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.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:08 pmI 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: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.
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.
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.