Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Post Reply
User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 16472
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by MarkBarrett »

lieph: Thanks for doing the work to put the post together. To prove I read it: Tom is Kavanaugh with no "e" and Runsvold was not a finalist.
User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by lieph82 »

Thanks Mark, fixed it. Part of me still wants to remember Craig v. Pahk v. Runsvold as the final...
legendneverdies
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by legendneverdies »

Paucle wrote:
JyV92 wrote:Anyway, hope you go 80games... Every record gets broken at some point.
Interesting you don't couch this comment in "past perfutational" verb tenses, but that makes sense because in order for him to win 80, I think he'd need to be the active champ even as he's reading these. (Not sure when the season ends, or how many more weeks of 30th Anniversary games there are.)
There are 108 more episodes of this season, counting tonight's game. 18 of those are unseen Battle of the Decades games, and 10 more for the Teen tourney, which is coming later this season, but no date is confirmed yet. They'll probably do a Kids' week, despite last SUmmer's little controversy which really wasn't over Emancipation Proclamation misspelling, which would be another five episodes . Alex did mention there'll be a celebrity week taped at Radio City Music Hall(as well as the last week of the BotD tourney). That would be 108-18 BotD-10 Teen-(probably) 5 Kids' week- (Maybe) 5 Celeb shows, which means between 70-80 regular games left. I think the season ends taping later in March(though the BotD final two weeks could be taping in April)
JyV92
Jeopardy! UTOCer
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by JyV92 »

MDaunt wrote:How have superchampions done in the TOC? Do we have enough examples to be meaningful?
Ken lost to brad. Dave Madden knocked out in semifinals. Frank Spangenberg out in semis, but won 10th anniversary. tournament. (Guess who didn't get invited?).

Who are the other super champs?
User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by lieph82 »

JyV92 wrote:
MDaunt wrote:How have superchampions done in the TOC? Do we have enough examples to be meaningful?
Ken lost to brad. Dave Madden knocked out in semifinals. Frank Spangenberg out in semis, but won 10th anniversary. tournament. (Guess who didn't get invited?).

Who are the other super champs?
Here, "super champs" means people who won 6+ games in their initial runs. There's a list in my post on the bottom of the previous page.
User avatar
georgespelvin
The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by georgespelvin »

No offense Jerome, but you (and Frank Spangenberg and Chuck Forrest and Michael Dupee and Leszek and Verini, etc.) were term-limited out of the definition of Superchampion generally used here. Doesn't mean that you all weren't among the greatest players in Jeopardy history.
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 10319
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by opusthepenguin »

Rex Kramer wrote:
georgespelvin wrote:Rex is false-modestly leaving out the fact . . .
Much appreciated, georgespelvin, but I had to fix that for you.
You're so modest, you're even modest about your modesty!
User avatar
Mathew5000
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Mathew5000 »

opusthepenguin wrote:Does betting big on a late DD when you have a large lead increase your probability of winning? I suspect not. (It definitely doesn't if you have a lock that can't be threatened by the value of the remaining clues.) If my suspicion is right, there's a statistical breaking point somewhere. We need a formula involving number of clues left, number of DDs left, and how much the player has relative to the highest score showing other than their own. Or at least a rule of thumb. Should you bet big on the second DD with 10 clues left when you have 1.5 times your nearest opponents' score? If so, how big?
The aggregate value of the remaining clues is more important than the number of clues. Two other factors that are often relevant are the player's knowledge base relative to opponents, and the player's buzzer skill relative to opponents. (Having excellent buzzer timing militates toward betting less on the DD, ceteris paribus.)

Other than in certain simple situations, there won't be a formula for ideal daily double betting, and even a rule of thumb is often going to be incorrect unless it is quite complicated.

Watson did a monte carlo simulation before every daily double wager, i.e. simulating the entire rest of the game thousands of times for different wagers, and then going with the wager resulting in the highest probability of it winning. If there were a simple formula, the ad hoc simulation would not have been necessary.
User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 10319
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by opusthepenguin »

Mathew5000 wrote:Watson did a monte carlo simulation before every daily double wager, i.e. simulating the entire rest of the game thousands of times for different wagers, and then going with the wager resulting in the highest probability of it winning. If there were a simple formula, the ad hoc simulation would not have been necessary.
That rules out a simple formula that's equally effective. But even if there were a simple formula that was 99.5% as effective, Watson still would have done the simulation.
User avatar
MTGcollegestudent
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:39 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by MTGcollegestudent »

I'm not making a statement, but through the games, I don't know what part of Arthur's strategy is...few of his games were runaways, and he didn't bet to tie his opponents. I'm thinking that maybe Arthur intended to tie his wins when his games weren't a runaway. Could that be possible?
Jeopardy! is like History. It's a mixed bag of categories that try to test your knowledge to see if you know or can recall answers that seem familiar to the viewer.
User avatar
koam
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by koam »

In short, when there's no runaway, there's an advantage in betting for the tie, rather than the win by $1 that many choose. That extra $1 at stake can cause the leader to lose in some circumstances.


When there's a runaway (lock), there's no need to bet for the tie because betting for the tie doesn't dominate betting anything less than for the tie. When he has a runaway, he bets as much as he feels comfortable with, without going more than double the #2 player's total, so that he doesn't lose the lock.
User avatar
georgespelvin
The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by georgespelvin »

Or to put it in the simplest terms: betting for a tie from the lead in a non-lock game (in case of a FJ miss) increases your chances of winning, betting for a tie in a lock game does not because you have already won.
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
User avatar
koam
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by koam »

And for the full explanation of why betting for the tie "dominates" betting for the win by $1, it's all at this link:

http://thefinalwager.co/2014/01/29/fina ... y-29-2014/

and, more broadly,

http://thefinalwager.co/2014/01/21/guid ... dominance/

The video in the second link goes at a pretty quick, college-math clip. If you scroll down, he explains the thought process in detail. It's great stuff.
User avatar
Lumosityfan
2014 Teen Tournament Champion
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:49 pm
Location: Edison, NJ

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Lumosityfan »

legendneverdies wrote:
Paucle wrote:
JyV92 wrote:Anyway, hope you go 80games... Every record gets broken at some point.
Interesting you don't couch this comment in "past perfutational" verb tenses, but that makes sense because in order for him to win 80, I think he'd need to be the active champ even as he's reading these. (Not sure when the season ends, or how many more weeks of 30th Anniversary games there are.)
... 10 more for the Teen tourney, which is coming later this season, but no date is confirmed yet...
I happen to have the dates: July 21st to August 1st to finish out Season 30!
Jeopardizing questions since 2004!
2014 Jeopardy! Teen Tournament Champion
User avatar
periwinkle
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:45 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by periwinkle »

The Washington Post has Arthur Chu as an item on the list in this week's Style Invitational contest. The contest is to take two items from the list and explain either how they're different or similar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... story.html


A three-cupped bra and the Human Barbie: One of them is associated with a far more freakish distortion of the human female form.

Bob Staake’s No. 2 pencils and the Arizona legislature: Whatever comes out of either of them is sure to be greeted with utter astonishment.

• A Fleetwood Mac reunion
• Sriracha Life Savers
• A Sochi hotel
• The polar vortex
• Bellybutton lint
• A three-cupped bra
• April Fools’ Day
• Bob Staake’s No. 2 pencils
• The Human Barbie
• “Jeopardy!” champ Arthur Chu
• The Arizona legislature
• West African fufu
• Buzzfeed quizzes
• A USB stick marked “Property of NSA”
• XL jeggings
• Adele Dazeem

It’s our perennial compare/contrast contest, in which you take any two items from the list above and explain how they’re similar or different, as in the examples above.
User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3079
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Magna »

koam wrote:And for the full explanation of why betting for the tie "dominates" betting for the win by $1, it's all at this link:

http://thefinalwager.co/2014/01/29/fina ... y-29-2014/

and, more broadly,

http://thefinalwager.co/2014/01/21/guid ... dominance/

The video in the second link goes at a pretty quick, college-math clip. If you scroll down, he explains the thought process in detail. It's great stuff.
I should point out, Keith's premise is "The point of Jeopardy is to come back the next day." If you think the point is to come back the next day with the best possible chance of winning again, the analysis might vary.
User avatar
koam
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by koam »

That's right.
User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 10673
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by econgator »

Arthur was the subject of a Lightning Round question on Wait, Wait... this week.
User avatar
georgespelvin
The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by georgespelvin »

I had no idea that Television Without Pity was an NBC Universal creation. I have no pity that it will soon apparently no longer exist. http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/nb ... 201148723/
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
User avatar
sarah0114
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:15 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by sarah0114 »

I came here to post that link and accuse Arthur of using his witchcraft against them. ;)
Post Reply