TiVo Community Jeopardy: Just Noticed This
Forum Jump
09-27-2014, 12:51 PM   #421
Stephen Tu
Registered User

Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
 Originally Posted by astrohip #1 had \$18,900. #2 had \$18,200. All she needs to wager is enough to beat him if he's wrong. #2 generally assumes if #1 gets it correct, he will wager enough to win. If he doesn't, he wimped out (or had a specific strategy in mind). So she should bet \$701. If he is correct, she's out. But if he is wrong, she wins! Instead she wagered all of it; had he been wrong, she would have lost anyway.
What's correct for her to wager, if she assumes #1 is betting to guarantee winning, is dependent on #3's status, not \$701. \$701 is only necessary if you think there is a significant chance of #1 betting nothing, which I don't think I've ever seen. People like to control their own destiny and even if the topic is out of your wheelhouse often you can work it out from the clue.

If #3 was not in the game any longer, #2 can rationally bet anywhere from \$0 to \$16800 if #1 is assumed to bet to cover the win with \$1 win if both right. There's no reason to bet exactly \$701.

Quote:
 He bet for a tie, which makes no sense. Her bet in hindsight worked, but he had no reason to bet for a tie, he could have won this game outright.
Uh, how much did #3 have, and how much did #1 bet? Not sure what you meant by "he bet for a tie".

If you meant that #1 bet to tie #2 if she bet it all, so 17500 instead of 17501, that actually makes perfect sense from #1's perspective. If #2 knows this is #1's strategy, this gives her incentive to bet it all, since then if both find the correct "question", which is not uncommon, both come back and have won quite a lot of money. If #2 knows #1 always bets to not tie, then she has no incentive to bet it all, and should indeed bet just to cover #3, usually a small number in this situation. If #1 is known to bet for the tie, and can get #2 to bet all to cater to the "both right" situation, he gets to recover the winning position in the "everyone wrong" situation (if #3 isn't a factor). That's #1's incentive to bet for the tie, inducing an all-in from #2. For #2, it becomes a question of whether both right or both wrong is more likely, and also betting all wins you a lot more money in the "I'm right, #1 is wrong" situation.

Betting for the tie should become more common after the Arthur Chu publicity made the logic behind this strategy more publicized.

 09-27-2014, 07:15 PM #422 spartanstew Thanks 4 the Update     Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Wylie, Texas Posts: 8,681 Yep, if I were in the lead, I would almost always bet for the tie (and not \$1 more). __________________ "the dream never dies, just the dreamer"
09-28-2014, 01:20 AM   #423
rifleman69
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 822
Quote:
 Originally Posted by astrohip http://thefinalwager.co/ Especially this: http://thefinalwager.co/2013/09/17/h...ardy-part-one/ #1 had \$18,900. #2 had \$18,200. All she needs to wager is enough to beat him if he's wrong. #2 generally assumes if #1 gets it correct, he will wager enough to win. If he doesn't, he wimped out (or had a specific strategy in mind). In general, if #2 has more than 2/3 of #1's money going into FJ, #2 wagers \$1 more than the difference. This will give #2 the win if both lose, or if #2 is correct and #1 is wrong. So she should bet \$701. If he is correct, she's out. But if he is wrong, she wins! Instead she wagered all of it; had he been wrong, she would have lost anyway. He bet for a tie, which makes no sense. Her bet in hindsight worked, but he had no reason to bet for a tie, he could have won this game outright.
Uh, you still didn't answer the question. She was #2 and bet it all...you're simply basing your conclusion on #1's bet which has nothing to do with #2's bet.

09-28-2014, 01:22 AM   #424
rifleman69
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 822
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Stephen Tu What's correct for her to wager, if she assumes #1 is betting to guarantee winning, is dependent on #3's status, not \$701. \$701 is only necessary if you think there is a significant chance of #1 betting nothing, which I don't think I've ever seen. People like to control their own destiny and even if the topic is out of your wheelhouse often you can work it out from the clue. If #3 was not in the game any longer, #2 can rationally bet anywhere from \$0 to \$16800 if #1 is assumed to bet to cover the win with \$1 win if both right. There's no reason to bet exactly \$701. Uh, how much did #3 have, and how much did #1 bet? Not sure what you meant by "he bet for a tie". If you meant that #1 bet to tie #2 if she bet it all, so 17500 instead of 17501, that actually makes perfect sense from #1's perspective. If #2 knows this is #1's strategy, this gives her incentive to bet it all, since then if both find the correct "question", which is not uncommon, both come back and have won quite a lot of money. If #2 knows #1 always bets to not tie, then she has no incentive to bet it all, and should indeed bet just to cover #3, usually a small number in this situation. If #1 is known to bet for the tie, and can get #2 to bet all to cater to the "both right" situation, he gets to recover the winning position in the "everyone wrong" situation (if #3 isn't a factor). That's #1's incentive to bet for the tie, inducing an all-in from #2. For #2, it becomes a question of whether both right or both wrong is more likely, and also betting all wins you a lot more money in the "I'm right, #1 is wrong" situation. Betting for the tie should become more common after the Arthur Chu publicity made the logic behind this strategy more publicized.
Yep, your assessment (and mine) make more sense.

 11-17-2014, 08:28 PM #425 astrohip Stuart F     Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Houston & Brenham TX Posts: 7,526 Sorry for not posting this sooner, last week started the annual Tournament of Champions, with the quarterfinal games. Today was the first of the three semi's, and Thur/Fri the finals. Here are the results from last week: Winners: 1: Ben Ingram: \$16,100 + \$701 = \$16,801 2: Arthur Chu: \$21,000 + \$0 = \$21,000 3: Joshua Brakhage: \$11,600 + \$4,606 = \$16,206 4: Terry O'Shea: \$8,800 + \$8,400 = \$17,200 5: Jared Hall: \$9,800 + \$7,000 = \$16,800 Wild Cards: 1: Sandie Baker: \$9,000 + \$6,500 = \$15,500 2: Mark Japinga: \$13,900 + \$1,103 = \$15,003 3: Rebecca Rider: \$6,600 + \$5,000 = \$11,600 4: Julia Collins: \$16,200 - \$7,100 = \$9,100 Eliminated: 1: Rani Peffer: \$3,800 + \$3,799 = \$7,599 2: Jim Coury: \$2,800 + \$2,800 = \$5,600 3: Sarah McNitt: \$8,600 - \$8,100 = \$500 4: Andrew Moore: \$5,200 - \$5,199 = \$1 5: John Pearson: \$8,400 - \$8,400 = \$0 6: Drew Horwood: \$-800 (did not play Final) Today's contestants: Joshua Brakhage, Terry O'Shea, Julia Collins Great game today, all three deserving champs. Very interesting betting strategy for FJ. I'll hide the winner for now... Spoiler: Julia Collins
 11-22-2014, 12:41 AM #426 rifleman69 Registered User   Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 822 Good finish to the tourney this evening. Smart betting won the tourney, tough FJ tonight though.
 11-22-2014, 09:09 AM #427 astrohip Stuart F     Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Houston & Brenham TX Posts: 7,526 Agree, great tourney. Three deserving finalists. My memory may be hazy, but I think Ben was the only one to get a FJ correct (Thursday's). So for all of Arthur & Julia's strategies (and Ben for that matter), it came down to getting FJ correct. One time. Interesting that Arthur commented on the hate (my word, not his). Strong rumors abound that TPTB are thinking of changing the rules for tied games.
11-22-2014, 09:11 AM   #428
astrohip
Stuart F

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston & Brenham TX
Posts: 7,526
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rifleman69 tough FJ tonight though.
Incredibly tough. Three super champions, not one got it. I'll guess this might poll below 20% on the jboard. Maybe even single digits {GASP}

11-22-2014, 11:05 AM   #429
markymark_ctown
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: C-Town
Posts: 6,948
Quote:
 Originally Posted by astrohip Agree, great tourney. Three deserving finalists. My memory may be hazy, but I think Ben was the only one to get a FJ correct (Thursday's).
The FJ he missed on Friday was the first one he has missed in all his competitions. Something like 12 for 13 on FJ's overall. Impressive.

11-22-2014, 03:43 PM   #430
trainman
Nice to see you

Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA, USA
Posts: 9,342
Quote:
 Originally Posted by astrohip Strong rumors abound that TPTB are thinking of changing the rules for tied games.
More than a rumor: reports from contestants who have been taping recently say that they've now extended the tournament tiebreaker rule to all games -- that means there will be a tiebreaker clue if necessary, with the first contestant to ring in and answer correctly named that day's champion and keeping their winnings, and the other one leaving with the second-place cash prize.
__________________
trainman is
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

11-22-2014, 08:21 PM   #431
astrohip
Stuart F

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston & Brenham TX
Posts: 7,526
Quote:
 Originally Posted by astrohip Incredibly tough. Three super champions, not one got it. I'll guess this might poll below 20% on the jboard. Maybe even single digits {GASP}
So far, Friday's FJ is polling at 14%. Typical FJ is anywhere from 40 to 80%.

And the number of people who missed all five FJ this week (and will admit it) is 24%. That's usually in the single digits.

They really ramped up the difficulty level for the champs.

11-22-2014, 08:22 PM   #432
astrohip
Stuart F

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston & Brenham TX
Posts: 7,526
Quote:
 Originally Posted by trainman More than a rumor: reports from contestants who have been taping recently say that they've now extended the tournament tiebreaker rule to all games -- that means there will be a tiebreaker clue if necessary, with the first contestant to ring in and answer correctly named that day's champion and keeping their winnings, and the other one leaving with the second-place cash prize.
Works for me!

Forum Jump