Against the Wagering Vikings [SPOILERS up to May 12, 2014]

[Vermonter]

I am surprised the OP didn't link to half of my videos. For my part, my intent is less to chide the players who made mistakes - that's just a vehicle for delivery - than to educate people who want to learn and for whom the information might be useful in the future.

I am wont to tell people, as others have said here: Jeopardy! players are good at trivia, but that doesn't mean they're good at math. Unlike state capitals, however, your Final Jeopardy! wager is one of the few - if not the only - aspects of the game entirely in your control.

P.S. Sarah, don't worry: a Shore's Conjecture tutorial is ready and waiting for next week once the BOTD is over.

[Leah]

... Jeopardy emphasizes knowledge recall, logical association and wordplay...

While the above is true, an enormous factor (that viewers can't assess precisely and is seldom discussed, but is even bigger in a tournament like this) is precision of reflex. That's a neurological/physical skill -- or gift, since it seems to be less susceptible to improvement through study and practice than the other qualities. All three people up there in these recent rounds know the answers to a meaningful majority of the questions (based on my experience, about 75-80%, although there's no way to confirm that), so if a player has a great edge on reflex, it's a huge advantage.

While I don't follow the wagering discussions much and I'm not good at it (and you might be surprised how resistant to instruction "poor" wagering can be, what with the lights and pressure and adrenaline), if nothing else it can partly compensate for less-good reflexes if you have the luck* to get a DD and can wager a lot on it to make up for not winning the buzzer much.

*oh yeah-- luck. I don't like to think of Jeopardy as a game of chance, but in part it is. Luck as to the categories, mainly, but other aspects as well. I once happened to have an opponent who was so nicotine-dependent that I think enforced abstention in the studio affected her game, resulting in less competition for me.

[alietr]

I really am spectacular, aren't I?

Quit preening, Bird!

[dhkendall]

There's also the glare of the lights to consider. Maybe some people spent hours studying wagering scenarios, but couldn't come up with them in the heat of the moment on the stage, and went with a gut wager. Not saying that would be Chuck's explanation, but it's worth remembering.

I figure that if Robert K S could make a "bad" FJ! wager, anybody can make a bad wager, and it's not necessarily evidence that a player was not properly prepared for his/her appearance, 'couldn't understand a simple concept', or anything like that. So, I personally am not going to criticize anyone's wager, and tend to just skim past posts that do so.

Pretty much the same for me, although I still don't understand most of the wagers (to quote the greatest philosopher of the last 75 years, Barbara Millicent Roberts, "Math class is tough!") - although I will say the Wagering Vikings (*there's* a term I really hope catches on here, in both the derogatory and the "wear it with pride" angles) have taught me a bit more than I used to know. I still maintain that I give the Wagering Police free reign to haul me in on any charge they can pin on me, and there will be several, after my game(s) air(s).

[countyguy]

A pet theory of mine is that the "gene" for knowledge absorption and canny wagering overlaps less than we think. I offer myself as an example: I've passed the audition test three times, but I find learning about wagering difficult and tedious. The number of scenarios that exist can seem overwhelming. While I'd certainly spend time studying strategy were I ever to get The Call, this may be something worth considering as an explanation. People find different things easy or difficult to learn.

Seconded. Or thirded or wherever we are now. I don't know, counting is hard.

I think that another problem is that if you want to learn this wagering strategy, you also have to learn all the lingo first because no one really explains what they're talking about (Keith makes an effort but he goes very fast in his videos so it can be hard to keep up). I still don't understand what the hell Shore's conjecture is or what it has to do with anything, and I have read the glossary several times. It's a lot harder to make knowledge "stick" if you're not interested in it, and I have a lot of difficulty getting interested in this, especially when wagering strategy seems to be based on the assumption that the other two players will make rational wagers, which they probably won't.

Shore's conjecture states that if second has more than twice third and more than two-thirds of first, first should bet assuming that second will lock out third.

[sarah0114]

Shore's conjecture states that if second has more than twice third and more than two-thirds of first, first should bet assuming that second will lock out third.

Thanks! But how does that end up being strong or weak?

[lieph82]

Shore's Conjecture is pretty theoretical and is rooted in expecting another player to act rationally. If you're having trouble with wagering strategy, stick to the basics; I think the 2/3 rule is the only terminology that's important to memorize.

[opusthepenguin]

Shore's Conjecture is pretty theoretical and is rooted in expecting another player to act rationally. If you're having trouble with wagering strategy, stick to the basics; I think the 2/3 rule is the only terminology that's important to memorize.

For what it's worth, when I ran the numbers some time in the past year, the strong form of Shore's Conjecture is the only one that historically would have conferred a statistical advantage. But I no longer remember what distinguishes the strong from the intermediate and weak forms.

I agree with memorizing the 2/3 rule. But perhaps even more important is understanding the why behind the 2/3 rule. For the most part, this cannot be taught, only discovered. The best way to learn wagering does not involve wading through the (admittedly spectacular) ramblings of tedious blowhards such as myself or even studying the succinct, piquant observations of someone such as lieph82. The best way to learn is to pause Jeopardy! at the end of the DJ round and break out the pen(cil) and scratch paper. Just ask yourself three questions:

1. If I'm in first place, what do I wager? (Even self-branded Wagering Angles--or whatever the opposite of a Viking is--can generally figure this out.)

2. If I wager that and miss, what's my final score? Write this number down.

3. If I'm in SECOND place, what do I need to bet to get/stay ahead of that number?

Do this for two to four weeks and you will understand basic wagering. You will naturally start thinking about how to fine tune your answers in light of third place's score. You'll start thinking about what you would do if you were in third place. You'll recognize common wagering situations and mistakes, victories being thrown away by contestants who didn't ask themselves those three questions, lucky wins when a contestant who made a bad wager survives because their opponent made a worse one, etc.

After that, you'll be able to evaluate nuanced recommendations, understand the discussions (more or less), even join in if you feel like it. Until you've learned the basics, though, all these conversations will seem like incomprehensible gobbledygook. But honestly, a good third or so of them aren't.

[hscer]

(Even self-branded Wagering Angles--or whatever the opposite of a Viking is--can generally figure this out.)

Obviously, Hawks and Doves would be the best terminology.

[GoodStrategy]

Shore's conjecture states that if second has more than twice third and more than two-thirds of first, first should bet assuming that second will lock out third.

Thanks! But how does that end up being strong or weak?

"Weak" is when the third-place player doesn't have enough to win if the leader makes the usual shut-out bet (i.e. when he/she has less than the difference of first and second).

"Intermediate" is when third isn't in the range going into FJ!, but can get there by getting FJ! right and betting enough (which is the case when he/she has at least the difference, but less than twice the difference, between first and second).

"Strong" is when third is already in winning range (at least twice the difference of first and second's scores) going into FJ! and can wager to stay above that to possibly win on a triple stumper.

The justification for the leader making a "Shoretegic" wager is weakest in a weak-form game, since if second is aware of the 2/3 rule that will govern his/her maximum standard recommended wager as opposed to the third-place player (in any C<A-B game the "standard" wagers, if a 2nd vs. 3rd place finish isn't of concern, are the same as if third wasn't playing at all) and even the shut-out bet still keeps third locked out. In an intermediate- or strong-form game second has an incentive to further restrict his/her wager (from the usual 2/3-rule maximum) to keep third locked out, and if the leader thinks second will do that then a "Shoretegic" wager to cover that amount becomes a viable alternative.

[MarkBarrett]

The Vikings are my favorite football team, so I am happy to have one of my lines brought into the original post.

[Golf]

I think that another problem is that if you want to learn this wagering strategy, you also have to learn all the lingo first because no one really explains what they're talking about (Keith makes an effort but he goes very fast in his videos so it can be hard to keep up). I still don't understand what the hell Shore's conjecture is or what it has to do with anything, and I have read the glossary several times. It's a lot harder to make knowledge "stick" if you're not interested in it, and I have a lot of difficulty getting interested in this, especially when wagering strategy seems to be based on the assumption that the other two players will make rational wagers, which they probably won't.

So $250k isn't interesting enough for you?

If any adult would take 15 minutes to study the basics they would be set for 90%+ of the situations.

[harrumph]

So is this thread an outchange for the wagering Vikings?

[seaborgium]

Thanks for not quoting any of my posts in the OP!

Also, stop discussing wagering strategy in this thread!

[Kingrat47]

I am surprised the OP didn't link to half of my videos. For my part, my intent is less to chide the players who made mistakes - that's just a vehicle for delivery - than to educate people who want to learn and for whom the information might be useful in the future.

I am wont to tell people, as others have said here: Jeopardy! players are good at trivia, but that doesn't mean they're good at math. Unlike state capitals, however, your Final Jeopardy! wager is one of the few - if not the only - aspects of the game entirely in your control.

P.S. Sarah, don't worry: a Shore's Conjecture tutorial is ready and waiting for next week once the BOTD is over.

As I say, I don't particularly mind y'all going nuts on poor wagering when you're in your own meadhalls - I've just found the atmosphere increasingly oppressive in the game threads. I also thought the board could do with a corrective contrary opinion on the importance of wagering - it may very well be the only aspect of the game entirely in your own control, but it's still of decidedly secondary importance.

Thanks for not quoting any of my posts in the OP!

Also, stop discussing wagering strategy in this thread!

No problem. I will admit that I've tuned out the wagering discussion that has perhaps not surprisingly sprung up in here, but I'll admit that I'd be sort of ruefully amused if this became (yet another) forum for you guys to hash out the intricacies of Shore's Conjecture and Pawson's Gambit. After all, what are Vikings known for? Aggressive conquest and colonization!

[Bamaman]

I think that another problem is that if you want to learn this wagering strategy, you also have to learn all the lingo first because no one really explains what they're talking about (Keith makes an effort but he goes very fast in his videos so it can be hard to keep up). I still don't understand what the hell Shore's conjecture is or what it has to do with anything, and I have read the glossary several times. It's a lot harder to make knowledge "stick" if you're not interested in it, and I have a lot of difficulty getting interested in this, especially when wagering strategy seems to be based on the assumption that the other two players will make rational wagers, which they probably won't.

So $250k isn't interesting enough for you?

If any adult would take 15 minutes to study the basics they would be set for 90%+ of the situations.

I think most people know the basics. Everyone knows to make a cover bet from the lead and most seem to know second should stay ahead of the leader's MSBIW score if that is possible without risking being passed by third.

But some of the wagering suggestions get very deep and rely on everybody making a logical wager, which as we know doesn't always happen. Granted, we had some leaders not make cover wagers in the BOTD because they knew second would bet small, but this is a special type of tournament.

[Golf]

I think most people know the basics. Everyone knows to make a cover bet from the lead and most seem to know second should stay ahead of the leader's MSBIW score if that is possible without risking being passed by third.

I disagree. While most do seem to make the cover bet from the lead we've seen quite a few not do so for no reason. And I'm talking about regular game play. But I think very few understand staying ahead of the MSBIW bet, the archive seems to confirm this. And those are the absolute basics but people just don't get it.

[immaf]

I disagree. While most do seem to make the cover bet from the lead we've seen quite a few not do so for no reason.

No reason? How about if they have no -- I mean zero -- confidence that they can answer correctly? If the FJ category is "Top 40 Hits", I'm betting $0 because I haven't a snowball's chance in hell of knowing the answer. Regardless of whether I am in the lead or not, or what the other players do, a $0 bet will maximize my winnings.

What really frosts my cookies about the wagering police is that they complain (and that is putting it mildly) about "poor" wagering when they don't -- and cannot -- factor in the most important aspect of making a wager, which is how a contestant feels about the category.

I'm not saying that people should not discuss wagering. (I try to skip such pointless posts.) But I do wish they weren't so judgmental about it. The mathematics of wagering are only part of it.

[opusthepenguin]

I think most people know the basics. Everyone knows to make a cover bet from the lead and most seem to know second should stay ahead of the leader's MSBIW score if that is possible without risking being passed by third.

If you mean most people here, maybe. This does not appear to be the case for most players. We consistently see players making irrational wagers from second place.

[opusthepenguin]

How about a compromise everyone? I'll start labeling my Wagering Viking posts and putting the comments between spoiler tags. I can't make anyone else do the same, but maybe it'll catch on. I'll mark them with the little triangle with the exclamation point and spoiler my comments to make them easy to skip. Like this:

WAGERING VIKING POST (please do not remove spoiler tags when replying):

Spoiler

I disagree. While most do seem to make the cover bet from the lead we've seen quite a few not do so for no reason.

No reason? How about if they have no -- I mean zero -- confidence that they can answer correctly? If the FJ category is "Top 40 Hits", I'm betting $0 because I haven't a snowball's chance in hell of knowing the answer. Regardless of whether I am in the lead or not, or what the other players do, a $0 bet will maximize my winnings.

What really frosts my cookies about the wagering police is that they complain (and that is putting it mildly) about "poor" wagering when they don't -- and cannot -- factor in the most important aspect of making a wager, which is how a contestant feels about the category.

As you say, you try to skip those posts, so you might not have the right impression. We often propose different wagers depending on how the contestant feels about the category. We also complain about wagers that throw away the chance to win on a miss for an essentially zero percent chance of winning on a get. We complain because the contestant could've had it both ways and threw away one of them. Even if you're 95% confident in a category (which is higher than anyone should ever be), there's no reason not to hedge your bet if you can safely do so.

I'm not saying that people should not discuss wagering. (I try to skip such pointless posts.) But I do wish they weren't so judgmental about it. The mathematics of wagering are only part of it.

Ok, I'll try not to be so judgmental in my "pointless posts."