Jeopardy watch....

[OldPhiKap]

8C08A1D9-F6D4-4F5F-B70A-0D0BE4437C46.jpg

[Skydog]

Answer: This maxim applies to today’s discussion of Jeopardy.
“What is … if it ain’t broke don’t fix it?”

The game is fantastic just as is. Start changing basic rules and it’s a different game, a different show, and lots of viewers lose interest. I do believe the consistency in format and rules over the decades is part of the appeal of Jeopardy.

You needn’t worry - I’m pretty sure Jeopardy rules won’t change due to a DBR discussion. And I agree with your premise- a calming consistency is a major part of it’s (and Trebek’s) success.

But my point is still valid - winning Jeopardy is often as much about buzzer speed as it is about general knowledge. And that “familiar feature” does inject a bias (I’m sure unintentional) in favor of younger, male contestants.

Here is what the google taught me about the gender component:

“A review of the literature on the influence of gender on RT shows that in almost every age group, males have faster RTs as compared to females, and female disadvantage is not reduced by practice.” [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/]

As far as age - many studies have shown that reaction times peak around age 24 and become a bit slower every year after that. No biggie when its a 28yo vs a 32yo, but that factor can add up over a couple decades. Obviously there are individual differences and practice helps. Many contestants have talked about creating fake buzzers and practicing at home in preparation. If you are a 55 year old female you might dominate the buzzer race, but its going to be harder for you than the young gamer you are playing against.

So the game is a “little broke” if your ideal is a level playing field for testing wits. But yes it would be difficult to “fix” without changing it into a quite different game.

[Neals384]

You needn’t worry - I’m pretty sure Jeopardy rules won’t change due to a DBR discussion. And I agree with your premise- a calming consistency is a major part of it’s (and Trebek’s) success.

But my point is still valid - winning Jeopardy is often as much about buzzer speed as it is about general knowledge. And that “familiar feature” does inject a bias (I’m sure unintentional) in favor of younger, male contestants.

Here is what the google taught me about the gender component:

“A review of the literature on the influence of gender on RT shows that in almost every age group, males have faster RTs as compared to females, and female disadvantage is not reduced by practice.” [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/]

As far as age - many studies have shown that reaction times peak around age 24 and become a bit slower every year after that. No biggie when its a 28yo vs a 32yo, but that factor can add up over a couple decades. Obviously there are individual differences and practice helps. Many contestants have talked about creating fake buzzers and practicing at home in preparation. If you are a 55 year old female you might dominate the buzzer race, but its going to be harder for you than the young gamer you are playing against.

So the game is a “little broke” if your ideal is a level playing field for testing wits. But yes it would be difficult to “fix” without changing it into a quite different game.

May explain why I'm often tempted to yell "brake" when Mrs Neals is driving.

[rsvman]

You needn’t worry - I’m pretty sure Jeopardy rules won’t change due to a DBR discussion. And I agree with your premise- a calming consistency is a major part of it’s (and Trebek’s) success.

But my point is still valid - winning Jeopardy is often as much about buzzer speed as it is about general knowledge. And that “familiar feature” does inject a bias (I’m sure unintentional) in favor of younger, male contestants.

Here is what the google taught me about the gender component:

“A review of the literature on the influence of gender on RT shows that in almost every age group, males have faster RTs as compared to females, and female disadvantage is not reduced by practice.” [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/]

As far as age - many studies have shown that reaction times peak around age 24 and become a bit slower every year after that. No biggie when its a 28yo vs a 32yo, but that factor can add up over a couple decades. Obviously there are individual differences and practice helps. Many contestants have talked about creating fake buzzers and practicing at home in preparation. If you are a 55 year old female you might dominate the buzzer race, but its going to be harder for you than the young gamer you are playing against.

So the game is a “little broke” if your ideal is a level playing field for testing wits. But yes it would be difficult to “fix” without changing it into a quite different game.

The problem with this analysis is that it’s not about how quickly you can press the buzzer. As noted above, if you buzz in just a little tiny bit too soon, you are locked out, and you can’t buzz in again for a short period of time. So it is more about TIMING than it is about REACTION TIME.

If I remember correctly, way back in the old days didn’t they let people buzz in whenever they wanted? And if they did, didn’t they stop reading the clue and let them answer? Seems like sometimes they answered wrong because they didn’t know exactly where the question was going. After that he would read the rest of the clue and the other two contestants were allowed to buzz in. Maybe I’m confusing it with another game show? I definitely remember this…..that the person reading the clue would say something like “incorrect; I will now finish reading the clue,” or something like that. Does anybody else remember this?

[Skydog]

The problem with this analysis is that it’s not about how quickly you can press the buzzer. As noted above, if you buzz in just a little tiny bit too soon, you are locked out, and you can’t buzz in again for a short period of time. So it is more about TIMING than it is about REACTION TIME.

If I remember correctly, way back in the old days didn’t they let people buzz in whenever they wanted? And if they did, didn’t they stop reading the clue and let them answer? Seems like sometimes they answered wrong because they didn’t know exactly where the question was going. After that he would read the rest of the clue and the other two contestants were allowed to buzz in. Maybe I’m confusing it with another game show? I definitely remember this…..that the person reading the clue would say something like “incorrect; I will now finish reading the clue,” or something like that. Does anybody else remember this?

(Obviously Im discussing this for fun, not because it matters.)

Well if two people have the exact same timing (recognize auditory trigger at same time) then the one with the faster RT (time from hearing stimulus until button is pressed) will buzz in first. The article I cited is actually very good. I looks at both visual and auditory reaction times (auditory is faster) and further breaks the timing of the process down into part. It gives time from sensing stimuli to reaching cortex, time from cortex to spine, from spine to fingers. It claims the muscle contraction speed is equal for the genders but that the start of the muscle contraction on average for males is quicker. The average difference was only 221ms vs 235ms. That might be nothing or it might be an eternity in a button pressing contest - honestly don’t know. I also don’t know how much their “timing skills” differ (it has to be milliseconds, right?), how many fail because they buzz too early vs too late, etc. So I don’t know how significant that rt advantage is. All I know is that if two people sense an auditory stimulus at the same time, the one with the faster auditory reaction time will win.

I’m no Jeopardy expert. I watch in spurts - two weeks I’ll watch all episodes, then not watch for a month or two. But I don’t remember any women dominating the buzzer like some of the men have (like current guy). But I also don’t remember what I had for breakfast.

So of course I can’t answer your question if they used to let them buzz in early. I think they did, but I may be making that up.

[Bluedog]

The problem with this analysis is that it’s not about how quickly you can press the buzzer. As noted above, if you buzz in just a little tiny bit too soon, you are locked out, and you can’t buzz in again for a short period of time. So it is more about TIMING than it is about REACTION TIME.

If I remember correctly, way back in the old days didn’t they let people buzz in whenever they wanted? And if they did, didn’t they stop reading the clue and let them answer? Seems like sometimes they answered wrong because they didn’t know exactly where the question was going. After that he would read the rest of the clue and the other two contestants were allowed to buzz in. Maybe I’m confusing it with another game show? I definitely remember this…..that the person reading the clue would say something like “incorrect; I will now finish reading the clue,” or something like that. Does anybody else remember this?

Season 1 in 1984 you could buzz in whenever after the club was introduced. At the beginning of season 2 in 1985 they changed it to when Trebek finished reading. The intent was to make it more enjoyable for viewers and also allow them to "play along."

[DU82]

Season 1 in 1984 you could buzz in whenever after the club was introduced. At the beginning of season 2 in 1985 they changed it to when Trebek finished reading. The intent was to make it more enjoyable for viewers and also allow them to "play along."

I believe you could buzz in anytime in the original version, with Art Fleming. Remember the contestants can read the answer on the board. I don't think Art or Alex stopped reading the clue just because somebody buzzed in. (Been a long while since I saw those seasons, though.)

I know other game shows with just verbal questions would stop reading, then if the answer was incorrect the host would continue with the rest of the clue. The Chase, for instance, on pushbacks, if the chaser answers too quickly and the question's worded differently than they expected.

[MChambers]

Can’t believe I’m the first to post about Vol. 1 of the Lost Mike Richards tapes. Matt Amodio continues to roll, winning more $60K Monday.

I continue to be glad Mike Richards will not be the permanent host. Wonder if they will need more guest hosts?

[Skydog]

Can’t believe I’m the first to post about Vol. 1 of the Lost Mike Richards tapes. Matt Amodio continues to roll, winning more $60K Monday.

I continue to be glad Mike Richards will not be the permanent host. Wonder if they will need more guest hosts?

They are in a big axx mess now. I guess if Rogers has many more games like last week he’ll be available.

[aimo]

Apparently, Jennings and Blossom will tag-team through the end of the year.

https://abc11.com/jeopardy-host-gues...ings/11024894/

[budwom]

for the little that it is worth, I think Richards has been fine, but as they say, he's water over the bridge and under the dam at this point.

[brevity]

Matt Amodio passed Julia Collins yesterday and is now a 21-day champion, alone in 3rd place for both winnings and episodes during his original run on Jeopardy!

Name	Winnings	Episodes
Ken Jennings	$2,522,700	75
James Holzhauer	$2,464,216	33
Matt Amodio	$740,001	22* (active)
Jason Zuffranieri	$534,496	20
David Madden	$432,400	20
Julia Collins	$429,100	21
Matt Jackson	$413,612	14
Austin Rogers	$413,000	13

[aimo]

I'm tired of Matt. Someone else needs to win.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

8C08A1D9-F6D4-4F5F-B70A-0D0BE4437C46.jpg

Not true. That "order" is precisely what Dr. Beverly Crusher had to do in order to become a bridge office. (I saw that episode on BBC America a few weeks ago). During her "test", she had to order Geordi la Forge (aka Levar Burton) to do something that would most likely be fatal in order to save the ship. As Spock famously said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

[rthomas]

I'm tired of Matt. Someone else needs to win.

But, he has dealt with winning though all of the trials and tribulations. Which I give him credit.

[duke74]

I'm tired of Matt. Someone else needs to win.

I'm not. Quirky and sometimes annoying, but credit where credit is due.

I'd take Duke winning streaks like this any day.

[budwom]

Matt with the gutsy true daily double in double jeopardy last night..

[Skydog]

Recent big winners, and logic, have pretty much proved that gutsy play is the only smart way to go. I get so frustrated by players who are a doing well answer wise but their betting strategy is atrocious.

Made up example with guesstimates to illustrate point:

Say that midgame they get to a daily double with 6k ot 8k and opponents are close. Then they bet 2k? Thats just dumb. They are worried about the risk of going to 0 but they aren’t weighing odds correctly.

“Playing it safe” isn’t really playing it safe. First a smallish bet means they are still in jeopardy (pun not intended) even if they get answer right. A 2k win might say up their win % from 33% to 40%. If they miss it drops to say 20%.

But if they do a true daily double, the whole say 6 or 8k, and get it right then their win probability goes up to maybe 70-80%. If they miss their win prob drops to 5%.

So using these numbers if you bet small you can gain approx 7 pp win prob (33 to 40%) and if you miss you lose 13 pp (33 to 20%).
Small risk, and even smaller reward.

Bet big, get it right and you gain 42pp (33 to 75%), miss and you lose 28pp (33 to 5%). Med risk, large reward.

Add in the fact they likely picked the category of the double jeopardy so if they are decent they probably get the answer right maybe 80% of time and now the decision isn’t remotely close. Even if my #’s are a bit off the principle still holds. Bet big every time! (ok, some very few exceptions)

The main point is that “smaller bet = safer” is flat out wrong. Big bets are safer because they create a much shorter (=safer) route to winning. And especially if you are playing against someone as good as Matt (buzzer and knowledge). Bet everything each time and you just may beat him. Bet small and you have little chance.

[budwom]

^ yes, I've seen a lot of examples in the last few months where contestants who are trailing substantially fail to bet enough to put themselves back in contention. It defies logic. Maybe they're bad at math...

[rthomas]

For LeVar fans: