If that's the case, why look at the question at all? Just focus on the lights and process the question after you buzz in.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:54 amFirst of all, they must time the lighting of the lights, second, the average player only needs about three seconds per clue.akrites wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:25 amWhy don't people do that anyway? I suspect that many contestants can't process the questions before the lights flash and they don't know if they know the answer to the question or not. Most people are risk averse and so they don't try to buzz in (especially once they miss a q or 2) every time.triviawayne wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:00 pmI'll put another spin on this: if you could buzz in as soon as the clue is revealed, many players would simply try and do just that since many of the players on the show can get between 40-50 or more correct every show. In that case, you still have a game of fastest buzzers, but now it plays out very differently.
So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
- AndyTheQuizzer
- Lots and Lots of Interviews
- Posts: 2606
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 am
- Location: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
- Contact:
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
Assume that you're the only person playing this strategy. If you're going with "shoot first, ask questions later", your opponents are more likely to "stay clam" on clues that are: a) harder; b) worth more money. Thus, you are more likely to get in first on clues that you yourself are more likely to get wrong, as well as clues that stand to cost you more money. Moreover, your opponent might have been hesitant because they had it down to two possibilities, and your neg just made them a great deal more sure that they were correct, so they'll pick up a rebound.
Remember, the way the game is set up, even if you get the $400, $800, $1200, and $1600 clues in a category, a rebounded neg on $2000 brings an opponent level to you.
Even if you manage to get in first 35 times, 25 correct/10 incorrect is not going to win as many games as you think it will.
- morbeedo
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
I love all the breathless reporting about James bankrupting Jeopardy! I suppose if he keeps going and going they could up the difficulty of the clues to limit his earnings. But legally, I don’t think they can decide to retire him if he really maxes out the bank, can they? Suppose they could just start charging advertisers more to offset the payout. I wonder, though, post-James- and eventually post-Alex- would they want to bring back the 5-day limit?
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
Is there a contract that says they have to bring the winner back at all?morbeedo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:38 pm I love all the breathless reporting about James bankrupting Jeopardy! I suppose if he keeps going and going they could up the difficulty of the clues to limit his earnings. But legally, I don’t think they can decide to retire him if he really maxes out the bank, can they? Suppose they could just start charging advertisers more to offset the payout. I wonder, though, post-James- and eventually post-Alex- would they want to bring back the 5-day limit?
- hbomb1947
- Still hoping to get on Jeopardy! while my age is in double digits
- Posts: 2434
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:31 am
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
There obviously wasn't one in 500 Questions.akrites wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:23 pmIs there a contract that says they have to bring the winner back at all?morbeedo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:38 pm I love all the breathless reporting about James bankrupting Jeopardy! I suppose if he keeps going and going they could up the difficulty of the clues to limit his earnings. But legally, I don’t think they can decide to retire him if he really maxes out the bank, can they? Suppose they could just start charging advertisers more to offset the payout. I wonder, though, post-James- and eventually post-Alex- would they want to bring back the 5-day limit?
Follow me on twitter, even though I rarely tweet! https://twitter.com/hbomb_worldwide
- triviawayne
- Hoping I don’t drown in this contestant pool
- Posts: 2677
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:50 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
Plus why lose the time to think about it while the question is being read? And if you’re waiting for the lights to go on, you lose the buzzer raceOntarioQuizzer wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:13 pmAssume that you're the only person playing this strategy. If you're going with "shoot first, ask questions later", your opponents are more likely to "stay clam" on clues that are: a) harder; b) worth more money. Thus, you are more likely to get in first on clues that you yourself are more likely to get wrong, as well as clues that stand to cost you more money. Moreover, your opponent might have been hesitant because they had it down to two possibilities, and your neg just made them a great deal more sure that they were correct, so they'll pick up a rebound.
Remember, the way the game is set up, even if you get the $400, $800, $1200, and $1600 clues in a category, a rebounded neg on $2000 brings an opponent level to you.
Even if you manage to get in first 35 times, 25 correct/10 incorrect is not going to win as many games as you think it will.
Total game show career losings = $171,522
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
Jeopardy Wasn’t Designed for a Contestant Like James Holzhauer
“James’s performance, I’m sure, is causing grief for an accountant somewhere."
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainme ... ow/587668/
“James’s performance, I’m sure, is causing grief for an accountant somewhere."
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainme ... ow/587668/
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
The light, if I understand correctly, it the ultimate arbiter of when one can buzz in. So if the sole goal was to buzz in first for every question, maybe the strategy would be to read the last 3 words of the clue and just watch the light.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:24 pmPlus why lose the time to think about it while the question is being read? And if you’re waiting for the lights to go on, you lose the buzzer raceOntarioQuizzer wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:13 pmAssume that you're the only person playing this strategy. If you're going with "shoot first, ask questions later", your opponents are more likely to "stay clam" on clues that are: a) harder; b) worth more money. Thus, you are more likely to get in first on clues that you yourself are more likely to get wrong, as well as clues that stand to cost you more money. Moreover, your opponent might have been hesitant because they had it down to two possibilities, and your neg just made them a great deal more sure that they were correct, so they'll pick up a rebound.
Remember, the way the game is set up, even if you get the $400, $800, $1200, and $1600 clues in a category, a rebounded neg on $2000 brings an opponent level to you.
Even if you manage to get in first 35 times, 25 correct/10 incorrect is not going to win as many games as you think it will.
- triviawayne
- Hoping I don’t drown in this contestant pool
- Posts: 2677
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:50 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
akrites wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:34 pmThe light, if I understand correctly, it the ultimate arbiter of when one can buzz in. So if the sole goal was to buzz in first for every question, maybe the strategy would be to read the last 3 words of the clue and just watch the light.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:24 pmPlus why lose the time to think about it while the question is being read? And if you’re waiting for the lights to go on, you lose the buzzer raceOntarioQuizzer wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:13 pmAssume that you're the only person playing this strategy. If you're going with "shoot first, ask questions later", your opponents are more likely to "stay clam" on clues that are: a) harder; b) worth more money. Thus, you are more likely to get in first on clues that you yourself are more likely to get wrong, as well as clues that stand to cost you more money. Moreover, your opponent might have been hesitant because they had it down to two possibilities, and your neg just made them a great deal more sure that they were correct, so they'll pick up a rebound.
Remember, the way the game is set up, even if you get the $400, $800, $1200, and $1600 clues in a category, a rebounded neg on $2000 brings an opponent level to you.
Even if you manage to get in first 35 times, 25 correct/10 incorrect is not going to win as many games as you think it will.
You seriously think that’s what anyone has ever done?
Total game show career losings = $171,522
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
I think it would be a good strategy for someone who had superlative knowledge but subpar reaction time.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:58 pmakrites wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:34 pmThe light, if I understand correctly, it the ultimate arbiter of when one can buzz in. So if the sole goal was to buzz in first for every question, maybe the strategy would be to read the last 3 words of the clue and just watch the light.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:24 pmPlus why lose the time to think about it while the question is being read? And if you’re waiting for the lights to go on, you lose the buzzer raceOntarioQuizzer wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:13 pmAssume that you're the only person playing this strategy. If you're going with "shoot first, ask questions later", your opponents are more likely to "stay clam" on clues that are: a) harder; b) worth more money. Thus, you are more likely to get in first on clues that you yourself are more likely to get wrong, as well as clues that stand to cost you more money. Moreover, your opponent might have been hesitant because they had it down to two possibilities, and your neg just made them a great deal more sure that they were correct, so they'll pick up a rebound.
Remember, the way the game is set up, even if you get the $400, $800, $1200, and $1600 clues in a category, a rebounded neg on $2000 brings an opponent level to you.
Even if you manage to get in first 35 times, 25 correct/10 incorrect is not going to win as many games as you think it will.
You seriously think that’s what anyone has ever done?
- triviawayne
- Hoping I don’t drown in this contestant pool
- Posts: 2677
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:50 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
If their reaction time is subpar, they will lose anywayakrites wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:02 pmI think it would be a good strategy for someone who had superlative knowledge but subpar reaction time.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:58 pmakrites wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:34 pmThe light, if I understand correctly, it the ultimate arbiter of when one can buzz in. So if the sole goal was to buzz in first for every question, maybe the strategy would be to read the last 3 words of the clue and just watch the light.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:24 pmPlus why lose the time to think about it while the question is being read? And if you’re waiting for the lights to go on, you lose the buzzer raceOntarioQuizzer wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:13 pm
Assume that you're the only person playing this strategy. If you're going with "shoot first, ask questions later", your opponents are more likely to "stay clam" on clues that are: a) harder; b) worth more money. Thus, you are more likely to get in first on clues that you yourself are more likely to get wrong, as well as clues that stand to cost you more money. Moreover, your opponent might have been hesitant because they had it down to two possibilities, and your neg just made them a great deal more sure that they were correct, so they'll pick up a rebound.
Remember, the way the game is set up, even if you get the $400, $800, $1200, and $1600 clues in a category, a rebounded neg on $2000 brings an opponent level to you.
Even if you manage to get in first 35 times, 25 correct/10 incorrect is not going to win as many games as you think it will.
You seriously think that’s what anyone has ever done?
Total game show career losings = $171,522
- squarekara
- J! Reactionary
- Posts: 1560
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:49 am
- Location: USDA Zone 5
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
Does anyone know of any good builds to model the J! buzzer system for practice purposes?triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:58 pmIf their reaction time is subpar, they will lose anywayakrites wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:02 pmI think it would be a good strategy for someone who had superlative knowledge but subpar reaction time.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:58 pmakrites wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:34 pmThe light, if I understand correctly, it the ultimate arbiter of when one can buzz in. So if the sole goal was to buzz in first for every question, maybe the strategy would be to read the last 3 words of the clue and just watch the light.triviawayne wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:24 pm
Plus why lose the time to think about it while the question is being read? And if you’re waiting for the lights to go on, you lose the buzzer race
You seriously think that’s what anyone has ever done?
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:13 am
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
One thing I have learned is that the bottom clues are not necessarily that much harder than the top. I haven't been keeping formal track of them, but I'm finding that part of the difficulty at the bottom is my own mental state - thinking that they're going to be harder. If I think the clue is hard, then it will be. Being forced to look at the bottom first has made me look at those clues slightly differently.
One other thing I've noticed in James' game play is that he's always moving on to the next clue. As soon as Alex says he's right he starts calling for the next clue - even to the point of talking over Alex. That keeps the pace of the game up and gives opponents little time to rest. He doesn't waste time thinking about where to go - just start at the bottom and move across as quickly as possible in the J! round, or start in the middle and move across (hunting for the DDs) in the DJ! round.
One other thing I've noticed in James' game play is that he's always moving on to the next clue. As soon as Alex says he's right he starts calling for the next clue - even to the point of talking over Alex. That keeps the pace of the game up and gives opponents little time to rest. He doesn't waste time thinking about where to go - just start at the bottom and move across as quickly as possible in the J! round, or start in the middle and move across (hunting for the DDs) in the DJ! round.
--Peter
- CasketRomance
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 2:40 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
sounds like that matt jackson dudePeter the accountant wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:27 pm One thing I have learned is that the bottom clues are not necessarily that much harder than the top. I haven't been keeping formal track of them, but I'm finding that part of the difficulty at the bottom is my own mental state - thinking that they're going to be harder. If I think the clue is hard, then it will be. Being forced to look at the bottom first has made me look at those clues slightly differently.
One other thing I've noticed in James' game play is that he's always moving on to the next clue. As soon as Alex says he's right he starts calling for the next clue - even to the point of talking over Alex. That keeps the pace of the game up and gives opponents little time to rest. He doesn't waste time thinking about where to go - just start at the bottom and move across as quickly as possible in the J! round, or start in the middle and move across (hunting for the DDs) in the DJ! round.
- CasketRomance
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 2:40 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
apparently sportsbooks are getting into the hype
bovada had lines of
o/u 24.5 games won -120 juice for both sides
will he beat jennings' record games won streak....no at -900 and yes at +500
will he beat jennings $2,520,700 mark no -220, yes +155
bovada had lines of
o/u 24.5 games won -120 juice for both sides
will he beat jennings' record games won streak....no at -900 and yes at +500
will he beat jennings $2,520,700 mark no -220, yes +155
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
So James fanboys could win pretty big.CasketRomance wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:20 pm apparently sportsbooks are getting into the hype
bovada had lines of
o/u 24.5 games won -120 juice for both sides
will he beat jennings' record games won streak....no at -900 and yes at +500
will he beat jennings $2,520,700 mark no -220, yes +155
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:32 am
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
Seems like a bad idea for Bovada and any other books that may be taking action on this. Presumably people who were in the audence for various tapings would know if he actually passed 25/74/2.5 M or not and could make large bets on that side accordingly.CasketRomance wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:20 pm apparently sportsbooks are getting into the hype
bovada had lines of
o/u 24.5 games won -120 juice for both sides
will he beat jennings' record games won streak....no at -900 and yes at +500
will he beat jennings $2,520,700 mark no -220, yes +155
- triviawayne
- Hoping I don’t drown in this contestant pool
- Posts: 2677
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:50 pm
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
I would expect James will be getting in on the actionouachiouat wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:39 pmSeems like a bad idea for Bovada and any other books that may be taking action on this. Presumably people who were in the audence for various tapings would know if he actually passed 25/74/2.5 M or not and could make large bets on that side accordingly.CasketRomance wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:20 pm apparently sportsbooks are getting into the hype
bovada had lines of
o/u 24.5 games won -120 juice for both sides
will he beat jennings' record games won streak....no at -900 and yes at +500
will he beat jennings $2,520,700 mark no -220, yes +155
Total game show career losings = $171,522
- floridagator
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:39 am
Re: So...what have we learned so far from James Holzhauer?
Then will he be banned from baseball for life?triviawayne wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:46 pmI would expect James will be getting in on the actionouachiouat wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:39 pmSeems like a bad idea for Bovada and any other books that may be taking action on this. Presumably people who were in the audence for various tapings would know if he actually passed 25/74/2.5 M or not and could make large bets on that side accordingly.CasketRomance wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:20 pm apparently sportsbooks are getting into the hype
bovada had lines of
o/u 24.5 games won -120 juice for both sides
will he beat jennings' record games won streak....no at -900 and yes at +500
will he beat jennings $2,520,700 mark no -220, yes +155
I'd rather cuddle then have sex. If you're into grammar, you'll understand.