morbeedo wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:42 pm
Category 13 wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:43 pm
John Boy wrote:
That's the kind of game I love to see: three evenly matched, good quality players, all with a realistic chance going into the final. The kind of game I hate to see anyone lose. And capped off by three absolutely spot-on correct FJ wagers. Well done, all.
Bill was wary to pad his wager by $9, to avoid being one-upped in the event Kevin takes a chance on shortagey. This wagering scenario gives the leader reasonable case for covering 3rd by a small amount more
than one dollar, as that's what 2nd is expected to do.
Bill could have actually added another 780 or so without hurting his chances in a TS.
Furthermore, Kevin could have anticipated the above strategy from Bill and countered with a fine tuned shortagey wager of $7200.
I'm a little late to the party, but I don't follow shoretegic wagering. Could you please elaborate? The scores going into final were 15,200 / 10,800 / 13,200. How is 8,410 better than 8,401 from 2nd place?
This wasn't a Shore's Conjecture game; Shoretegic wagering is when first place recognizes second place has third locked out and can pass first place while holding on to the lock, and only wagers to surpass second's maximum score. So if the scores were $15,200 to $10,800 to $3,000, and first place guesses second won't wager above $4,800, and bets $401 to cover that, that's Shoretegy.
Presumably, as the game actually was, $8,410 is slightly better than $8,401 for second place because first place might decide to underwager by covering third instead of second (which, again, is not Shoretegy). (Donna Vogel did this in her fourth game
from $18,400 to $18,000 to $10,800, but she covered third by $300, and won in a double get against second place, who covered third by $100.)