Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

[Linear Gnome]

When was the most recent time we had co-champions?

I think it was October 30, 2014, unless you count January 18, 2016 (I don't). (The previous instance had been October 28, 2014.)

[mfc248]

When was the most recent time we had co-champions?

I think it was October 30, 2014, unless you count January 18, 2016 (I don't). (The previous instance had been October 28, 2014.)

I believe that's right, and the 2014-10-30 game was the fourth instance of co-champions in the first eight weeks of Season 31.

Now that we have canonical evidence of the rule change, is it appropriate for the archivists to update the relevant glossary entry?

[triviawayne]

We now have official word of the rule change, as shown here.

I would conclude that either a tie is imminent, or the powers that be want to explain why viewers will be tuning in to Alex doing a soft shoe.

You may be right, but the conclusion doesn't seem necessary. The page addresses two scenarios that have recently occurred: a) all three contestants finishing with no money, and b) a tie for a wildcard spot. That's sufficient reason to address those questions and throw in two similar scenarios so the information is all in the same place.

I just wish they had specified when the no-tie rule was officially instated. I believe our first official confirmation of the change came on 19 Nov 2014 from boson whose wife was taping an episode with a January airdate.

When was the most recent time we had co-champions?

A few weeks ago when that contestant couldn't resume taping after Alexs surgery was brought back with another champion in place...but I get the feeling that's not what you're really asking.

[Linear Gnome]

A few weeks ago when that contestant couldn't resume taping after Alexs surgery was brought back with another champion in place...but I get the feeling that's not what you're really asking.

It is possible that someone alluded to that in a previous post.

[GoodStrategy]

I think opusthepenguin meant co-champions from a tie game, not from bringing a former winning contestant back for other reasons.

[opusthepenguin]

I think opusthepenguin meant co-champions from a tie game, not from bringing a former winning contestant back for other reasons.

Of course, but I'm delighted with the reminder about the recent case where we had co-champions for a different reason. Plus, half my schtick on this board is deliberately misinterpreting other posters' comments to comic effect. I love it when I get a little of that back.

[bpmod]

I think opusthepenguin meant co-champions from a tie game, not from bringing a former winning contestant back for other reasons.

Of course, but I'm delighted with the reminder about the recent case where we had co-champions for a different reason. Plus, half my schtick on this board is deliberately misinterpreting other posters' comments to comic effect. I love it when I get a little of that back.

Just half?

Brian

[Magna]

I think opusthepenguin meant co-champions from a tie game, not from bringing a former winning contestant back for other reasons.

Of course, but I'm delighted with the reminder about the recent case where we had co-champions for a different reason. Plus, half my schtick on this board is deliberately misinterpreting other posters' comments to comic effect. I love it when I get a little of that back.

Just half?

Brian

Every other letter.

[alietr]

I'm not sure he understands the meaning of "comic" ...

[jeff6286]

I'm not sure he understands the meaning of "comic" ...

Mary Worth is a comic, they're not all supposed to be kneeslappers.

[bpmod]

So, was tonight's game an example of the no tie rule?

Brian

[AndyTheQuizzer]

Contextual thread-bump.

[Johnblue]

Well, that was mighty easy!

[seaborgium]

Contextual thread-bump.

Spoiler

The bumping of this thread, seen in light of J!'s "you won't believe what happens this week" promo (alongside nothing notable having happened in the first three games this week), caused me to view tonight's endgame with a tired sense of inevitability, which is no fun.

[jeff6286]

Yeah really not a fan of the bump. Individual game threads are spoiler tagged for a reason.

[twelvefootboy]

What's wrong with the bump? It gives us a relevant place to begin our hatin' of the current tiebreaker rule. The whole point of threads is to be, well, thread-y.

I think I understand why the show wanted to discourage deliberate wagering for the tie. They have one (?) alternate player already, and a phony tie creates two people who have to go home and come back (I'm interpolating here, not doing the ass out of u and me thing . I'm not even accusing TPTB of cheaptitude, at least for this rule. (For the pittances to 2nd and 3rd, yes, they are cheap bastards).

This new tiebreaker clue is a bad fix. Very unsatisfying to devolve to a buzzer war. The NFL figured out that coin tossing needed some tweaking and improved their OT rule. Golf has gradually improved their events. Soccer, hockey and tennis still settle ties with ridiculous fake rules.

Proposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.

Spoiler

Example: Tie at $10K, each player gets $6K and a rematch

In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).

This rule would still come up with the rare tie, and from two players who deserve to duke it out for 61 more clues. Sometimes a tie is a tie ! The main opportunity for mischief would be if they agree on the bus to bet zero (if third is locked out) if the game situation comes up. A little Prisoner's Dilemma, anyone?

[econgator]

What's wrong with the bump? It gives us a relevant place to begin our hatin' of the current tiebreaker rule. The whole point of threads is to be, well, thread-y.

I think it's more the timing of the bump than the bump itself.

[BigDaddyMatty]

Proposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.

In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).

I like the first part of this a lot. The second part is unnecessary. If co-champions split the first- and second-place money, it would strongly discourage the Keith/Arthur strategy without messing with those situations where ties occur naturally.

[twelvefootboy]

Proposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.

In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).

I like the first part of this a lot. The second part is unnecessary. If co-champions split the first- and second-place money, it would strongly discourage the Keith/Arthur strategy without messing with those situations where ties occur naturally.

But wasn't the tie in the first tiebreaker game also unnecessary?

Spoiler

3/2/18 FINAL JEOPARDY!
Laura McLean: 15000-8201=6799 (2x = $19,598)
Scott Krzywonos: 4000-3995=5
Sarah Norris: 11600-4801=6799

Second place just bet silly, if she bets 1 dollar less she wins another 4+grand , guaranteed, without having to win the buzz off or know the answer.

I like the first tiebreaker rule being the size of the wager. It forces second to consider doing more than covering the zero bet by first. I'm not sure I can game plan all the fractional scenarios and Shore's conjectures, etc..

Still, the real fireworks are when two players are tied for the lead going in. That surely happens semi-regularly, I wonder how that plays out? I'm sure it's been analyzed previously - not summoning Cheezguyty with the bat signal at this time .

[BigDaddyMatty]

Proposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.

In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).

I like the first part of this a lot. The second part is unnecessary. If co-champions split the first- and second-place money, it would strongly discourage the Keith/Arthur strategy without messing with those situations where ties occur naturally.

But wasn't the tie in the first tiebreaker game also unnecessary?

My point was that the primary reason for the rule change was, presumably, to eliminate the strategic offering of a tie by a leader who could otherwise lock out his opponents. There's no good reason (that I can see, anyway) to eliminate ties that happen either by accident or because of a trailing player's bad wager. Your "split the money" rule eliminates the incentive to offer a tie rather than take an undisputed victory.