Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, econgator, dhkendall, trainman

Anachronism
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:45 am

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Anachronism »

opusthepenguin wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:08 pm
Robert K S wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:13 pm For those thinking Katie overwagered if her intent was the low wager, is $800 or less the value you would have expected? Above someone mentioned that her wager allowed the possibility that Yogesh could wager $0, but it's far worse than that, I think: the overwager leaves open the possibility that Yogesh will make the expected wager of $999 and get Final right, which results in an unnecessary L for the FJ! leader on the Final R/W outcome grid. A wager of $800 or less from first gives the DJ! leader a lock game so long as Yogesh wagers as expected.
I think so, but my eyes always glaze over when I try to follow someone else's wagering reasoning. I just can't keep all the numbers in my head. So let me put the numbers in front of me and think through your steps:

Yogesh Raut: 23800-999=22801
Jimmy Davoren: 11400-11400=0
Katie Palumbo: 25600-2500=23100

Yep, observation 1 is that she drops down below Yogesh's current score. He could've won on a $0 bet. But wait, as you say, it gets worse. Observation 2 says Yogesh's $999 wager wasn't a sure thing, but it was a strong possibility. Jimmy doubles to 22800 so Yogesh doesn't want to drop below that. With a $999 wager, a get puts Yogesh up to 24799. No reason for Katie to drop below that either. $800 or less will keep her above him even if he gets it right. So I agree with you down the line: ≤$800 is the right wager if she wants to go small. I'd respect the heck out of a wager like that and would have enjoyed seeing it pay off.
Bets in non-lock games require you to make assumptions. If you think your opponent will assume you will make the optimal bet, it's an opportunity.

We know Yogesh should bet to lock Jimmy out. So, maximum of $999, which is exactly what he did. We also know from watching last week that Yogesh was very disciplined in his betting. When he revealed at $999, we just nodded.

How many times in the past have we seen a player in second place bet, just because it probably feels right, to take first place if first place bets $0?

The closest calculation to Katie's bet is very close to the maximum she could have bet to lock Jimmy out herself. I think, and I could be wrong, that her reasoning was, not knowing Yogesh as well as we did, she did not want to cover him and open the door up for Jimmy, but she did want to cover less predictable bets, thinking Yogesh might want to risk letting Jimmy in figuring that if she played it safe, she might open the door for some correct/correct losses.

We've also seen players in Jimmy's shoes not bet anything because the player in first usually bets to cover second and the player in second has, in many instances, just gone for it.

There is value in being unpredictable. The door, indeed, was open for Yogesh, but, in assuming optimal bets, he did not know it. Lesson being that we can criticize Yogesh's bet almost as much as Katie's when there was strategy behind both.

If I'm ever on, I will be versed in optimal bet calculations (because I'm a math/computer guy, how could I not take the time and trouble to know this). However, I will also try to look for cases where non-optimal betting could open new doors. My one true advantage is crazy-level speed at making calculations. That would give me a lot of time to see where unpredictability could create new opportunity from the top spot, if wanting to cover correct/correct doesn't feel right because of the category or other factors.

At any rate, in thinking about it, I would criticize Yogesh's bet more than Katie's, even though it's an optimal bet, and that criticism isn't a strong one.
Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2451
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Golf »

Anachronism wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:57 pm Bets in non-lock games require you to make assumptions. If you think your opponent will assume you will make the optimal bet, it's an opportunity.

We know Yogesh should bet to lock Jimmy out. So, maximum of $999, which is exactly what he did. We also know from watching last week that Yogesh was very disciplined in his betting. When he revealed at $999, we just nodded.

How many times in the past have we seen a player in second place bet, just because it probably feels right, to take first place if first place bets $0?

The closest calculation to Katie's bet is very close to the maximum she could have bet to lock Jimmy out herself. I think, and I could be wrong, that her reasoning was, not knowing Yogesh as well as we did, she did not want to cover him and open the door up for Jimmy, but she did want to cover less predictable bets, thinking Yogesh might want to risk letting Jimmy in figuring that if she played it safe, she might open the door for some correct/correct losses.

We've also seen players in Jimmy's shoes not bet anything because the player in first usually bets to cover second and the player in second has, in many instances, just gone for it.

There is value in being unpredictable. The door, indeed, was open for Yogesh, but, in assuming optimal bets, he did not know it. Lesson being that we can criticize Yogesh's bet almost as much as Katie's when there was strategy behind both.

If I'm ever on, I will be versed in optimal bet calculations (because I'm a math/computer guy, how could I not take the time and trouble to know this). However, I will also try to look for cases where non-optimal betting could open new doors. My one true advantage is crazy-level speed at making calculations. That would give me a lot of time to see where unpredictability could create new opportunity from the top spot, if wanting to cover correct/correct doesn't feel right because of the category or other factors.

At any rate, in thinking about it, I would criticize Yogesh's bet more than Katie's, even though it's an optimal bet, and that criticism isn't a strong one.
FJ wagering theory is exactly like poker theory, you want to be exactly one level ahead of your opponents. No more, no less. This is usually very simple because 99% of contestants are level 0. This means you just have to be on level 1, very basic strategy.

This FJ situation is exactly like Emma's game against James. https://j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=6304 It is known that the champ is not going to let third into the game, but in doing so cannot catch the leader's current score. This is a very rare occurrence, knowing for absolute certain what one is going to wager. Katie, exactly like Emma, should have wagered 0 in a heartbeat and guaranteed the win.

So the problem with the champ's position in both cases is that you're playing an unknown. And in this situation the champ should always assume the opponent is level 0 and wager accordingly. Which is what happened in both instances. Unless of course the opponent has demonstrated otherwise, which would be extremely rare.

In Yogesh's FJ, I would evaluate the player in the lead. There are definitely certain player types that tend to wager sub-optimally. Specifically, seemingly random round numbers that don't cover a double up from 2nd. Pull a list the last ten years of players that don't cover from the lead and it's not difficult to ascertain those who are more likely to do so. Therefore, and especially if the category is favorable, in these fairly rare situations, in my opinion making the suicide wager from 2nd is a viable option. Over the years, there have even been multi-day champs that show this tendency.

This is all good theory discussion. In this game however, I don't believe Katie intentionally make a well-reasoned wager. Those wagers always end in 99 or 01. 99% of the time round numbered wagers are not well thought out.

I really liked what Arthur Chu did in offering the tie, in doing so he essentially forced his challengers to make a wager that gave him more winning chances. I wish you luck in finding another.
Anachronism
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:45 am

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Anachronism »

Golf wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 8:31 pm FJ wagering theory is exactly like poker theory, you want to be exactly one level ahead of your opponents. No more, no less. This is usually very simple because 99% of contestants are level 0. This means you just have to be on level 1, very basic strategy.
...
This is all good theory discussion. In this game however, I don't believe Katie intentionally make a well-reasoned wager. Those wagers always end in 99 or 01. 99% of the time round numbered wagers are not well thought out.
...
On the latter point, you're probably right. But I don't want to criticize her decision under the pressure of the situation.

On the former, she presumably had never seen Yogesh play. Experience may teach us (and it would be worth crunching the numbers) that the second-place player frequently throws up a bet to cover $0 from the leader, irrational as that was under those circumstances.

What did Yogesh gain from betting $999 rather than $0? Nothing if Katie's correct or bets less than $801 or more than $2799. An unexpected win or a chance at a win if she is wrong, he is right, and she bets from $801 to $1800. And a loss if he is wrong and she is wrong and bets from $1800 to $2799.

Katie can go for the lock and bet $22001 or more. Most leaders do under these circumstances. She can bet $0 to $2799 and lock out Jimmy, and definitely win if correct and Yogesh is wrong. What would be hard to defend is a bet between $2799 and $22001.

Since she decided on the lower wager, does it make sense for her to assume Yogesh is betting "properly?" Perhaps, but this is a one-shot for her, and she does not have the benefit of seeing Yogesh on level 1 before. I think Yogesh should have played on level 2 and made a less than optimal bet, whether it was the $0 or something that might have let Jimmy in. He had less to lose from playing in an unconventional manner than she did, and he didn't take advantage of that. Katie would have gained very little advantage from betting between $800 and $1801.
Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2451
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Golf »

Anachronism wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:19 pm On the former, she presumably had never seen Yogesh play.
That's an excellent point, unless she was there for the prior taping day she had no way of knowing (like we did) that Yogesh would definitely wager GTO. So without that knowledge, typically assume he is on level 0 and therefore wager to cover the double up.

Of course with these FJ variables it's so important to play optimally the first 60 clues and make FJ meaningless or at the very worst force a challenger to pull off a WR in order to win.
User avatar
Woof
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 4909
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Woof »

I just caught this game because, ironically, I was having a beer with morbeedo during the airing of the game itself. I do wonder how much Katie’s approach to the game might have benefitted from seeing morbeedo’s. As for FJ, after a initial puzzlement I put 1908, $27,000 and “milestone” together to come up with the correct answer, admittedly as a guess.
danspartan
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:20 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by danspartan »

Newhausen wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:09 pm $0 and $999 (and anywhere in between) *should* have been equal in win probability, since someone has to make a really odd wager from the lead to end up anywhere in between $22,801 and $24,799. Without hindsight, I would have said the difference in win probability between those two wagers was a rounding error.

It's just one heck of a fluke that Katie *did* land there.
I was going a bit more from an EV process—if we think/need FJ to be “hard” (less then 50% to be correct) then the minimum of the range is best. Agree in this case it should t matter cause Katie’s wager was not a rational one (the exact amount, not betting small).
brick
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by brick »

opusthepenguin wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:31 pm I'm surprised that the clue proved so difficult, both for the players and at least in the early returns, for our boardies. The correct response occurred to me rather quickly just thinking about what was being sold for the first time around 1908. I considered going more generic, as Katie did, with just automobiles. But that didn't seem as likely. I also was fairly tempted by the Model A which preceded the Model T (turns out Model A began selling in 1903) and might be considered the milestone that started it all. Pushing me somewhat in this direction was the song "Trouble" from The Music Man which mentions the Model T Ford as a symbol of modernity and specifies that the year is 1912. Despite these concerns, I stuck to my guns. On Jeopardy! when it seems to me like a choice between Model A and Model T, it's always Model T. Final answer RegisAlexKen.
Those of us in the brick house went with Model A... and now I feel like a rube.
brick
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by brick »

Robert K S wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:33 am Did anyone else on the board yet mention Sears catalog kit houses? Someone brought it up on Twitter and it reminded me that that was another guess that briefly went through my mind.
I did. My parents bought one and finished it during the first year of their marriage. I think the specificity of $27,000 scared me off from something that I knew to have a significant range of price points.
User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 4192
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

brick wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:13 pm My parents bought one and finished it during the first year of their marriage. I think the specificity of $27,000 scared me off from something that I knew to have a significant range of price points.
As a lifelong old-house resider, I'm on the "Our Old House" Facebook group and see a lot of Sears kit homes featured, but I don't think I've seen one pre-1915, probably not even pre-1920. I would be curious if any 1908 kit homes are still standing.
brick
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by brick »

Robert K S wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:26 pm
brick wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:13 pm My parents bought one and finished it during the first year of their marriage. I think the specificity of $27,000 scared me off from something that I knew to have a significant range of price points.
As a lifelong old-house resider, I'm on the "Our Old House" Facebook group and see a lot of Sears kit homes featured, but I don't think I've seen one pre-1915, probably not even pre-1920. I would be curious if any 1908 kit homes are still standing.
Interesting to think about what records might exist in that regard.
danspartan
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:20 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by danspartan »

Robert K S wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:26 pm
brick wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:13 pm My parents bought one and finished it during the first year of their marriage. I think the specificity of $27,000 scared me off from something that I knew to have a significant range of price points.
As a lifelong old-house resider, I'm on the "Our Old House" Facebook group and see a lot of Sears kit homes featured, but I don't think I've seen one pre-1915, probably not even pre-1920. I would be curious if any 1908 kit homes are still standing.
Ours is 1928. There was a corporation and plan to build a full neighborhood of them. The adjacent street is all this model, 12 houses I think. My street has 8. There a couple of strays.

The depression stopped the rest. The remaining land is a big park so I have a giant green space behind me. I am 1 of only 5 houses directly adjacent.

I believe the corp provided lots, kits, and trades. The buyer did most of the assembly. Mostly Italian names on the census. We speculate a lot were people that came to the US as skilled tradesmen ( marble?) for the construction of the late 19th and early 20th century estates/mansions.
User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 8468
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by alietr »

da Doctah wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:37 pm Two early clues in Monday's game touched on jokes I've posted in multiple places on the internet:

"My cat's name is Nature; she abhors the vacuum." and "I tried to develop an appetizer using Indian flatbread, but that was a naan starter."
Wouldn't it work better as "I developed an appetizer using Indian flatbread. It's a naan starter.?
User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 4192
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

alietr wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:02 pm
da Doctah wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:37 pm Two early clues in Monday's game touched on jokes I've posted in multiple places on the internet:

"My cat's name is Nature; she abhors the vacuum." and "I tried to develop an appetizer using Indian flatbread, but that was a naan starter."
Wouldn't it work better as "I developed an appetizer using Indian flatbread. It's a naan starter.?
But then the setup doesn't adequately convey the sense of failure needed to give the punchline meaning.
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8279
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

I think everyone's forgetting that "starter" can already be used in a bread context without having to shoehorn in anything about appetizers. It was even used in this game, folks!
User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 8794
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Volante »

seaborgium wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:27 pm I think everyone's forgetting that "starter" can already be used in a bread context without having to shoehorn in anything about appetizers. It was even used in this game, folks!
So switch out appetizer?

I tried to make a meal around Indian flatbread, but it was a naan starter
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Stan & Ollie (7), Green Book (6), Colette (6), Tower /2016/ (9)
User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 4192
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

seaborgium wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:27 pm I think everyone's forgetting that "starter" can already be used in a bread context without having to shoehorn in anything about appetizers. It was even used in this game, folks!
Are you talking about a dough-microbe mixture? That wouldn't really make sense in the context of a baked product.

Definition 4 of starter on M-W is "something that is the beginning of a process, activity, or series; especially : APPETIZER". Doesn't say anything about bread.
User avatar
squarekara
J! Reactionary
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:49 am
Location: USDA Zone 5

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by squarekara »

Volante wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:43 pm
seaborgium wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:27 pm I think everyone's forgetting that "starter" can already be used in a bread context without having to shoehorn in anything about appetizers. It was even used in this game, folks!
So switch out appetizer?

I tried to make a meal around Indian flatbread, but it was a naan starter
My attempt at Indian sourdough fell flat. It was a naan starter.
(🎙️Is this thing on?)
User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 8794
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Volante »

squarekara wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:53 pm
Volante wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:43 pm
seaborgium wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:27 pm I think everyone's forgetting that "starter" can already be used in a bread context without having to shoehorn in anything about appetizers. It was even used in this game, folks!
So switch out appetizer?

I tried to make a meal around Indian flatbread, but it was a naan starter
My attempt at Indian sourdough fell flat. It was a naan starter.
(🎙️Is this thing on?)
Ooh, ooh:

I tried to make a joke about Indian flatbread, but it was a naan starter :lol:
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Stan & Ollie (7), Green Book (6), Colette (6), Tower /2016/ (9)
User avatar
squarekara
J! Reactionary
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:49 am
Location: USDA Zone 5

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by squarekara »

Volante wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:04 pm
squarekara wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:53 pm
Volante wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:43 pm
seaborgium wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:27 pm I think everyone's forgetting that "starter" can already be used in a bread context without having to shoehorn in anything about appetizers. It was even used in this game, folks!
So switch out appetizer?

I tried to make a meal around Indian flatbread, but it was a naan starter
My attempt at Indian sourdough fell flat. It was a naan starter.
(🎙️Is this thing on?)
Ooh, ooh:

I tried to make a joke about Indian flatbread, but it was a naan starter :lol:
Wait--don't forget the rimshot! Pa-Pa-Dum.
User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 8468
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Monday, January 16, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by alietr »

squarekara wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:04 pm
Volante wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:04 pm
squarekara wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:53 pm
Volante wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:43 pm
seaborgium wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:27 pm I think everyone's forgetting that "starter" can already be used in a bread context without having to shoehorn in anything about appetizers. It was even used in this game, folks!
So switch out appetizer?

I tried to make a meal around Indian flatbread, but it was a naan starter
My attempt at Indian sourdough fell flat. It was a naan starter.
(🎙️Is this thing on?)
Ooh, ooh:

I tried to make a joke about Indian flatbread, but it was a naan starter :lol:
Wait--don't forget the rimshot! Pa-Pa-Dum.
www.instantrimshot.com
Post Reply