Anybody watching Jeopardy?

[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?

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?!

[wilson]

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

That's what I wore! But I tied my own, because this is not amateur hour.
IS00BB-2247-2.jpg

[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?

[weezie]

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

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/c...r-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.