Roger so awesome for you to take the time to make this a mini AMA. Good luck and please continue to post as much as possible. Again just poor luck there in a couple spots but you showed to everyone who gets it that you are an elite player second to none!!

Best

cosign

Alex has the nerd Asian but I bet can be hot look going on

Today's game:

Early to mid-DJ!, returning champ has fairly good lead (her score was on the scale of around $8-9k), challenger with $2,600 finds the DD. Bets $1k...

That guy was my root up until then, when I realized he was another fish. He seemed to have decent potential, but Julia ran great again by getting favorable categories for her skill-set.

Oh my God, if people like all of Julia's opponents can get on the show and I don't, I'm going on a rampage.

(Maggie, if you read this thread, I don't mean that. Mostly.)

At least the 2 losing contestants took a stab at that 1600 clue with the DD behind the 2k and Julia in control of the board. But yeah, that dude's DD wager was meh.

They should've been hunting for the DD at the very least, no excuse to start at the top in that situation.

So here's a general strategy question, prompted by what could have happened tonight.

I don't remember the exact scores but I'll make up the numbers for the sake of the question.

You hit the DD in the last clue of DJ. You're down enough so that even if you go all in and answer correctly, you're still in second in FJ, but within 2/3 of the leader, e.g. leader has 18,000 and you have 7,000. Do you bet 2,000, hoping to get the DD and freeze the leader with an all in in FJ, or do you go all in on the DD, hope to hit it, and then hope for the leader's miss in FJ (and your small bet in FJ)?

I think the correct strategy is dependent on exactly what the score is:

If a double up won't get you to two-thirds of first place, you wager for the tie because a W/W can't get you into first, and you can come back tomorrow with both a R/R and a R/W, as opposed to just a R/W if you make it a TDD.

If you're close enough to get to 2/3, then go for the double up, as you can win on a W/W and a R/W (as opposed to R/R and R/W - I think we established earlier in this thread that W/W is a more likely outcome than R/R).

EDIT: And now I see you specified 2/3. So yes, shove here.

I'm sitting at Disney world waiting for a parade so apologies if I butcher this

At >3/4 you can wager to pass 1st +$1 and even if you miss you still win if it's W/W.

At >2/3 you bet 0 and win on a double stumper as 1st cover bet drops them below your current score

If you can't get to 2/3 then you should aim for exactly 1/2 and bet all in on FJ.
1st should bet 0. Then you win-tie if you get it right.

If you are .50<X.67 then you need W/R.

These all assume 3rds score is irrelevant.

So, at >2/3, you win on W/R and W/W. You should bet zero in all situations, because P(2nd R | 1st W) < 50% and any wager is -EV. So, your winnings are somewhere between 66.7% and 100% of the leader's score. At 1/2, assuming first place plays rationally and bets nothing (which is not the case, leaders are only 9/11 at betting zero in that situation), you should bet it all and win every time you get it right and end up with 100% of the leaders score. This time, since the leader should bet 0, your win doesn't depend on anything but your answer, which should be correct around 50% of the time. So, I'd play for the 1/2 scenario, your winning percentage is about the same either way, but the amount of money you win is greater. Obviously toss that out the window if you're playing against someone like Chu who wagers for the tie from the lead and gives you the chance to win on a R/R, then bet it all.

I, too was leaning towards going for 1/2 of the leader's score. This way the only thing that matters is your response, and you don't have to worry about leader getting it right. Which is even more important against a 2 week champ.

This all assumes 3rd place is a non-factor, right?

Yes.

Also, very much this. That's so deeply cool that Roger came here to do that, and I hope he continues to post.

When I went to the archives, the evidence of his excellence was all right there and we severely underestimated him as a force going in.

If you wager for the lock-tie on the DD, then you basically guarantee both wagers. You get FJ and you win/tie, the end. But the other scenarios bring some uncertainty into the equation regarding your opponent's wager, which I'm not a fan of.

I'd rather put the onus entirely on me getting FJ.


The reason people like us appreciate Roger is because he "gets it". So few Jeopardy contestants seem to even though they can pass two tests to get them on the show while many here could never do so.

I agree with the shoot for 1/2 vs 2/3 AS LONG AS YOU CANT GET TO 3/4.

At 3/4 you win any time 1st misses and you get protection against a 1st place bet that doesn't cover-especially if seems to be a level 2 champion with a tough sounding category. Not a common occurrence but enough additional EV to make it worthwhile.

No you don't, and that's what I was getting at. 1st can always wager 0. I detest that for any reason, but players do it. The WW sometimes doesn't win from 2nd even with 2nd wagering properly.

What is the success rate on FJs, ideally broken out by leader, 2nd place, 3rd place at the time.

It's pretty close to 50/50 in non-lock games. Second place actually has a slight edge, it's like 51/50, and then third place is down around 45%. But, if first place gets it wrong, then second place only has about a 41% chance of getting it right. In a runaway, those numbers all get bumped up for first place and bumped down for second, but wgaf, it doesn't matter.

I never saw the Ultimate ToC, but stumbled upon the last game of the finals on youtube today. Holy **** what a beast Brad was, he made Ken look like a child in that game.

Agreed. I was too flip. 3/4 allows us to both cover 1sts current score to protect against the 0 bet and still win on a standard cover bet and double miss.

I think it can be rational for 1st to bet 0 in the 2/3 region IF he is convinced he is less than 50% for some specific category. Still rare though.
(And yes the calc is more complicated than 1st <.5 R, also involves 2nds %)

Of course assuming rational play buy your opponents has been the downfall of many a poker hand, let alone a jeopardy game.

Got a feeling tonight is the end of Julia

Never mind. Jesus, middle guy seems to know them all as well, he just can't buzz in

Holy hell, trim your eyebrows Steve...

Another babby bet from Julia on the early DD (has $3,800, bets $1,200 when both opponents are at around $800). Get it together, guys...