Page 20 of 25 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 483
  1. #381
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Did Matt Amodio EVER not risk enough to cover a full FJ bet? I don't think so.
    Most of Matt's games were runaways, and even when he wagered a lot, he never wagered so much as to give the distant 2nd place contestant a chance if he got it wrong.

    I'll discuss tonight's episode more once I've seen it for myself. I probably shouldn't have provided that link at all, but I have a habit of doing the opposite of the DBR norm. ("The Sacramento Kings cut DJ Steward. I must have read that somewhere. Trust me on this!" I'm paraphrasing and exaggerating, but that's one of the better posts in the Dukies in the NBA 2021-2022 thread these days.)

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by brevity View Post
    Most of Matt's games were runaways, and even when he wagered a lot, he never wagered so much as to give the distant 2nd place contestant a chance if he got it wrong.

    I'll discuss tonight's episode more once I've seen it for myself. I probably shouldn't have provided that link at all, but I have a habit of doing the opposite of the DBR norm. ("The Sacramento Kings cut DJ Steward. I must have read that somewhere. Trust me on this!" I'm paraphrasing and exaggerating, but that's one of the better posts in the Dukies in the NBA 2021-2022 thread these days.)
    Right, with runaways that usually makes sense. You don't want to risk losing the game overall when you've more than doubled your opponents. And yeah, most of Matt's games were runaways. But for those that were NOT and he was in first place, I assume he would always bet to cover a full FJ wager from the other opponents. Tonight's winner did not do that, and luckily for him it didn't hurt him, but he could have very easily been in first going into FJ, gotten it right, and LOST. Matt never took that approach as far as I know (have no idea how many games were not runaways admittedly...).

  3. #383

    Was Matt off tired or ?

    I know I am a little late but on Monday when Matt lost he seemed not his usual self.

    Maybe tired? off day? not as focused or something.

    Anyone else feel the same?

    Thanks

  4. #384
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Forest Hills, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    I know I am a little late but on Monday when Matt lost he seemed not his usual self.

    Maybe tired? off day? not as focused or something.

    Anyone else feel the same?

    Thanks
    Exactly. And didn’t hit the DDs.

  5. #385
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    I know I am a little late but on Monday when Matt lost he seemed not his usual self.

    Maybe tired? off day? not as focused or something.

    Anyone else feel the same?

    Thanks
    He was definitely off his game. Almost seemed like he was over it or wanted to get back to finishing his PhD.

  6. #386
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by brevity View Post
    I'll discuss tonight's episode more once I've seen it for myself.
    Now that I've seen tonight's episode, it still makes no sense. The FJ category was Sports Legends and the clue was When Johnny Bench broke his record, this man wrote, “I always thought the record would stand until it was broken”. All three contestants responded correctly.

    Here were the scores going into FJ (and the wagers):

    Jonathan $15,800 (wagered $2,500)
    Mary $12,600 (wagered $3,300)
    Bilal $5,400 (wagered $5,395)

    As I wrote yesterday, "the 2nd place contestant needs to wager just enough to pass the leader's current score AND put the 3rd place contestant out of reach." Mary's optimal wager was $3,201 and she rounded that up to $3,300. Totally fine. She was correct and ended with $15,900, a temporary $100 lead. If he wants to win, Jonathan is locked into a wager of $9,401. Except... he didn't do that at all. He wagered a small amount of $2,500 for reasons that are unclear, but it was enough to retake the lead. So Jonathan won, but he left room for Mary to win if she had placed a more aggressive and less strategic wager.

    From the link above, the site owner commented:

    Contestants should always wager in Final Jeopardy based on the game situation and not on the category, as even in a category that looks intimidating, you could always see a clue as straightforward as this one. It always amuses me greatly to see contestants run scared from a sports category, only to see the clue go 3/3 in Final.
    If you watch the episode, you can tell that Mary and Jonathan are very animated during the closing credits. She is stunned and he looks like he got away with a crime. The show's Twitter account will sometimes post the video, with sound, of this aftermath. (For example, Monday's episode, when Matt had just lost.) I'd be interested to see if they post this one.

    By the way, in the grand tradition of Jeopardy! irony, Mary's last name is Garvey, and she lost on a baseball clue.

  7. #387
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by brevity View Post
    Now that I've seen tonight's episode, it still makes no sense. The FJ category was Sports Legends and the clue was When Johnny Bench broke his record, this man wrote, “I always thought the record would stand until it was broken”. All three contestants responded correctly.

    Here were the scores going into FJ (and the wagers):

    Jonathan $15,800 (wagered $2,500)
    Mary $12,600 (wagered $3,300)
    Bilal $5,400 (wagered $5,395)

    As I wrote yesterday, "the 2nd place contestant needs to wager just enough to pass the leader's current score AND put the 3rd place contestant out of reach." Mary's optimal wager was $3,201 and she rounded that up to $3,300. Totally fine. She was correct and ended with $15,900, a temporary $100 lead. If he wants to win, Jonathan is locked into a wager of $9,401. Except... he didn't do that at all. He wagered a small amount of $2,500 for reasons that are unclear, but it was enough to retake the lead. So Jonathan won, but he left room for Mary to win if she had placed a more aggressive and less strategic wager.

    From the link above, the site owner commented:



    If you watch the episode, you can tell that Mary and Jonathan are very animated during the closing credits. She is stunned and he looks like he got away with a crime. The show's Twitter account will sometimes post the video, with sound, of this aftermath. (For example, Monday's episode, when Matt had just lost.) I'd be interested to see if they post this one.

    By the way, in the grand tradition of Jeopardy! irony, Mary's last name is Garvey, and she lost on a baseball clue.
    Jonathan’s bet was insane. He put himself in the untenable position of being in first, getting the Final Jeopardy question right, and still losing - that’s just insane.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  8. #388
    Was I alone in thinking that the FJ question last night was not worthy of its position? Or was the staff maybe thinking that Yogi Berra references are ancient enough that most people today are not familiar with his penchant for verbal gaffes (which were at times on purpose, I suspect)?

  9. #389
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by 75Crazie View Post
    Was I alone in thinking that the FJ question last night was not worthy of its position? Or was the staff maybe thinking that Yogi Berra references are ancient enough that most people today are not familiar with his penchant for verbal gaffes (which were at times on purpose, I suspect)?
    No, you are not alone. The question was way too easy to be a Final Jeopardy question, in my opinion. Like others, I had never heard this particular quote, but the style of it was so obviously that of other famous quotes by Berra, it was hard for me to imagine that any contestant on Jeopardy would miss it.
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  10. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    Jonathan’s bet was insane. He put himself in the untenable position of being in first, getting the Final Jeopardy question right, and still losing - that’s just insane.
    Really dumb bets like Jonathan's are rare, but their existence can affect optimal FJ bet sizes. Of course the #1 priority is maximizing your chance of winning under the rational opponent assumption, because usually they are. But when a range of bet sizes meet that criterion there can be a subrange that optimizes your win chance if your opponent does something crazy, like like Jonathan way under-betting here.

    This case:
    Jonathan $15,800
    Mary $12,600
    Bilal $5,400

    Mary only has two ways to win. 1. Jonathan doesn't bet enough to force a win. 2. Jonathan misses FJ. #1 is rare, #2 isn't that rare. So she should start under the assumptions that Jonathan is rational. That means him betting 9,401+ which in turn means he has to miss for her to win.

    So the branches are (starting from Jonathan betting 9,401+ and missing, leaving him with 6,399 or less):

    If she is correct: Her bet size is irrelevant.
    If she misses and 3rd place is correct: Betting 1799 or less guarantees a win. She will have 10,801+, 3rd will have a max of 10,800 and of course Jonathan will have 6,399 or less.
    If she misses and 3rd place is incorrect: Betting 6200 or less gives her 6,400 and she wins (Jonathan rational).

    So her best bet is 1799 or less. That guarantees her a win when Jonathan misses, no matter what 3rd place does. There is no way for her to adjust for Jonathan being irrational without exposing herself to a loss when 3rd place is correct. That last scenario is more likely than an irrational Jonathan so that is the one she has to cover for.
    However where in the 0-1799 should she bet? It doesn't matter if Jonathan is rational but it does for some of his irrational bets. If she misses FJ a 0 bet does the best against an irrational bet. If she gets FJ then 1799 does best vs irrational. I don't have the energy to figure out which irrational bet sizes matter, but on first glance she should bet 1799 if she thinks she is >50%+ to be correct in that category and bet 0 if she thinks she is less than 50%.

  11. #391
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Franklin TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    Really dumb bets like Jonathan's are rare, but their existence can affect optimal FJ bet sizes. Of course the #1 priority is maximizing your chance of winning under the rational opponent assumption, because usually they are. But when a range of bet sizes meet that criterion there can be a subrange that optimizes your win chance if your opponent does something crazy, like like Jonathan way under-betting here.

    This case:
    Jonathan $15,800
    Mary $12,600
    Bilal $5,400

    Mary only has two ways to win. 1. Jonathan doesn't bet enough to force a win. 2. Jonathan misses FJ. #1 is rare, #2 isn't that rare. So she should start under the assumptions that Jonathan is rational. That means him betting 9,401+ which in turn means he has to miss for her to win.

    So the branches are (starting from Jonathan betting 9,401+ and missing, leaving him with 6,399 or less):

    If she is correct: Her bet size is irrelevant.
    If she misses and 3rd place is correct: Betting 1799 or less guarantees a win. She will have 10,801+, 3rd will have a max of 10,800 and of course Jonathan will have 6,399 or less.
    If she misses and 3rd place is incorrect: Betting 6200 or less gives her 6,400 and she wins (Jonathan rational).

    So her best bet is 1799 or less. That guarantees her a win when Jonathan misses, no matter what 3rd place does. There is no way for her to adjust for Jonathan being irrational without exposing herself to a loss when 3rd place is correct. That last scenario is more likely than an irrational Jonathan so that is the one she has to cover for.
    However where in the 0-1799 should she bet? It doesn't matter if Jonathan is rational but it does for some of his irrational bets. If she misses FJ a 0 bet does the best against an irrational bet. If she gets FJ then 1799 does best vs irrational. I don't have the energy to figure out which irrational bet sizes matter, but on first glance she should bet 1799 if she thinks she is >50%+ to be correct in that category and bet 0 if she thinks she is less than 50%.
    First the category was Sports LEGENDS so you know it is not an obscure answer. If you play to win the game, which is the whole point since second and third get very little, Mary has to go all in. Anything else is ridiculous. So I very much disagree that her best bet was 1799 or less. If the category was 11th century Polish painters, or some other obscure subject then I get the smaller bet. In this game you should usually assume someone will get the final answer correctly.

    I miss Matt as he clearly understood how to play the game, in addition to the fact his field of knowledge was so broad. Several players since start with the small wagers and work down the board, so if they hit the first daily double even if they double they get very little return. Any contestant on Jeopardy needs to study about how to wager. Maybe there’s a book with Jeopardy analytics!

  12. #392
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMeDoIt View Post
    First the category was Sports LEGENDS so you know it is not an obscure answer. If you play to win the game, which is the whole point since second and third get very little, Mary has to go all in. Anything else is ridiculous.
    James Holzhauer disagrees - as demonstrated by the fact that he bet like Mary when entering Final Jeopardy in a similar position. This article describes the rationale for approach taken by James (and Mary).

    https://time.com/5600227/james-holzh...eopardy-wager/

  13. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMeDoIt View Post
    First the category was Sports LEGENDS so you know it is not an obscure answer. If you play to win the game, which is the whole point since second and third get very little, Mary has to go all in. Anything else is ridiculous. So I very much disagree that her best bet was 1799 or less. If the category was 11th century Polish painters, or some other obscure subject then I get the smaller bet. In this game you should usually assume someone will get the final answer correctly.

    I miss Matt as he clearly understood how to play the game, in addition to the fact his field of knowledge was so broad. Several players since start with the small wagers and work down the board, so if they hit the first daily double even if they double they get very little return. Any contestant on Jeopardy needs to study about how to wager. Maybe there’s a book with Jeopardy analytics!
    Her best bet is a bet that gives her the highest probability of winning the game.

    Going all in gives her the highest probability of winning if, and only if, Jonathan grossly under-bets. Maybe some better Jeopardy experts can chime in here but from my watching of the show the FJ leader underbets maybe 5% of the time. Maybe it happens up to 10% of the time, but I highly doubt it that high.

    In the other 90+% of cases where Matt bets correctly her going all in will cost her the win: a) every game where Matt misses b) every game when 3rd place gets FJ correct, c) every game when 3rd place doesn't go all in. If she bets 1799 she wins every time a, b or c happens. Therefore she should bet 1799 or less.

    Now your argument is that the category is an easy one so she should bet max. But super easy questions are the worst scenario for her - she loses every time Matt is correct and bets normal. BY FAR her best hope is FJ turning out to be a stumper. Because a 1799 bet wins 100% of the time that Matt misses and makes a reasonable bet.

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by House P View Post
    James Holzhauer disagrees - as demonstrated by the fact that he bet like Mary when entering Final Jeopardy in a similar position. This article describes the rationale for approach taken by James (and Mary).

    https://time.com/5600227/james-holzh...eopardy-wager/
    Thanks for the link because James example was an exact analogue of Mary's position last night. James got his bet perfect. Mary went in the right direction but still bet too much. Her 3,300 bet put her at risk of losing to the 3rd place contestant. Any bet of 1799 or less puts him out of contention.

  15. #395
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Franklin TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    Thanks for the link because James example was an exact analogue of Mary's position last night. James got his bet perfect. Mary went in the right direction but still bet too much. Her 3,300 bet put her at risk of losing to the 3rd place contestant. Any bet of 1799 or less puts him out of contention.
    Okay I get the pure statistical analysis. But, should a contestant not consider the category and the betting tendencies of the opponents? For example Daryl Royal said correctly that when you pass a football three things can happen and two of them are bad. However a good quarterback can make his statement look stupid. So if I am playing blackjack I go with the pure odds. But Jeopardy involves not just pure odds, but the human factor. While I accept your theory, I still go with the “no guts, no glory” play. As it turns out her best play was to go all in. She didn’t and she lost. And I would place a bet she is still kicking herself in the butt.

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMeDoIt View Post
    As it turns out her best play was ...
    In poker this is called “results oriented thinking” - looking at the results of one hand and using that outcome to decide what you “should have done.” That is a fast route to going broke.

    Example: I bet someone $100 a fair die will come up a 2. Is that a smart bet? No, because it will lose 5 out of 6 times. But I’m a no guts no glory kind of guy and make the bet anyway. Now if a 2 does come up does that retroactively make my bet smart?

    It’s the same situation with Mary. Betting all-in isn’t smart because it will cost her a win in many situations (described above) and get her a win in only one rare situation - the player in first place makes a terrible betting mistake and she gets FJ right. The fact that in this one game Jon made a terrible betting mistake and she got FJ correct doesn’t retroactively make going all-in smart.

    IOW, the die came up a 2 - so what?

  17. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMeDoIt View Post
    Okay I get the pure statistical analysis. But, should a contestant not consider the category and the betting tendencies of the opponents? For example Daryl Royal said correctly that when you pass a football three things can happen and two of them are bad. However a good quarterback can make his statement look stupid. So if I am playing blackjack I go with the pure odds. But Jeopardy involves not just pure odds, but the human factor. While I accept your theory, I still go with the “no guts, no glory” play. As it turns out her best play was to go all in. She didn’t and she lost. And I would place a bet she is still kicking herself in the butt.
    I respect your points but the football quote was from Woody Hayes of Ohio State who long disdained the pass.

  18. #398
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    In poker this is called “results oriented thinking” - looking at the results of one hand and using that outcome to decide what you “should have done.” That is a fast route to going broke.

    Example: I bet someone $100 a fair die will come up a 2. Is that a smart bet? No, because it will lose 5 out of 6 times. But I’m a no guts no glory kind of guy and make the bet anyway. Now if a 2 does come up does that retroactively make my bet smart?

    It’s the same situation with Mary. Betting all-in isn’t smart because it will cost her a win in many situations (described above) and get her a win in only one rare situation - the player in first place makes a terrible betting mistake and she gets FJ right. The fact that in this one game Jon made a terrible betting mistake and she got FJ correct doesn’t retroactively make going all-in smart.

    IOW, the die came up a 2 - so what?
    So — no calling pot-sized bets when drawing to a gutshot?

    “Pot Odds”
    “Fútbol is life!” — Dani Rojas, Richmond Greyhounds

  19. #399
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Franklin TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    In poker this is called “results oriented thinking” - looking at the results of one hand and using that outcome to decide what you “should have done.” That is a fast route to going broke.

    Example: I bet someone $100 a fair die will come up a 2. Is that a smart bet? No, because it will lose 5 out of 6 times. But I’m a no guts no glory kind of guy and make the bet anyway. Now if a 2 does come up does that retroactively make my bet smart?

    It’s the same situation with Mary. Betting all-in isn’t smart because it will cost her a win in many situations (described above) and get her a win in only one rare situation - the player in first place makes a terrible betting mistake and she gets FJ right. The fact that in this one game Jon made a terrible betting mistake and she got FJ correct doesn’t retroactively make going all-in smart.

    IOW, the die came up a 2 - so what?
    Apples to oranges. I already said in blackjack you simply play the odds, no guessing involved. But humans making decisions are not cards or dice. We see people make incorrect betting decisions all the time on Jeopardy. I get your point, but the winner misplayed and deserved to lose. And back to the topic, Sports Legends, an obviously easy topic unless you know nothing about sports or in this case linguistics. Sometimes you can make a reasoned assumption that folks are going to get the right answer, so you should go all in. I know neither of us convinced the other, just like whether you go for it on 4th and 1. But you can probably guess what I would do as a coach.

  20. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    So — no calling pot-sized bets when drawing to a gutshot?

    “Pot Odds”
    Haha - you get it exactly!

Similar Threads

  1. Jeopardy
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 325
    Last Post: 12-04-2020, 02:13 PM
  2. Double Jeopardy?
    By Jeffrey in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-30-2019, 12:32 PM
  3. Anybody watching Jeopardy?
    By weezie in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 04-22-2019, 09:36 PM
  4. Swahili Category in Jeopardy
    By Neals384 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-24-2018, 10:43 PM
  5. Final Jeopardy
    By madscavenger in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-03-2015, 07:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •