Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
Linear Gnome
One Miner Gal
Posts: 1811
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:55 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Linear Gnome »

opusthepenguin wrote: When was the most recent time we had co-champions?
I think it was October 30, 2014, unless you count January 18, 2016 (I don't). (The previous instance had been October 28, 2014.)

User avatar
mfc248
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:08 pm
Location: Royersford, PA
Contact:

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by mfc248 »

Linear Gnome wrote:
opusthepenguin wrote: When was the most recent time we had co-champions?
I think it was October 30, 2014, unless you count January 18, 2016 (I don't). (The previous instance had been October 28, 2014.)
I believe that's right, and the 2014-10-30 game was the fourth instance of co-champions in the first eight weeks of Season 31.

Now that we have canonical evidence of the rule change, is it appropriate for the archivists to update the relevant glossary entry?

User avatar
triviawayne
Hoping I don’t drown in this contestant pool
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by triviawayne »

opusthepenguin wrote:
9021amyers wrote:
GoodStrategy wrote:We now have official word of the rule change, as shown here.
I would conclude that either a tie is imminent, or the powers that be want to explain why viewers will be tuning in to Alex doing a soft shoe.
You may be right, but the conclusion doesn't seem necessary. The page addresses two scenarios that have recently occurred: a) all three contestants finishing with no money, and b) a tie for a wildcard spot. That's sufficient reason to address those questions and throw in two similar scenarios so the information is all in the same place.

I just wish they had specified when the no-tie rule was officially instated. I believe our first official confirmation of the change came on 19 Nov 2014 from boson whose wife was taping an episode with a January airdate.

When was the most recent time we had co-champions?
A few weeks ago when that contestant couldn't resume taping after Alexs surgery was brought back with another champion in place...but I get the feeling that's not what you're really asking.
Total game show career losings = $171,522

User avatar
Linear Gnome
One Miner Gal
Posts: 1811
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:55 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Linear Gnome »

triviawayne wrote: A few weeks ago when that contestant couldn't resume taping after Alexs surgery was brought back with another champion in place...but I get the feeling that's not what you're really asking.
It is possible that someone alluded to that in a previous post.

GoodStrategy
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by GoodStrategy »

I think opusthepenguin meant co-champions from a tie game, not from bringing a former winning contestant back for other reasons.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7259
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by opusthepenguin »

GoodStrategy wrote:I think opusthepenguin meant co-champions from a tie game, not from bringing a former winning contestant back for other reasons.
Of course, but I'm delighted with the reminder about the recent case where we had co-champions for a different reason. Plus, half my schtick on this board is deliberately misinterpreting other posters' comments to comic effect. I love it when I get a little of that back.

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

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by bpmod »

opusthepenguin wrote:
GoodStrategy wrote:I think opusthepenguin meant co-champions from a tie game, not from bringing a former winning contestant back for other reasons.
Of course, but I'm delighted with the reminder about the recent case where we had co-champions for a different reason. Plus, half my schtick on this board is deliberately misinterpreting other posters' comments to comic effect. I love it when I get a little of that back.
Just half?

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
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Magna »

bpmod wrote:
opusthepenguin wrote:
GoodStrategy wrote:I think opusthepenguin meant co-champions from a tie game, not from bringing a former winning contestant back for other reasons.
Of course, but I'm delighted with the reminder about the recent case where we had co-champions for a different reason. Plus, half my schtick on this board is deliberately misinterpreting other posters' comments to comic effect. I love it when I get a little of that back.
Just half?

Brian
Every other letter.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7010
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by alietr »

I'm not sure he understands the meaning of "comic" ...

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4689
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by jeff6286 »

alietr wrote:I'm not sure he understands the meaning of "comic" ...
Mary Worth is a comic, they're not all supposed to be kneeslappers.

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

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by bpmod »

So, was tonight's game an example of the no tie rule?

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
OntarioQuizzer
Lots and Lots of Interviews
Posts: 1364
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 am

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by OntarioQuizzer »

Contextual thread-bump.
Andy Saunders
Moderator, #JeopardyLivePanel
Host, Complete The List
J! Archive Founding Archivist
Site Admin - The Jeopardy! Fan

Johnblue
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1414
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:55 am

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by Johnblue »

Well, that was mighty easy!

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 6739
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by seaborgium »

OntarioQuizzer wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:26 pm
Contextual thread-bump.
Spoiler
The bumping of this thread, seen in light of J!'s "you won't believe what happens this week" promo (alongside nothing notable having happened in the first three games this week), caused me to view tonight's endgame with a tired sense of inevitability, which is no fun.

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4689
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by jeff6286 »

Yeah really not a fan of the bump. Individual game threads are spoiler tagged for a reason.

User avatar
twelvefootboy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:18 pm
Location: Tornado Alley / Southwest Missouri

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by twelvefootboy »

What's wrong with the bump? It gives us a relevant place to begin our hatin' of the current tiebreaker rule. :evil: The whole point of threads is to be, well, thread-y.

I think I understand why the show wanted to discourage deliberate wagering for the tie. They have one (?) alternate player already, and a phony tie creates two people who have to go home and come back (I'm interpolating here, not doing the ass out of u and me thing ;). I'm not even accusing TPTB of cheaptitude, at least for this rule. (For the pittances to 2nd and 3rd, yes, they are cheap bastards).

This new tiebreaker clue is a bad fix. Very unsatisfying to devolve to a buzzer war. The NFL figured out that coin tossing needed some tweaking and improved their OT rule. Golf has gradually improved their events. Soccer, hockey and tennis still settle ties with ridiculous fake rules.

Proposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.
Spoiler
Example: Tie at $10K, each player gets $6K and a rematch
In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).

This rule would still come up with the rare tie, and from two players who deserve to duke it out for 61 more clues. Sometimes a tie is a tie ! The main opportunity for mischief would be if they agree on the bus to bet zero (if third is locked out) if the game situation comes up. A little Prisoner's Dilemma, anyone?
Disclaimer - repeated exposure to author's musings may cause befuddlement.

User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 8590
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by econgator »

twelvefootboy wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:39 am
What's wrong with the bump? It gives us a relevant place to begin our hatin' of the current tiebreaker rule. :evil: The whole point of threads is to be, well, thread-y.
I think it's more the timing of the bump than the bump itself.

User avatar
BigDaddyMatty
Save Me, Maggie!
Posts: 2983
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Wherever I May Roam
Contact:

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by BigDaddyMatty »

twelvefootboy wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:39 am
Proposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.

In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).
I like the first part of this a lot. The second part is unnecessary. If co-champions split the first- and second-place money, it would strongly discourage the Keith/Arthur strategy without messing with those situations where ties occur naturally.
Sprinkles are for winners.

User avatar
twelvefootboy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:18 pm
Location: Tornado Alley / Southwest Missouri

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by twelvefootboy »

BigDaddyMatty wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:10 pm
twelvefootboy wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:39 am
Proposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.

In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).
I like the first part of this a lot. The second part is unnecessary. If co-champions split the first- and second-place money, it would strongly discourage the Keith/Arthur strategy without messing with those situations where ties occur naturally.
But wasn't the tie in the first tiebreaker game also unnecessary?
Spoiler
3/2/18 FINAL JEOPARDY!
Laura McLean: 15000-8201=6799 (2x = $19,598)
Scott Krzywonos: 4000-3995=5
Sarah Norris: 11600-4801=6799

Second place just bet silly, if she bets 1 dollar less she wins another 4+grand , guaranteed, without having to win the buzz off or know the answer.

I like the first tiebreaker rule being the size of the wager. It forces second to consider doing more than covering the zero bet by first. I'm not sure I can game plan all the fractional scenarios and Shore's conjectures, etc..

Still, the real fireworks are when two players are tied for the lead going in. That surely happens semi-regularly, I wonder how that plays out? I'm sure it's been analyzed previously - not summoning Cheezguyty with the bat signal at this time :).
Disclaimer - repeated exposure to author's musings may cause befuddlement.

User avatar
BigDaddyMatty
Save Me, Maggie!
Posts: 2983
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Wherever I May Roam
Contact:

Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

Post by BigDaddyMatty »

twelvefootboy wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:06 pm
BigDaddyMatty wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:10 pm
twelvefootboy wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:39 am
Proposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.

In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).
I like the first part of this a lot. The second part is unnecessary. If co-champions split the first- and second-place money, it would strongly discourage the Keith/Arthur strategy without messing with those situations where ties occur naturally.
But wasn't the tie in the first tiebreaker game also unnecessary?
My point was that the primary reason for the rule change was, presumably, to eliminate the strategic offering of a tie by a leader who could otherwise lock out his opponents. There's no good reason (that I can see, anyway) to eliminate ties that happen either by accident or because of a trailing player's bad wager. Your "split the money" rule eliminates the incentive to offer a tie rather than take an undisputed victory.
Sprinkles are for winners.

Post Reply