lose.
On the other hand, I can decide to bet a huge amount because the same thing applies: if I'm right it doesn't matter what they do because I'm taking down $55,000. If I blow it and one of the opponents is right I'm out anyway.
(Once again, I will point out that you'd only do this if you want to discourage the once-a-year happenstance of a tie. Joe is not only right, but watching several people winning money makes for great TV.)
-
Wasn't there a three-way tie a few years back?
I seem to recall the reasons the leader allowed it was to be nice and thought the idea of everyone coming back was cool.
Yes there was. I know the gentleman who made that possible, his name is Scott Weiss. Nice guy, see him once a year at the crossword tournament and play board games with him and other tournament attendees. Here's a story about how he prepared for the show. (http://"http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyID=57874#.UAnhMJEwE9U")
-
You could always take the "clear the pot and double the stakes" approach.
-
I would always go for the win.
It is difficult enough to get on the show, and everyone that does is good enough to be there. Jeopardy is very much a game of reaction time as it is about recall on demand. You can clearly see all three contestants trying to buzz in first on an overwhelming amount of questions (I'll just leave the definition of overwhelming up to each individual here, but I think many readers can agree with me about many questions have all three pushing the button).
Studies have shown that the more a person does a task, the more automatic and easier it becomes (just ask anyone certified to test drivers for DUI for those studies); and I would much rather play against someone with less experience on that buzzer.
So you're telling me that if you have double what your nearest opponent does- EXACTLY double- and you get a Final Jeopardy question that's in a category you don't know much about. You're going to purposely bet $1 so you can win the game, instead of not doing anything like you should and putting all the pressure on your opponent? And then say said opponent gets it right and bet everything and you lost. Instead of all but guaranteeing yourself a return trip, you've now guaranteed yourself $2,000 because you had to win.
(I see Don's doing his usual shtick again...and I'm certain nothing will be done about it again- heaven forbid anyone should complain, lest they be called out for writing too long a complaint)
-
So you're telling me that if you have double what your nearest opponent does- EXACTLY double- and you get a Final Jeopardy question that's in a category you don't know much about. You're going to purposely bet $1 so you can win the game, instead of not doing anything like you should and putting all the pressure on your opponent?
I'm preeeetty sure he's talking about every other situation but that.
I see Don's doing his usual shtick again
Yeeeeah. (http://"http://theartoftoadkissing.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/kettlecallingpotblack.jpg") Don's most recent post in this thread was from three weeks ago. You're crapping on my carpet again. Stop it.
-
(I see Don's doing his usual shtick again...and I'm certain nothing will be done about it again- heaven forbid anyone should complain, lest they be called out for writing too long a complaint)
You seriously should seek some kind of professional help. You have serious anger issues.
-
So you're telling me that if you have double what your nearest opponent does- EXACTLY double- and you get a Final Jeopardy question that's in a category you don't know much about. You're going to purposely bet $1 so you can win the game, instead of not doing anything like you should and putting all the pressure on your opponent?
I'm preeeetty sure he's talking about every other situation but that.
I'd HOPE so...he's being awful damn ambiguous, you gotta admit.
You seriously should seek some kind of professional help. You have serious anger issues.
I'm sorry, Joe, but I think I had a right to be upset there. I may be a pain in the ass but that doesn't give anyone carte blanche to say "I hope your whatever gets ruined", "you deserve to be tortured for your opinions", etc., and I would expect if I said something about it, I'd get a different response than "we're not doing anything because your post was too long." Like I say, think of me whatever you want, but even the worst of the worst were given fair trials before the verdicts were handed down, didn't they? (maybe that isn't the best example to use but still)
That's all I'ma say about that.
(ETA: okay, perhaps next time I should read dates on posts...this topic was basically dead until HYBYBT chimed in. Way to enhance my rep, man. :()
-
It's just a show; I should really just relax.
-
Sorry; I didn't realize this thread was too old.
-
Sorry; I didn't realize this thread was too old.
Don't be...I poked the bear.