New Scaratings

Like many here, I've been a fan of Jeopardy for some time even if they won't call me for an audition. Something I've enjoyed discussing regarding the show is proper strategy. Or rather, why the vast majority of contestants have no idea how to play the game. It's just so weird that so many don't even know how to wager in Final Jeopardy to give themselves the best chance to win. And then there's other aspects like Daily Double wagering and Daily Double hunting.

When you appear in a competitive endeavor where you could easily win hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd think contestants would study how to play the game, but they don't. Most think Jeopardy is just a game where knowing trivia is all you need. But it's not.

So why do obviously book smart people ignore actually knowing how to win the game?

Having never gotten the call to play, either, I can’t say for sure. I suspect some “book smart” people are most comfortable with the book-study part of the contest, and devote most of their prep time studying volumes of information figuring their knowledge will do the heavy lifting. As wagering is so situational, it is not a fact or set of facts to be memorized, so they skimp in this prep area. Sometimes it works out for them, but it does not make for long runs.

In contrast, a big part of KSEK’s prep work was studying wagering strategies from a couple of different sources, and it clearly helped.

_________________
Anon
"He may seem like Mr. Rogers but a dark spirit lies beneath."

I've never been on Jeopardy either, but the betting "strategy" of contestants never ceases to amaze me--and not in a good way. The number one thing people fail to realize is: "You haven't earned anything unless you win the game. You're playing with Monopoly money." Last night, the carryover winning contestant had a chance to double late in the second round. He failed to bet everything he had, even though the bet he did make--should he have missed the question--would have left him with too little to win anyway. So why not bet it all? That question was soon answered, when he answered correctly, and then answered the final question correctly, but failed to surpass another contestant, who likewise answered the final correctly--except that she had more than he did going in. Had he doubled EARLIER, he would have had more than she, and thus been in a position to win on the final question.

In a related anecdote, I remember trying out for Tic Tac Dough many years ago. I remember it as an easy game trivia wise, but was half panicked I could lose with improper tic tac toe strategy. I spent the day before memorizing every possible variation of tic tac toe (I think there are 38 or so) so I would not lose that way. I did very well on the written and screen test and never got the call back.

In 90-91, I was on a Dick Clark show called Challengers where there were fewer betting choices, so I just answered questions, but on that one, you had to choose from among three questions, so I tried to choose the question my two opponents would not choose and have the question alone while they fought over the other one.

_________________
Merkin

Yes, this. Almost all contestants play not to lose, they want to have some sort of chance no matter how small going into FJ. But in doing so they pass up easy winning chances, they simply do not play to win.

Playing to win runs the risk of flaming out, and this scares most contestants. But each and every chance you have to make a wager, you should make the one that shows the highest winning chances. Simple.

As far a DD's goes, most contestants do not wager enough when they have an advantage. Such as a favorable category in the first round, that's a true DD each and every time without hesitation. But conversely, most contestants wager too much when they are in a tough spot. Such as wagering 1 or 2k instead of the minimum $5.

Nothing to do with strategy, but this past week there was an English teacher who won two games before losing her third. 2 of her 3 FJ categories were Literature. She missed them both and it's not like they were obscure.

Two prime examples from FJ on Thursday and Friday.

On Thursday the game was a lock going into FJ, 2nd had 4800, 3rd had 4600. At game's end 2nd receives $2k while 3rd receives $1k. 2nd obviously has to wager at least $4400 to cover 3rd. So what does 3rd wager? A laughable $4599 meaning they can only win if they answer correct while 2nd misses. At it played out both missed FJ with 2nd place having $399 and 3rd $1. 3rd throws away $1k of real money due to complete ignorance.

On Friday the defending champ entered FJ in 3rd with $8.6k. 1st had $12.2k, 2nd $11.2k. 1st obviously has to wager $10201 to cover 2nd while 2nd has to wager $6001 to cover 3rd. So 3rd cannot fall below $11200-$6001=$5199 to win on a triple stumper. Most in this situation from 3rd just blindly wager everything, but the champ wagered a smart $1400 and ended up winning her 5th game with $7200 on a triple stumper.

Bump for the Mike Richards fiasco. Looking like Sony taking a page from BT’s playbook on how to alienate their base.

I also don't understand all the bad betting. What especially infuriates me are the players on the Daily Double who have the ability to take the lead, but bet so that if get the question right, they'll still be just shy of the lead---as if it would be impolite to beat the other person (probably the same people who when asked in school to grade themselves, came up with a "B" rather than an "A"). And they'll even do it late in the game when it may be their last chance to get into first place before Final Jeopardy (where the person in the lead wins the game more often than not).

Even if you can't figure out the best betting strategy yourself, there's a couple of books I've read (in the hopes that my fifth audition will be the magic one) that will teach it to you. It's something that could easily be mastered in the time between someone getting the call and the taping of the show.

Brooke/AARDVK

(Glad that if I am finally lucky enough to make it on the show after well over 20 years of trying, the host will not be Mike Richards---I'm still rooting for Ken and Buzzy.)

Is Levar Burton the choice? My choice is Brooke Burns.

LeVar probably did the worst of all the guest hosts. He admitted he did zero preparation. And it showed. Those calling for him obviously didn’t watch his episodes.

I’d choose Brooke as well. Just not to host Jeopardy.

Sorry, Bo, I called dibs..

Okay, I mostly only watch Jeopardy when someone is on an impressive winning streak. Matt Amodio is one of the elites, he doesn’t appear to have any weaknesses, similar to James, Brad, and Ken.. He was very fortunate to win his 1st game, he easily could have been ousted and slipped into oblivion..Almost all runaways since then.

In one of Matt’s latest wins, the challenger went against the odds in Final Jeopardy trying to win.

Just rounding the numbers, Matt had $30k, Ruth had $21k, and Steve had $200. Knowing Matt is playing aggressively to win, he will bet at least $12,001. Ruth bet all $21k. Steve doesn’t really matter.

My opinion is Ruth should bet less than $3k. If Matt gets question wrong, she wins. Based on her real bet, she must get it right and hope Matt gets it wrong. Maybe she just wanted to win $42k instead of $21k, but based on strategy to win, she made it less likely.. It was moot after he got it right and she missed it anyways..