Wednesday, March 21, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[xxaaaxx]

No, but that has nothing to today's game. The two leaders had a 100% chance for a $13600 payday. Why would you ever risk that?

Because it's only 100% if they both make the correct wager. And as we've seen too many times on this show, there's almost no chance of that happening. In a perfect world, where everyone makes the right wagers, $0 would be the only defensible bet. In the real world, where we see ridiculous wagers on a near-daily basis?

After entering their pre-FJ scores, the wagering calc says "Do you trust Player B?" The answer is no.

I wish there was a convenient way to search for every prisoner's dilemma in J! history, to see how often the contestants wager properly.

[econgator]

I will always fall in the "never, EVER give up the lock" camp.

Nobody had a lock.

The leaders both had more than 2x the third place. That sounds like a lock to me.

[Le Master]

Never heard of "logrolling", and I'm very politically aware.

So am I, but I have heard the word before. I had no idea what it meant before tonight though, and I only got it because of the 'lumberjack' TOM.

I learned about logrolling back in the 70's. I'm not sure if it's done as much these days.

I learned about it in middle school and high school in the 2000s.

[econgator]

In a perfect world, where everyone makes the right wagers, $0 would be the only defensible bet. In the real world, where we see ridiculous wagers on a near-daily basis?

I don't disagree with your last sentence. All I am saying is that the only bet that I would ever make in that situation is $0 and I would be fine with the outcome if I lost.

[BigDaddyJ]

I will always fall in the "never, EVER give up the lock" camp.

Nobody had a lock.

The leaders both had more than 2x the third place. That sounds like a lock to me.

According to J-Archive:

Lock
n. in Final Jeopardy! wagering strategy, the scenario in which the score of the player in second place is less than one-half the score of the player in first place.

[econgator]

According to J-Archive:

Lock
n. in Final Jeopardy! wagering strategy, the scenario in which the score of the player in second place is less than one-half the score of the player in first place.

How does that not apply here? The player in 2nd place has less than half of what the players in 1st have (if they all had bet $0, Melanie would have left with an additional $2k, so she is, therefore, in 2nd place).

[MarkBarrett]

Sir Walter Raleigh and Elizabeth I? First credit would have to go to Sherman and Peabody for knowing that one.

The FJ left me without a guess and a blank paper. That is until Alex opened his mouth after the music. Then I knew who it was immediately. Put me down for a no excuse miss.

Cathy and Greg's potential tie situation gave FJ extra intrigue mixed in with the boardie factor. Throw in the poster on the BAM Bored who had a thread labeled "A perfect day for bad J! betting" and I was not sure what the outcome would be. A sole solve, 12600 less in the pocketbook and the victory is not perfect for Cathy, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

[econgator]

The FJ left me without a guess and a blank paper. That is until Alex opened his mouth after the music. Then I knew who it was immediately. Put me down for a no excuse miss.

I at least had Arthur C. Clarke down, but like you, as soon as Alex started speaking, I knew I was wrong and I knew who it should have been.

[Vanya]

The $1,000 wager shouldn't matter. She still won.

Finally! Someone who speaks sense.

[jeff6286]

did anyone precall any of the Albert's? Camus for 2k was an easy one, IMO

I got a bit of a break when I threw out Albert Schweitzer on the 1,200 clue, which had something to do with a vaccine, even though I was fairly certain it was wrong. Then when the DD came up in the $1,600 box, I was nearly certain that it was Schweitzer as soon as I saw the clue.

I'm sorry to say this econgator, but I think your argument in this case is really, really misguided. You keep saying that if the leaders have more than double third place's score, then that means they have a lock, but I don't see how you can fail to appreciate the fact that if you're tied with another player, then you don't have a lock over them. goforthetie's other example of scores was pointing out that you have to have a lock over both other players, not just one, and in this case neither Cathy nor Greg had a lock over each other, and since they aren't playing as a team, neither has a guaranteed lock over Melanie either. If you want to bet $0 in that case, then that is perfectly okay, but I think I agree with goforthetie's assessment that the $0 bet may lead to a loss more often than it would lead to a win, and since betting everything does give the added bonus of twice as much money in your pocket if you win, I don't quite see how you can make the argument that no contestant should ever bet more than $0 in that position. I can see making the argument that $0 is preferable to the $1,000 bet that Cathy made, and I would probably tend to agree with you, but I have no issues with Greg betting it all.

If I could control all 3 players (like a puppet master), I would just have the leaders bet $1,200 and Melanie bet it all, just so we could have the possibility of a 3-way tie. I don't know why I find the possibility of tie scores so intriguing, but as soon as Greg missed that Daily Double I noted that the leaders were only $400 apart, so I was begging for them to end up tied. I had very little hope that Greg would get the final ballet clue to knot them, then was pleasant surprised (I suspect he was as well) that he pulled it out.

Congratulations to both Cathy and Melanie on both becoming Jeopardy! champions.

[bomtr]

According to J-Archive:

Lock
n. in Final Jeopardy! wagering strategy, the scenario in which the score of the player in second place is less than one-half the score of the player in first place.

How does that not apply here? The player in 2nd place has less than half of what the players in 1st have (if they all had bet $0, Melanie would have left with an additional $2k, so she is, therefore, in 2nd place).

Your second place is actually in third place, my opponent in the tie with me will bet $0 far less than half the time, I will be right on FJ! far more than half the time, and I just beat you regardless whether you were right or not. (I didn't know it was you at the next podium, gator, or I would seriously have considered the $0 bet. But only if I knew it was you. And they wouldn't let that happen.) I think, given all the parameters, yours is a losing strategy. You don't have a lock if the person next to you can win by betting.

[BigDaddyJ]

According to J-Archive:

Lock
n. in Final Jeopardy! wagering strategy, the scenario in which the score of the player in second place is less than one-half the score of the player in first place.

How does that not apply here? The player in 2nd place has less than half of what the players in 1st have (if they all had bet $0, Melanie would have left with an additional $2k, so she is, therefore, in 2nd place).

I understand what you are saying - Greg and Cathy each had Melanie locked out. Fair enough. My point is that Greg did not have Cathy locked out, nor did Cathy have Greg locked out, so it's not accurate to say that either of them had a lock game. In a lock game, you can wager so as to guarantee your own victory. Here, neither have that option. Both are still faced with the very real possibility of losing to the other.

Yes, if they both bet $0, then they both win. But to say "Cathy has a lock game so long as Greg bets $0" is to say that Cathy doesn't in fact have a lock at all since the outcome is dependent on some action Greg may or may not take. And vice-versa.

[billy pilgrim]

It looks like, based on all the comments here, that you can never trust the other player to make the sensible wager. If people can't agree that the leaders in this game should have both bet zero, I can't imagine a scenario where they should. Maybe the triple tie.

[CGeditor]

Thanks for the congratulations, folks! Had a great viewing party in D.C. tonight (although some folks guessed the outcome because of the promo video on the show website).
Regarding FJ, I bet $1,000 just to block Melanie, in case she bet it all. I wasn't really sure what Greg was going to do, but I didn't want to risk losing everything.
I belong to the "a win is a win!" school of thought, so I'm just glad I get to be on again tomorrow.

[Austin Powers]

The $1,000 wager shouldn't matter. She still won.

Finally! Someone who speaks sense.

Tim Tebow is a great QB - after all, he led his team to the playoffs.

[marpocky]

Lock-tie. One of the most interesting endgames, and nobody went with the surefire $0 bet. Tsk. But a win's a win (I feel like deja vu all over again).

Not a lock-tie, but a prisoner's dilemma.

[Miss Mellie]

Cathy, did the coordinators do any extra hovering around you and Greg to make sure you weren't colluding on your wagers? Or was it just the usual amount of hovering?

[CGeditor]

Cathy, did the coordinators do any extra hovering around you and Greg to make sure you weren't colluding on your wagers? Or was it just the usual amount of hovering?

Nothing extra that I recall.

[jeff6286]

Cathy, did the coordinators do any extra hovering around you and Greg to make sure you weren't colluding on your wagers? Or was it just the usual amount of hovering?

"Cough twice if we're both going to bet $0, cough three times if we're both going to bet it all. And you better not double-cross me, you lousy no-good..."

[billy pilgrim]

Thanks for the congratulations, folks! Had a great viewing party in D.C. tonight (although some folks guessed the outcome because of the promo video on the show website).
Regarding FJ, I bet $1,000 just to block Melanie, in case she bet it all. I wasn't really sure what Greg was going to do, but I didn't want to risk losing everything.
I belong to the "a win is a win!" school of thought, so I'm just glad I get to be on again tomorrow.

Congrats on the win CG. A win is indeed a win. I thought your 1000 wager was better than going all in. And you followed the MOST important rule in FJ wagering, which is 'get the right answer (in question form) '. I do wonder if you thought of betting zero. Enlighten us.