(Spoiler Alert) Jeopardy! And Life Metaphor Question

[ExFlyBoy5]

Someone made a comment about him throwing the game on Twitter and his response was pretty good.

 

[ziggy29]

He answered correctly 97% of the time. That was his strength and his strategy was big help but IMO there really wasn't any hidden secret to his success. His holding the clicker/button firmly and with both hands was something that played well for him. He got the jump on questions fast.

Yet the winning challenger was nearly his equal on the buzzer, and she got both of the Daily Doubles in the DJ round. Add to that the fact that he got the first round's DD with no money and his usual recipe for success -- dominate the buzzer and get all the DDs to wager big -- did not fall into place for him. That was pretty much what it was going to take to beat him.

 

[kcowan]

What else could he do?

-ERD50

I think that is the lesson. He could figure out the odds and make the exact bet to maximize his chances. Had he bet it all, #3 would have had to get it wrong for him to win. Again he was playing the odds. And very quickly.

Very impressive performance. And what tripped him up was the placement of the daily doubles. I think in future the placement of them will be randomized to prevent copycat winners.

 

[ERD50]

...

Very impressive performance. And what tripped him up was the placement of the daily doubles. I think in future the placement of them will be randomized to prevent copycat winners.

I doubt it would make much difference - everyone would be on the same field. From some searching I did, there definitely are more DDs in the higher $ rows, and that's probably done to make it more exciting. A DD at $1200, $1600, or $2000 is more exciting than at $400 (if you haven't scored enough yet to make a big bet). Keeping them focused on the big $ rows does kind of double-up his strategy - he gets the big bucks from his correct responses, and then gets a higher chance of betting big on a DD as he goes for the big $$.

It seems the game would be a bit more boring with lower $ DDs.

I'm not into sports, and my son-in-law is a sports fanatic. Since I don't know a lot of details on the games, I sometimes question him about strategies and how rules affect whatever game we are discussing in a sort of analytical way. And sometimes I point out how a certain rule creates a near random result (the difference between an exciting walk-off grand slam and a routine foul ball is an inch, and there is no real skill between the two). But that's what makes it a 'game'. Without some element of chance, it gets a little boring.

Along those same lines, he could have been tripped up on his second game, and no one would have noticed him, just another player who was hot for one or two games. There really is a large element of chance in a long run like that, but of course some real expertise is needed to even have a shot at a long run. I guess that's a pretty good metaphor for life, that the OP was asking about. Yes, opportunity knocks (or not), but if you aren't prepared for it, you are not likely to benefit. And you need to position yourself in a place where opportunity is more likely.

I saw the 97% correct stat that was mentioned earlier. Wow. I have some pretty broad interests, but don't really study it like a trivia expert would, but there are a lot of tough clues. 97% is incredible. Funny thing is, even at my level, I sometimes can answer one that trips up all three players. That amazes me (not that I know it, but that they didn't!). That happened in yesterday's game, but now I don't recall the clue!

-ERD50

 

[f35phixer]

Someone has studied DD placement thlat is where he tried for them 3rd 4th rows are the USUAL places. There was one in second if I remember right....

 

[sengsational]

Here is an extensive analysis on the Final Jeopardy tactics.


The link discusses traditional strategies, then builds on those by realizing your opponent will probably follow a traditional strategy, so that allows you to do an "MF" strategy with better odds. The "MF" is potty mouth, so don't click if you don't like "bad words".


https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/06/did-james-make-the-right-final-jeopardy-bet.html

 

[ERD50]

Here is an extensive analysis on the Final Jeopardy tactics.


The link discusses traditional strategies, then builds on those by realizing your opponent will probably follow a traditional strategy, so that allows you to do an "MF" strategy with better odds. The "MF" is potty mouth, so don't click if you don't like "bad words".


https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/06/did-james-make-the-right-final-jeopardy-bet.html

That's excellent. My earlier reading confirmed that James made the 'perfect bet'. But I was also thinking along the lines of that assumption that Emma would bet enough to beat his double - what if she figured he would figure that, and do something different? I don't (usually) have such a potty mouth, so I called it the double-agent strategy.

But he takes it further and works out the numbers, and the triple-agent strategy (which could go on forever, or until they run out of time!).


-ERD50

 

[JoPeter57]

I agree with some comments that he "deliberately" did not want to win. His buzzing in, compared to the winning gal on Monday, 6/3, was slow on purpose.--and he has been a master, previously, on the buzzer. It's hard to believe that the Jeopardy "newbie" librarian from Chicago could out-buzz him consistently. $2.5 mil winnings was good enough I believe.

 

[ERD50]

I agree with some comments that he "deliberately" did not want to win. His buzzing in, compared to the winning gal on Monday, 6/3, was slow on purpose.--and he has been a master, previously, on the buzzer. It's hard to believe that the Jeopardy "newbie" librarian from Chicago could out-buzz him consistently. $2.5 mil winnings was good enough I believe.

Ya' never know, but I highly doubt it. His gambler/aggressive instinct is too strong for that.

I suppose there's a chance he really wanted to honor Ken Jennings by not exceeding his total - James already had so many records for high game $ that it's not like he hasn't locked in his place in Jeopardy history. But I'm not buying it - he wanted to go as far as he could.

-ERD50

 

[JoeWras]

Emma had a heck of a good night to beat him, and luck in drawing the daily double. She did well. After more strong games, she had a wrong answer or two last night which cost her the game and her run, which was not shabby.

E.I. she was a heck of a competitor who did everything right the night to beat him.

 

[RunningBum]

I highly doubt it too. I could be convinced to work OMD (one more day) indefinitely for his average of ~$77,000 day. Over $150K/hr, actually, and over $350K/day because 5 shows are taped in a day. I don't know too many people who wouldn't. And I would think a professional gambler's mindset would be to continue pressing an advantage, because you never know when you're going to take big losses.

It is very possible he lost his killer edge and was unintentionally less than 100%, and ran into a buzz saw opponent and bad luck with daily doubles that game. But also very possible he was at 100% and still lost. Deliberately tossed the game? I don't just doubt it, I say there's no way that happened. Did you ever see him let up at the end of a game to let someone have a chance to get back in the plus column? I didn't. He never let up a bit, he's not going to totally tank all of a sudden.

 

[ERD50]

.... Deliberately tossed the game? I don't just doubt it, I say there's no way that happened. Did you ever see him let up at the end of a game to let someone have a chance to get back in the plus column? I didn't. He never let up a bit, he's not going to totally tank all of a sudden.

I read an interview earlier today, James said that during the game, he didn't think in terms of $, he considered them "points" and he was going for the max points.

I found that interesting. I can see where it helps you stay focused on the game, and not be distracted by what those $ mean to you - just go for max points, it's a game!

I saw Emma lose in her game 3. As I mentioned, while I'm somewhat well rounded in knowledge, but far, far from a trivia expert, I'm surprised when I know a response that the players miss. But the Final that she missed, I was thinking they gave a number of clues within the clue, I was 100% certain the response was Woody Guthrie.

Steinbeck called him “just a voice and a guitar” but said his songs embodied “the will of a people to endure and fight against oppression” — Boettcher gave an incorrect answer, “A. Guthrie.”

Singer, guitar, fighting oppression? I recall the photos of W Guthrie with a guitar with the words "This machine fights fascists" written on it. And "Steinbeck" narrows the time period.

Arlo Guthrie? She's involved in library sciences, she should know the time frame of Steinbeck. I am actually embarrassed by the limited reading I've done, but I have read much of Steinbeck, and you would know the time frame just by the subject matter, even if you only know of him, or of the movies made ("Grapes of Wrath" - dust bowl).

Seems an odd one to miss. But it raises another question. Would "Who is Guthrie" be accepted? I've noticed that contestants get dinged for adding extra info if it is wrong, but not always if it is missing. Sometime in play, Alex will ask for more - recently the response needed to be Vitamin B12, someone responded "What is Vitamin B", Alex said something to indicate that more was needed, and the follow up response from the same contestant was accepted: "What is Vitamin B12".

But in the game James lost, the final answer "Who is Marlowe?" was accepted, yet James (correctly) responded "Who is Kit Marlow?". Now, what if "Kit" was wrong? Why would James add "Kit" - wouldn't "Marlow" be enough? Why risk getting that added detail wrong? From a pure optimization view, it would seem that there is no gain to adding "Kit", only potential downside.

I can see where Teddy vs Franklin, or George W vs George H is needed. But how many "Marlow"s would apply to a Shakespearean clue?

edit/add: So while Alex can ask for more during play, how does that work for Final?

-ERD50

 

[RunningBum]

I'm pretty certain one of the other contestants answered "Guthrie" and it was accepted. Last names are always accepted unless they say otherwise when reading the answer. It's always safest to give a last name.

I mix up Guthries and was thinking Arlo, but I wouldn't have written the first name. Emma was in second place, so it didn't cost her the game anyway, but it was an unfortunate unnecessary addition to her response.

 

[JoeWras]

Yep, the final jeopardy wouldn't have won it for her anyway.

Us old codgers here need to remember that (for most of us) Arlo was a contemporary, Woody was a near memory. For Emma, they are both distant history*. Easy to get mixed up.

* - Yes I know Arlo is still kicking. I saw him live about 20 years ago. Great concert.

 

[Sconie]

That guy has already made a fortune by his brilliance and professional gambling skills and retired at 27, only to come out again and pursue new challenges. There is a fascinating podcast about him on Planet Money. It will blow your mind. https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=722198188

He totally cracked Jeopardy, creating a novel approach for maximizing gains and thus shutting out competition quickly.

In other words, he doesn’t even need to do a speaking circuit.

He’s banned from Las Vegas.

Holzhauer is banned from Las Vegas?

You better not tell either Holzhauer or Las Vegas that----the Clark County Commission just recently presented him with the keys to the strip....

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...s-holzhauer-receive-key-las-vegas/3653132002/

 

[audreyh1]

Holzhauer is banned from Las Vegas?

You better not tell either Holzhauer or Las Vegas that----the Clark County Commission just recently presented him with the keys to the strip....

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...s-holzhauer-receive-key-las-vegas/3653132002/

The NPR podcast mentioned that in the past he had been banned from Las Vegas. I assumed it referred to the casinos. I may have misheard, or someone was making a silly joke. I see now that he is from Las Vegas. DH says he heard the same thing.

 

[sengsational]

In the old days with four deck shoes, you could be banned from a casino very easily...just bet $2 until the last hand in the shoe, then bet $100; even if the deck wasn't ripe, you'd get asked to leave on suspicion of counting. Now with huge shoes and continuous shufflers, they don't care.

 

[kcowan]

The NPR podcast mentioned that in the past he had been banned from Las Vegas. I assumed it referred to the casinos. I may have misheard, or someone was making a silly joke. I see now that he is from Las Vegas. DH says he heard the same thing.

On Jeopardy, he said that he was banned from the LV Casinos. They hate people who win.