Actually I am not arguing that at all. I do agree that Angie overbet.danspartan wrote:Thats like arguing hitting on 19 and drawing a deuce in blackjack is a good play.mrsal67 wrote:For everyone that is criticizing the second place wager, where were you last week when Katie bet big and won or on Monday when
Andrea bet big and won? Yes some comments were made but on the whole there was no criticism because they got the correct answer and won.
It seems to me all the wager/game theory experts are playing the result.
So if Angie had gotten the correct response and won, would all the experts come out and make the same comments that appear on this thread?
"Well it was a good play because I won". No its not. If you live in a 3 story building and its faster to jump out the window instead of walking down the stairs and the first time you jump out you don't break your leg, then by all means you should jump every time and see how that works out.
ROT (results oriented thinking).
What my complaint is that everyone is so quick to jump on a bad wager when it costs someone the game, but not when it wins them the game. Andrea won on a bad bet by her and what was a rational bet by her (if I remember vermonters video correctly.)
The x-factor missing from the wagering discussion (and your blackjack analogy) is the fact that each contestant controls whether they get the answer right.
For your analogy to be valid it would have to say that I am a card counter and I know that there is a high percentage chance (75-90) that the next card is a deuce. Then my hitting on 19 is a good play since 21 will guarantee me a win or push with the dealer.
The real intent of my original post was that if you are going jump up and criticize someone for a bad wager when it costs them the game, have the guts to be as critical and vocal when a bad bet wins them the game.