Game theory optimal (everyone acts in rational self interest, no mistakes, etc)
Jeopardy theory optimal--Opus new term for accounting for bad strategies that are seen with some frequency, such that the wager that accounts for others common errors and patterns is different than the standard GTO strategy.
In this case, 2nd not betting it all is not a rational wager. Therefore we need to adjust for that and consider changing our wager to account for 2nd's irrational choice.
hbomb1947 wrote:Congrats to Melissa on the win. And I can't fault Steve for betting the dollar; I most likely would have done the same. The rule change kind of forced him into it (and this scenario is the principal reason why I still feel that the rule change is unfortunate). .
Excuse my ignorance but what is this rule change again? I haven't been watching J! for many years now, and have resumed due to enforced stay at home due to illness!.
No more ties/co-champions. They get a tiebreaker clue to determine a winner.
There is no way for home viewers to know about the rule change because, AFAIK, it has never been announced on the show. On 2/16/16 the following was added to the official J! web site:
There can only be one winner. This has long been the case in tournament play and was recently adapted into regular game play. A tie at the end of Final Jeopardy! sends the game into a tie-breaker clue.
If there are two or three players tied for first place after each contestant unveils their Final Jeopardy! response, Alex will present one more category and read the clue. The clue has no dollar value and does not increase the player’s winnings. The first contestant to buzz in and respond correctly is declared the winner. Should all participating contestants fail to provide a correct response, this process is repeated until one contestant responds correctly.
Paraphrasing: Up until the undefined date of "recently" there have always been multiple winners, co-champions who keep their cash, when a regular game ends in a tie.
The "there can only be winner" rule in a regular game is presumably still unknown to most viewers. And they must think Steve made a horrible mistake when he flushed $13,600 down the toilet by not wagering zero.
cosmos wrote:The "there can only be winner" rule in a regular game is presumably still unknown to most viewers. And they must think Steve made a horrible mistake when he flushed $13,600 down the toilet by not wagering zero.
Yep. I was the one who broke that news to my mother after yesterday's show. According to a clip on the Jeopardy twitter, Alex acknoweledges the existence of the regular-play tiebreaker clue for the first time ever on today's show.
econgator wrote:I get that it's a bottom row clue and this is trivia, but is there any reason I should know that southernmost city in NV?
I don't think anyone has replied to this yet. Laughlin is a resort-ish town with a handful of hotel/casinos. It used to be one of the 20 largest casino markets in the USA but seems to have fallen off somewhat (or other areas have grown more rapidly). It would mainly be known to gamblers and bikers (it has an annual motorcycle rally called the Laughlin River Run).
BigDaddyMatty wrote:Do we know what portion of the 33% who don't risk it all risk everything but a dollar?
Keith's site gives the numbers as:
30 total occurrences
20 wager everything
3 wager all but $1
7 wager some other amount
It's been all mathed out, the leader is going to win ~80% of the time either way. As I stated, the leader will wager $1 more often than he/she should regardless of category due to not understanding the math. Has nothing to do with being risk averse. But the math shows a wager of either $0 or $1 is at worst a very small mistake.
I think psychology could come into play here. Just like many will say they would always make the cover wager, even if a smaller, say Shoretegic wager might be a strong consideration, because they wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they didn't make the shutout bet and lost, after leading the game and getting FJ right. Imagine a player with a lock-tie lead who decides to bet $0 because maybe they don't love the category, then there is a super easy FJ, all three players get it right, second place doubles up and now the leader is headed to a tiebreaker while kicking himself for not betting one lousy dollar. Then he has to try to put that aside and focus on solving the clue and timing the buzzer, when he could have had the game won by now if he hadn't been such a chicken! Quite honestly, I think that may be a tough task for all but the coolest customers, and may be a valid consideration.
econgator wrote:I get that it's a bottom row clue and this is trivia, but is there any reason I should know that southernmost city in NV?
I don't think anyone has replied to this yet. Laughlin is a resort-ish town with a handful of hotel/casinos. It used to be one of the 20 largest casino markets in the USA but seems to have fallen off somewhat (or other areas have grown more rapidly). It would mainly be known to gamblers and bikers (it has an annual motorcycle rally called the Laughlin River Run).
I got this one as a bit of a knee jerk reaction and was happy to be right. I have a feeling I would have clammed if real money was on the line. This one could be a slight case of SoCal bias. LA residents are probably hit with more Nevada vacation advertisements than the rest of the country.
jeff6286 wrote:I think psychology could come into play here. Just like many will say they would always make the cover wager, even if a smaller, say Shoretegic wager might be a strong consideration, because they wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they didn't make the shutout bet and lost, after leading the game and getting FJ right. Imagine a player with a lock-tie lead who decides to bet $0 because maybe they don't love the category, then there is a super easy FJ, all three players get it right, second place doubles up and now the leader is headed to a tiebreaker while kicking himself for not betting one lousy dollar. Then he has to try to put that aside and focus on solving the clue and timing the buzzer, when he could have had the game won by now if he hadn't been such a chicken! Quite honestly, I think that may be a tough task for all but the coolest customers, and may be a valid consideration.
As I've said before, I'm good with betting on yourself. Similar situation to leading by a non-lock tie amount going into FJ, answering correctly, and losing.
I wanted to run all the math because it was easily solvable. And it's kind of nice that the math shows there's really no wrong decision. Maybe one of the contestants in this situation from the past will run into this, exhale, and start sleeping better at night!
cosmos wrote:The "there can only be winner" rule in a regular game is presumably still unknown to most viewers. And they must think Steve made a horrible mistake when he flushed $13,600 down the toilet by not wagering zero.
Yep. I was the one who broke that news to my mother after yesterday's show. According to a clip on the Jeopardy twitter, Alex acknoweledges the existence of the regular-play tiebreaker clue for the first time ever on today's show.
Did this acknowledgement come before or after the players made their wagers?
cosmos wrote:The "there can only be winner" rule in a regular game is presumably still unknown to most viewers. And they must think Steve made a horrible mistake when he flushed $13,600 down the toilet by not wagering zero.
Yep. I was the one who broke that news to my mother after yesterday's show. According to a clip on the Jeopardy twitter, Alex acknoweledges the existence of the regular-play tiebreaker clue for the first time ever on today's show.
Did this acknowledgement come before or after the players made their wagers?
It came at the beginning of the following episode. And even then, his remarks were pithy and a little vague.
cosmos wrote:The "there can only be winner" rule in a regular game is presumably still unknown to most viewers. And they must think Steve made a horrible mistake when he flushed $13,600 down the toilet by not wagering zero.
Yep. I was the one who broke that news to my mother after yesterday's show. According to a clip on the Jeopardy twitter, Alex acknoweledges the existence of the regular-play tiebreaker clue for the first time ever on today's show.
Did this acknowledgement come before or after the players made their wagers?
It came at the beginning of the following episode. And even then, his remarks were pithy and a little vague.
Yes, it sounded like he was reminding viewers instead of acknowledging something that few would ever have heard about.
cosmos wrote:There is no way for home viewers to know about the rule change because, AFAIK, it has never been announced on the show. On 2/16/16 the following was added to the official J! web site:
There can only be one winner. This has long been the case in tournament play and was recently adapted into regular game play. A tie at the end of Final Jeopardy! sends the game into a tie-breaker clue.
If there are two or three players tied for first place after each contestant unveils their Final Jeopardy! response, Alex will present one more category and read the clue. The clue has no dollar value and does not increase the player’s winnings. The first contestant to buzz in and respond correctly is declared the winner. Should all participating contestants fail to provide a correct response, this process is repeated until one contestant responds correctly.
Paraphrasing: Up until the undefined date of "recently" there have always been multiple winners, co-champions who keep their cash, when a regular game ends in a tie.
The "there can only be winner" rule in a regular game is presumably still unknown to most viewers. And they must think Steve made a horrible mistake when he flushed $13,600 down the toilet by not wagering zero.
Ah, thank you. So THAT'S why he didn't play for the tie...what a STUPID rule change
