Idiotic Jeopardy wagers (no spoilers before 6 EST) - Page 156

I don't get it. The calculator's own suggestions for B and C make it impossible for C to win if both follow the calculator's recommendations. Do we agree on this?

Plus I don't see where it assumes second will wager everything. It says wager no more than 5399.

Quote

03-24-2014 , 10:52 PM

#3877

El Diablo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 70,770

Kv,

Given your analysis, why do you recommend A betting to cover vs betting 0 and coasting to a guaranteed win?

Quote

03-24-2014 , 11:19 PM

#3878

Kvitlekh

adept

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 882

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Kv,

Given your analysis, why do you recommend A betting to cover vs betting 0 and coasting to a guaranteed win?

It's not guaranteed.

The same reason that it is always assumed that A will bet to cover B's double up, and then B using that logic to not bet too much, so as to win when A gets it wrong. Of course as A you can always go one level deeper and bet small, anticipating B's bet. But BO has dictated (and I'm inclined to agree) that it is unacceptable to be in the lead, get FJ, and still lose. Therefore I assume A to bet enough to cover B.

The rest of the wagers are calculated under this assumption.

Regardless, I still think the calculator's suggestions make no sense. Because in their scenario there is no way whatsoever for C to win.

Quote

03-24-2014 , 11:23 PM

#3879

ntnBO

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,697

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kvitlekh

I don't get it. The calculator's own suggestions for B and C make it impossible for C to win if both follow the calculator's recommendations. Do we agree on this?

Yes.

Quote:

Plus I don't see where it assumes second will wager everything. It says wager no more than 5399.

C's wager is based solely on A's cover wager, therefore from that point of view it is assuming B will wager everything.

In the end the perfect wagering choices are obvious. A wagers to cover B, B wagers 1400 to both cover C and a 0 wager by A. Those are simple. Then C has to make a choice, will B bet big or small. Once that's decided C wagers either everything or nothing.

Quote

03-24-2014 , 11:29 PM

#3880

Kvitlekh

adept

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 882

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntnBO

A wagers to cover B, B wagers 1400 to both cover C and a 0 wager by A. Those are simple. Then C has to make a choice, will B bet big or small. Once that's decided C wagers either everything or nothing.

If B's wager is obvious at no more than 1400, how can C have a choice between 0 and all in? Doesn't 0 automatically lose to B's obvious 1400 wager?

Quote

03-25-2014 , 12:01 AM

#3881

El Diablo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 70,770

All,

Also, thoughts on dude's daily double bet?

I think scores were approx 4400, 11600, 13800 at the time with leader getting DD in category recent books or something. He bets something like 2000.

Question was like what 2012 book goes "inside" this "America's most secretive religion."

I wasn't familiar with the book, but how do you not guess Scientology there? Seemed suuuuuper easy/obvious. He guessed wrong, Mormonism.

Anyway, what's your DD in that spot?

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:00 AM

#3882

ntnBO

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,697

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kvitlekh

If B's wager is obvious at no more than 1400, how can C have a choice between 0 and all in? Doesn't 0 automatically lose to B's obvious 1400 wager?

Sigh. It's obvious to those with a clue, but what percentage of Jeopardy contestants have a friggin' clue on proper wagering?

Your error is assuming contestants always make the proper wager. C has a binary decision, will B wager stupid or smart? Then makes the appropriate wager. But just because it's binary doesn't make it easy.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:23 AM

#3883

Kvitlekh

adept

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 882

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntnBO

Ok, let's talk about the mathematically correct bets here. Assume perfect play (as much as possible) from all players. Do you agree that player C should move in?

If yes, then how does the calculator's bets make any sense?

Plus, i thought you always make the theoretically best decision. And that this involves assuming perfect play on the part(s) of your opponent(s). Otherwise many seemingly boneheaded plays can be justified as part of a strategy designed to exploit anticipated poor strategy.

Does this make sense?

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:36 AM

#3884

PocketInfinities

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,942

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Diablo

I thought the 2000 bet was excessive (and devoid of any strategy). IIRC there was only a 1600 clue and a 2000 clue remaining. Since he chose to not wager a large enough amount to make it a runaway, the next best case is to wager such that he's guaranteed the top score after DJ. So, if the woman was to get both of the next clues correct, she'd have 11600+1600+2000=15200; thus the max DD wager should be 15200-13800=1400.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 06:12 AM

#3885

danspartan

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,851

If we are talking pure game theory, then we assume rational play by others and C bets it all.

However, if we are attentive poker players, we realize that players in B's position have frequently not played rationally. We do the maths and make an estimate of how often we need to assume a too big bet by B based on answer combination frequency, general observations about jeopardy players, and any specific read we have on this particular B.

I don think its a slam dunk, but I think I'm more likely to win by betting 0 on stupidity.

Slim>slimmer>>>>J! Calculator

Quote

03-25-2014 , 06:15 AM

#3886

danspartan

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,851

Quote:

Originally Posted by PocketInfinities

Agreed. And a piece of evidence that B is not a rational bettor for C's FJ decision.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 06:50 AM

#3887

riverboatking

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 23,989

2nd place going all in seemed absurdly terrible.
3rd going all in seemed awful as well.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 02:58 PM

#3888

raheem

temp-banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 2,235

I wouldn't call either of their bet absurdly terrible because there are a few different strategies, and also there are three different players still in it. Like for example if Chu was leading the game, the second player absolutely should go all-in (knowing Chu offers a tie). It's a mind game partially.

That being said, I prolly would call 2nd player's bet pretty bad.

idk like it's just so complicated

Last edited by raheem; 03-25-2014 at 03:03 PM.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 07:43 PM

#3889

Tyler Durden

banned

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 15,299

The part where Alex interviews the contestants is the most awkward 45 seconds of television ever.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 07:57 PM

#3890

True North

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 23,703

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

The part where Alex interviews the contestants is the most awkward 45 seconds of television ever.

It doesn't help when the contestants are impossibly stiff and nervous like the middle guy.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 07:59 PM

#3891

D104

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 18,255

Wow, that was a terrible set of contestants.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 08:15 PM

#3892

SuchASimpleMachine

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 287

Quote:

Originally Posted by D104

Wow, that was a terrible set of contestants.

Sure was, and, man, there were a lot of corrections and changes that episode.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 08:19 PM

#3893

Tyler Durden

banned

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 15,299

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

The part where Alex interviews the contestants is the most awkward 45 seconds of television ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True North

It doesn't help when the contestants are impossibly stiff and nervous like the middle guy.

Yeah but I didn't just mean tonight. Alex is a terrible interviewer. You can tell that he doesn't really give a **** about how the contestants answer his question. Absolutely no sincerity on his part.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 08:20 PM

#3894

danspartan

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,851

As Charles Barkley would say:

TURRIBLE!

2nd place FJ bet was mystifying, just the icing on that entire turd of a game.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 08:22 PM

#3895

Dudd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 54,241

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

The part where Alex interviews the contestants is the most awkward 45 seconds of television ever.

Yep, it's a horror show. I have no idea why the contestant interview has stuck around so long, Jeopardy is not a show that relies on the human interest factor.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 08:24 PM

#3896

Tyler Durden

banned

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 15,299

I didn't see the end. Did the chick from my hometown (Arlington, VA) win again?

Quote

03-25-2014 , 08:25 PM

#3897

Tyler Durden

banned

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 15,299

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudd

Yep, it's a horror show. I have no idea why the contestant interview has stuck around so long, Jeopardy is not a show that relies on the human interest factor.

"So, Stephen, it says here that you collect corn flakes shaped like U.S. presidents. Tell us about that."

"Yes Alex, I started noticing them when I was getting my Ph.D. in Applied Physics and I had them for 19 years but then my wife made me throw them out when we moved into the new house."

"Oh okay. Well thanks for being here..."

Quote

03-25-2014 , 09:11 PM

#3898

SuchASimpleMachine

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 287

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

I didn't see the end. Did the chick from my hometown (Arlington, VA) win again?

Yeah, she did. Two-day total of $14,000.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 09:34 PM

#3899

Kvitlekh

adept

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 882

Quote:

Originally Posted by danspartan

As Charles Barkley would say:

TURRIBLE!

2nd place FJ bet was mystifying, just the icing on that entire turd of a game.

Scores/wagers?

Quote

03-25-2014 , 11:08 PM

#3900

danspartan

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,851

Think it was

7600-3601-right-11201
5600-1999 wrong-3601
1400-1400 wrong-0

Quote

Page 156 of 530

First

56 106 136 146 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 166 176 206 256 356

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 156 of 530

First

56 106 136 146 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 166 176 206 256 356

Last