Page 4 of 4

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 11:10 pm
by gnash
Kingrat47 wrote:
lieph82 wrote:I think that if, in every single one of his appearances on the show, Brad screwed up a basic "this is the state capital of ___" clue, you would hear no end of comments about it on this board. It's frustrating when someone has a weakness that is very easily correctable and it seems as though he does nothing about it.

That being said, everyone has weaknesses in their game, and when Brad's weaknesses have been exposed, he has won due to weaknesses in the wagering strategies of other players. There's really no doubt as to Brad's greatness. And you're right that posters sometimes get a little too frustrated and start moralizing and whatnot. But I think the consternation is warranted, if not to the degree of some of those posts.
I appreciate the response. A subsidiary point of mine, buried in my overlong initial post, is that wagering, particularly of the Final Jeopardy variety that seems to preoccupy most of the wagering analysis, is an awful lot less important than it's being treated.
I really don't know how you can say that without a huge dose of irony, especially in the context of discussing Brad Rutter, who won $3 million largely due to wagering mistakes by his opponents.

(I am by no means diminishing his phenomenal Jeopardy! game playing ability. Clearly, no one has dominated so many opponents of the highest caliber as Brad. But it is a simple fact that he was about to lose the MMM semifinal and the UTOC 3rd round game, but for the wagering mistakes by his opponents.)

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 12:04 pm
by Kingrat47
gnash wrote:
Kingrat47 wrote:
lieph82 wrote:I think that if, in every single one of his appearances on the show, Brad screwed up a basic "this is the state capital of ___" clue, you would hear no end of comments about it on this board. It's frustrating when someone has a weakness that is very easily correctable and it seems as though he does nothing about it.

That being said, everyone has weaknesses in their game, and when Brad's weaknesses have been exposed, he has won due to weaknesses in the wagering strategies of other players. There's really no doubt as to Brad's greatness. And you're right that posters sometimes get a little too frustrated and start moralizing and whatnot. But I think the consternation is warranted, if not to the degree of some of those posts.
I appreciate the response. A subsidiary point of mine, buried in my overlong initial post, is that wagering, particularly of the Final Jeopardy variety that seems to preoccupy most of the wagering analysis, is an awful lot less important than it's being treated.
I really don't know how you can say that without a huge dose of irony, especially in the context of discussing Brad Rutter, who won $3 million largely due to wagering mistakes by his opponents.

(I am by no means diminishing his phenomenal Jeopardy! game playing ability. Clearly, no one has dominated so many opponents of the highest caliber as Brad. But it is a simple fact that he was about to lose the MMM semifinal and the UTOC 3rd round game, but for the wagering mistakes by his opponents.)
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that you're right about wagering mistakes being the cause of Brad's two victories in those games (for the record, I think it's significantly more complicated with regard to the UTOC game, at the very least) I don't think that proves what you think it does. Brad Rutter was completely unharmed by his supposed lack of wagering savvy, which is the thrust of my argument.

You want to say that savvy wagering can make a difference at the margins, I agree with you - but if you're making more sweeping claims than that, I think you have to show where wagering's made more than a marginal difference. The one guy I can think of where that's true is Dan Pawson, who is an all-time great. How much of his success is due to his very canny betting? A good chunk, I agree, but I can't say a majority of it, and he's the absolute best case for What Wagering Theory Can Do For You. In the absence of other examples, I'm left with my initial belief - wagering theory is helpful, and can help at the margins, but is a small part of what makes a player great.

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 4:21 pm
by jpahk
fj wagering nous matters more for average players than great players, because great players are likely to be leading going into fj, and the leader generally faces fewer difficult decisions than the trailing players.

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:00 am
by TomKBaltimoreBoy
The problem with most of the Wagering Vikings is that they believe themselves to be Ragnar, when in truth they are far closer to Horik.

Except for Opus. He is Floki, and that is wondrous.

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:36 am
by TheyCallMeMrKid
jpahk wrote:fj wagering nous matters more for average players than great players, because great players are likely to be leading going into fj, and the leader generally faces fewer difficult decisions than the trailing players.
Completely agree, which is probably why it is of more interest to those of us who dream of being on the show, since we assume that if we did make it, we would probably be wagering from behind, and could use a strategy edge to have a chance at victory.

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:56 am
by Golf
TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:those of us who dream of being on the show, since we assume that if we did make it, we would probably be wagering from behind
Why the hell would "we" think that garbage?

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:07 am
by Bamaman
Golf wrote:
TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:those of us who dream of being on the show, since we assume that if we did make it, we would probably be wagering from behind
Why the hell would "we" think that garbage?
Damn straight. I have a lock in my Jeopardy fantasies. But I agree it is a good idea to at least know the basics of both FJ and penultimate wagering.

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:08 am
by skullturf
OK golf, if you don't like the word "probably" there, how about this: You have to consider the possibility that you could be wagering from behind.

Look, I understand the importance of a positive attitude, and playing to win. But if you ever get on the show, you have to play against a defending champ. They have more buzzer practice than you. They might be a better player than you.

Yes, you plan to finish in first place. You intend to finish in first place. You try to finish in first place. But you also have a plan for what to do if you finish in second or third place.

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:25 am
by Golf
skullturf wrote:OK golf, if you don't like the word "probably" there, how about this: You have to consider the possibility that you could be wagering from behind.
How about this, you have to consider all possibilities even though you expect to win.

If I was playing against somebody who stated they expect to be wagering from behind I'd tell them to enjoy their $1k.

Re: Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 12:54 pm
by opusthepenguin
TomKBaltimoreBoy wrote:The problem with most of the Wagering Vikings is that they believe themselves to be Ragnar, when in truth they are far closer to Horik.

Except for Opus. He is Floki, and that is wondrous.
[sniff]... ya mean it?