I don't actually remember where I heard that, but I thought it was either on here or on that video. I could be mistaken.dhkendall wrote:Opal wrote:I didn't ever hear a date, so you're one up on me.Opal wrote: And by the way, do we know when the first tie-breaker airs? I think I remember the week of the 22nd, but I don't know if that's accurate or if I'm remembering correctly.
Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:57 pm
- Location: British Columbia
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 2:03 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
I'm confused. What we're talking about is a scenario where someone intentionally misses a DD to fall to a lock-tie scenario, right? With the new rules, how does doing that give an advantage to the trailer? Like, say first place has $20,000 and second place has $12,000 and gets a DD on the last question. With the old rules, second place could bet $2000, intentionally miss, and set up a scenario where they just need to get FJ right to be a co-champion. With the new rules, if they do that, first place might bet something rather than nothing in FJ, so intentionally tanking to get into a lock-tie isn't necessarily any better than just doing a smaller bet to ensure you stay above 50% of first place. There is less motivation to intentionally tank now, because the lock-tie situation is less desirable. Second place would now be better off getting the DD right to get above 2/3 of first place, whereas with the old rules second place would be better off getting the DD wrong.Opal wrote:Oh, I totally understand that it was the correct strategy. I worded this poorly and what I meant is that it's bad that the trailer would be the only one with the advantage now. Since the leader would have had lock, an intentional tank would cause them to possibly lose. Previously, it didn't matter to the leader since they would still win (assuming a bet of $0), except that they would have to play the same opponent again, which has both benefits and challenges.
- Vermonter
- 2003 College Champion
- Posts: 1956
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
Maybe you're thinking of November 24th, the air date the rule change went into effect? I haven't heard even the faintest mumbling about a tiebreaker in the can, and I'd like to think I would have been tipped off by now.Opal wrote:I don't actually remember where I heard that, but I thought it was either on here or on that video. I could be mistaken.dhkendall wrote:I didn't ever hear a date, so you're one up on me.Opal wrote: And by the way, do we know when the first tie-breaker airs? I think I remember the week of the 22nd, but I don't know if that's accurate or if I'm remembering correctly.
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
- ÕώÕ
- Contributor
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:51 pm
- Location: Washington, United States
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
It all depends on what you think first place is going to do. Fisrt place could bet $1, but if he isn't confident about him getting the correct FJ! response, he could bet $0.whatisbishkek wrote:I'm confused. What we're talking about is a scenario where someone intentionally misses a DD to fall to a lock-tie scenario, right? With the new rules, how does doing that give an advantage to the trailer? Like, say first place has $20,000 and second place has $12,000 and gets a DD on the last question. With the old rules, second place could bet $2000, intentionally miss, and set up a scenario where they just need to get FJ right to be a co-champion. With the new rules, if they do that, first place might bet something rather than nothing in FJ, so intentionally tanking to get into a lock-tie isn't necessarily any better than just doing a smaller bet to ensure you stay above 50% of first place. There is less motivation to intentionally tank now, because the lock-tie situation is less desirable. Second place would now be better off getting the DD right to get above 2/3 of first place, whereas with the old rules second place would be better off getting the DD wrong.Opal wrote:Oh, I totally understand that it was the correct strategy. I worded this poorly and what I meant is that it's bad that the trailer would be the only one with the advantage now. Since the leader would have had lock, an intentional tank would cause them to possibly lose. Previously, it didn't matter to the leader since they would still win (assuming a bet of $0), except that they would have to play the same opponent again, which has both benefits and challenges.
ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ
- ÕώÕ
- Contributor
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:51 pm
- Location: Washington, United States
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
Some people actually offer the ties even with tiebreakers...
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3210
If Gabe added another $2 to his wager, there would have been a tiebreaker.
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3081
Ok, in this one there actually WAS a tiebreaker.
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3969
Ok, I don't know if this one counts, first place had a lock game.
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3210
If Gabe added another $2 to his wager, there would have been a tiebreaker.
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3081
Ok, in this one there actually WAS a tiebreaker.
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3969
Ok, I don't know if this one counts, first place had a lock game.
ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ ÕώÕ
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 242
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:59 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
It should, since it needlessly lets a player back in to the game.ÕώÕ wrote:http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3969
Ok, I don't know if this one counts, first place had a lock game.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
I always preferred the existing tie-breaker solution. They end up in a tie, they both get the money, and both come back tomorrow to play again to see which of them (if either) advances from there to the third day.BobF wrote:Although I cheered it in the other thread, I do see the problems with it. IMO, they should both get the cash and then play the tiebreaker to see who returns.Bamaman wrote:It had been rumored on here it was going to happen and it was confirmed in the thread about boson's wife. There will no longer be co-champions on the show, all games ending in a tie will be settled by a tie breaker question.
They can do what they want, but I'm not a fan of this move. While I disagree that one should always offer a tie, there are instances where circumstance demands offering a tie, such as having double second place's score or an exact 2/3 situation.
I can't imagine which of the speculated reasons J! had in mind. With all the money the show makes and gives away, it's hard to imagine they would quibble about an extra $15-20K once every few weeks. Maybe collusion is a concern, but it hardly seems likely any two players could collude, the way S&P watchdogs the show.
I can't say I like this move either, but as I've said many times before (notably about their contestant selection process ) it IS their show, to be played the way they want.
- Winchell Factor
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:07 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
The explanation the producers were giving contestants was more or less that playing for a tie is like kissing your sister. Not very satisfying--at least, they thought, not for the audience.John Boy wrote:I always preferred the existing tie-breaker solution. They end up in a tie, they both get the money, and both come back tomorrow to play again to see which of them (if either) advances from there to the third day.BobF wrote:Although I cheered it in the other thread, I do see the problems with it. IMO, they should both get the cash and then play the tiebreaker to see who returns.Bamaman wrote:It had been rumored on here it was going to happen and it was confirmed in the thread about boson's wife. There will no longer be co-champions on the show, all games ending in a tie will be settled by a tie breaker question.
They can do what they want, but I'm not a fan of this move. While I disagree that one should always offer a tie, there are instances where circumstance demands offering a tie, such as having double second place's score or an exact 2/3 situation.
I can't imagine which of the speculated reasons J! had in mind. With all the money the show makes and gives away, it's hard to imagine they would quibble about an extra $15-20K once every few weeks. Maybe collusion is a concern, but it hardly seems likely any two players could collude, the way S&P watchdogs the show.
I can't say I like this move either, but as I've said many times before (notably about their contestant selection process ) it IS their show, to be played the way they want.
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12897
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
I think if everyone hadn't started playing for a tie, the new rule doesn't happen. Once or twice a year and it is kind of cool. But if it is every week it would be a bit of a drag.
-
- Rank
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
- Location: Hamilton Ontario
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
But 'everyone' didn't start playing for the tie. In fact, (at least) one of those ties would not have happened had somebody played for the tie.Bamaman wrote:I think if everyone hadn't started playing for a tie, the new rule doesn't happen. Once or twice a year and it is kind of cool. But if it is every week it would be a bit of a drag.
And, the fact is sometimes you need to offer the tie (not necessarily 'play for' the tie) to increase your chances of winning. That's nothing like kissing your sister.
Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
- TheyCallMeMrKid
- Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:35 pm
- Location: St. Louis, MO
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
Am I the only one who is now afraid to read new posts on this thread for fear that they are going to spoil the first regular play tiebreaker?
I always thought the best thing about the old rule was that the possibility of offering the tie meant that the 2nd place player would not automatically bet low to win on a miss by the leader. Having the tie available was a strategic advantage for the leader and, IMO, that is the person who should have a little strategic advantage.
I always thought the best thing about the old rule was that the possibility of offering the tie meant that the 2nd place player would not automatically bet low to win on a miss by the leader. Having the tie available was a strategic advantage for the leader and, IMO, that is the person who should have a little strategic advantage.
Sheepin' it real.
-
- Rank
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
- Location: Hamilton Ontario
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
I haven't been afraid of that happening, but I can see how it could (and likely will).TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:Am I the only one who is now afraid to read new posts on this thread for fear that they are going to spoil the first regular play tiebreaker?
Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12897
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
I would hope the people here would know better than to mention a tie break game outside of that day's game thread.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:57 pm
- Location: British Columbia
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
To those above questioning my comment about how this changes fairness, it's "TheyCallMeMrKid's" comment. I couldn't think of a good way to say it.TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:Am I the only one who is now afraid to read new posts on this thread for fear that they are going to spoil the first regular play tiebreaker?
I always thought the best thing about the old rule was that the possibility of offering the tie meant that the 2nd place player would not automatically bet low to win on a miss by the leader. Having the tie available was a strategic advantage for the leader and, IMO, that is the person who should have a little strategic advantage.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:57 pm
- Location: British Columbia
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
I think you are correct -- I was thinking about the week it first began, sorry about that.Vermonter wrote:Maybe you're thinking of November 24th, the air date the rule change went into effect? I haven't heard even the faintest mumbling about a tiebreaker in the can, and I'd like to think I would have been tipped off by now.Opal wrote:I don't actually remember where I heard that, but I thought it was either on here or on that video. I could be mistaken.dhkendall wrote:I didn't ever hear a date, so you're one up on me.Opal wrote: And by the way, do we know when the first tie-breaker airs? I think I remember the week of the 22nd, but I don't know if that's accurate or if I'm remembering correctly.
- Vermonter
- 2003 College Champion
- Posts: 1956
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
It's much less fairness than pure gamesmanship.Opal wrote:To those above questioning my comment about how this changes fairness, it's "TheyCallMeMrKid's" comment. I couldn't think of a good way to say it.TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:Am I the only one who is now afraid to read new posts on this thread for fear that they are going to spoil the first regular play tiebreaker?
I always thought the best thing about the old rule was that the possibility of offering the tie meant that the 2nd place player would not automatically bet low to win on a miss by the leader. Having the tie available was a strategic advantage for the leader and, IMO, that is the person who should have a little strategic advantage.
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
- overkill94
- Newbie
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:04 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
I think the implementation of the tiebreaker is to help the contestants.
There is always 1 extra contestant per taping day, but that's a local alternate who can come back some other time (like I was). If they have 2 extra contestants, someone will have to spend their own money to fly back a second time (remember, these are all taped months in advance so they can't just stay an extra day).
There is always 1 extra contestant per taping day, but that's a local alternate who can come back some other time (like I was). If they have 2 extra contestants, someone will have to spend their own money to fly back a second time (remember, these are all taped months in advance so they can't just stay an extra day).
- jeff6286
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
- Location: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
If it's a Tuesday taping, the extra contestant(s) can come back the next day for a Wednesday taping. And my understanding is that there may often be more than 1 local contestant, so there may not necessarily always be a contestant that has to make a return flight. Even if they did, I can't say this with 100% certainty, but I find it extremely unlikely that the show would've ever made a person fly back a second time at their own expense if they were bumped from a taping due to tie games.overkill94 wrote:I think the implementation of the tiebreaker is to help the contestants.
There is always 1 extra contestant per taping day, but that's a local alternate who can come back some other time (like I was). If they have 2 extra contestants, someone will have to spend their own money to fly back a second time (remember, these are all taped months in advance so they can't just stay an extra day).
- georgespelvin
- The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
A Facebook friend of mine posted an opinion yesterday that people that don't offer ties in Jeopardy by wagering the extra dollar are being "bad sports". Leaving aside the falsity of this statement in the former tie situation, I informed the individual that ties were no longer permitted on Jeopardy, explaining the history behind this decision. Much to my surprise though, when I looked on Google for an official link to cite for this I could not find one, just comments by "unofficial" websites (like this one) that the change was likely to occur. Even Wikipedia and game show pages that explain Jeopardy still state that ties are allowed on Jeopardy and that co-champions return when they occur. Have I missed something? Did the change not occur? I believe I remember reading that contestants here that filmed in the past year were informed of the new rule prohibiting ties, but it is odd that a significant number of websites have not been updated to reflect this.
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
Re: Ties on Jeopardy! RIP
georgespelvin wrote:A Facebook friend of mine posted an opinion yesterday that people that don't offer ties in Jeopardy by wagering the extra dollar are being "bad sports". Leaving aside the falsity of this statement in the former tie situation, I informed the individual that ties were no longer permitted on Jeopardy, explaining the history behind this decision. Much to my surprise though, when I looked on Google for an official link to cite for this I could not find one, just comments by "unofficial" websites (like this one) that the change was likely to occur. Even Wikipedia and game show pages that explain Jeopardy still state that ties are allowed on Jeopardy and that co-champions return when they occur. Have I missed something? Did the change not occur? I believe I remember reading that contestants here that filmed in the past year were informed of the new rule prohibiting ties, but it is odd that a significant number of websites have not been updated to reflect this.
I was in a similar situation since I wanted to update the Wikipedia article for this information, but couldn't find a good source to do so. I'm guessing that it hasn't been commented on because it hasn't come up in-game yet.