Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Opal
Contributor
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:57 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Opal »

dhkendall wrote:
Opal wrote:
Opal wrote: And by the way, do we know when the first tie-breaker airs? I think I remember the week of the 22nd, but I don't know if that's accurate or if I'm remembering correctly.
I didn't ever hear a date, so you're one up on me.
I don't actually remember where I heard that, but I thought it was either on here or on that video. I could be mistaken.

whatisbishkek
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 2:03 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by whatisbishkek »

Opal wrote:Oh, I totally understand that it was the correct strategy. I worded this poorly and what I meant is that it's bad that the trailer would be the only one with the advantage now. Since the leader would have had lock, an intentional tank would cause them to possibly lose. Previously, it didn't matter to the leader since they would still win (assuming a bet of $0), except that they would have to play the same opponent again, which has both benefits and challenges.
I'm confused. What we're talking about is a scenario where someone intentionally misses a DD to fall to a lock-tie scenario, right? With the new rules, how does doing that give an advantage to the trailer? Like, say first place has $20,000 and second place has $12,000 and gets a DD on the last question. With the old rules, second place could bet $2000, intentionally miss, and set up a scenario where they just need to get FJ right to be a co-champion. With the new rules, if they do that, first place might bet something rather than nothing in FJ, so intentionally tanking to get into a lock-tie isn't necessarily any better than just doing a smaller bet to ensure you stay above 50% of first place. There is less motivation to intentionally tank now, because the lock-tie situation is less desirable. Second place would now be better off getting the DD right to get above 2/3 of first place, whereas with the old rules second place would be better off getting the DD wrong.

User avatar
Vermonter
2003 College Champion
Posts: 1920
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Vermonter »

Opal wrote:
dhkendall wrote:
Opal wrote: And by the way, do we know when the first tie-breaker airs? I think I remember the week of the 22nd, but I don't know if that's accurate or if I'm remembering correctly.
I didn't ever hear a date, so you're one up on me.
I don't actually remember where I heard that, but I thought it was either on here or on that video. I could be mistaken.
Maybe you're thinking of November 24th, the air date the rule change went into effect? I haven't heard even the faintest mumbling about a tiebreaker in the can, and I'd like to think I would have been tipped off by now. ;)
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.

User avatar
ÕώÕ
Contributor
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:51 pm
Location: Washington, United States

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by ÕώÕ »

whatisbishkek wrote:
Opal wrote:Oh, I totally understand that it was the correct strategy. I worded this poorly and what I meant is that it's bad that the trailer would be the only one with the advantage now. Since the leader would have had lock, an intentional tank would cause them to possibly lose. Previously, it didn't matter to the leader since they would still win (assuming a bet of $0), except that they would have to play the same opponent again, which has both benefits and challenges.
I'm confused. What we're talking about is a scenario where someone intentionally misses a DD to fall to a lock-tie scenario, right? With the new rules, how does doing that give an advantage to the trailer? Like, say first place has $20,000 and second place has $12,000 and gets a DD on the last question. With the old rules, second place could bet $2000, intentionally miss, and set up a scenario where they just need to get FJ right to be a co-champion. With the new rules, if they do that, first place might bet something rather than nothing in FJ, so intentionally tanking to get into a lock-tie isn't necessarily any better than just doing a smaller bet to ensure you stay above 50% of first place. There is less motivation to intentionally tank now, because the lock-tie situation is less desirable. Second place would now be better off getting the DD right to get above 2/3 of first place, whereas with the old rules second place would be better off getting the DD wrong.
It all depends on what you think first place is going to do. Fisrt place could bet $1, but if he isn't confident about him getting the correct FJ! response, he could bet $0.
ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ

User avatar
ÕώÕ
Contributor
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:51 pm
Location: Washington, United States

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by ÕώÕ »

Some people actually offer the ties even with tiebreakers...

http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3210
If Gabe added another $2 to his wager, there would have been a tiebreaker.

http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3081
Ok, in this one there actually WAS a tiebreaker.

http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3969
Ok, I don't know if this one counts, first place had a lock game.
ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ

GoodStrategy
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by GoodStrategy »

ÕώÕ wrote:http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3969
Ok, I don't know if this one counts, first place had a lock game.
It should, since it needlessly lets a player back in to the game.

John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2697
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by John Boy »

BobF wrote:
Bamaman wrote:It had been rumored on here it was going to happen and it was confirmed in the thread about boson's wife. There will no longer be co-champions on the show, all games ending in a tie will be settled by a tie breaker question.

They can do what they want, but I'm not a fan of this move. While I disagree that one should always offer a tie, there are instances where circumstance demands offering a tie, such as having double second place's score or an exact 2/3 situation.
Although I cheered it in the other thread, I do see the problems with it. IMO, they should both get the cash and then play the tiebreaker to see who returns.
I always preferred the existing tie-breaker solution. They end up in a tie, they both get the money, and both come back tomorrow to play again to see which of them (if either) advances from there to the third day.

I can't imagine which of the speculated reasons J! had in mind. With all the money the show makes and gives away, it's hard to imagine they would quibble about an extra $15-20K once every few weeks. Maybe collusion is a concern, but it hardly seems likely any two players could collude, the way S&P watchdogs the show.

I can't say I like this move either, but as I've said many times before (notably about their contestant selection process :roll: ) it IS their show, to be played the way they want.

User avatar
Winchell Factor
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:07 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Winchell Factor »

John Boy wrote:
BobF wrote:
Bamaman wrote:It had been rumored on here it was going to happen and it was confirmed in the thread about boson's wife. There will no longer be co-champions on the show, all games ending in a tie will be settled by a tie breaker question.

They can do what they want, but I'm not a fan of this move. While I disagree that one should always offer a tie, there are instances where circumstance demands offering a tie, such as having double second place's score or an exact 2/3 situation.
Although I cheered it in the other thread, I do see the problems with it. IMO, they should both get the cash and then play the tiebreaker to see who returns.
I always preferred the existing tie-breaker solution. They end up in a tie, they both get the money, and both come back tomorrow to play again to see which of them (if either) advances from there to the third day.

I can't imagine which of the speculated reasons J! had in mind. With all the money the show makes and gives away, it's hard to imagine they would quibble about an extra $15-20K once every few weeks. Maybe collusion is a concern, but it hardly seems likely any two players could collude, the way S&P watchdogs the show.

I can't say I like this move either, but as I've said many times before (notably about their contestant selection process :roll: ) it IS their show, to be played the way they want.
The explanation the producers were giving contestants was more or less that playing for a tie is like kissing your sister. Not very satisfying--at least, they thought, not for the audience.

Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 9816
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Bamaman »

I think if everyone hadn't started playing for a tie, the new rule doesn't happen. Once or twice a year and it is kind of cool. But if it is every week it would be a bit of a drag.

bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by bpmod »

Bamaman wrote:I think if everyone hadn't started playing for a tie, the new rule doesn't happen. Once or twice a year and it is kind of cool. But if it is every week it would be a bit of a drag.
But 'everyone' didn't start playing for the tie. In fact, (at least) one of those ties would not have happened had somebody played for the tie.

And, the fact is sometimes you need to offer the tie (not necessarily 'play for' the tie) to increase your chances of winning. That's nothing like kissing your sister.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.

User avatar
TheyCallMeMrKid
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:35 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by TheyCallMeMrKid »

Am I the only one who is now afraid to read new posts on this thread for fear that they are going to spoil the first regular play tiebreaker?

I always thought the best thing about the old rule was that the possibility of offering the tie meant that the 2nd place player would not automatically bet low to win on a miss by the leader. Having the tie available was a strategic advantage for the leader and, IMO, that is the person who should have a little strategic advantage.
Sheepin' it real.

bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by bpmod »

TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:Am I the only one who is now afraid to read new posts on this thread for fear that they are going to spoil the first regular play tiebreaker?
I haven't been afraid of that happening, but I can see how it could (and likely will).

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.

Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 9816
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Bamaman »

I would hope the people here would know better than to mention a tie break game outside of that day's game thread.

Opal
Contributor
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:57 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Opal »

TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:Am I the only one who is now afraid to read new posts on this thread for fear that they are going to spoil the first regular play tiebreaker?

I always thought the best thing about the old rule was that the possibility of offering the tie meant that the 2nd place player would not automatically bet low to win on a miss by the leader. Having the tie available was a strategic advantage for the leader and, IMO, that is the person who should have a little strategic advantage.
To those above questioning my comment about how this changes fairness, it's "TheyCallMeMrKid's" comment. I couldn't think of a good way to say it.

Opal
Contributor
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:57 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Opal »

Vermonter wrote:
Opal wrote:
dhkendall wrote:
Opal wrote: And by the way, do we know when the first tie-breaker airs? I think I remember the week of the 22nd, but I don't know if that's accurate or if I'm remembering correctly.
I didn't ever hear a date, so you're one up on me.
I don't actually remember where I heard that, but I thought it was either on here or on that video. I could be mistaken.
Maybe you're thinking of November 24th, the air date the rule change went into effect? I haven't heard even the faintest mumbling about a tiebreaker in the can, and I'd like to think I would have been tipped off by now. ;)
I think you are correct -- I was thinking about the week it first began, sorry about that.

User avatar
Vermonter
2003 College Champion
Posts: 1920
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Vermonter »

Opal wrote:
TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:Am I the only one who is now afraid to read new posts on this thread for fear that they are going to spoil the first regular play tiebreaker?

I always thought the best thing about the old rule was that the possibility of offering the tie meant that the 2nd place player would not automatically bet low to win on a miss by the leader. Having the tie available was a strategic advantage for the leader and, IMO, that is the person who should have a little strategic advantage.
To those above questioning my comment about how this changes fairness, it's "TheyCallMeMrKid's" comment. I couldn't think of a good way to say it.
It's much less fairness than pure gamesmanship.
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.

User avatar
overkill94
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:04 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by overkill94 »

I think the implementation of the tiebreaker is to help the contestants.

There is always 1 extra contestant per taping day, but that's a local alternate who can come back some other time (like I was). If they have 2 extra contestants, someone will have to spend their own money to fly back a second time (remember, these are all taped months in advance so they can't just stay an extra day).

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4703
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by jeff6286 »

overkill94 wrote:I think the implementation of the tiebreaker is to help the contestants.

There is always 1 extra contestant per taping day, but that's a local alternate who can come back some other time (like I was). If they have 2 extra contestants, someone will have to spend their own money to fly back a second time (remember, these are all taped months in advance so they can't just stay an extra day).
If it's a Tuesday taping, the extra contestant(s) can come back the next day for a Wednesday taping. And my understanding is that there may often be more than 1 local contestant, so there may not necessarily always be a contestant that has to make a return flight. Even if they did, I can't say this with 100% certainty, but I find it extremely unlikely that the show would've ever made a person fly back a second time at their own expense if they were bumped from a taping due to tie games.

User avatar
georgespelvin
The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
Posts: 875
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by georgespelvin »

A Facebook friend of mine posted an opinion yesterday that people that don't offer ties in Jeopardy by wagering the extra dollar are being "bad sports". Leaving aside the falsity of this statement in the former tie situation, I informed the individual that ties were no longer permitted on Jeopardy, explaining the history behind this decision. Much to my surprise though, when I looked on Google for an official link to cite for this I could not find one, just comments by "unofficial" websites (like this one) that the change was likely to occur. Even Wikipedia and game show pages that explain Jeopardy still state that ties are allowed on Jeopardy and that co-champions return when they occur. Have I missed something? Did the change not occur? I believe I remember reading that contestants here that filmed in the past year were informed of the new rule prohibiting ties, but it is odd that a significant number of websites have not been updated to reflect this. :?
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.

User avatar
TenPoundHammer
Otters are meant to swim
Posts: 8316
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by TenPoundHammer »

georgespelvin wrote:A Facebook friend of mine posted an opinion yesterday that people that don't offer ties in Jeopardy by wagering the extra dollar are being "bad sports". Leaving aside the falsity of this statement in the former tie situation, I informed the individual that ties were no longer permitted on Jeopardy, explaining the history behind this decision. Much to my surprise though, when I looked on Google for an official link to cite for this I could not find one, just comments by "unofficial" websites (like this one) that the change was likely to occur. Even Wikipedia and game show pages that explain Jeopardy still state that ties are allowed on Jeopardy and that co-champions return when they occur. Have I missed something? Did the change not occur? I believe I remember reading that contestants here that filmed in the past year were informed of the new rule prohibiting ties, but it is odd that a significant number of websites have not been updated to reflect this. :?

I was in a similar situation since I wanted to update the Wikipedia article for this information, but couldn't find a good source to do so. I'm guessing that it hasn't been commented on because it hasn't come up in-game yet.
Ten Pound Hammer

This space for rent

Post Reply