Anybody watching Jeopardy?

[weezie]

Matt Jackson is crazy quick! He's totally beating down on his opponents.

[snowdenscold]

My wife and I watch every night and Matt has indeed been impressive.

In fact, I recently got selected for the regional audition round (did it in Boston last weekend), and I was thinking that if I were lucky enough to be selected to go for a real show out in L.A., that hopefully Matt will be gone by then! None of this Ken Jennings stuff where he's still there several months from now... :D

[gurufrisbee]

We try to watch, but sometimes the daughters aren't cooperative for that. We did see last night and he was very impressive.

[weezie]

...In fact, I recently got selected for the regional audition round (did it in Boston last weekend), and I was thinking that if I were lucky enough to be selected to go for a real show out in L.A....

Look at you man! Good for you! Keep it up!

[brevity]

I watch JEOPARDY! regularly. The DVR cuts the experience down to 13-16 minutes. I skip all the non-essential parts, like the ads, the meet and greet, and even the categories.

So I've seen 11 episodes of Matt Jackson even though I knew nothing about him, including his last name. His buzzing skill is undeniable -- watch the body language of the middle contestants when they get frustrated -- but when it comes to knowledge he's a bit infuriating. Because he doesn't know crap about pop culture. I don't understand how he can clear $30000 a game without knowing the easy stuff.

Alex mentioned in yesterday's or today's episode that he's only 23, which explains quite a bit. I've seen many incredible players in the post-Ken era, and Matt is easily my least favorite. (Before you ask, Arthur Chu didn't bother me.) Normally I like to see a great player last as long as possible, but I really want Matt to stumble.

[Kimist]

I watch JEOPARDY! regularly. The DVR cuts the experience down to 13-16 minutes. I skip all the non-essential parts, like the ads, the meet and greet, and even the categories.

So I've seen 11 episodes of Matt Jackson even though I knew nothing about him, including his last name. His buzzing skill is undeniable -- watch the body language of the middle contestants when they get frustrated -- but when it comes to knowledge he's a bit infuriating. Because he doesn't know crap about pop culture. I don't understand how he can clear $30000 a game without knowing the easy stuff.

Alex mentioned in yesterday's or today's episode that he's only 23, which explains quite a bit. I've seen many incredible players in the post-Ken era, and Matt is easily my least favorite. (Before you ask, Arthur Chu didn't bother me.) Normally I like to see a great player last as long as possible, but I really want Matt to stumble.

Jackson is indeed both quick and knowledgeable. His missing areas of expertise are overcome by his general good knowledge. The second place guy (on Thursday?) could easily have been a champion in most Jeopardy contests.

I also DVR nightly, but since you skip the meet/greet you've missed out on his interesting family background.

Arthur Chu thoroughly got on my nerves. . .I was daily pulling for him to lose. He did seem a bit more mellow in the Tournament of Champions. . .maybe he read some of the posts about him??

k

[cf-62]

So I've seen 11 episodes of Matt Jackson even though I knew nothing about him, including his last name. His buzzing skill is undeniable -- watch the body language of the middle contestants when they get frustrated -- but when it comes to knowledge he's a bit infuriating. Because he doesn't know crap about pop culture. I don't understand how he can clear $30000 a game without knowing the easy stuff.

Alex mentioned in yesterday's or today's episode that he's only 23, which explains quite a bit. I've seen many incredible players in the post-Ken era, and Matt is easily my least favorite. (Before you ask, Arthur Chu didn't bother me.) Normally I like to see a great player last as long as possible, but I really want Matt to stumble.

Like others, I rooted for Arthur to lose every game. He simply made the game unenjoyable (to watch or play along). Matt plays a little differently. He's not DD hunting as much as just trying to build his bank faster.

And the other day (7), he actually HAD to answer Final Jeopardy to win, and the category was Movie Characters. I thought he was toast, but the answer was simply way too easy to be a Final Jeopardy question.

It's his speed of clicking when the lights come on that's killing the other contestants.

[Jarhead]

Like others, I rooted for Arthur to lose every game. He simply made the game unenjoyable (to watch or play along). It's his speed of clicking when the lights come on that's killing the other contestants.

...but doesn't he have to ask the correct question to win the dollars? And if he answers incorrectly, or doesn't answer at all once he clicks in, he loses money. He doesn't do much of that, does he? I didn't watch the show today. Did he stay alive?

[luburch]

...but doesn't he have to ask the correct question to win the dollars? And if he answers incorrectly, or doesn't answer at all once he clicks in, he loses money. He doesn't do much of that, does he? I didn't watch the show today. Did he stay alive?

He did. He ended with $51,000 on the day, but the other contestants weren't the best. There were quite a few questions that went unanswered.

[budwom]

I watch JEOPARDY! regularly. The DVR cuts the experience down to 13-16 minutes. I skip all the non-essential parts, like the ads, the meet and greet, and even the categories.

So I've seen 11 episodes of Matt Jackson even though I knew nothing about him, including his last name. His buzzing skill is undeniable -- watch the body language of the middle contestants when they get frustrated -- but when it comes to knowledge he's a bit infuriating. Because he doesn't know crap about pop culture. I don't understand how he can clear $30000 a game without knowing the easy stuff.

Alex mentioned in yesterday's or today's episode that he's only 23, which explains quite a bit. I've seen many incredible players in the post-Ken era, and Matt is easily my least favorite. (Before you ask, Arthur Chu didn't bother me.) Normally I like to see a great player last as long as possible, but I really want Matt to stumble.

Just DVRing thru the Aleve ads saves us five minutes.

[Indoor66]

Just DVRing thru the Aleve ads saves us five minutes.

But all the pain you suffer....:cool:

[BD80]

Just DVRing thru the Aleve ads saves us five minutes.

Shouldn't Aleve have just one dose of ads instead of the multiple doses of the other pain relievers?

[Indoor66]

Shouldn't Aleve have just one dose of ads instead of the multiple doses of the other pain relievers?

They probably need to have just two for each day.

[weezie]

OOOooo, here we go: I wonder if the Jeopardy! viewers are too preoccupied with aches and pains to notice the relative lack of "in the mood" Cialis/Viagra ads? :eek:

[snowdenscold]

...but doesn't he have to ask the correct question to win the dollars? And if he answers incorrectly, or doesn't answer at all once he clicks in, he loses money. He doesn't do much of that, does he? I didn't watch the show today. Did he stay alive?

Indeed, though one should also realize that for most of the clues on Jeopardy, all 3 contestants likely know the answer, but you only see the one person who rings in. So the buzzer timing really is probably the most significant factor, as the amount of clues that only you know and the other 2 don't is probably fairly small. Next biggest factor might be DD hunting and smart wagering.

Speaking of wagering, the amount of incredibly stupid wagers I've seen (both on DD's and also Final Jeopardy) always amazes me. I can't figure out if people just totally cramp up under the pressure and can't think through it clearly, or if they just really don't know what the optimal action to do in the situation is. Or even near-optimal... or basically just avoiding a terrible choice. I mean, these people are smart enough to know tons and tons of information about a large variety of categories - but they can't be bothered to think about some basic wagering scenarios ahead of time. Not sure if that's just two different enough categories of brain activity, or lack of foresight, or what...

[BD80]

OOOooo, here we go: I wonder if the Jeopardy! viewers are too preoccupied with aches and pains to notice the relative lack of "in the mood" Cialis/Viagra ads? :eek:

Knowledge is aphrodisiac enough

[Indoor66]

OOOooo, here we go: I wonder if the Jeopardy! viewers are too preoccupied with aches and pains to notice the relative lack of "in the mood" Cialis/Viagra ads? :eek:

I never liked dueling bathtubs.

[wilson]

Indeed, though one should also realize that for most of the clues on Jeopardy, all 3 contestants likely know the answer, but you only see the one person who rings in. So the buzzer timing really is probably the most significant factor, as the amount of clues that only you know and the other 2 don't is probably fairly small. Next biggest factor might be DD hunting and smart wagering.I appeared on Jeopardy a few years back, and this is spot on...an exact explanation of how game-play functions. I lost by a narrow margin in my appearance, and it all came down to the question above the final Daily Double. It was a fairly easy one, to which I knew the answer, but I simply got beaten on the buzzer, and when my opponent then went through the standard progression of simply choosing the next clue down the board, he got the significant boost of the last DD, and that was pretty much that.
[/humblebrag]

[swood1000]

I appeared on Jeopardy a few years back, and this is spot on...an exact explanation of how game-play functions. I lost by a narrow margin in my appearance, and it all came down to the question above the final Daily Double. It was a fairly easy one, to which I knew the answer, but I simply got beaten on the buzzer, and when my opponent then went through the standard progression of simply choosing the next clue down the board, he got the significant boost of the last DD, and that was pretty much that.
[/humblebrag]
How did you get to be a contestant?

[wilson]

How did you get to be a contestant?It starts with an online test. You have to register ahead of time and log in at a specified moment. 50 free-response questions, and if I recall correctly, you have like 10 or 15 seconds per question...long enough to type your answer in (spelling doesn't count as long as they know what you're saying), but not long enough to Google it.
Then, if you score high enough, you get invited to one of the regional live auditions. At the audition, they ask you to wear what you'd wear if you were on air, and you do a good bit of paperwork and biographical forms, plus a written test, a practice interview segment, and a practice game segment.
When I finished my audition, they told me I had been selected for the contestant pool for the next year. They said that meant that they might call and they might not, and if after a year, I hadn't been selected, I could go through the selection process again. They called me about 4 weeks later, and I unequivocally accepted their invitation.
Despite my loss on the show, I was very pleased with my play (I had a high dollar amount that would win about 95 times out of 100), and the whole experience was one of the coolest, most fun things I've ever done. I highly recommend it to anyone who ever gets the chance.

[snowdenscold]

It starts with an online test. You have to register ahead of time and log in at a specified moment. 50 free-response questions, and if I recall correctly, you have like 10 or 15 seconds per question...long enough to type your answer in (spelling doesn't count as long as they know what you're saying), but not long enough to Google it.
Then, if you score high enough, you get invited to one of the regional live auditions. At the audition, they ask you to wear what you'd wear if you were on air, and you do a good bit of paperwork and biographical forms, plus a written test, a practice interview segment, and a practice game segment.
When I finished my audition, they told me I had been selected for the contestant pool for the next year. They said that meant that they might call and they might not, and if after a year, I hadn't been selected, I could go through the selection process again. They called me about 4 weeks later, and I unequivocally accepted their invitation.
Despite my loss on the show, I was very pleased with my play (I had a high dollar amount that would win about 95 times out of 100), and the whole experience was one of the coolest, most fun things I've ever done. I highly recommend it to anyone who ever gets the chance.

That's awesome. As I mentioned above, I just had my regional audition last weekend and I believe it went fairly well - I'm pretty sure I got 41 / 50 on the paper exam, I was good at voice projection, and comfortable picking categories and answering questions.

Of course, based on the #'s they told us, only about 400 of the 2500 people at all the regional auditions will be chosen over the next 12-18 months, so even if they weeded out half of the people, that's still not a great chance of appearing on the show.

[Kimist]

OOOooo, here we go: I wonder if the Jeopardy! viewers are too preoccupied with aches and pains to notice the relative lack of "in the mood" Cialis/Viagra ads? :eek:

Or, even worse. . . .mesothelioma pleadings.

k

[weezie]

...only about 400 of the 2500 people at all the regional auditions will be chosen over the next 12-18 months, so even if they weeded out half of the people, that's still not a great chance of appearing on the show.


But, if you do make it, you'll wear a Duke tie, right?! :cool:

[wilson]

But, if you do make it, you'll wear a Duke tie, right?! :cool:That's what I wore! But I tied my own, because this is not amateur hour.
5561

[JasonEvans]

My buddy, and DBR Board member Spencer's Daddy (he does not post all that often), was on Jeopardy 18 years ago. My memory is fuzzy, but I think was a 3-day champion with impressive totals each day (despite missing 2 final jeopardy questions that were super hard). On day 4, he had a lead going into final Jeopardy but again ran into an impossible final question that no one answered correctly. The 2nd place person was kinda close to him and they both wagered big, allowing the lame 3rd place person to walk away with the win... or something like that. I forget the exact details but I recall thinking he was robbed and he had a darn good chance to be a 5-time champion (which was the limit back then) if things had broken a little differently.

He always said that familiarity with the clicker was a huge, huge advantage for returning players. After his win on day one, he would routinely get out to a big lead in future programs before the other contestants began to figure out the clicker.

It is worth noting that he was also a contestant on one of the early, first season, editions of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, with Regis. They did a practice "fastest fingers" multiple choice before the show (the way they determined who would get to play the game) and he won both practice rounds. In one of the practice rounds he actually set a Millionaire record for fastest answer. But, when the show actually aired, he miss-hit one of the buttons and his answer was just a fraction too slow. As a result, he did not get to play the game. I am absolutely convinced he would have won hundreds of thousands of bucks on that show. Dude was a trivia master like none I have ever met!

--Jason "I mentioned this thread to him in an email. Hopefully he will check it out and provide even more perspective" EVans

[Spencer's Daddy]

I should have gotten all 4 Final Jeopardy questions correct, but after Double Jeopardy ends, my adrenaline rush also ended, and I could barely think once the Final Jeopardy music started. The correct question, on the show which I was defeated, was "Who is Archimedes?" I was teaching high-school math at the time, and actually had a poster of Archimedes hanging on my classroom wall (along with some other famous mathematicians). The other guy actually got it right, and he ended up winning one more show I believe.

This was the old days, before they doubled the money amounts, and when the runners-up received fabulous prizes, rather than a little cash like now. My runner-up prize was a week-long trip to the island of Majorca off the coast of Spain.

They film a week's worth of shows in one day. The worst part for me was changing clothes quickly and getting mentally ready to go on again in 10 minutes to tape tomorrow's show.

[snowdenscold]

This was the old days, before they doubled the money amounts, and when the runners-up received fabulous prizes, rather than a little cash like now. My runner-up prize was a week-long trip to the island of Majorca off the coast of Spain.


Yeah, I always thought the $2,000 and $1,000 payouts for 2nd and 3rd place were kind of lame. After taxes, 3rd place won't even cover the cost of your trips to regionals auditions + LA taping, and 2nd place probably breaks about even.

I guess they figure the show is now well enough established that just being on it is an honor and they'll have plenty of people (like myself) willing to participate, even if it means a financial loss.

[DukieInKansas]

Just DVRing thru the Aleve ads saves us five minutes.

Initially, I read this as Alleva ads and wondered what he was advertising. Perhaps I'm a bit too Duke-centric? :o

[weezie]

Initially, I read this as Alleva ads and wondered what he was advertising. Perhaps I'm a bit too Duke-centric? :o

What is this hallucination that you speak of? You sound perfectly normal to me. And if Alleva could have gotten away with selling Aleve, I think he would have tried his darnedest!

[Bluedog]

I watch it for the first time today and he loses? Bah....Very close. A bit unlucky that he got the very last question to take the lead which then changes the strategy for final Jeopardy but I guess that's how it goes sometimes! He'll be back...

[snowdenscold]

I watch it for the first time today and he loses? Bah....Very close. A bit unlucky that he got the very last question to take the lead which then changes the strategy for final Jeopardy but I guess that's how it goes sometimes! He'll be back...

I'm not sure how Matt would bet from 2nd place, since we have almost never seen him in that position. If the positions were reversed, would he have done a minimalist bet there (between 201 and 2399), or if he would have gone all out? Some of that depends on how he felt about the category.

I admit that I felt decent about "U.S. Landmarks" and yet was stumped just like the 3 on the show. The "Galaxy Gold" has me thinking about Air & Space Museum, Cape Canaveral, large observatories, planetariums, etc. but none of them were resonating as something that would be a major US Landmark and I couldn't get out of that line of thinking.


Anyway, congrats to Matt and good riddance should I happen to get called this year - I certainly would have panicked if I showed up for taping and he was still there!

[cf-62]

That's awesome. As I mentioned above, I just had my regional audition last weekend and I believe it went fairly well - I'm pretty sure I got 41 / 50 on the paper exam, I was good at voice projection, and comfortable picking categories and answering questions.

Of course, based on the #'s they told us, only about 400 of the 2500 people at all the regional auditions will be chosen over the next 12-18 months, so even if they weeded out half of the people, that's still not a great chance of appearing on the show.

Good luck. I've been to 2 auditions, and even got to play the simulated game twice the second time. I thought for sure I was in. But rarely do you get the call. Actually, today, making the audition is also a shot in the dark. I have now passed the test 4 times, but twice was randomly left out of the live audition because they had more people pass the online test than they had spots in the live audition.

The important thing is -- you've made it this far -- because so many people don't. Be ready, and study up on that poetry. :-)

[cf-62]

I'm not sure how Matt would bet from 2nd place, since we have almost never seen him in that position. If the positions were reversed, would he have done a minimalist bet there (between 201 and 2399), or if he would have gone all out? Some of that depends on how he felt about the category.

I admit that I felt decent about "U.S. Landmarks" and yet was stumped just like the 3 on the show. The "Galaxy Gold" has me thinking about Air & Space Museum, Cape Canaveral, large observatories, planetariums, etc. but none of them were resonating as something that would be a major US Landmark and I couldn't get out of that line of thinking.


Anyway, congrats to Matt and good riddance should I happen to get called this year - I certainly would have panicked if I showed up for taping and he was still there!

We had that same discussion at the house last night. Too many Jeopardy players in second do NOT even play it properly. They bet it all, assuming they'll get it right.

If you're in second, your only hope is that first place misses it, so bet to cover third and just get over first -- or ZERO.

I think if Matt were in second last night, his bet would have been similar to the winner - the max he could lose and still be a dollar ahead of third place in case she bet it all and got it right. Again, not EVERY Jeopardy player does this - as smart as they all are, so many are both math and logic challenged. However, I think Matt probably does this, not because of the "winner" logic, but to cover his behind from third place somehow beating him.

[snowdenscold]

We had that same discussion at the house last night. Too many Jeopardy players in second do NOT even play it properly. They bet it all, assuming they'll get it right.

If you're in second, your only hope is that first place misses it, so bet to cover third and just get over first -- or ZERO.

I think if Matt were in second last night, his bet would have been similar to the winner - the max he could lose and still be a dollar ahead of third place in case she bet it all and got it right. Again, not EVERY Jeopardy player does this - as smart as they all are, so many are both math and logic challenged. However, I think Matt probably does this, not because of the "winner" logic, but to cover his behind from third place somehow beating him.

It does make an interesting case of game theory, or in this case: "reverse psychology" vs "reverse reverse psychology".

For example, should 1st place always bet to cover (assuming the category isn't a particular strong suit or weakness), or do they anticipate 2nd place doing a min-bet, and thus do a min bet themselves?*

To explain further, if 2nd place assumes 1st bets to cover, then min-betting gets 2nd a win in 2 / 4 scenarios, as opposed to a full bet where they would only win in 1 / 4.
Now, if 1st expects 2nd to bet in such an optimal manner, then 1st should change from a bet to cover (which wins 2 / 4) to their own min bet, which wins 3 / 4.
But if 2nd goes all out, then even though you're back to the same 2 in 4 scenarios, you've now put the game in 2nd place's hand instead of your own. So you've swapped from "you must get it right" to "2nd must get it wrong" in an all-out-by-2nd scenario in order to pick up an advantage in a min-bet-by-2nd scenario.

Make sense??

Also need to strongly factor in that all scenarios are not created equal - these aren't necessarily 25%, 50% and 75% chances we're talking about. So you have to assign educated-guess weightings to each scenario. Makes my head hurt...


* I probably need to comb through the statistics to see what % of the time 2nd bets min or full in various scenarios.

[Bluedog]

It does make an interesting case of game theory, or in this case: "reverse psychology" vs "reverse reverse psychology".

For example, should 1st place always bet to cover (assuming the category isn't a particular strong suit or weakness), or do they anticipate 2nd place doing a min-bet, and thus do a min bet themselves?*

To explain further, if 2nd place assumes 1st bets to cover, then min-betting gets 2nd a win in 2 / 4 scenarios, as opposed to a full bet where they would only win in 1 / 4.
Now, if 1st expects 2nd to bet in such an optimal manner, then 1st should change from a bet to cover (which wins 2 / 4) to their own min bet, which wins 3 / 4.
But if 2nd goes all out, then even though you're back to the same 2 in 4 scenarios, you've now put the game in 2nd place's hand instead of your own. So you've swapped from "you must get it right" to "2nd must get it wrong" in an all-out-by-2nd scenario in order to pick up an advantage in a min-bet-by-2nd scenario.

Make sense??

Also need to strongly factor in that all scenarios are not created equal - these aren't necessarily 25%, 50% and 75% chances we're talking about. So you have to assign educated-guess weightings to each scenario. Makes my head hurt...


* I probably need to comb through the statistics to see what % of the time 2nd bets min or full in various scenarios.

There are sites dedicated to final wagering on Jeopardy! like this one:
http://thefinalwager.co/2015/03/15/calculating-the-final-wager-two-players/

It used to be a good strategy to wager to tie (as both contestants would then move on -- Arthur Chu did this), but they recently added a tiebreaker question.

[gus]

We had that same discussion at the house last night. Too many Jeopardy players in second do NOT even play it properly. They bet it all, assuming they'll get it right.

If you're in second, your only hope is that first place misses it, so bet to cover third and just get over first -- or ZERO.

I think if Matt were in second last night, his bet would have been similar to the winner - the max he could lose and still be a dollar ahead of third place in case she bet it all and got it right. Again, not EVERY Jeopardy player does this - as smart as they all are, so many are both math and logic challenged. However, I think Matt probably does this, not because of the "winner" logic, but to cover his behind from third place somehow beating him.

So let's say the scores are:

20,000
15,000
7,000

If you're in second, you're saying you'd bet over 5,000 but less than 8,000?

What would you bet if you were in first?

[cf-62]

It does make an interesting case of game theory, or in this case: "reverse psychology" vs "reverse reverse psychology".

For example, should 1st place always bet to cover (assuming the category isn't a particular strong suit or weakness), or do they anticipate 2nd place doing a min-bet, and thus do a min bet themselves?*

To explain further, if 2nd place assumes 1st bets to cover, then min-betting gets 2nd a win in 2 / 4 scenarios, as opposed to a full bet where they would only win in 1 / 4.
Now, if 1st expects 2nd to bet in such an optimal manner, then 1st should change from a bet to cover (which wins 2 / 4) to their own min bet, which wins 3 / 4.
But if 2nd goes all out, then even though you're back to the same 2 in 4 scenarios, you've now put the game in 2nd place's hand instead of your own. So you've swapped from "you must get it right" to "2nd must get it wrong" in an all-out-by-2nd scenario in order to pick up an advantage in a min-bet-by-2nd scenario.

Make sense??

Also need to strongly factor in that all scenarios are not created equal - these aren't necessarily 25%, 50% and 75% chances we're talking about. So you have to assign educated-guess weightings to each scenario. Makes my head hurt...


* I probably need to comb through the statistics to see what % of the time 2nd bets min or full in various scenarios.

As has been shown, there are many arguments for and against, but here's mine. I'd like to hear Spencer's Daddy, Wilson, and Rob O's take (if he's posting here) - as previous players.

Rule 0: The primary purpose of playing Jeopardy is to become champion and return. The secondary purpose of Jeopardy is to win 2nd if you can't win 1st. The tertiary purpose is showing pride over being on the preeminent knowledge game show.

Rule 1: WHEN LEADING AT FINAL JEOPARDY: ALWAYS bet to cover 2nd place by $1 if they were to bet it all. Why? Because if you just out-played your opponents over a 60 question game and came out ahead, you do NOT want to lose by making a pusillanimous bet. EXCEPTIONS to this rule: if you get an absolute bear of a category (Poets and Poetry or Art History for me, Sports or Math for most) - and you truly don't think you will know the answer...

ASSUMPTION A, GIVEN RULE 1: To win from Second place, the LEADER MUST ANSWER INCORRECTLY.

THEREFORE, the ONLY proper wager for Second place is to follow Rule 1 vis-a-vis 3rd place.

Statistically examining the different cases and outcomes, and applying Game Theory to them sounds like a fun exercise. However, GIVEN RULE 1, second place MUST make a minimal bet and Leader must also make the maximum bet. Anything else leads to a life of regret.

Side note: the third-place $0 bet. Usually, the best bet from third place is simply $0 - but almost never made. It's like there's some sort of false sense of accomplishment they get from the chance to double their money. Honestly, nobody cares if you earned $11,000 or 5,500 from third place. You lost - plain and simple. Last night was a prime example of a completely misguided 3rd place bet. WHY???? WHY???? Why did she bet even $1? She could not catch either leader. Her only chance to WIN was for both to be incorrect, AND for second place to bet improperly. In fact, she gave $1,000 away (2nd place vs. 3rd place) by betting. She could have doubled her take home by NOT trying to double her score.

As I said earlier, most Jeopardy contestants are extremely bright, but they stink at math and logic (hence, why those categories are usually left until last). Our own Spencer's Daddy, of course, also happens to be one of the best mathematicians I know, so he doesn't fall into that category.

[cf-62]

So let's say the scores are:

20,000
15,000
7,000

If you're in second, you're saying you'd bet over 5,000 but less than 8,000?

What would you bet if you were in first?

This is a really interesting scenario:
Given my rules (previous post), the appropriate bets are:

Leader: $10,001 - the leader has just scored almost as much as both other players combined. Giving up the win on a correct answer without enough wager is the doorway to a lifetime of regret

Third place: $3,000 - A lot of things have to go right for me to win from third, including second place improperly betting. But I KNOW I have to get over $9,999 as that is the absolute lowest that first place should fall to (SHOULD)

Second place: Again, categories and knowledge of opponents can come into play here, but the BEST bet for second place is $0 - although I MAY bet $999 to maximize winnings if leader answers incorrectly. Remember, I can only win if first play is wrong - since first place HAS to cover a potential $30,000 payday. Meanwhile, I don't really want to risk allowing third place to happen to fall into one lucky category with a trick question and somehow beat us both.

So to review:
Leader: $20,000 --- bet $10,001
2nd: $15,000 --- bet $0
3rd: $7,000 --- bet $3000.

[cf-62]

So to review:
Leader: $20,000 --- bet $10,001
2nd: $15,000 --- bet $0
3rd: $7,000 --- bet $3000.

Since others have looked at the "scenarios" as part of this, let's look at the results:

Right, Right, Right -- Everyone stays where they are
Right Right Wrong -- Everyone stays where they are
Right Wrong Right -- Everyone stays where they are
Right Wrong Wrong -- Everyone stays where they are
Wrong Right Right -- 2nd place wins, 3rd place comes in second, leader falls to third
Wrong Wrong Right -- 2nd place wins, 3rd place comes in second, leader falls to third
Wrong Right Wrong -- 2nd place wins, leader falls to second, 3rd stays in 3rd
wrong wrong wrong -- 2nd place wins, leader falls to second, 3rd stays in 3rd

Thus, the ONLY way for third place to win would be for 2nd place to improperly bet (either $5,001, or something similar to everything -- whether that's $15,000 or some iteration to have a few dollars left (like $14,993). To ensure finishing above, regardless of the improper bet amount, the $3,000 bet has to be made.

[brevity]

Despite my handle, I can talk about Final Jeopardy! strategy forever. I don't think the contestants are necessarily bad at math or logic. They're just bad at wagering.


So let's say the scores are:

20,000
15,000
7,000

If you're in second, you're saying you'd bet over 5,000 but less than 8,000?

What would you bet if you were in first?


This is a really interesting scenario:
Given my rules (previous post), the appropriate bets are:

Leader: $10,001 - the leader has just scored almost as much as both other players combined. Giving up the win on a correct answer without enough wager is the doorway to a lifetime of regret

Third place: $3,000 - A lot of things have to go right for me to win from third, including second place improperly betting. But I KNOW I have to get over $9,999 as that is the absolute lowest that first place should fall to (SHOULD)

Second place: Again, categories and knowledge of opponents can come into play here, but the BEST bet for second place is $0 - although I MAY bet $999 to maximize winnings if leader answers incorrectly. Remember, I can only win if first play is wrong - since first place HAS to cover a potential $30,000 payday. Meanwhile, I don't really want to risk allowing third place to happen to fall into one lucky category with a trick question and somehow beat us both.

So to review:
Leader: $20,000 --- bet $10,001
2nd: $15,000 --- bet $0
3rd: $7,000 --- bet $3000.

I understand your motivation here, but your 2nd place strategy illustrates how the math/logic approach is sometimes deficient when it comes to ideal wagering. Ideally, the wager should be unilateral (without regard to what other contestants might bid), and aggressive enough to potentially win if you're right, but safe enough to minimize the damage in case you're wrong. There is also an element of regret and second-guessing that comes into play.

LEADER before Final Jeopardy!

If the leader wants to win, he or she is locked into a wager of at least $10,001. The lack of a choice here is probably a psychological benefit because if you lose, the level of second-guessing is kept to a minimum. (This is one reason why you want the lead at the end of Double Jeopardy!, no matter how small.)

2ND PLACE before Final Jeopardy!

The 2nd place contestant also wants to win, so I can't agree with the $0 wager. This is where math/logic diverges from wagering. You shouldn't make a bid in anticipation of another contestant's bid. (The leader doesn't bid $10,001 for the drama of potentially winning by one dollar, but because it is the bare minimum required to take the opposition out of the equation. It is an aggressive and selfish wager made with blinders on.) Same applies here. The 2nd place contestant needs to wager at least $5,001 to pull ahead of the leader and force the leader to win by also getting Final Jeopardy! right. This is also a psychologically beneficial bet that minimizes second-guessing.

A final note: if you're the 2nd place contestant, to hell with the 3rd place contestant.

3RD PLACE before Final Jeopardy!

Ideal wagering may go out the window here. A lot depends on how distant in 3rd place this contestant is, and how close 1st and 2nd place are to each other. From a calculation perspective, this is the least simple position to be in. Also, much thought can go into a wager that is almost always rendered moot by the outcome. So you probably have to embrace the possible wagers of the 1st and 2nd place and accept math/logic as your guide. In the above example, $3,000 is probably the correct minimum bet. But it's specific to this situation. Creating general rules would require characterizing the pre-Final scores algebraically (A is less than 2 times B, and less than 3 times C), which looks tedious.

There are obvious complications I left out (tie scores, a terrible Final category), but those are the basics.

[cf-62]

Despite my handle, I can talk about Final Jeopardy! strategy forever. I don't think the contestants are necessarily bad at math or logic. They're just bad at wagering.





I understand your motivation here, but your 2nd place strategy illustrates how the math/logic approach is sometimes deficient when it comes to ideal wagering. Ideally, the wager should be unilateral (without regard to what other contestants might bid), and aggressive enough to potentially win if you're right, but safe enough to minimize the damage in case you're wrong. There is also an element of regret and second-guessing that comes into play.

LEADER before Final Jeopardy!

If the leader wants to win, he or she is locked into a wager of at least $10,001. The lack of a choice here is probably a psychological benefit because if you lose, the level of second-guessing is kept to a minimum. (This is one reason why you want the lead at the end of Double Jeopardy!, no matter how small.)

2ND PLACE before Final Jeopardy!

The 2nd place contestant also wants to win, so I can't agree with the $0 wager. This is where math/logic diverges from wagering. You shouldn't make a bid in anticipation of another contestant's bid. (The leader doesn't bid $10,001 for the drama of potentially winning by one dollar, but because it is the bare minimum required to take the opposition out of the equation. It is an aggressive and selfish wager made with blinders on.) Same applies here. The 2nd place contestant needs to wager at least $5,001 to pull ahead of the leader and force the leader to win by also getting Final Jeopardy! right. This is also a psychologically beneficial bet that minimizes second-guessing.

A final note: if you're the 2nd place contestant, to hell with the 3rd place contestant.

3RD PLACE before Final Jeopardy!

Ideal wagering may go out the window here. A lot depends on how distant in 3rd place this contestant is, and how close 1st and 2nd place are to each other. From a calculation perspective, this is the least simple position to be in. Also, much thought can go into a wager that is almost always rendered moot by the outcome. So you probably have to embrace the possible wagers of the 1st and 2nd place and accept math/logic as your guide. In the above example, $3,000 is probably the correct minimum bet. But it's specific to this situation. Creating general rules would require characterizing the pre-Final scores algebraically (A is less than 2 times B, and less than 3 times C), which looks tedious.

There are obvious complications I left out (tie scores, a terrible Final category), but those are the basics.

I really can't argue with the a $5,001 bet from second place. Betting $0 takes a leap of faith that first place won't be freaked about the category, assume everyone will get it wrong, bet $0 themselves, and hope (note: "Hope is not a strategy" -- but that doesn't preclude it from becoming a tactic).

The one risk is that your world worsens if YOU get the wrong answer:

If 1st and 3rd both answer correctly, you fall to 3rd place (big deal, you lose $1,000).
If 1st and 3rd both answer incorrectly, you're now in a tie and get one more chance
If 1st is wrong and 3rd is right, you handed the game to the third place person (which does happen sometimes).

Also, like in ongoing business negotiations, taking a view of JUST THIS GAME can be detrimental to your long term success. Also, betting $5,001 keeps everyone honest in the future. If potential contestants see you win with a $5,001 bet instead of a $0 bet, they will be forced to bet when they play against you.

[snowdenscold]

The secondary purpose of Jeopardy is to win 2nd if you can't win 1st. The tertiary purpose is showing pride over being on the preeminent knowledge game show.
...
Side note: the third-place $0 bet. Usually, the best bet from third place is simply $0 - but almost never made. It's like there's some sort of false sense of accomplishment they get from the chance to double their money. Honestly, nobody cares if you earned $11,000 or 5,500 from third place. You lost - plain and simple. Last night was a prime example of a completely misguided 3rd place bet. WHY???? WHY???? Why did she bet even $1? She could not catch either leader. Her only chance to WIN was for both to be incorrect, AND for second place to bet improperly. In fact, she gave $1,000 away (2nd place vs. 3rd place) by betting. She could have doubled her take home by NOT trying to double her score.




3RD PLACE before Final Jeopardy!

Ideal wagering may go out the window here. A lot depends on how distant in 3rd place this contestant is, and how close 1st and 2nd place are to each other. From a calculation perspective, this is the least simple position to be in. Also, much thought can go into a wager that is almost always rendered moot by the outcome. So you probably have to embrace the possible wagers of the 1st and 2nd place and accept math/logic as your guide. In the above example, $3,000 is probably the correct minimum bet. But it's specific to this situation. Creating general rules would require characterizing the pre-Final scores algebraically (A is less than 2 times B, and less than 3 times C), which looks tedious.


I take a bit of a different view on 2nd/3rd place. To me, finishing 2nd means nothing. There is no difference in sense of accomplishment to me between 2nd and 3rd - you didn't win on Jeopardy! So they are interchangeable. Plus, as I mentioned before, the prize payouts are so puny that the money difference is not going to be a significant factor.

Thus it does simplify my betting strategy slightly, because I'm not worried about scenarios that differentiate me between 2nd and 3rd.

For example, in the above scenario (20/15/7), I would go all out in 3rd place (or maybe leave myself a couple bucks just to say I didn't finish with $0). I would go all out because this allows me to win in more scenarios - that is, more sub-optimal wagers by 2nd place.
If I get it wrong, there's no way I'm winning anyway (unless 1st place is a crazy person... which actually I remember Alex Jacob doing multiple times - betting way more than needed to cover - but I'll assume they're just betting to cover). And if I get it right, I feel my chances of winning increase.


Exceptions to this rule are when you can't double up above 2nd, and a bet to cover by 1st drops them below your score. Then maybe wager up to the difference between you and where 1st would end up on a miss. For example, [20/18/7] - bet up to $3,000. You have to hope 2nd bets big here, but hey - you're not in a great position so need some luck anyway!

[gus]

Interesting -- thanks.

I tried to setup a scenario where your strategy would fail, giving the first place player a strategy for winning even with a wrong answer. but you're right about the "lifetime of regret" line.

I'm only a casual and infrequent Jeopardy watcher, but when I do watch the betting strategy for final jeopardy always fascinates me. I wonder what the % of right answers in FJ is? that surely has to factor into the thinking.

[gus]

Okay, looking at this website (http://j-archive.com/finalstats.php?season=30) it looks like the % of correct answers in final jeopardy is ~49,44,36 for players in 1st, 2nd and 3rd going into FJ. Using those statistics*, I built a model to test some of the betting strategies:

Here are the results:

CF-62:
A: 10,001
B: 0
C: 3,000

Player A comes in first in 49% of the simulated games. Player B: 51%. Player A comes in 3rd a whopping 18% of the time, which would be devastating consider s/he had scored almost as much as the other two players combined.

Brevity:
A: 10,001
B: 5,001
C: 3,000

Player A wins 67% of the time! Player B only wins 41% of the matches.

Throwing a third player into the mix, the website above has a "wagering calculator (http://www.j-archive.com/wageringcalculator.php)":
A: 10,000
B: 5,000
C: 6,999

The results are essentially equal to Brevity's.

The clear winning strategy for Player B here is CF-62's. Maybe if I have time later, I'll do a full stochastic model do try to find a better strategy. But it's interesting to me that Player B, with CF-62's strategy, is (slightly) favored to win.

But if A knows B will employ CF-62's strategy, he can guarantee a win by betting less than 5,000. If A bets zero, and B bets 5,001 (like brevity suggests), A wins 57% of the games.

So it seems to me the that the consensus "correct" strategy for player A is dead wrong.




* there is a clear weakness in this approach: I am treating each of the 3 responses in the game as a separate random event, but I would imagine there is a strong correlation in responses: i.e. when player A's answer is correct, player B's percentage will be higher than 44%.

[snowdenscold]

Thank you for the analysis!




But if A knows B will employ CF-62's strategy, he can guarantee a win by betting less than 5,000. If A bets zero, and B bets 5,001 (like brevity suggests), A wins 57% of the games.

So it seems to me the that the consensus "correct" strategy for player A is dead wrong.

This gets to what I was saying earlier - do you try to "outwit" your 2nd place opponent, or can too much sneakiness backfire? I was debating the upside of a potential increased % chance to win with the downside of essentially taking the game out of your own hands and putting it your opponents.

I was originally going down this path until cf-62 reminded me that you've just outplayed your opponents over 60 questions - why take it out of your hands now? That does seem to be a fairly compelling argument. But the flip-side is that the % of questions you correctly know for FJ is going to be lower (and I think your stats above back that up) than average game board questions, which comes down to buzzer timing. So not quite a fair comparison.



* there is a clear weakness in this approach: I am treating each of the 3 responses in the game as a separate random event, but I would imagine there is a strong correlation in responses: i.e. when player A's answer is correct, player B's percentage will be higher than 44%.

My first thought is to agree wholeheartedly, though I wonder if there's stats we can pull that show the breakdown among: all 3 get it right, 2, 1, and triple stumper. And if there is any way to associate the 1 and 2 "get it right" %'s w/ money position that'd be even better.

[BD80]

My strategy would be to choose SWords at every opportunity.

I love weaponry.

And yes, I can do a bad fake Scottish accent.

[gus]

My first thought is to agree wholeheartedly, though I wonder if there's stats we can pull that show the breakdown among: all 3 get it right, 2, 1, and triple stumper. And if there is any way to associate the 1 and 2 "get it right" %'s w/ money position that'd be even better.

Okay, there are 8 permutations when all three players make FJ, so that simplifies things dramatically, and the website I linked breaks down the number of times those 8 happen. If I didn't have actual work to do, I'd make the effort to aggregate all 31 seasons to make amore rigorous model.

[ricks68]

Only on DBR would such a discussion exist, and this is certainly not the first, nor will be the last, time.;)

Now, if this could somehow be applied to the probability of whether a certain type of BBQ is superior to another, then we would really have something of real value.:)

ricks

[OldPhiKap]

Only on DBR would such a discussion exist, and this is certainly not the first, nor will be the last, time.;)

Now, if this could somehow be applied to the probability of whether a certain type of BBQ is superior to another, then we would really have something of real value.:)

ricks

Well, the odds of bbq superiority is simple. The odds of good bbq with a vinegar sauce are greater than those with a tomato sauce, and the odds of bbg with mustard sauce being top of the heat is pretty darn slim.

[snowdenscold]

Okay, there are 8 permutations when all three players make FJ, so that simplifies things dramatically, and the website I linked breaks down the number of times those 8 happen. If I didn't have actual work to do, I'd make the effort to aggregate all 31 seasons to make amore rigorous model.
OK I started looking thru the site you linked earlier and it's indeed full of useful info!

I suppose I could have done some scripting work (which I may still do if I can find a little more free time), but instead I manually pulled 5 seasons of results into Excel:

(These are ordered in terms of money entering FJ and I'm assuming W = Wrong, R = Right... it didn't clarify on the website)


WWW 234 21% 1st correct 51%
WWR 98 9% 2nd correct 50%
WRW 118 11% 3rd correct 46%
WRR 85 8%
RWW 126 11% 1st correct when 2nd wrong 39%
RWR 86 8% 2nd correct when 1st wrong 38%
RRW 120 11%
RRR 231 21% 1st correct when 2nd correct 63%
2nd correct when 1st correct 62%
1098

So yes, seems to be decently correlated...


Another interesting set of data - here's how often 1st bets to cover (assumes there wasn't a runaway nor a tie):



Season % of time bet to cover

22 86%
23 88%
24 86%
25 89%
26 86%
27 91%
28 90%
29 82%
30 80%
31 79%

What's hard to determine is how much of that 10-20% comes from strategy/philosophy and how much comes from category uncomfortability. I'd assume the latter is the biggest component.

[left_hook_lacey]

Well, the odds of bbq superiority is simple. The odds of good bbq with a vinegar sauce are greater than those with a tomato sauce, and the odds of bbg with mustard sauce being top of the heat is pretty darn slim.

This is actually true. I have years and years of hard data gathered to proove this analysis. It's stored around my waist line. :cool:

[gurufrisbee]

As a Seattle area resident, that final jeopardy question was amazingly easy and shocking that he lost on it, but I know my perspective is skewed on that one. He was super impressive in his run.

[Kimist]

As a Seattle area resident, that final jeopardy question was amazingly easy and shocking that he lost on it, but I know my perspective is skewed on that one. He was super impressive in his run.

It stumped me, but the "galaxy gold" was one serious hint.

If ONLY I had remembered what I had in my boyhood stamp collection. . .


k

[snowdenscold]

OK I started looking thru the site you linked earlier and it's indeed full of useful info!

I suppose I could have done some scripting work (which I may still do if I can find a little more free time), but instead I manually pulled 5 seasons of results into Excel:

(These are ordered in terms of money entering FJ and I'm assuming W = Wrong, R = Right... it didn't clarify on the website)


WWW 234 21% 1st correct 51%
WWR 98 9% 2nd correct 50%
WRW 118 11% 3rd correct 46%
WRR 85 8%
RWW 126 11% 1st correct when 2nd wrong 39%
RWR 86 8% 2nd correct when 1st wrong 38%
RRW 120 11%
RRR 231 21% 1st correct when 2nd correct 63%
2nd correct when 1st correct 62%
1098

So yes, seems to be decently correlated...



OK got around to pulling data from Season 10 - 31:



WWW 836 20% 1st correct 52%
WWR 369 9% 2nd correct 49%
WRW 444 11% 3rd correct 46%
WRR 336 8%
RWW 486 12% 1st correct when 2nd wrong 42%
RWR 386 9% 2nd correct when 1st wrong 39%
RRW 430 10%
RRR 812 20% 1st correct when 2nd correct 61%
2nd correct when 1st correct 59%
4099

Not surprisingly, the results mirror the smaller data set.


So this leads me back to the question of - should 1st place follow the normative / expected strategy of "betting to cover", as they do 80-90% of the time, or are they really placing themselves in toss-up?

Yes, you may have outplayed your opponents (again, mostly thru buzzer timing) over the previous 60 questions, but historically you only have a 52% of winning by "taking matters into your own hands", and that's only a couple percentage points higher than the 49% of 2nd place. So all that hard work and it's going to be a coin flip whether or not you win the game.

What I'd love to know (and can't find) is what the bet distribution by 2nd place has been in various scenarios. For example, when above 2/3 of 1st place's score, how many times do they min-bet, and how many times do they go all-out? (plus I imagine more permutation based on 3rd place's score)

But ultimately I think it may get back to that idea of having no regrets and/or being able to live with yourself. No worse feeling than being in 1st place going into FJ, getting Final Jeopardy correct, and losing the game...

[gus]

OK got around to pulling data from Season 10 - 31:



WWW 836 20% 1st correct 52%
WWR 369 9% 2nd correct 49%
WRW 444 11% 3rd correct 46%
WRR 336 8%
RWW 486 12% 1st correct when 2nd wrong 42%
RWR 386 9% 2nd correct when 1st wrong 39%
RRW 430 10%
RRR 812 20% 1st correct when 2nd correct 61%
2nd correct when 1st correct 59%
4099

Not surprisingly, the results mirror the smaller data set.


So this leads me back to the question of - should 1st place follow the normative / expected strategy of "betting to cover", as they do 80-90% of the time, or are they really placing themselves in toss-up?

Yes, you may have outplayed your opponents (again, mostly thru buzzer timing) over the previous 60 questions, but historically you only have a 52% of winning by "taking matters into your own hands", and that's only a couple percentage points higher than the 49% of 2nd place. So all that hard work and it's going to be a coin flip whether or not you win the game.

What I'd love to know (and can't find) is what the bet distribution by 2nd place has been in various scenarios. For example, when above 2/3 of 1st place's score, how many times do they min-bet, and how many times do they go all-out? (plus I imagine more permutation based on 3rd place's score)

But ultimately I think it may get back to that idea of having no regrets and/or being able to live with yourself. No worse feeling than being in 1st place going into FJ, getting Final Jeopardy correct, and losing the game...

Thanks for pulling this together - that's strong confirmation of the weakness in my model. I might update it at lunch to deal with this. I bet my answer won't change though: the consensus strategy for A will yield a lower chance of winning.

[gus]

Okay, now with Snowden's dataset, I don't need a monte carlo model to test the betting strategies. The probabilities now suggest that with CF62's strategy (B bets nothing), B will win 48% of the time. (I had the model built anyway, so I ran it too. The numbers checked out. yay math!)

Here are the results*:

With CF-62's strategy ($10,001 $0 $3,000):


A B C
1 52% 48% 0%
2 31% 52% 17%
3 17% 0% 83%


With Brevity's strategy ($10,001 $5,001 $3,000)


A B C
1 72% 39% 9%
2 20% 51% 18%
3 8% 9% 73%

(20.4% of the time, A & B end up tied for first)


The website's suggested strategy ($10,000 $5,000 $6,999):


A B C
1 72% 39% 9%
2 20% 51% 18%
3 8% 9% 73%

(20.4% of the time, A & B end up tied for first)


As the test was what B's strategy should be... it's clearly to bet zero. But again, if A knows that, he'll bet less than $5,000 and win no matter what happens with the question!

here are the results if A bets 4,999:

Against CF-62's zero bet:


A B C
1 100% 0% 0%
2 0% 100% 0%
3 0% 0% 100%


Against Brevity's $5,001 bet:


A B C
1 81% 19% 0%
2 19% 63% 18%
3 0% 18% 82%


Player A will between 81-100% of the time by betting less than $5,000.






* note, I did not factor in a tie-breaker. If two players are tied for the most money, I'm counting each as finishing 1st.

[snowdenscold]

As the test was what B's strategy should be... it's clearly to bet zero. But again, if A knows that, he'll bet less than $5,000 and win no matter what happens with the question!

But does he expect a min-bet* by B?

I would LOVE to know the distribution breakdown of B's bets when within 2/3 of 1st place. I think it may be possible to write a script, but it would need to hit every single game episode page individually, so it will take a very long time to run once I write it, considering how slow each page response was on the first go round. (i.e. 5-10 seconds per page... that wasn't too terrible a wait for 22 pages [season 10 - 31], but for thousands of games - yikes!)

Of course, I'm not a real programmer, and just fool around w/ the basics in python's "requests" module, so if anyone knows a more efficient script than sending a GET request to each game page and parsing thru the HTML**, let me know!



here are the results if A bets 4,999:

Against CF-62's zero bet:


A B C
1 100% 0% 0%
2 0% 100% 0%
3 0% 0% 100%


Against Brevity's $5,001 bet:


A B C
1 81% 19% 0%
2 19% 63% 18%
3 0% 18% 82%


Player A will between 81-100% of the time by betting less than $5,000.


BUT if B goes all out (which again, would be extremely useful to know the likelihood of that!), a 4999 bet by A wins 49% of the time.

So what's the weighted aveage? (we don't know... yet?)





* note, I did not factor in a tie-breaker. If two players are tied for the most money, I'm counting each as finishing 1st.
From what I've read, there is now a mandatory tie-breaker in regular season games. This definitely can alter the betting strategy in some scenarios, because your win % is essentially dropped in half if we consider the tie-breaker to be a coin-flip.



Also, this thread example is all based on a 20K/15K/7K scenario, which is a very particular break-point leading to some odd conclusions about betting and ties. 20/14.5/7 might have been more interesting. Or 20/15.5/7. Both end up on either side of that break point.



* Some terminology I've learned:

"min-bet by B" can be called "2/3 wagering", where 2nd place is within 2/3 of 1st, and thus bets between $0 and 3B-2A. (in our example $0 to 5000)
close-out bets or bets to cover by A is called Boyd's Rule
certain situations that abandon Boyd's Rule are Shore's Conjecture - most often used to A's advantage if they suspect B needs to bet enough to cover C and not the normal 2/3 betting


**

import requests

LETTERCODES = ['WWW', 'RWW', 'RRR', 'WWR', 'RWR', 'WRW', 'RRW', 'WRR']
CODECOUNT = 8
SEASON_BEGIN = 31
SEASON_END = 10

codelist = {}
for l in LETTERCODES:
codelist[l] = 0

base_url = "http://www.j-archive.com/finalstats.php?season="

total_seasons = SEASON_BEGIN - SEASON_END + 1

season = SEASON_BEGIN

while season >= SEASON_END:

code_counter = 0

r = requests.get(base_url+str(season))

lines = r.text.split('\n')

for line in lines:
modline = line.lstrip('<p>').split(' = ')
if modline[0] in LETTERCODES and code_counter < CODECOUNT:
codelist[modline[0]] += int(modline[1].split('<')[0])
code_counter += 1

# print (codelist)

season -= 1

print (codelist)

{'WRR': 336, 'RRW': 430, 'RWW': 486, 'WRW': 444, 'WWR': 369, 'RRR': 812, 'WWW': 836, 'RWR': 386}

[snowdenscold]

OK I wrote my script which is a little unprofessional, but seems to get the job done... thankfully all these HTML pages are formatted very, very specifically and I can use that to my advantage instead of some more robustness in my parsing logic.

Anyway, since it takes awhile, I currently did a test run for Game ID's 2066 thru 2266. 201 games. For some reason, they can skip all around, so it will be a streak from the year 2007 for awhile, then jumps to 1999 for a bit, etc.


Total # of games: 201
Total # of "2/3" games: 97
Total # of "min-bets"*: 31 32%
Non-min-bets in 2/3 situations: 66 68%



* range of [0, 3B - 2A]


I will try to let it run for the thousands of games available later (assuming the server doesn't kill it at some point for too many requests)

[snowdenscold]

Total # of games: 1000
Total # of game w/o parsing errors: 993
Total # of 2/3 games: 555
Out of the 555 total 2/3 games, 223 were min-bet (40%) and 332 were not (60%).

To be continued for 5000 games worth...

[snowdenscold]

Total # of games: 1000
Total # of game w/o parsing errors: 993
Total # of 2/3 games: 555
Out of the 555 total 2/3 games, 223 were min-bet (40%) and 332 were not (60%).

To be continued for 5000 games worth...

Total # of games: 4501
Total # of game w/o parsing errors: 4486
Total # of 2/3 games: 2451
Out of the 2451 total 2/3 games, 944 were min-bet (38.5%) and 1507 were not (61.5%).

Next step will be to further break down what B does based on what C did.

Also to remember to actually save the outputs to a text file so I never have to wait an hour+ for another 5,000 game analysis to run...

If anyone wants to make sure I didn't screw something up (again, I am an amateur programmer and, yes, there are some hacked together control statements that I feel like should be done a better way...):


import requests

def getKey(item):
return item[0]

GAME_ID_BEGIN = 500
GAME_ID_END = 5000

base_url = "http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id="

total_games = GAME_ID_END - GAME_ID_BEGIN + 1
error_games = 0

game = GAME_ID_BEGIN

two_thirds_games = 0
min_bets = 0
non_min_bets = 0


while game <= GAME_ID_END:

# [pre-FJ, post-FJ, wager, correct?]
scores = [[0,0,0, False],[0,0,0, False],[0,0,0, False]]

has_error = False

r = requests.get(base_url+str(game))

if r.status_code != 200:
print(game, "was not a valid game id")
continue

lines = r.text.split('\n')

for i in range(len(lines)):

# looking ahead 9-11 or 8-10 lines is based on examing the HTML source code... lame
try:
if "end of the Double" in lines[i]:
scores[0][0] = int(lines[i+9].split("$")[1].split("<")[0].replace(",",""))
scores[1][0] = int(lines[i+10].split("$")[1].split("<")[0].replace(",",""))
scores[2][0] = int(lines[i+11].split("$")[1].split("<")[0].replace(",",""))

if "Final scores:" in lines[i]:
scores[0][1] = int(lines[i+8].split("$")[1].split("<")[0].replace(",",""))
scores[1][1] = int(lines[i+9].split("$")[1].split("<")[0].replace(",",""))
scores[2][1] = int(lines[i+10].split("$")[1].split("<")[0].replace(",",""))
except:
print ("Error occurred on game", game)
error_games += 1
has_error = True
break

if has_error == True:
game += 1
continue

# determine wager amount and if it was correct
for i in range(3):
scores[i][2] = abs(scores[i][1] - scores[i][0])
scores[i][3] = scores[i][1] >= scores[i][0]

scores.sort(key = getKey, reverse=True)

# establish 2/3 game situation
if scores[1][0] >= scores[0][0] * .667:
two_thirds_games += 1

# Determine a min-bet by comparing to a range of [0, 3B - 2A]
if scores[1][2] < 3*scores[1][0] - 2*scores[0][0]:
#print (scores)
#print ("Min-bet of", scores[1][2], "on a pre-FJ score of", scores[1][0])
min_bets += 1
else: non_min_bets += 1

game += 1

print ("Total # of games:", total_games)
print ("Total # of game w/o errors:", total_games - error_games)
print ("Total # of 2/3 games:", two_thirds_games)
print ("Out of the", two_thirds_games, "total 2/3 games,", min_bets, "were min-bet and", non_min_bets, "were not.")

[snowdenscold]

Sorry to treat this thread like my personal blog, but thought some might find this interesting - I re-ran everything but cleaned out a bunch of bogus data (out of the thousands of game pages, a couple hundred had some sort of issue with the source data which made them unusable)

Games analyzed: 4626

3-way ties: 1
-- This happened only once in July, 2000, w/ everyone having $5,200. Two people maxed out, and the third only bet $5,000. They all got it right, and that non-maxer probably felt foolish!

2-way ties for the lead: 46
The betting in 2-way ties breaks down as follows:
-- Max / Max: 17
-- Zero / Zero: 0
-- Max / Zero: 0
-- Zero / Other: 1
-- Max / Other: 19
-- Other / Other: 9

Total non-tied games analyzed: 4579

Runaways: 1172 (25.6%)
-- Runaways games w/ strange bets: 32 (2.7% of the time)
(Most of these involved teen, children or celebrity weeks, or were part of a 2-day tournament final. At least the first 9 / 10 I manually inspected were, so I assume the other 22 were similar)

Exact doubled games: 32 (0.7%)
-- Doubled game w/ odd bets: 15 (47% of the time)
(This really perplexes me, as almost all of these were on regular, adult games. I would thought a lock-tie scenario necessitates A bidding $0 and B maxing out. So strange! In the 8 that I manually inspected, they were either $0 by A but B not maxing out, or both going off-script. I didn't see any w/ B maxing out and A bidding something as well)


Next comes the fun part where I plan to really dig into the data a bit more this weekend. I want to inspect all of the breakdowns in betting (particularly by B) for the following scenarios:

Crushes: [B]953(20.8%)
(This is defined where B < 2/3 of A, such that A can place a cover bet, and still win on a double-miss no matter what)

2/3 games: 2422(52.9%)
-- Exact 2/3 break point: 23
-- Exact 3/4 break point: 25
-- Exact 4/5 break point: 27
-- Number of games between 2/3 and 3/4: 538
-- Number of games between 3/4 and 4/5: 340
-- Number of games over 4/5: 1469


Note: The 3/4 and 4/5 scenarios are really special cases of the 2/3 scenario. The strategy still is a "min-bet" so to speak, just that the range of that min-bet can and should be adjusted. But you're not maxing out and instead covering yourself from a double/triple stumper.

The exact break-points: I'll ignore these as I believe (need to double-check myself) the new introduction of the mandatory tie-breaker will change strategy here going forward.

[brevity]

The number crunching is going over my head, and I wonder about their utility after what I saw on Friday's episode. It's late in Double Jeopardy and the returning champ lands on the last Daily Double. (The category is High Tension Lines, which is about movie dialogue.) He has $11,000 and the leader has $12,000. Aware of the scores, he risks all $11,000 and loses. He seems inactive for the last 10 or so clues, buzzing in only once more, and unsuccessfully. Game over.

I guess you could call it the Cliff Clavin factor, but it seemed more like a healthy horse that wanted to be put down.

[snowdenscold]

The number crunching is going over my head, and I wonder about their utility after what I saw on Friday's episode. It's late in Double Jeopardy and the returning champ lands on the last Daily Double. (The category is High Tension Lines, which is about movie dialogue.) He has $11,000 and the leader has $12,000. Aware of the scores, he risks all $11,000 and loses. He seems inactive for the last 10 or so clues, buzzing in only once more, and unsuccessfully. Game over.

I guess you could call it the Cliff Clavin factor, but it seemed more like a healthy horse that wanted to be put down.

I actually didn't have a problem with his "true daily double" wager of a large amount, for a couple reasons:

A huge factor is that he was already a 2-day champion. So flaming out on the 3rd day doesn't take away from the fact that you've already won $38,000 or whatever it was, plus get to boast of "Jeopardy champion" for the rest of your life. This opens you up to be more aggressive/risky as opposed to just trying not to embarrass yourself at your one shot.

Then comes category comfortability - he probably felt pretty strongly about movie quotes, as did I. Unfortunately this was just one of those situations where it likely was the only one in the category he didn't know instantly (at least that was the case for me - I also didn't come up with the answer in time).

Related to the last, is the wagering strategy. If you feel really strong about that category, maybe you give yourself an 80% chance of getting it correct. That puts you in a possible position to claim a runaway w/ a couple more clues (which is then 100% chance to win), or at worst a crush scenario, which also has a high chance for you to win.
To bid small here means you might be more in the coin-flip territory for Final Jeopardy, so might as well seize your own destiny.

[cf-62]

I actually didn't have a problem with his "true daily double" wager of a large amount, for a couple reasons:

A huge factor is that he was already a 2-day champion. So flaming out on the 3rd day doesn't take away from the fact that you've already won $38,000 or whatever it was, plus get to boast of "Jeopardy champion" for the rest of your life. This opens you up to be more aggressive/risky as opposed to just trying not to embarrass yourself at your one shot.

Then comes category comfortability - he probably felt pretty strongly about movie quotes, as did I. Unfortunately this was just one of those situations where it likely was the only one in the category he didn't know instantly (at least that was the case for me - I also didn't come up with the answer in time).

Related to the last, is the wagering strategy. If you feel really strong about that category, maybe you give yourself an 80% chance of getting it correct. That puts you in a possible position to claim a runaway w/ a couple more clues (which is then 100% chance to win), or at worst a crush scenario, which also has a high chance for you to win.
To bid small here means you might be more in the coin-flip territory for Final Jeopardy, so might as well seize your own destiny.

So there are 4 categories (and related categories) that I would probably make an extra large Daily Double wager late in the game, and Movie Quotes is one of them. The other 3 are:
Sports
Math
Shakespeare

I would even be tempted to pull a Cliff Clavin if any of those 4 ended up as the Final Jeopardy category

[snowdenscold]

So there are 4 categories (and related categories) that I would probably make an extra large Daily Double wager late in the game, and Movie Quotes is one of them. The other 3 are:
Sports
Math
Shakespeare

I would even be tempted to pull a Cliff Clavin if any of those 4 ended up as the Final Jeopardy category

Yeah, I've often thought about whether or not I would go full-Clavin if I ended up with Classical Music / Composers, Math, or The Bible, but I've seen enough screwy questions in those categories over the years where I just couldn't bring myself to do it. At least not on my first several games.

Now, if I were a 3-day champion already (ha!), then maybe I'd got for that huge +EV wager.

[cf-62]

Yeah, I've often thought about whether or not I would go full-Clavin if I ended up with Classical Music / Composers, Math, or The Bible, but I've seen enough screwy questions in those categories over the years...

Yes, because every once in a while, your movie quote is "Hey buddy, what you got in there? A dead cat?" or the answer in Shakespeare is Timon of Athens --- or the math question is like a second grade math rules question....

[cf-62]

you can't make her subtract 8,400 from 15,700.

Tonight, the returning champion, some kind of professor at UNC, was in second place, $7000 behind but with more than half of first place.

She got the answer right, while the leader is moping because he got it wrong.

But she only bet $4,000 - so he won anyway.

That's not math challenged - that's just week play.

[gus]

you can't make her subtract 8,400 from 15,700.

Tonight, the returning champion, some kind of professor at UNC, was in second place, $7000 behind but with more than half of first place.

She got the answer right, while the leader is moping because he got it wrong.

But she only bet $4,000 - so he won anyway.

That's not math challenged - that's just week play.

wow.

If anyone's curious, she only had a 19% chance of winning with an optimal bet, and a 0% chance of winning with the one she made.

[weezie]

Matt Jackson back with the beat down. Steaming into the Tourney of Champs! Fist pumping and weird waving all the way.
He's a kook, he is.

[snowdenscold]

Yesterday's final response by Alex Jacobs (who had a runaway) of "What is Aleve?" had my wife and I laughing hysterically.

For those unaware, an Aleve ad almost always plays right before FJ, but they do it in such a way where at first glance you think the real FJ is beginning, and it ends with Alex J's answer. That's pretty awesome of him to call that out (though I'm not sure if the other Alex - Trebek that is - got the joke, as he probably doesn't watch the actual broadcasts).

[snowdenscold]

OK I realized I was running my analysis before on ALL games, whereas it's really only useful to consider regular season games, and not any special weeks.
Tournaments involving wildcard spots, little kids making silly bets, celebrities playing for charity, etc. all introduce bogus data when trying to determine how one should approach a regular season game as a contestant.

So, I ignored games containing the following phrases:

"teen tournament",
"international championship",
"celebrity <i>jeopardy!</i>",
"kids week",
"college championship",
"back to school week",
"million dollar masters",
"families of freedom",
"tournament of champions",
"power players week",
"million dollar celebrity",
"the ibm challenge",
"teachers tournament",
"battle of the decades",
" - super jeopardy"

This cut out about 20% of my games, so I was left with 3,689 regular season games (as best I could tell), with 3,647 not containing ties heading into FJ.

I will post more detailed analysis later, but first thing I looked at (for non-runaway games) is the % of time the leader made a "cover bet" / "shut out bet" (i.e. guarantees a win if they get FJ correct).

Leader made cover bet
...Crushes: 97.3% [728/748] (!! This should be 100% - I guess some people cramped up on their math)
2/3 games: 87.2% [362/415]
3/4 games: 86.2% [231/268]
4/5 games: 80.6% [941/1167]
...
Total non-runaway (i.e. weighted average): 90.7%

[NashvilleDevil]

you can't make her subtract 8,400 from 15,700.

Tonight, the returning champion, some kind of professor at UNC, was in second place, $7000 behind but with more than half of first place.

She got the answer right, while the leader is moping because he got it wrong.

But she only bet $4,000 - so he won anyway.

That's not math challenged - that's just week play.

She was saving her timeouts.

[Turk]

I remembered being blown away by all the math / data crunching in this thread and thought I'd give it a bump when I tripped over the link below.

There was a recent Jeopardy game where the winner had $1, evidently the second time this has happened.
Once, three people flamed out and all wound up with $0.

https://www.theringer.com/tv/2017/10/18/16498400/jeopardy-manny-one-dollar

(Also includes bonus snide comments directed at both Mr. Trebek and assorted contestants. I was thoroughly entertained.)

"Never get involved in a land quiz in Asia!!"

[rsvman]

I remembered being blown away by all the math / data crunching in this thread and thought I'd give it a bump when I tripped over the link below.

There was a recent Jeopardy game where the winner had $1, evidently the second time this has happened.
Once, three people flamed out and all wound up with $0.

https://www.theringer.com/tv/2017/10/18/16498400/jeopardy-manny-one-dollar

(Also includes bonus snide comments directed at both Mr. Trebek and assorted contestants. I was thoroughly entertained.)

"Never get involved in a land quiz in Asia!!"

Entertaining article. Thanks for the link.

[JasonEvans]

I remembered being blown away by all the math / data crunching in this thread and thought I'd give it a bump when I tripped over the link below.

There was a recent Jeopardy game where the winner had $1, evidently the second time this has happened.
Once, three people flamed out and all wound up with $0.

https://www.theringer.com/tv/2017/10/18/16498400/jeopardy-manny-one-dollar

(Also includes bonus snide comments directed at both Mr. Trebek and assorted contestants. I was thoroughly entertained.)

"Never get involved in a land quiz in Asia!!"

It is clear that you are not reading the "Did You See That" thread (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?38349-Did-you-see-that-!-!&p=1007401#post1007401) ;)

[brevity]

Catching up on the DVR. Did anyone else see the recent episode where Alex Trebek twice referred to contestant Austin Rogers as “Austin Rivers”? He acknowledged the errors before Final and was complimentary to both.

[Turk]

Given the recent domination of James the Robot and his relatively rare board "strategery", I thought I'd give this a bump...

I remain impressed by the analysis upstream...

[weezie]

Well he keeps on crushing the competitors. It's hilarious!