I don't consider her wager to be interesting at all, rather the typical strategically unsound wager we've come to expect. It's a bottom row clue in a sports category, even though she answered two of the lower valued clues correctly, I don't think her chances on the toughest one are very good. For her, $5 was probably the wager that showed the highest winning chances. And if I'm underestimating her chances, then TDD is the proper wager.talkingaway wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:12 pmInteresting DD wager in the first round, and I think it's wrong. I've always wondered if it would be worth it to sandbag a clue at the end of the first round if you had a chance to pick first in the second round, and I'm generally against it...but this is an exception. You've got an almost 7% shot at getting the DD right off the bat. So, IMO, if Felicity is going to wager for a score of 5100 to get the lead against two 5000 scores....she may as well hold back an extra 100 so that she gets to pick first next clue. It's not a huge mistake, and if she wanted to make a significantly larger wager, I'd agree. But wagering specifically to eke out a 100 point lead? If that's psychological gamesmanship, it's still not really the best move.
Her chances of finding a DD on the first pick of DD were not 7%, they were well less than 1% because those are the odds of finding a DD in a top row box. So that thought is moot, at least for most contestants. I'd estimate the best chances one could have at finding the DD on the first pick to be 10%, eliminating the top row clues and let's say one category. So the question would be, are your winning chances better having $100 less but the first pick and a 10% chance on the DD in DJ vs. $100 more and someone else (who will almost certainly go to the top row) having the first pick?
It's an interesting concept but would very rarely be useful in practicality.
Pretty sad how late the DD's have been found this week. Nobody wants to win.