Toughest wagering situation ever?
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:36 pm
Toughest wagering situation ever?
In all games of Jeopardy you've seen or are aware of, what is the toughest wagering scenario you've seen? I would stick with games other than TOC quarterfinals.
My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
- MDaunt
- Weighed in the balance and found wanting
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
Honestly, the toughest wagering situation is when you're on the winning end of a lock game.
How much of your own money are you willing to bet that you know the correct response to a random question in the given category?
How much of your own money are you willing to bet that you know the correct response to a random question in the given category?
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
Yeah, that's a real bummer of a spot to be in.MDaunt wrote:Honestly, the toughest wagering situation is when you're on the winning end of a lock game.
-
- KJL #152
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:21 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).UniquePerspective wrote:My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
Outside of that, anytime you're in Stratton's Dilemma or Prisoner's Dilemma.
- MarkBarrett
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
What would Jeeks answer?
- Vermonter
- 2003 College Champion
- Posts: 1956
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
That game was not a wager-to-tie situation - both Jeff and Celeste wagered poorly.MFalk wrote:I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
- Vermonter
- 2003 College Champion
- Posts: 1956
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
In that situation Pastor Dave also had the option of wagering up to 5,200 - perhaps letting Cora back into the game, but covering outright a zero from Larissa.UniquePerspective wrote:In all games of Jeopardy you've seen or are aware of, what is the toughest wagering scenario you've seen? I would stick with games other than TOC quarterfinals.
My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
The most work I've done on a Final Wager this season was the game from April 17.
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
- lieph82
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1053
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
Does anyone here think Larissa Kelly has ever said the word zero in her life...?Vermonter wrote:In that situation Pastor Dave also had the option of wagering up to 5,200 - perhaps letting Cora back into the game, but covering outright a zero from Larissa.UniquePerspective wrote:In all games of Jeopardy you've seen or are aware of, what is the toughest wagering scenario you've seen? I would stick with games other than TOC quarterfinals.
My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
- dhkendall
- Pursuing the Dream
- Posts: 8789
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
- Contact:
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
If she was faster on the buzzer, she would have. (IN THE DICTIONARY $400)lieph82 wrote:Does anyone here think Larissa Kelly has ever said the word zero in her life...?Vermonter wrote:In that situation Pastor Dave also had the option of wagering up to 5,200 - perhaps letting Cora back into the game, but covering outright a zero from Larissa.UniquePerspective wrote:In all games of Jeopardy you've seen or are aware of, what is the toughest wagering scenario you've seen? I would stick with games other than TOC quarterfinals.
My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
"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
"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
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8967
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
Toughest (one-day) wagering situation ever, if I read "toughest" as "most complicated," is first equals third plus half of second, or as I like to call it, "Faith Love on [drug of choice here; I think I've used at least two of 'acid,' 'speed,' and 'crack' (and no, that's not what I meant by 'used')]." It's particularly complicated if third has more than two thirds of second's score. Here's an example of one, in which only third place made a right wager, and ended up winning on a TS.
The rundown:
Third's "catch up to second if right" wager is also a "tie first place on a double miss if first offers a tie to second" wager.
First's "offer a tie to third" wager is also a "tie second place's pre-FJ score on an incorrect response" wager.
So first should either offer second a tie (to potentially tie third on a double miss or worse) or offer third a tie (to potentially tie a zero-wagering second or a "catch up to second"-betting third who gets FJ right). Second should bet zero (to tie first and/or third) or bet everything (to tie first on a double get). And third should bet to catch up to second (to possibly tie first on a triple stumper, or tie first and/or second on a sole miss by first or a sole get), or bet everything (to possibly tie first on a double get)
The rundown:
Third's "catch up to second if right" wager is also a "tie first place on a double miss if first offers a tie to second" wager.
First's "offer a tie to third" wager is also a "tie second place's pre-FJ score on an incorrect response" wager.
So first should either offer second a tie (to potentially tie third on a double miss or worse) or offer third a tie (to potentially tie a zero-wagering second or a "catch up to second"-betting third who gets FJ right). Second should bet zero (to tie first and/or third) or bet everything (to tie first on a double get). And third should bet to catch up to second (to possibly tie first on a triple stumper, or tie first and/or second on a sole miss by first or a sole get), or bet everything (to possibly tie first on a double get)
- Mathew5000
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
How about this game:
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=1877
Scores $4,800 : $4,000 : $3,200
(evenly spaced, with third having 4/5 of second and 2/3 of first).
If 1st bets $3,200 to cover 2nd, and 2nd bets $2,400 to cover 3rd, then they tie at $1,600 if both wrong. But 2nd may decide to wager $800, to match 1st's pre-FJ score if right and 3rd's pre-FJ score if wrong. If 1st thinks that 2nd will wager to cover 3rd, then 1st can wager $1,600, to possibly tie the other players at $6,400 if right, or to possibly tie the other players at $3,200 if wrong. 3rd place might wager $1,600, possibly tying another player at $4,800 if right or at $1,600 if wrong.
The actual wagers were not so interesting. First bet $3,201. Second bet $2,100. Third bet $3,199. It was a triple-miss so second won.
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=1877
Scores $4,800 : $4,000 : $3,200
(evenly spaced, with third having 4/5 of second and 2/3 of first).
If 1st bets $3,200 to cover 2nd, and 2nd bets $2,400 to cover 3rd, then they tie at $1,600 if both wrong. But 2nd may decide to wager $800, to match 1st's pre-FJ score if right and 3rd's pre-FJ score if wrong. If 1st thinks that 2nd will wager to cover 3rd, then 1st can wager $1,600, to possibly tie the other players at $6,400 if right, or to possibly tie the other players at $3,200 if wrong. 3rd place might wager $1,600, possibly tying another player at $4,800 if right or at $1,600 if wrong.
The actual wagers were not so interesting. First bet $3,201. Second bet $2,100. Third bet $3,199. It was a triple-miss so second won.
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 242
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:59 pm
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
Actually it was Christian who made the other sub-optimal wager - Jeff made the usual cover-by-a-dollar-from-the-lead bet.Vermonter wrote:That game was not a wager-to-tie situation - both Jeff and Celeste wagered poorly.MFalk wrote:I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).
- Vermonter
- 2003 College Champion
- Posts: 1956
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
Ah yes, got the names mixed up. Thanks!GoodStrategy wrote:Actually it was Christian who made the other sub-optimal wager - Jeff made the usual cover-by-a-dollar-from-the-lead bet.Vermonter wrote:That game was not a wager-to-tie situation - both Jeff and Celeste wagered poorly.MFalk wrote:I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
-
- KJL #152
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:21 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
Mmm... sorry. I thought they were tied before FJ. That's what happens when I try to do those by memory rather than actually looking them up.GoodStrategy wrote:Actually it was Christian who made the other sub-optimal wager - Jeff made the usual cover-by-a-dollar-from-the-lead bet.Vermonter wrote:That game was not a wager-to-tie situation - both Jeff and Celeste wagered poorly.MFalk wrote:I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).
The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
- Mathew5000
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
In a regular-play game this scenario is not especially tough: if you're one of the tied players, betting zero should maximize your chance of winning.MFalk wrote:The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
(In this example from a few months ago, I dislike all three players' wagers.)
If it's a tournament semi-final, betting zero might still be the optimal choice, but it would depend on the category (as well as, perhaps, your assessment of your ability to buzz in first on the tiebreaker).
If it's a tournament quarter-final (like Stephanie Jass's from February 2013) it obviously depends on what your score is, compared to what you think the wild-card cutoff might be.
- Mathew5000
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
A Faith-Love-on-crack game from 2010 was discussed on the boards a few months ago. Nice round numbers and, as a bonus, second has exactly three-quarters of first:seaborgium wrote:Toughest (one-day) wagering situation ever, if I read "toughest" as "most complicated," is first equals third plus half of second, or as I like to call it, "Faith Love on [drug of choice here; I think I've used at least two of 'acid,' 'speed,' and 'crack' (and no, that's not what I meant by 'used')]." It's particularly complicated if third has more than two thirds of second's score.
Phil 16000 - 3999 = 12001
Hilary 12000 - 8001 = 3999
Chris 10000 - 9999 = 1
The remarkable thing about those wagers is that Phil and Hilary clearly gave some thought to them, but not quite enough thought. Phil thought that Hilary and Chris might wager 0, so he bet to stay at least a dollar above their scores (with a sole win on a triple stumper regardless of their bets). But Phil didn't notice that if he's right, he'll be one dollar short of Chris's doubled score. Hilary, meanwhile, wagered so as to beat Chris's doubled score by a dollar, and she didn't notice that this might well cause her to lose by a dollar against Phil (if he wagered $8,000 and it's a triple-stumper).
Since Chris held back a dollar, Phil and Chris would have tied at $19,999 if they were both correct.
- Rex Kramer
- Jeopardy! TOCer
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
It can't be that simple. If it were then the leader would bet zero, too.Mathew5000 wrote:In a regular-play game this scenario is not especially tough: if you're one of the tied players, betting zero should maximize your chance of winning.MFalk wrote:The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
Rex
P.S. -- To clarify -- if it were the other way around -- the two tied players were in the lead -- and I were betting from third, I would bet zero confidently. Even knowing this, the leaders would almost certainly bet everything.
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8967
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
You got the math muddled here. If she'd wagered to get $1 ahead of Phil (not $1 ahead of Chris's doubled score), she'd have lost by that dollar to a tie-offering Phil.Mathew5000 wrote:Hilary, meanwhile, wagered so as to beat Chris's doubled score by a dollar, and she didn't notice that this might well cause her to lose by a dollar against Phil (if he wagered $8,000 and it's a triple-stumper).
- Mathew5000
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
You're right; thanks.seaborgium wrote:You got the math muddled here. If she'd wagered to get $1 ahead of Phil (not $1 ahead of Chris's doubled score), she'd have lost by that dollar to a tie-offering Phil.Mathew5000 wrote:Hilary, meanwhile, wagered so as to beat Chris's doubled score by a dollar, and she didn't notice that this might well cause her to lose by a dollar against Phil (if he wagered $8,000 and it's a triple-stumper).
Look at it this way: suppose the scores are 9000, 6500, 6500 and the player in first agrees with me that the other two players would each maximize their chance of returning by wagering zero. The problem for this player (in first) is that she doesn't know whether the other players know that they should bet zero. If she's confident that they will both bet zero then sure, she should bet zero from the lead. But in reality, it's likely that at least one of them will bet large, meaning that from the lead she will maximize her own chance of returning by wagering at least 4000.Rex Kramer wrote:It can't be that simple. If it were then the leader would bet zero, too.Mathew5000 wrote:In a regular-play game this scenario is not especially tough: if you're one of the tied players, betting zero should maximize your chance of winning.MFalk wrote:The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
So now going back to the perspective of one of those players tied for second with 6500, it's a pretty safe assumption that the leader will bet to cover. (I'm not saying they can be certain of it, just that it's a fairly high probability.) Because of that, and because a triple-stumper is more likely than a get by that player parlayed with a miss by the leader, a zero wager is going to maximize the probability of returning.
- lieph82
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1053
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am
Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?
Right, but let's say the leader knows the other two are canny wagerers. Then the leader, expecting the other two players to bet $0, might bet up to $2500. And if the other two players expect the leader to bet up to $2500 then maybe they can put something like a $5000 bet out there. It's never that simple, as Rex says--there are so many different orders you can think on. The less information you have, the better a first-order rational wager sounds to me.Mathew5000 wrote:Look at it this way: suppose the scores are 9000, 6500, 6500 and the player in first agrees with me that the other two players would each maximize their chance of returning by wagering zero. The problem for this player (in first) is that she doesn't know whether the other players know that they should bet zero. If she's confident that they will both bet zero then sure, she should bet zero from the lead. But in reality, it's likely that at least one of them will bet large, meaning that from the lead she will maximize her own chance of returning by wagering at least 4000.Rex Kramer wrote:It can't be that simple. If it were then the leader would bet zero, too.Mathew5000 wrote:In a regular-play game this scenario is not especially tough: if you're one of the tied players, betting zero should maximize your chance of winning.MFalk wrote:The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
So now going back to the perspective of one of those players tied for second with 6500, it's a pretty safe assumption that the leader will bet to cover. (I'm not saying they can be certain of it, just that it's a fairly high probability.) Because of that, and because a triple-stumper is more likely than a get by that player parlayed with a miss by the leader, a zero wager is going to maximize the probability of returning.
Of course, in a situation in which you have more information, like a TOC semifinal, it's a completely different situation because tie != win. We can debate about whether the two trailers should bet $0 or $1 or $6500 or something else in that case.
Last edited by lieph82 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.