Getting responses wrong on purpose

[chmmr]

Say the scores are 15000-8000-1000 and you are the one with 15000. There's only one $2000 clue left: "In this 19th c. work, young Amy likes snacking on "pickled limes" & borrows money from her sister to buy some." You don't know the answer, but ring in with "What is Little House of the Prairie," getting it wrong on purpose to bait the $8000 player into saying "little house ON the prairie" and giving you a runaway. Has this ever happened before?

[dhkendall]

If it has, how would we know they got it wrong on purpose? I can't recall anyone ever admitting to it, even here.

[BobF]

Wouldn't it just make more sense to get it right and get the lock game that way?

[Woof]

I'd be much more inclined to clam up and see if one of the others negs on it

[dhkendall]

Wouldn't it just make more sense to get it right and get the lock game that way?

It would but in this example you don't know the answer (which is entirely plausible) and you're afraid your opponent(s) do. (However, in that case they may be less likely to fall for the in/on trap.)

[triviawayne]

Wouldn't it just make more sense to get it right and get the lock game that way?

It would but in this example you don't know the answer (which is entirely plausible) and you're afraid your opponent(s) do. (However, in that case they may be less likely to fall for the in/on trap.)

Especially if you're nowhere near the correct answer.

[IronNeck]

This makes about as much sense as your recent post ascribing Buzzy's streak to "dumb luck".

To be fair, if there is less than a minute to go and you're in the lead, I can understand picking a $400 clue and then stalling as much as possible before giving a response. That's still not the same as getting a response wrong on purpose, though. And you're better off giving a correct response in my scenario, too.

[BigDaddyMatty]

This is a potentially brilliant strategy, but I question how well it would work in practice. First, you'd have to be quick enough on your feet to see that you're in just the right situation to employ it. Second, you likely wouldn't get the hesitant tone with which Alex usually negs not-quite-correct responses. Third, you'd be risking your crush.

[TheSunWillComeOut]

Say the scores are 15000-8000-1000 and you are the one with 15000. There's only one $2000 clue left: "In this 19th c. work, young Amy likes snacking on "pickled limes" & borrows money from her sister to buy some." You don't know the answer, but ring in with "What is Little House of the Prairie," getting it wrong on purpose to bait the $8000 player into saying "little house ON the prairie" and giving you a runaway. Has this ever happened before?

I'm not sure I understand this strategy. What if your opponent is familiar with the clue, knows you're completely off-base and rings in with the correct response? The only times you should ever be thinking about what your opponents DON'T know is when 1. You're in a complicated FJ wagering strategy or 2. When you get a late-in-the-game DD with only a few clues remaining and have to make a quick guess at how the remaining monetary values will be divided among the players before you pick a wager.

Otherwise, assume that the people standing next to you can pull out any response, no matter how far removed from their expected skill set. You might expect that the tough, taciturn Midwestern guy standing next to you doesn't know Little Women, but if he has a young daughter to whom he's been reading that book every night at bedtime, then you've just complicated the wagering for no reason.

[Cat Hammarskjold]

In the given situation, if the player in second gets the clue right without the leader buzzing in, the leader has a 2/3rds scenario. It's better to hold onto that unless you have established a psychological advantage against your opponents during the game.

[GoodStrategy]

Back when ties were allowed there was actually a time when intentionally missing a clue made sense: You're in second and in the lower half of a "crush" scenario, you pick up a Daily Double on the last clue before Final, and with tie finishes allowed the best play arguably was to wager so you'd be trailing in a lock-tie if wrong and intentionally miss the clue to get there (since the leader would very likely bet zero allowing you to come back with just a correct response in that one position, while otherwise you'd either still be in a crush or you'd need to wager so big on the DD that you'd be locked out if wrong in order to improve your position for FJ! - unless you were up against someone like Arthur Chu who routinely offered the tie). Now with the tiebreaker rule a lock-tie is really no better than a crush (the only difference is that the leader has a choice on how to win with a lock-tie), so now you'd need to pick one of the other two aforementioned DD wager options.

[seaborgium]

Issue A: If you don't know it, how sure will you be that it's not actually the correct response you're subtly altering in your effort to bait second place into negging?

Issue B: If I'm in that second place, I'm more likely to attempt preventing a lock (i.e. responding ahead of first place) than to attempt to rebound after the threat of a lock has been neutralized.

However, I do like examining what I've termed the "lemming effect" on Jeopardy. This is when one person negs by mispronouncing (or otherwise slightly altering) an incorrect response, and then one or more players also neg with their improvements to the same incorrect response. The most recent example I can think of where that happened was in this game, on the $1,200 clue in RUSSIAN PLAYWRIGHTS, but I'm sure it's happened more recently.

[Magna]

If other players are like me, there are often responses they'll know, but can't remember in time. By giving a wrong answer, you buy thinking time for your opponents, and that extra second might be all they need. Also, something you say may be enough to jog an opponent's memory - for example, just the word "little" might be enough.

[OrangeSAM]

I think situations like this is why we see so many stand and stares at the end of Double Jeopardy!.

Why should the leader risk a crush? And why should 2nd place risk dropping into a lock situation?

Edit: Ooops. I replaced "lock" with "crush" in the first Q.

[MTGcollegestudent]

That's the stupidest idea I can imagine. Why risk losing your chance of a keeping enough of a 50% of the leader's total to make it a runaway? Unless if you REALLY know the clue, then yeah, go for it. But I wouldn't consider 2nd place player to do a risky maneuver, where as if the 1st place player could try and make it a runaway game or lose more of their lead. Brad Rutter encountered that scenario in the Battle of the Decades. Mike Dupee had enough to put Brad in a lock-tie scenario and Brad went for it, making it a runaway game.

Here's the lowdown on this:

On what you said:
15,000 - 8,000 - 1,000

Here's what would have happened if 2nd player got it wrong:
15,000 - 6,000(!) -1,000
That enters a lock game.

If 2nd player got it right:
15,000 - 10,000 - 1,000
This ensures a chance for a win, if you know how to strategize carefully.

If 1st player got it wrong:
13,000 - 8,000 - 1,000
Scenario's the same as if 2nd player got it right, but...situation changes with the wager.

If 1st player got it right:
17,000(!) - 8,000 - 1,000
Again, a lock game.

If both 1st and 2nd got it wrong:
13,000(!) - 6,000 - 1,000
Lock game right here...by a small margin.

If 1st got it right and 2nd got it wrong:
17,000(!) - 6,000 - 1,000
The runaway game just increases more.

If 2nd got it right and 1st got it wrong:
13,000 - 10,000 - 1,000
That just makes your chances better.

Third would have no chance even if you either get it wrong or right.

In hindsight, I wouldn't really risk losing a large amount of money over a clue that could potentially hurt you and cost you a win.

[chmmr]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jeopardy/comme ... where_you/

Interesting discussion in this thread imo.

[whoisalexjacob]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jeopardy/comme ... where_you/

Interesting discussion in this thread imo.

Not being able to recall anyone ever intentionally tanking a response, I was intrigued by opus' post, so I checked that game's discussion thread here. Sure enough, Dave admitted that he was trying to answer correctly and was lucky that he genuinely didn't know it. So personally, I doubt it's ever been done before, but who knows.

[Robert K S]

Jennings professed he responded "What is a hoe?" on purpose, though he knew it was wrong, but that was not for strategic reasons, unless disarming your opponents with comedy has strategic value..

[BobF]

Jennings professed he responded "What is a hoe?" on purpose, though he knew it was wrong, but that was not for strategic reasons, unless disarming your opponents with comedy has strategic value..

It often works in the sports games I play. I've seen people drop a frisbee in ultimate because they are laughing. I saw an umpire crack a joke that made the batter laugh so hard he couldn't compose himself to swing at a perfect pitch.

[bpmod]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jeopardy/comme ... where_you/

Interesting discussion in this thread imo.

Not being able to recall anyone ever intentionally tanking a response, I was intrigued by opus' post, so I checked that game's discussion thread here. Sure enough, Dave admitted that, while his intention was to tank the clue, he was trying subsequently tried to answer correctly and was lucky that he genuinely didn't know it. So personally, I doubt it's ever been done before, but who knows.

There. Fixed that for you.

Brian