Not counting Roger, top 4 leaders in regular game winnings have not won any TOC. Ken Jennings even got a bye into the finals of the Ultimate TOC and got his ass kicked by Brad Rutter (who I think would have had a long run if he played under current rules). We'll see what Roger can do.

They are never in the first dollar amount, and rarely in the second. Last season's breakdown:

Single Jeopardy DDs:

400: 5%
600: 28%
800: 34%
1000: 33%

Double Jeopardy DDs:

800: 12%
1200: 26%
1600: 38%
2000: 24%

Wow dude needs to watch some sports imho....

this is surprising, but iirc TOC answers are harder than conventional jeopardy, which reduces the reliance on fast signaling - in standard jeopardy, all 3 contestants know at least 50% of the questions, and it's just a matter of who can signal first. with more difficult questions, it comes down to who has the greater knowledge base.

Thank you, Roger. I'll always remember you.

Jesus Christ htf was THAT the question he bustoed on? I guess I'm a bit biased because I watch sports, but that had to be a 5th percentile difficulty or so for FJ.

RBI duckbeard

I was shocked anyone missed it. Even for people who know nothing about sports, February should have identified it as the Super Bowl and it was a big news story about something good happening for New Orleans. Anyone who follows current events should have known. Roger apparently was lost even figuring out that the Super Bowl occurs in February and the Stanley Cup is decided in June.

he herb stempel'd it

Yeah I would have missed that FJ as well, but it's because I watch neither sports nor the news. The date gave it away that it was a superbowl, but I would have just guessed a city name.

In a thread titled "Idiotic Jeopardy wagers" how has no one mentioned how stupid her wager was on final jeopardy?

Roger is obviously always going to wager enough so that if he gets FJ correctly he will finish with double her current score + a dollar (this is the whole point of being the leader going into FJ, so you can guarantee victory if you get it right). Therefore all she has to do is wager an amount so that she will finish double 3rd place's score + a dollar if she gets it wrong.

This way if she gets it wrong and Roger gets it wrong she still wins. This theory can kind of be negated because she is a sports writer and will probably know FJ 90% of the time and the chance of a large payout if she gets it right and Roger gets it wrong might be worth it. However, she is a woman so it's better to assume she doesn't know anything about sports and should bet conservatively in case Roger gets it wrong.

Because it's been done, ITT, countless times already. We all agree that 2nd place usually bets way too much, and we're past that now.

considering shes a sports writer its probably a fine bet, but in general the bet sizing obv is horrendous.

How do you hold two contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time?

Thoughts on todays final jeopardy betting situation, stacks were

18k
12k
irrelevant, like 4k

I feel that first should bet 6k and 2nd for sure 0 thoughts? 2nd place betting something and getting it right doesn't really matter because 1st is always gonna bet at least 6000 and most people always bet 6001, so the only thing that matters is if first place gets the question right or wrong. If they get it right they always win no matter what we do, and if they get it wrong we win, instead of if we bet something we have to get it right then also.

First bet 6001 which is the standard bet but i feel like 6000 is gonna be better in case 2nd is smart enough to bet 0. 2nd place bet 7k???

Rigged IMO.

I was just trying to clarify what his problem was with the wagering. Obv if the question is about the Superbowl, and you can't even correctly name an NFL team, then you shouldn't be wagering anything.

In this particular case, $6000 is definitely the correct bet for the leader. If the leader gets it right, he will win (possibly a tied win, but ties don't hurt you). If he gets it wrong, he's still safe against a $0 bet.

Second place should either bet $0 or all $12,000. If I'm the leader, I am going to make damn sure that I don't lose to the $0 bet if it doesn't even cost me anything to ensure this!

One of my former roommates was one of the best College Bowl players of all time (he has an interview in Ken Jennings' book). He was an absolute animal with the amount of preparation he did. He wrote literally thousands of questions for no other purpose than to familiarize himself with the material. It really does work, you get a sense of what kind of things will be asked and how they're going to be asked.

It's a nice confluence when the thing you are best at is the thing you love to do the most.

6001 is a horrible bet there unless he thinks the second place player is way better than him and wants to be sure to eliminate him from the next round

First I thought that tonight's winner wagered brilliantly, winning by $1. But, in hindsight, that was a poor wager. She only wins if she is right and the leader is wrong, which is what happened.

Here are the Before and After amounts (3rd place only had 1000 going into FJ):

13200 - 15200
20800 - 15199

Why bet just 2000 when all of it would have maximized the payoff? She's still alive but left 11200 real dollars on the table with zero risk in losing that.

Also, leader going into FJ would have tied and returned for next show had she not been greedy in trying to win by 1. Yes, I know that the show discourages that as that is more real dollars they need to pay out.

and women on the right butchered two daily doubles which could have helped her lock it up

yes 2000 is dumb bet considering that she has to get it right anyways

<<-- New avatar imo

her bet is optimal if she thinks she's <50% to get it right