Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, econgator, dhkendall, trainman

jbreynolds
Contributor
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:01 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by jbreynolds » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:00 pm

Cat Hammarskjold wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:09 pm
Given Alex Trebek's notorious hatred of the Welsh language, did anyone else find it strange that there's now not only been a category on Wales this season, but now a clue where the unfortunately misspelled Owain Glyndwr's name?
"Owen Glendower" is how Shakespeare spelled it.

IronNeck
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 12:26 am

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by IronNeck » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:54 pm

OntarioQuizzer wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:00 am
IronNeck wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:32 am
and especially not when it's accompanied by your typical buffoonery.
This is not acceptable.
IronNeck wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:13 am
It seems you have no clue what you're talking about, whether due to your join date, poor reading comprehension, or both.
Neither is this.

Please be nicer to both contestants and your fellow posters.
Very revealing that you didn't bother quoting what I was responding to in either case;
MattKnowles wrote:Why don't you and Golf make a post about your supposed optimal daily double wagering strategy so we can criticize it and fault you when you demean contestants that actually follow your optimal strategy? It seems that there are negative comments about the contestants' wagering regardless of what they wager.
MattKnowles wrote:Why are you afraid to explain your objective mathematics that you could teach to an 8-year old? Is it because you can't?
Curious that you would have a problem with my replies, but not to the insults that first spawned them, eh?

As someone who claimed he would stop posting on JBoard altogether because my posts about DD annoyed him so (which lasted all of a week, I recall), you can't possibly be biased, right?

Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1324
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Golf » Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:23 pm

Elijah Baley wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:09 am
Hasn't this issue been beat to death? Everyone has different risk tolerances, so why would we (collectively) berate and belittle people about something that happens pretty much every single game? Diana was a perfectly lovely contestant who wagered 50% more than most folks, and here you are making her out to be someone who threw away "the chance of a lifetime." It's demeaning and it doesn't make this seem like a very welcoming place for contestants to join and share their experiences.
I am not trying to belittle anyone, am simply pointing out an error in game play. This error does not make a person any more or less intelligent, any more or less a good person. It simply reduces their winning chances. And as you put it, Diana was a perfectly lovely contestant who wagered x% more than most contestants and was still sub-optimal.
MattKnowles wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:00 am
Diana's wagers on the Daily Doubles moved her from last place into first place. It's certainly not objective that that is horrible game play.

Why don't you and Golf make a post about your supposed optimal daily double wagering strategy so we can criticize it and fault you when you demean contestants that actually follow your optimal strategy? It seems that there are negative comments about the contestants' wagering regardless of what they wager.
The end result of her DD wagers are totally irrelevant in regards to whether they were good or bad. It's always interesting when intelligent people get caught in results oriented thinking.
OrangeSAM wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:43 am
My $.02: Any DD betting system that ignores a player's attitude toward risk/reward, that dictates higher risk than the person would usually toletate, that could add pressure, anxiety and/or discomfort while trying to formulate a response on-stage, is sub-optimal.

Alex doesn't ask "What is your best strategic bet?" He does often ask "How much are you willing to risk?", which is the key question to a lot of people.

Remember who were dealing with: lawyers, teachers, librarians. Definitely low-risk professions.
Risk reward tolerance means absolutely nothing when it comes to Jeopardy, it does come into play in other game shows. Because one must win the game to receive the money, you therefore make a wager that gives you the best chance of winning. It is that black and white. Doesn't matter what a librarian's risk tolerance is, there is only one wager that gives the best winning chances. So make it.
AFRET CMS wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:38 pm
I would also get impatient sometimes with contestant wagering, especially when DDs came late in the game. Then I had to calculate a wager in 10 seconds, with lights and cameras on; weighing the scores, the number of remaining clues, the estimated time left to play, and my comfort level with the category. I'm sure I got my share of criticism of my wagers after the episodes aired.

However, every wager had a reason and a rationale. But nobody who criticized ever asked what my rationale and considerations about the wagers were.

Some, a few, DD wagers are pretty cut-and-dried. The large majority are not. Since my time on stage, I now default to wondering why someone did what they did instead of reflexively thinking, "that's silly, I wouldn't have done it that way." I'm sure when IronNeck and Golf change their status to "Jeopardy! Champion" people will be much more receptive of their criticisms.
Most DD wagers are pretty cut and dried, either the min or the max. It's only when you get into endgame scenarios where something in between can yield the highest winning chances.

Now, in regards to making wagers under the lights, most contestants have never given wagering theory a thought. So when they are faced with this situation under the lights they have absolutely zero knowledge to draw from. They then sputter for a brief moment before blurting out some round number because their nervous system realizes it can't deal with this situation of ignorance and confusion. If they were prepared, the situation wouldn't faze them and the calculation would be quick and easy. But if it's truly a tough spot, a contestant should remember there is actually no time limit on making the wager. Yes, Alex will be badgering you and the editors will be miffed, but you've got time to make the appropriate calculations.

User avatar
OntarioQuizzer
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 am

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by OntarioQuizzer » Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:28 pm

IronNeck wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:54 pm
Curious that you would have a problem with my replies, but not to the insults that first spawned them, eh?

As someone who claimed he would stop posting on JBoard altogether because my posts about DD annoyed him so (which lasted all of a week, I recall), you can't possibly be biased, right?
You can probably be excused for missing this because you haven't been here most of the day, but (dhkendall will back me up on this as well) you did miss at least one post which was a direct insult in your direction deleted this afternoon.
Andy Saunders
Moderator, #JeopardyLivePanel
Host, Complete The List
J! Archive Founding Archivist
Site Admin - The Jeopardy! Fan

IronNeck
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 12:26 am

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by IronNeck » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:48 pm

Golf wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:23 pm
Now, in regards to making wagers under the lights, most contestants have never given wagering theory a thought. So when they are faced with this situation under the lights they have absolutely zero knowledge to draw from. They then sputter for a brief moment before blurting out some round number because their nervous system realizes it can't deal with this situation of ignorance and confusion. If they were prepared, the situation wouldn't faze them and the calculation would be quick and easy. But if it's truly a tough spot, a contestant should remember there is actually no time limit on making the wager. Yes, Alex will be badgering you and the editors will be miffed, but you've got time to make the appropriate calculations.
I'm always confused by the "under the lights" argument. That's the whole point of preparation. Obviously, if one has never even thought about wagering, let alone practiced/simulated it in mock games (which many Jeopardy champions, most notably Roger Craig, have done), then coming up with the correct number on the spot becomes vastly more difficult.

But if one has thought about and seen that situation many times and knows what to do, it becomes substantially easier.

As the legendary Russian general and military theorist Alexander Suvorov said, "Тяжело в учении — легко в походе! Легко в учении — тяжело в походе!" ("Hard in training, easy in battle! Easy in training, hard in battle!")

User avatar
waterloo_guy
Valued Contributor
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:50 pm
Location: Waterloo, ON

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by waterloo_guy » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:32 pm

IronNeck wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:48 pm
Golf wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:23 pm
Now, in regards to making wagers under the lights, most contestants have never given wagering theory a thought. So when they are faced with this situation under the lights they have absolutely zero knowledge to draw from. They then sputter for a brief moment before blurting out some round number because their nervous system realizes it can't deal with this situation of ignorance and confusion. If they were prepared, the situation wouldn't faze them and the calculation would be quick and easy. But if it's truly a tough spot, a contestant should remember there is actually no time limit on making the wager. Yes, Alex will be badgering you and the editors will be miffed, but you've got time to make the appropriate calculations.
I'm always confused by the "under the lights" argument. That's the whole point of preparation. Obviously, if one has never even thought about wagering, let alone practiced/simulated it in mock games (which many Jeopardy champions, most notably Roger Craig, have done), then coming up with the correct number on the spot becomes vastly more difficult.

But if one has thought about and seen that situation many times and knows what to do, it becomes substantially easier.

As the legendary Russian general and military theorist Alexander Suvorov said, "Тяжело в учении — легко в походе! Легко в учении — тяжело в походе!" ("Hard in training, easy in battle! Easy in training, hard in battle!")
I think for many contestants, being on Jeopardy! Is an experience - something you show up and do not something you study and plan for. Personally, I'm torn about it. I'd love to be a contestant and have been in the pool two or three times and would probably study and prepare if I did get chosen. But a part of me feels like that is cheating (of a sort) because I'd rather see how I'd do just based on what I've picked up over the years.

User avatar
BigDaddyMatty
Save Me, Maggie!
Posts: 2338
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Rowlett, Texas

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by BigDaddyMatty » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:11 am

waterloo_guy wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:32 pm
I think for many contestants, being on Jeopardy! Is an experience - something you show up and do not something you study and plan for. Personally, I'm torn about it. I'd love to be a contestant and have been in the pool two or three times and would probably study and prepare if I did get chosen. But a part of me feels like that is cheating (of a sort) because I'd rather see how I'd do just based on what I've picked up over the years.
Mr. Edwards would like to have a word with you.
Sprinkles are for winners.

MattKnowles
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by MattKnowles » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:44 am

I would like a non-deflecting answer to the negative comments on the daily double wagers in this game.

At Diana's first daily double there were $26,800 of clues left on the board and the scores were $6,800/$7,800/$6,400. What's the optimal daily double wager in this scenario?

Assume all contestants maintain their composure, assume the contestants feelings for the category are normal. Assume there are no complicating factors as much as possible.

At the second daily double there were $25,600 of clues left on the board and the scores are $6,800/$7,800/($6,400+Answer Above). What's the optimal daily double wager in this scenario?

Golf said that Diana should have engineered a runaway. That's technically possible in this game because there were very few points added after the daily doubles. Are you taking into account a fractional value of the remaining board clues when calculating the optimal wager? (e.g. assuming half the remaining clue values get turned into points and then splitting that evenly between the contestants and then finding the wager necessary to get a runaway or a crush at that point)

If the wagering comments are actually coming from objective arithmetic I would like to know what that arithmetic is. In order to turn this game into a runaway with these scores it seems like there would need to be some reckless wagers that would probably diminish the overall chances of winning the game.

The wager seems appropriate to me because it is a close game with a lot of clues left on the board. Any large wager can put the contestant out of the running and it isn't clear that it would secure a runaway anyway. A modest wager to secure the lead without risking position too much seems appropriate.

I can't calculate an "optimum" wager based on the scenario above. There are a range of wagers that seem appropriate to me and Diana wagered around that range.

If you're posting that the optimum wager is based on objective mathematics and that it is simple then please post what the optimum wager is and how you got there. I'd like to see a response with numbers.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.

Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1324
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Golf » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:47 pm

MattKnowles wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:44 am
I would like a non-deflecting answer to the negative comments on the daily double wagers in this game.
I would like an email invite to an audition. We don't always get what we want.
At Diana's first daily double there were $26,800 of clues left on the board and the scores were $6,800/$7,800/$6,400. What's the optimal daily double wager in this scenario?

Assume all contestants maintain their composure, assume the contestants feelings for the category are normal. Assume there are no complicating factors as much as possible.
This one is easy, scores are low and lots of money left on the board. Simple all or nothing situation depending solely on category and clue location. Odds >50% answering correctly then wager everything, otherwise wager $5. If you miss you're still only 4 clues away from taking the lead. Very little risk here in wagering everything.
At the second daily double there were $25,600 of clues left on the board and the scores are $6,800/$7,800/($6,400+Answer Above). What's the optimal daily double wager in this scenario?
Obviously 6800/7800/0 is a $2k or $5 wager. If there wasn't this much money still available it would be a $2k wager regardless of category.

6800/7800/12800 is significantly different. Obviously in a poor category and/or higher value clue leads to the minimum $5 wager. (and this begs the question why more contestants do not make this wager) If it's a total wheelhouse then it's another TDD to probably put the game away. But if you're merely confident in the category then it's not an easy calculation. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know exactly what the wager that gives the best winning chances would be. But I think it would be at least $5k. $5k leaves you tied for the lead on a miss and in a current lockout position on a correct answer while almost certainly having the lead going into FJ regardless. I could see a computer simulation spitting out a number higher than that.
Golf said that Diana should have engineered a runaway. That's technically possible in this game because there were very few points added after the daily doubles. Are you taking into account a fractional value of the remaining board clues when calculating the optimal wager? (e.g. assuming half the remaining clue values get turned into points and then splitting that evenly between the contestants and then finding the wager necessary to get a runaway or a crush at that point)

If the wagering comments are actually coming from objective arithmetic I would like to know what that arithmetic is. In order to turn this game into a runaway with these scores it seems like there would need to be some reckless wagers that would probably diminish the overall chances of winning the game.

The wager seems appropriate to me because it is a close game with a lot of clues left on the board. Any large wager can put the contestant out of the running and it isn't clear that it would secure a runaway anyway. A modest wager to secure the lead without risking position too much seems appropriate.

I can't calculate an "optimum" wager based on the scenario above. There are a range of wagers that seem appropriate to me and Diana wagered around that range.

If you're posting that the optimum wager is based on objective mathematics and that it is simple then please post what the optimum wager is and how you got there. I'd like to see a response with numbers.
How can a large wager put a contestant out of the running? There was tons of money left on the board to come back from even if falling to zero. And more importantly, who cares if they fall out of the running? If you had a 90% chance of answering correct and putting the game away, wouldn't you take it even if it meant falling out of the running? That's why people just won't understand, they are so concerned and scared about "falling out of the running" that they won't try to win the game. Well you know what? If you lose the game it doesn't matter when you lose. You still lose! And securing the lead does mean near as much as people think, if you don't have a lockout you can still lose. Especially if you don't have a crush.

Alex Jacob could probably explain this better than I can, but Jeopardy wagering is a lot like poker. Aggressive is almost always better than passive. The right decision is almost always much more aggressive than the average Joe thinks it is. There are plenty of times in poker where a raise from a weakish position shows higher expected value than a call.

Contestants on Jeopardy usually make the weak play, which is $1k - $3k with no regard to category, value, or position. What they don't realize is that a wager of $5 is really a strong play. It takes fortitude and a knowledge of wagering theory to make this wager.

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4118
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by jeff6286 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Golf wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:47 pm
At Diana's first daily double there were $26,800 of clues left on the board and the scores were $6,800/$7,800/$6,400. What's the optimal daily double wager in this scenario?
This one is easy, scores are low and lots of money left on the board. Simple all or nothing situation depending solely on category and clue location. Odds >50% answering correctly then wager everything, otherwise wager $5. If you miss you're still only 4 clues away from taking the lead. Very little risk here in wagering everything.
At the second daily double there were $25,600 of clues left on the board and the scores are $6,800/$7,800/($6,400+Answer Above). What's the optimal daily double wager in this scenario?
Obviously 6800/7800/0 is a $2k or $5 wager. If there wasn't this much money still available it would be a $2k wager regardless of category.

6800/7800/12800 is significantly different. Obviously in a poor category and/or higher value clue leads to the minimum $5 wager. (and this begs the question why more contestants do not make this wager) If it's a total wheelhouse then it's another TDD to probably put the game away. But if you're merely confident in the category then it's not an easy calculation. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know exactly what the wager that gives the best winning chances would be. But I think it would be at least $5k. $5k leaves you tied for the lead on a miss and in a current lockout position on a correct answer while almost certainly having the lead going into FJ regardless. I could see a computer simulation spitting out a number higher than that.

How can a large wager put a contestant out of the running? There was tons of money left on the board to come back from even if falling to zero. And more importantly, who cares if they fall out of the running? If you had a 90% chance of answering correct and putting the game away, wouldn't you take it even if it meant falling out of the running? That's why people just won't understand, they are so concerned and scared about "falling out of the running" that they won't try to win the game. Well you know what? If you lose the game it doesn't matter when you lose. You still lose! And securing the lead does mean near as much as people think, if you don't have a lockout you can still lose. Especially if you don't have a crush.

Alex Jacob could probably explain this better than I can, but Jeopardy wagering is a lot like poker. Aggressive is almost always better than passive. The right decision is almost always much more aggressive than the average Joe thinks it is. There are plenty of times in poker where a raise from a weakish position shows higher expected value than a call.

Contestants on Jeopardy usually make the weak play, which is $1k - $3k with no regard to category, value, or position. What they don't realize is that a wager of $5 is really a strong play. It takes fortitude and a knowledge of wagering theory to make this wager.
The thing is it's impossible to know where the score breaks are going to fall. Betting that $6400 instead of merely $3000 may seem like an obvious choice, but say you get it wrong. That $3400 you're missing might wind up being the difference between having the lead or not having the lead, being crushed or not being crushed, having a chance from 3rd or not heading to FJ. Of course the inverse is true as well, if you bet $3K and get it right, you've left $3400 on the table and that could wind up costing you the lead, or a crush, or a lock. There are so many possibilities, and while it's true that $5 or everything makes a lot of sense if you get to play 100 daily doubles, for many people they may only get one shot, so sample size doesn't really come into play. I think the poker analogy fits in here, as there are a lot of decisions that are easy to make in a limt game, but in a no limit tournament, it's not always as clear whether one should make a big bet or a big call when it puts their tournament life at risk.

I don't know why you refuse to admit that making a large DD wager is a risk. While it may not be game theory optimal, it is human nature to think (as we've seen from 30+ years of this show) "Well, I'm pretty good at this category, I'll probably know this. But if I risk all my money I drop all the way to $0 and that seems like it might be a crushing blow. I'm gonna bet about half my money, because I want to get a decent reward if I get it right while minimizing the damage should they give me a tough one." So yes, with a larger risk comes a larger reward. If you bet it all, and are right, you double your money and often put yourself in a good position to finish the game with a lock or a crush. But if you bet it all and miss, you drop all the way to $0 and there's a good chance that you're going to wind up being locked or crushed. It's a risk. The larger the risk, the larger the potential reward or punishment.

Back to this game, I certainly understand that the outcome doesn't mean anything in regards to what the right play was at the time, but you said "sadly she had no clue what to do with them. Had she known, she would have engineered a runaway." Saying "would have" rather than "could have" seems to indicate that you are considering the outcome, and with the single get on FJ there are not many sequences of DD bets that would have changed this game's outcome. It's reasonable that she could have bet all of her $6400 on the first DD, but then she hits the Pencils DD with $12800. You admit yourself that $5K or so seems like a reasonable bet at this point. If she makes that bet, and the rest of the game plays out the same, (obviously not a guarantee) the scores heading to final wind up 18600-9800-8800. Still not a lock, and all 3 player would have a chance to win. She would have had to bet over $6000 on the second DD, after doubling up on the first one, for it to end in a lock had everything else stayed the same.

Half of your money doesn't seem like a crazy move in that spot, but to me, if you've just doubled up to take a big lead, 12800-7800-6800, it might be a bit reckless to bet as high as 6400, giving away every bit of your lead and then some if you're wrong, and even if you're right, just one 2000 clue from 2nd place breaks the lock and there are a ton of high value clues still on the board. Also this was not a category that was easy to assess one's chances in, it was the first dip into a category all about pencils, something very few people are going to consider a huge strength or weakness, it could have been just about anything.

MattKnowles
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by MattKnowles » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:23 pm

Golf wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:47 pm
Lots of text.
Thanks for the helpful reply. That was a good response.

I don't agree with all your points but it's more clear where you're coming from.

I agree with the all-in response on the first wager because there was enough time to come back and be competitive in Final Jeopardy.

I disagree with your response that a contestant can retake the lead in just 4 clues. Technically this is correct but all 3 contestants are very close at this point. It's realistic to assume the contestants have similar trivia knowledge and similar buzzer timing if the game is very close. To assume or hope that one contestant is going to somehow change that and rack up $8,000 in quick succession seems pretty unlikely. I think from an objective standpoint we should imagine that the contestants will chip away at the board at about the same rate as before.

Like Jeff pointed out, the wager you suggested would not have created a runaway for Diana. It would have put her in a better position to win though with a crush.

I don't think the wagers made by Diana were bad. I'm guessing that what you suggested and what Diana did would both lead to similar winning percentages once you factor in the probability of getting the questions wrong. It's hard to get an exact calculation of it.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.

IronNeck
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 12:26 am

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by IronNeck » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:00 pm

jeff6286 wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:17 pm

The thing is it's impossible to know where the score breaks are going to fall. Betting that $6400 instead of merely $3000 may seem like an obvious choice, but say you get it wrong. That $3400 you're missing might wind up being the difference between having the lead or not having the lead, being crushed or not being crushed, having a chance from 3rd or not heading to FJ. Of course the inverse is true as well, if you bet $3K and get it right, you've left $3400 on the table and that could wind up costing you the lead, or a crush, or a lock. There are so many possibilities, and while it's true that $5 or everything makes a lot of sense if you get to play 100 daily doubles, for many people they may only get one shot, so sample size doesn't really come into play. I think the poker analogy fits in here, as there are a lot of decisions that are easy to make in a limt game, but in a no limit tournament, it's not always as clear whether one should make a big bet or a big call when it puts their tournament life at risk.
Luckily, we have this neat mathematical concept called "probability" that informs us which play is better, despite "so many possibilities". It's such a powerful tool that it can tell us the best play in seconds even when there are trillions of possibilities.
jeff6286 wrote:I don't know why you refuse to admit that making a large DD wager is a risk. While it may not be game theory optimal, it is human nature to think (as we've seen from 30+ years of this show) "Well, I'm pretty good at this category, I'll probably know this. But if I risk all my money I drop all the way to $0 and that seems like it might be a crushing blow. I'm gonna bet about half my money, because I want to get a decent reward if I get it right while minimizing the damage should they give me a tough one."
There are also people who think that if a coin lands heads four times in a row that it has a much higher than 50% chance of landing heads on the fifth flip. Or think "they're due" to win big after losing for a long time at a slot machine or the lottery.

All these attitudes are irrational and end up costing them money. Although probably less money is lost in the first two instances than is lost with poor wagering on Jeopardy.
MattKnowles wrote:It's hard to get an exact calculation of it.
It's trivial to show that a more substantial bet on the second DD would have increased her winning chances over her actual $3,000 bet if she thought she had the standard 65% get rate for that category. I actually think her first DD was slightly murkier than Golf does, since she wants to have more money to go all-in with if she misses and hits a second DD soon after. But that is more an issue if she thinks her get rate on that DD is more around 50%; at 65%, she should have went all-in.

Regardless, with the other two players close in score, winning percentages only change drastically if one gets a crush or a lock.

Her second DD should have been very big unless she wasn't confident in the category. (In which case, she should have bet $5/$100) With $9400, I would have gone with at least $5k. In the events of a miss, each player's winning chances are still about 33% each. In the event of a correct answer, she has a huge chance of a crush and a decent chance at a lock.

MattKnowles
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by MattKnowles » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:18 am

IronNeck wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:00 pm
MattKnowles wrote:It's hard to get an exact calculation of it.
It's trivial to show that a more substantial bet on the second DD would have increased her winning chances over her actual $3,000 bet if she thought she had the standard 65% get rate for that category. I actually think her first DD was slightly murkier than Golf does, since she wants to have more money to go all-in with if she misses and hits a second DD soon after. But that is more an issue if she thinks her get rate on that DD is more around 50%; at 65%, she should have went all-in.

Regardless, with the other two players close in score, winning percentages only change drastically if one gets a crush or a lock.

Her second DD should have been very big unless she wasn't confident in the category. (In which case, she should have bet $5/$100) With $9400, I would have gone with at least $5k. In the events of a miss, each player's winning chances are still about 33% each. In the event of a correct answer, she has a huge chance of a crush and a decent chance at a lock.
If it's trivial then show it. There's an old joke you might have heard (I took this version from Snopes):
When Albert Einstein was making the rounds of the speaker’s circuit, he usually found himself eagerly longing to get back to his laboratory work. One night as they were driving to yet another rubber-chicken dinner, Einstein mentioned to his chauffeur (a man who somewhat resembled Einstein in looks & manner) that he was tired of speechmaking.

“I have an idea, boss,” his chauffeur said. “I’ve heard you give this speech so many times. I’ll bet I could give it for you.” Einstein laughed loudly and said, “Why not? Let’s do it!”

When they arrived at the dinner, Einstein donned the chauffeur’s cap and jacket and sat in the back of the room. The chauffeur gave a beautiful rendition of Einstein’s speech and even answered a few questions
expertly.

Then a supremely pompous professor asked an extremely esoteric question about anti-matter formation, digressing here and there to let everyone in the audience know that he was nobody’s fool. Without missing a beat, the chauffeur fixed the professor with a steely stare and said, “Sir, the answer to that question is so simple that I will let my chauffeur, who is sitting in the back, answer it for me.”
You seem eager to show off your knowledge on every other subject but when it comes to wagering you just dismiss it as trivial and never explain how to calculate it. If it's a daily double at the end of the game then it is pretty straightforward. If it's a daily double relatively early in the double jeopardy round then it's a lot more complicated. Nobody in this thread has shown a way to calculate the winning percentages based on the daily double wagers. Nobody has even spelled out the necessary probabilities that are required to do so.

You say you would have gone with at least $5,000. Ok at least that's a number to work with. It's also the same number Golf used right above in a slightly different scenario. It's also a nice, round, and non-specific number. Knowing what the final scores were then a $5,000 wager would have been great. It would have given her a crush if she got it right and would have put her in a very hopeful 3rd place position if she had gotten it wrong. Knowing what the final scores were then a wager above $5,000 would not have been fruitful. Without knowing what the final scores were I don't see how the $5,000 wager is very different than the $3,000 wager she actually made.

Where does the 65% standard get rate come from? I have not seen that before.

How did you get 33% for each players chance of winning? If there is a 65% chance of getting FJ correct then the first place player would have about a 65% chance of winning and the other two would have a 17.5% chance. I'm not following what you're doing here.

Are you using chances of winning in different FJ scenarios and what probabilities are you using?
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.

IronNeck
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 12:26 am

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by IronNeck » Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:20 am

MattKnowles wrote:You seem eager to show off your knowledge on every other subject but when it comes to wagering you just dismiss it as trivial and never explain how to calculate it.
I have very little desire to show off my knowledge, and absolutely none towards someone who demands this information after a string of insults. Golf is a much kinder and more forgiving soul than I am; I would have simply ignored your pleading.
MattKnowles wrote:
Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:18 am
Where does the 65% standard get rate come from? I have not seen that before.
Try visiting j-archive.com, this forum's sister site. DDs are answered correctly 65% of the time.
MattKnowles wrote:How did you get 33% for each players chance of winning?
Dividing 100 by 3.

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4118
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by jeff6286 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:48 am

The calculations are trivial because it's almost never simply a matter of calculations. No matter how much data you have, there are huge unknowns to the point that nearly any DD wager involves a lot of guesswork. A player's chances of getting a daily double right in this category at this dollar amount are unknown. The relative strength of one's opponents on the clues remaining on the board is unknown. Even if the game is 30-40 clues in, it may still be unknown which player is the best on the buzzer and therefore likely to win the most buzzer races on the remaining clues. The Final Jeopardy category? unknown. Whether each of the 3 players will be correct or incorrect on FJ? unknown.

In a poker hand if you can read your opponent correctly you may have nearly perfect information to the point that it can come down to nothing but math. I know he has two pair but I have xx number of cards to hit my straight, as long as it doesn't give him a full house. You can calculate the pot odds and decide mathematically if it's worth it to you to make a call. Jeopardy! is nothing like that. There is rarely anything approaching perfect information. Sure there are times, mostly near the end of the game, when the optimal wager is blindingly obvious, but those are a pretty small percentage.

You could spend years tracking your Coryats, get rates on each level clue, your DD percentage, how you perform on every category known to man. Guess what, none of that means a thing when you hit a Daily Double in "Pencil Mania". And yet IronNeck and Golf still know the play that should have been made every time. Not even an opinion, a mathematical fact. It's not even hard...it's "trivial".

IronNeck
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 12:26 am

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by IronNeck » Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:08 am

I've known people to bristle at the notion that mathematics describes our universe.

However, it appears some people don't even believe mathematics is equipped to handle Jeopardy wagering!
jeff6286 wrote:
Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:48 am
The calculations are trivial because it's almost never simply a matter of calculations. No matter how much data you have, there are huge unknowns to the point that nearly any DD wager involves a lot of guesswork. A player's chances of getting a daily double right in this category at this dollar amount are unknown. The relative strength of one's opponents on the clues remaining on the board is unknown. Even if the game is 30-40 clues in, it may still be unknown which player is the best on the buzzer and therefore likely to win the most buzzer races on the remaining clues. The Final Jeopardy category? unknown. Whether each of the 3 players will be correct or incorrect on FJ? unknown.
Everything you listed is easily factored into a calculation. Think your chances of answering a DD correct are under 50%? If it's early in the DJ round, with plenty of time to come back, bet $5/$100. Optimal play. And bet that amount anytime you're in the lead.

Think your chances are exceptionally high, over 85%? In most instances, bet everything. Exceptions are when one already has a brutal lock, expects to win many more future games, and/or values wins much higher than a monster increase in EV.

It's not difficult at all for a contestant to identify a category as being in their wheelhouse, an okay one, or one that they would rather avoid. And bet accordingly.
jeff wrote: In a poker hand if you can read your opponent correctly you may have nearly perfect information to the point that it can come down to nothing but math. I know he has two pair but I have xx number of cards to hit my straight, as long as it doesn't give him a full house. You can calculate the pot odds and decide mathematically if it's worth it to you to make a call.
True, it's much simpler. Crunching the probabilities and percentages in poker can be very difficult indeed. Jeopardy is child's play by comparison.
jeff wrote:Jeopardy! is nothing like that. There is rarely anything approaching perfect information. Sure there are times, mostly near the end of the game, when the optimal wager is blindingly obvious, but those are a pretty small percentage.
You have it completely backwards. There is far less information in poker than there is in Jeopardy. Poker players wish they knew where they were relative to their opponents in a hand, which Jeopardy contestants are well aware of at all times.

I'm guessing you have never played poker?
jeff wrote:And yet IronNeck and Golf still know the play that should have been made every time.
I've stated many times that there are a range of acceptable plays in standard Jeopardy scenarios. There is more than one correct answer, in other words. For instance, the all-in wager from second place in a non-crush scenario is fine, which many others incorrectly call a mistake. And so is the small bet.

There are, however, wagers that are mistakes under any reasonable sets of assumptions.

User avatar
StevenH
Not J! Contestant Material
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by StevenH » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 pm

IronNeck wrote:
Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:08 am
It's not difficult at all for a contestant to identify a category as being in their wheelhouse, an okay one, or one that they would rather avoid. And bet accordingly.
I hate to get involved in this discussion, but I would like to add that I think that it's debatable how much the category should influence one's wagering. You just never know if you will get a gimme clue in a nightmare category or a hose in a wheelhouse category (see Alan Bailey's first round UToC game for an example of the latter).

Also, there have definitely been times when the clue doesn't really even fit the category that it's actually under! For example, I seem to recall one instance of a FJ category being Poetry but the clue actually requiring more knowledge of history. Ken Jennings' first round BotD game is another example: the FJ round clue was 19th Century Politics, but the way to solving the clue required more knowledge of Business & Industry (at least that's how I got it). Granted, I think that the category being misleading is more often a problem on FJs than DDs, but I could just have a better memory about this when it comes to FJ.

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4118
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by jeff6286 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:06 pm

IronNeck wrote:
Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:08 am
jeff wrote: In a poker hand if you can read your opponent correctly you may have nearly perfect information to the point that it can come down to nothing but math. I know he has two pair but I have xx number of cards to hit my straight, as long as it doesn't give him a full house. You can calculate the pot odds and decide mathematically if it's worth it to you to make a call.
True, it's much simpler. Crunching the probabilities and percentages in poker can be very difficult indeed. Jeopardy is child's play by comparison.
A poker deck is made up of a predetermined set of 52 cards. I said IF you can read your opponent correctly, you may have nearly perfect information. Reading the opponent is the challenge. In Jeopardy! the board is made up of clues written by a staff of writers. The material that's going to come up in the DDs and in the remaining clues is UNKNOWN. All you have to go on is the category titles which may or may not be particularly descriptive, and your knowledge of the writers' tendencies. If you've studied the J Archive exhaustively like Alex Jacob or Roger Craig, you can reach a level far beyond essentially every other contestant as far as knowing what may come up, but you are never going to reach 100%, which is what every player knows in every poker game. 100% of the cards in the deck are known before the hand is dealt. "Have you ever played poker?" What an idiotic statement. Have you ever played Jeopardy? See how dumb that sounds?

I guess I should tap out at this point rather than continue to ram my head into the wall. I keep forgetting this is a person who came onto the Jeopardy board and proceeded to tell everyone how they should be playing the game, when he didn't even understand how the game worked, in regards to quarterfinal tournament wagering. I should keep that in mind when considering whether he is worthy of a response in the future.

Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1324
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Golf » Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:41 pm

OK, so the questions and categories are composed by humans who have failings. Let's say a clue doesn't exactly match the category 2% of the time. Sound fair? But even if the clue doesn't match the category the contestant still probably has a 50% get rate. So in effect that reduces the get rate in a wheelhouse category by 1%. 1%. You guys are saying a contestant shouldn't go balls to the wall in a wheelhouse category over 1%? Regardless, that x% is still able to be estimated and calculated in the overall equation.

I feel like Allen Iverson. This is 1%, we're talking about 1% man. 1%. :lol:

Would you guys feel better if Roger Craig or Alex Jacob stopped by to echo what we've been saying? Because we're not wrong even if we have difficulty at times stating our case in a politically correct way. 99% of contestants do not wager near enough in strong categories or upper row clues and wager too much in difficult categories or bottom row clues.

And I'm actually wondering if we should move this discussion into it's own thread that encompasses overall wagering theory. Because this discussion crops up in game threads somewhat frequently and much of what is being said here has been said repeatedly. Mods, what do you think?

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4118
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by jeff6286 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:31 pm

In Roger's 2nd game he bet $4,000 of $5,400 on the first round DD. In his 3rd game he bet $10,000 of $13,400 on the first DD in DJ. In his 6th game he bet $2,000 of $4,000 in the first round, then on the last DD, he bet $12,000 of $20,000, got it right, but finished the game $800 short of having a lock. In his 7th game he bet just $4,000 of $9,400 early in DJ.

My point with all this is not to criticize Roger Craig. He's one of the best players this game has ever seen. It's to point out that no, I don't think if we asked Roger Craig or Alex Jacob to come here and chime in that they would agree that there are just one or two correct mathematical wagers in any scenario, and that clearly Golf and IronNeck know what that is for every single player in every single spot. Yeah Roger bet it all a whole bunch of times, but many other times, as seen above, he chose not to. Every player has their own rationale for why they might make a particular bet, and sure many of them may put little thought into it but I bet there are also some that do, and just because they choose a different wager than you recommend doesn't mean that they are wrong and you are right. It's not the disagreeing, it's the arrogance with which you two choose to express it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alietr, bbird, Bing [Bot], heppm01, Jeff-thecdboy, mennoknight, TheyCallMeMrKid and 27 guests