Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Should second and third place should keep the amount they won instead of a set amount?

Yes, they should keep their amount (with a minimum winnings guarantee)
33
28%
No, the $2000 and $1000 amounts in place now are fine
84
72%
 
Total votes: 117

User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by dhkendall »

I've been thinking for some time whether it might be a good idea for Jeopardy! to change the rules so that second and third get more than their $2000 and $1000 prizes. I'm thinking it would do more to cover their expenses (which is what the consolation prize was intended to do in the first place, since they stopped paying for your way out there the same time the "cash for the losers" policy was implemented), and it would encourage riskier betting in FJ!, which is I think TPTB's goal. Sure, you might have people like the contestant from the Fleming era who stopped after a certain point because he reached his set target, but, to be honest, the American public has gotten greedier since then, and I don't think there'd be as many people like our Fleming contestant as there would be people willing to risk it all and go for it. Plus, it seems that even after November 26, 2001 J! is still on the low end of prize values for winners, it seems that every other show out there has bigger paydays for both winners and non-winners. (And this was one of the reasons that J! doubled its prize money in 2001, to compete with the WWTBAMs out there).

Of course, I would also suggest a minimum guaranteed win, like if you get less than the current $1K or $2K you still get that (and yes, as some people pointed out, that would still mean that second would get more money than first, but first gets a second chance and would wind up with more money in the long run anyways).

Now, I don't think that any of this would reach the ears of TPTB (I think the only drawback to this board, as I don't think TPTB watches it as much as they do the discussion on their official board), but it'd be nice to know what y'all think. Feel free to explain why you think they should or shouldn't have 2nd or 3rd keep their winnings in the comments.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
User avatar
Spaceman Spiff
One-and-done J! Champ (and proud of it!)
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by Spaceman Spiff »

dhkendall wrote:I've been thinking for some time whether it might be a good idea for Jeopardy! to change the rules so that second and third get more than their $2000 and $1000 prizes. I'm thinking it would do more to cover their expenses (which is what the consolation prize was intended to do in the first place, since they stopped paying for your way out there the same time the "cash for the losers" policy was implemented), and it would encourage riskier betting in FJ!, which is I think TPTB's goal.
J! has never paid the contestants' way, even back in the Rice-A-Roni days.

The Art Flemming version of the game did allow the also-rans to keep whatever they had earned, but according "The Jeopardy Book" they decided against it for the very reason you suggest having it -- folks would get on the show with a certain dollar amount they wanted to win, and once they got to that level some contestants became very risk-adverse.
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by dhkendall »

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
dhkendall wrote:I've been thinking for some time whether it might be a good idea for Jeopardy! to change the rules so that second and third get more than their $2000 and $1000 prizes. I'm thinking it would do more to cover their expenses (which is what the consolation prize was intended to do in the first place, since they stopped paying for your way out there the same time the "cash for the losers" policy was implemented), and it would encourage riskier betting in FJ!, which is I think TPTB's goal.
J! has never paid the contestants' way, even back in the Rice-A-Roni days.

The Art Flemming version of the game did allow the also-rans to keep whatever they had earned, but according "The Jeopardy Book" they decided against it for the very reason you suggest having it -- folks would get on the show with a certain dollar amount they wanted to win, and once they got to that level some contestants became very risk-adverse.
Somehow, I think people were far more risk averse back then as opposed to now, at least if watching modern game shows are any indication ...
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
User avatar
silverscreentest
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 951
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:30 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by silverscreentest »

I decided not to vote. I like the way 2nd and 3rd place get fixed money, but I have no great opinion on how much they should get. My second place prize was a week in Philadelphia. Third place was two weeks in Philadelphia. :D
Silver Screen Test, my movie trivia game show. Watch some of the episodes On-Demand.
Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2727
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by Golf »

dhkendall wrote:the American public has gotten greedier since then, and I don't think there'd be as many people like our Fleming contestant as there would be people willing to risk it all and go for it.
The tendencies of the American public means zilch, the tendencies of Jeopardy contestants means everything and nothing has changed in that regard. Academic and conservative by nature.

And it wouldn't make for good TV, imagine the following scenario or one similar. Going into FJ leader has 40k, 2nd place with 20k, FJ category is Mongolian Opera. Now all of a sudden instead of a chance of a double 40k payday, 2nd place will wager 0 and take the 20k.

Finally, as Herm Edwards famously stated, you play to win the game. You don't play for a pittance of a payday.
User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 16471
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by MarkBarrett »

We have seen 2nd place finishers have $30,000 and above. Sorry, but that it too much for not winning on Jeopardy!

What is the approximate airfare, hotel, car and food total for someone from the east coast for two days? It would seem $1000 can't cover everything? Is $2000 enough? Change 2nd to $3000 and 3rd to $2000? That's $460,000 for a season. When Alex retires the show will have plenty of extra money.
User avatar
whoisalexjacob
2015 TOC'er
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:19 am

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by whoisalexjacob »

NO
soxfan99
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by soxfan99 »

dhkendall wrote:It would encourage riskier betting in FJ!, which is I think TPTB's goal.
Why do you say it would encourage riskier betting? To me, it seems like it would encourage less risky betting. If contestant A had $10,000 going into final, and contestant B had $19,000, there's a very good chance Contestant A would not bet enough to try to win, guaranteeing a victory for B. An exciting game can be (and has been) set up as, "Here's $10,000. You can either take it and walk away with the money, or you can risk it all and go double or nothing based on whether you know the answer to this trivia question." However if they did that, it would become a fundamentally different game than what Jeopardy is.
User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 10673
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by econgator »

MarkBarrett wrote:Change 2nd to $3000 and 3rd to $2000?
I'd be good with that.
User avatar
This Is Kirk!
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 6562
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by This Is Kirk! »

I've always been disappointed at how much less the average Jeopardy! contestant takes home than the average Wheel of Fortune contestant. You've got to figure the two shows bring in roughly the same amount of ad revenue since in most markets they are aired back-to-back. I think there should be a guaranteed minimum (the values today are probably fine) but let the losers keep whatever amount they win beyond that.
Mark Barrett wrote:What is the approximate airfare, hotel, car and food total for someone from the east coast for two days? It would seem $1000 can't cover everything?
I bet it usually covers it. You don't need a car for one thing. The hotel has a shuttle from LAX and there's a shuttle to the Sony lot in the morning. Breakfast is included with the hotel and lunch is provided at Sony, so you've only got to pay for one meal a day.
User avatar
ElendilPickle
ToC Enabler
Posts: 2707
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by ElendilPickle »

This Is Kirk! wrote:I've always been disappointed at how much less the average Jeopardy! contestant takes home than the average Wheel of Fortune contestant. You've got to figure the two shows bring in roughly the same amount of ad revenue since in most markets they are aired back-to-back. I think there should be a guaranteed minimum (the values today are probably fine) but let the losers keep whatever amount they win beyond that.
Mark Barrett wrote:What is the approximate airfare, hotel, car and food total for someone from the east coast for two days? It would seem $1000 can't cover everything?
I bet it usually covers it. You don't need a car for one thing. The hotel has a shuttle from LAX and there's a shuttle to the Sony lot in the morning. Breakfast is included with the hotel and lunch is provided at Sony, so you've only got to pay for one meal a day.
It depends on when you arrive in Los Angeles and what else you might plan to do while you're there. If you're flying out by yourself, playing the game, and going home, $1000 might cover it if you get a good deal on airfare.

We (dh, our son, and I) made my Jeopardy trip into a family vacation, flying to LAX the Friday before taping, renting a car, and spending time at the Getty Museum, Disneyland, and Venice Beach before the Monday taping. After I was done, we did a couple other things before heading home.

We used points to cover one airfare and part of another, got a really good deal on our rental, and ate pretty inexpensively, so my $2000 covered our expenses with a little extra left over.

I wouldn't mind having a guaranteed minimum and letting players keep their winnings over that amount, though I admit it might have made me bet differently on FJ. Then again, studying wagering strategy would have made me bet differently on FJ, too. :)
User avatar
This Is Kirk!
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 6562
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by This Is Kirk! »

ElendilPickle wrote:It depends on when you arrive in Los Angeles and what else you might plan to do while you're there...We (dh, our son, and I) made my Jeopardy trip into a family vacation, flying to LAX the Friday before taping, renting a car, and spending time at the Getty Museum, Disneyland, and Venice Beach before the Monday taping. After I was done, we did a couple other things before heading home.
Yes, but you can't really expect Jeopardy to foot the bill for your family vacay--not to say it wouldn't be nice!
I wouldn't mind having a guaranteed minimum and letting players keep their winnings over that amount, though I admit it might have made me bet differently on FJ. Then again, studying wagering strategy would have made me bet differently on FJ, too. :)
I guess that's the danger. I would hope most contestants would still wager to win, but it would have an effect.
User avatar
NYCScribbler
Harbinger of the Outchange
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:44 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by NYCScribbler »

I voted no, but with the caveat that increasing the minimums might be a good idea. If you're a third place contestant from the East Coast, that $1000 might barely cover your expenses, once you factor in taxes. And that money's out of your pocket for a good six months. I know my savings were depleted pretty badly by the travel expenses.
"Who said anything about a horse?!"

"Also, how the bleep did I forget Russia even exists?!"- TPH
Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2727
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by Golf »

Not to sound harsh, but in regards to those wanting the minimums increased in order to better cover travel expenses, please remember that nobody is forcing contestants to make the trip to LA to tape. It's an option and if you're not willing to fork over a bit of money as an investment in yourself and also to achieve a goal of a lifetime, then perhaps you shouldn't be going.

And IMO, if 2nd and 3rd received absolutely nothing, almost every contestant would still spend the money in order to try. I know I would.

I just don't like to see people complaining about the amount of free money an entity is doling out when they don't have to be doling out any at all. TPTB already makes sure no contestant will be financially hurt by taping, it's just not done beforehand like they did for WWTBAM contestants. But in the end, it works out about the same.
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12897
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by Bamaman »

I do think they should arrange for a free hotel for the out of town crowd. They could arrange an on air mention in exchange for the rooms. ("While appearing on Jeopardy!, contestants stay at the Motel 6, where they leave the light on for you">)

I also think the losers share should be bumped up a bit, but I do not think they should keep what they made on the show.
User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3079
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by Magna »

Golf wrote:And IMO, if 2nd and 3rd received absolutely nothing, almost every contestant would still spend the money in order to try. I know I would.
Some contestants wouldn't be able to participate at all if there weren't enough given out to cover the expense. That would create more of a bias towards wealth and Southern California residents than they probably want. The fact that we have to pay our expenses for auditioning is something of a hurdle, but they reduce the burden somewhat by holding auditions regionally.

So, for example, if you live in the northeast and work at a low-paying job, you might be able to drive or take a bus or train to an audition for the day, but might not be able to afford to fly to L.A. and stay there for a minimum of two days if not for the guarantee of at least $1000. (I think that amount should probably be increased, though, to account for increased costs.) Remember, too, that it's not just contestants who have to be persuaded. A spouse, parent, etc. is more easily persuaded to allow the contestant to spend the money to go if there's a guaranteed minimum prize that will at least cover the cost.
BaltimoreBoy
Valued Contributor
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:10 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by BaltimoreBoy »

Add me to the list of folks saying they should increase the 2nd and 3rd place amounts. Though I would have loved to have taken my post-FJ, 2nd place "total" of more than $20k, I was VERY happy that I (will) get the $2k for 2nd. When I talked to friends before I went, I repeatedly said that I just didn't want to embarrass myself, but REALLY wanted to get at least 2nd place so that I wouldn't lose money on the whole proposition! My flight from Baltimore and hotel, etc., cost me close to that $1k figure -- that, plus the extra amount I foolishly spent on some extra books to "study"! (Wished I rigged a home "signaling device" to practice with instead...)
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by dhkendall »

I know I would definitely be one of those contestants who would have more than $1K ( or possibly $2K) for expenses! (I think I might have spent close to $1K on our road trip a few years back to the west coast (Vancouver, Vancouver Island, and Portland, OR.)
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
User avatar
ihavejeoprosy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:17 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by ihavejeoprosy »

dhkendall wrote:I know I would definitely be one of those contestants who would have more than $1K ( or possibly $2K) for expenses! (I think I might have spent close to $1K on our road trip a few years back to the west coast (Vancouver, Vancouver Island, and Portland, OR.)
I don't think non winning scores should be paid out as is. That would encourage timidity and make the game less fun. However, I do think the set amount for 2nd and 3rd place should be increased. Travel and lodging in LA is not cheap so it would cover that cost and leave something for the applicant as well. Maybe bump it up to 2,000 for 3rd, 3,000 for 2nd?
Please follow me on Twitter @Cinjeopardy
Total game show losings: $25 K
Austin Powers
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1783
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Should second and third keep their winnings instead of getting a set amount?

Post by Austin Powers »

Well, it won't happen, because the show has a budget. So, if you'd like more celebrities and Sony plugs, sure, let them keep them money.

But it's also one more factor for contestants to consider in betting. Do we really want a situation where people just routinely NOT bet to keep their money, then backing into a win because someone else actually tried to win, but miss? That would be lame.

Now, if you said bump the prizes by $500 to help offset costs more, sure.
Post Reply