I only missed one, which suprised me, though I got the "Joshua" one from a Lyle Lovett album title. I always also remember the names "Matthew Mark Luke and John" for some reason in that order. Is that the order of the books too? I went with that.Bamaman wrote:That was a pretty easy Bible category.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- Paucle
- Trekardy! Writer
- Posts: 3233
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
- Location: near Albany NY
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:33 am
- Location: Indianapolis
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
Yes, it is. I agree with others that this category would be an automatic TDD for me under almost any circumstances.Paucle wrote:I always also remember the names "Matthew Mark Luke and John" for some reason in that order. Is that the order of the books too?Bamaman wrote:That was a pretty easy Bible category.
I suppose if it were late in the game and I had a lock, then I probably wouldn't have the guts to endanger the lock. (Here's hoping I find myself faced with that dilemma sometime. ) Just curious - is there anybody here who would risk a locked game on a late DD in a category in which you felt supremely confident?
- mam418
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:55 am
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
I said Keats for FJ - was probably thinking of 'Ode to a Nightengale'. Ah, well, at least it had a bird? Missed a good chunk of the first round and some of the second, as we had thunderboomers rolling through, and our satellite doesn't like that much. I did get "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane", as well as some in the Bible category - though not all.
- earendel
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 767
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:22 pm
- Location: mired in the bureaucracy
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
It's hard to say what one might do under the circumstances, but given a Bible category like the one last night I'd go all in on a DD.BigDaddyJ wrote:Yes, it is. I agree with others that this category would be an automatic TDD for me under almost any circumstances.Paucle wrote:I always also remember the names "Matthew Mark Luke and John" for some reason in that order. Is that the order of the books too?Bamaman wrote:That was a pretty easy Bible category.
I suppose if it were late in the game and I had a lock, then I probably wouldn't have the guts to endanger the lock. (Here's hoping I find myself faced with that dilemma sometime. ) Just curious - is there anybody here who would risk a locked game on a late DD in a category in which you felt supremely confident?
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."
-
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:25 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Area
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
That was the only reason I got the clue, and I don't even like country music!seaborgium wrote:Back to my dad: he instagot what came after Joshua because of a Lyle Lovett album title.
FJ! was a guess, but I felt pretty good about a poetic reference to shooting a bird with a bow being from "Rime of the Ancient Mariner," and I knew who wrote that.
Paging RCraig... (Okay, he didn't have a lock yet, but still...)BigDaddyJ wrote: Just curious - is there anybody here who would risk a locked game on a late DD in a category in which you felt supremely confident?
I have been disappointed by the extremely timid DD wagering of late. Regardless of the categories (and almost regardless of the strategic situation), $600 and $1200 are far too low for for DJ! DD wagers.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:19 pm
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
Congratulations to Paul on a very strong game, particularly in DJ. I think I only had 7-8 gets all round, and a few of those I don’t think Paul made an attempt on (Amsterdam, Chichen Itza, Invictus). Ironically, of the three games I played, this is the one I knew the most answers to, but Paul totally dominated me and Sarah on the buzzer on the contested clues, in addition to some great gets that I didn’t know or wasn’t in a position to try to answer (e.g. even though I’m a math guy, I was still trying to digest what the $2,000 probability question in Chance was asking for when Paul fired off the answer that he knew cold)
Some more game thoughts, the last ones you’ll have to put up with from me:
• Bible in general is a hit-or-miss category for me. In this case, I was extremely uncomfortable with the fact that they literally only gave you the book title and no other information, and the daily double was also in the $2,000 slot. Even though I was getting beat pretty badly on the buzzer in Double Jeopardy and this was a chance for me to really pull ahead, I just knew I should bet conservatively. History is a much better subject for me but the 13th Century DD was also $2000.
• However, I have no excuse for betting only $1000 on the Nerve DD in the $400 spot
• Despite having a pretty big lead going into Double Jeopardy, I felt sluggish all game. This was the last show taped before lunch break and ended around 1:30. At the end of the previous game, I was starving and they had run out of food in the green room except for donuts. My tank was empty and I was like Betty White in those Snickers commercials – my mind just wasn’t working quickly enough, as evident on questions like Cyprus and Proverbs, where I rang in too late
• Another sign that I was a bit out of sorts: somehow I went away from the stance that had served me well for the past two games – holding the buzzer high behind my back. It was a very deliberate stance that I think helped me focus, but I just kind of drifted away from it
A question for those of you who have been there – regardless of how you actually lost, what would haunt you more, losing a close one that was within your grasp or one where you’re never really in contention? As much as it would be tough to watch yourself get blown out, would you find it more difficult to get over a defeat that was say due to losing a buzzer battle on one question?
Some more game thoughts, the last ones you’ll have to put up with from me:
• Bible in general is a hit-or-miss category for me. In this case, I was extremely uncomfortable with the fact that they literally only gave you the book title and no other information, and the daily double was also in the $2,000 slot. Even though I was getting beat pretty badly on the buzzer in Double Jeopardy and this was a chance for me to really pull ahead, I just knew I should bet conservatively. History is a much better subject for me but the 13th Century DD was also $2000.
• However, I have no excuse for betting only $1000 on the Nerve DD in the $400 spot
• Despite having a pretty big lead going into Double Jeopardy, I felt sluggish all game. This was the last show taped before lunch break and ended around 1:30. At the end of the previous game, I was starving and they had run out of food in the green room except for donuts. My tank was empty and I was like Betty White in those Snickers commercials – my mind just wasn’t working quickly enough, as evident on questions like Cyprus and Proverbs, where I rang in too late
• Another sign that I was a bit out of sorts: somehow I went away from the stance that had served me well for the past two games – holding the buzzer high behind my back. It was a very deliberate stance that I think helped me focus, but I just kind of drifted away from it
A question for those of you who have been there – regardless of how you actually lost, what would haunt you more, losing a close one that was within your grasp or one where you’re never really in contention? As much as it would be tough to watch yourself get blown out, would you find it more difficult to get over a defeat that was say due to losing a buzzer battle on one question?
-
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:25 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Area
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
Because I neglected to say it earlier, I congratulate you on your victories. You played well all three games (despite my quibbles with your wagering), and lost to a strong player who had a really great late run.badscooter wrote:A question for those of you who have been there – regardless of how you actually lost, what would haunt you more, losing a close one that was within your grasp or one where you’re never really in contention? As much as it would be tough to watch yourself get blown out, would you find it more difficult to get over a defeat that was say due to losing a buzzer battle on one question?
I got beat when one of my opponents, Stewart, followed up a late hot streak with a huge DD bet (after I lost the buzzer battle on the question immediately prior to it). I can say that, despite a few mistakes, I was proud of my performance in my last game and regret only the outcome (and not hunting the second DD more aggressively). I think I would have been more upset to lose a game in which I had never been competitive.
Being so close to the ToC but missing it will haunt me for a while, though.
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12897
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
I've never been o the show, but I'd feel worse lsoing a close game. A blow out I can write off as getting categories I hate or someonbe else hitting all three DDs and making big bets and getting them right. A close game I can point to one clue where I clammed on something I was hesitant about but was right or making a really bad guess or a bad DD bet. I'd feel really bad if one dumb mistake cost me the game.
- --Pete
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:55 pm
- Location: Kent, Washington, USA
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
Hi,
Today's boards were, for me, a little easier than those of the past two days. I'm still not doing very well, with too many clams and way too many negs.
--Pete
I like his poetry and have read and reread much of it. Instaget.MarkBarrett wrote: Who is Coleridge? No problem: ...
Me, too. It was looking like a sweep when we "ran out of time". (Insert rant about 61 question show -- y'all have it memorized by now).MarkBarrett wrote: I'm with you BigDaddyJ in wanting to finish the run in Chance.
I agree.NJCondon wrote: I have been disappointed by the extremely timid DD wagering of late. Regardless of the categories (and almost regardless of the strategic situation), $600 and $1200 are far too low for for DJ! DD wagers.
Today's boards were, for me, a little easier than those of the past two days. I'm still not doing very well, with too many clams and way too many negs.
--Pete
"We are looking over our new domicile,
If we like, we stay for maybe quite a while."
If we like, we stay for maybe quite a while."
- mam418
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:55 am
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
My second game, I just never quite felt in the groove. (And I made a couple of stupid moves... there were a couple of clues that I rang in on and it was just a guess... I was kicking myself that night.) But I was still technically in contention at the end of DJ. And FJ was a triple stumper - had I gotten it right, I would have won by a dollar - as it was I finished second.badscooter wrote: A question for those of you who have been there – regardless of how you actually lost, what would haunt you more, losing a close one that was within your grasp or one where you’re never really in contention? As much as it would be tough to watch yourself get blown out, would you find it more difficult to get over a defeat that was say due to losing a buzzer battle on one question?
I think I almost would have rather gotten blown out by a really great player (which probably would have happened in the next game - Hi Nick! ). The way this one went, four months later I'm still kicking myself about that second game.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:19 pm
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
I remember watching Tom Kunzen’s game after I finished taping and thinking that I wished I had seen his games before I went on. I thought, that’s the mindset I should have had going into my games. I had similar thoughts when I was watching your games as well, Nick. It became clear that I was guilty of way under-betting on DDs that were in the low dollar value slots.
Having said that, I strongly disagree with the notion that $600 and $1200 are far too low for DJ! DD wagers regardless of the categories. I would look no further than the category in which I actually bet $600 as a perfect example. Some boardies have said they would risk a Claven to TDD on THE NEXT BIBLE BOOK AFTER, and that makes perfect sense to me, because that’s a very specific and finite list. It’s not like THE 13TH CENTURY, where the real question could be about geography, science, fashion, food or almost anything else. But with TNBBA, it is exactly what it says it is, and if you’ve got the list memorized in order, how can they possibly stump you? In the same way, I would go TDD for THE NEXT PRESIDENT AFTER.
For the same but opposite reason, it would be completely rational for someone to bet the minimum on said category or THE NEXT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE/SUMMER OLYMPICS SITE/BEATLES ALBUM AFTER. If you are having a hard time coming up with a good number of items on the list, period, never mind the order, why would you not bet small, especially if your experience on the lower dollar value clues is telling you that your knowledge is not as solid as you think?
I would have been happy to prove myself wrong, but the outcomes on my DD would suggest that I actually know myself pretty well and made the right call for me.
Having said that, I strongly disagree with the notion that $600 and $1200 are far too low for DJ! DD wagers regardless of the categories. I would look no further than the category in which I actually bet $600 as a perfect example. Some boardies have said they would risk a Claven to TDD on THE NEXT BIBLE BOOK AFTER, and that makes perfect sense to me, because that’s a very specific and finite list. It’s not like THE 13TH CENTURY, where the real question could be about geography, science, fashion, food or almost anything else. But with TNBBA, it is exactly what it says it is, and if you’ve got the list memorized in order, how can they possibly stump you? In the same way, I would go TDD for THE NEXT PRESIDENT AFTER.
For the same but opposite reason, it would be completely rational for someone to bet the minimum on said category or THE NEXT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE/SUMMER OLYMPICS SITE/BEATLES ALBUM AFTER. If you are having a hard time coming up with a good number of items on the list, period, never mind the order, why would you not bet small, especially if your experience on the lower dollar value clues is telling you that your knowledge is not as solid as you think?
I would have been happy to prove myself wrong, but the outcomes on my DD would suggest that I actually know myself pretty well and made the right call for me.
- --Pete
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:55 pm
- Location: Kent, Washington, USA
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
Hi,
--Pete
If you feel that you will most likely miss and there aren't overriding factors, then the only logical bet is the minimum ($5, I think). Bets around $1000 or less are usually not enough to really help if you hit but enough to hurt if you miss. That is especially true late in the game. The point is not that the bets were too small, but that they were too big for a purely defensive bet and too small for a value bet.badscooter wrote: If you are having a hard time coming up with a good number of items on the list, period, never mind the order, why would you not bet small, especially if your experience on the lower dollar value clues is telling you that your knowledge is not as solid as you think?
--Pete
"We are looking over our new domicile,
If we like, we stay for maybe quite a while."
If we like, we stay for maybe quite a while."
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12897
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
The minimum bet on DDs is indeed $5. That rule is a holdover from the original show where you had to bet at least half of the lowest value clue on the board, which at the time was $10. When the show returned in 1984, the lowest dollar amount was $100, but they kept the $5 rule.
I've only seen one $5 bet and I think its only happened a couple other times. I don't see why they haven't made the minimum $100 or let you bet $1 if you want to. I guess its one of those things that never comes into play and its not worth the effort to amend the constitution.
I've only seen one $5 bet and I think its only happened a couple other times. I don't see why they haven't made the minimum $100 or let you bet $1 if you want to. I guess its one of those things that never comes into play and its not worth the effort to amend the constitution.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:19 pm
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
OK, so now I’m confused. Pete, the statement to which you agreed is “regardless of the categories (and almost regardless of the strategic situation), $600 and $1200 are far too low for DJ! DD wagers.” But now you’re saying $600 would be too high and that someone should bet the minimum if they feel they’ll most likely miss. So which way is it?
You went on to say “bets around $1000 or less are usually not enough to really help if you hit but enough to hurt if you miss.” Do I understand you correctly then that one should bet either the minimum or over $1,000 on DD in DJ? Do you like my $1,200 bet then?
I don’t know, Pete, a minimum bet (which crossed my mind) says I have next to no chance at getting this clue. On a bottom row clue in that category, I definitely felt I was more likely to not know it than know, but I wasn’t completely hopeless on the Bible and I wanted to get some value in case I did get it. To me, something around the minimum dollar value of a clue on the board is the very definition of a defensive value bet. But what do I know, I thought value was a subjective concept.
You went on to say “bets around $1000 or less are usually not enough to really help if you hit but enough to hurt if you miss.” Do I understand you correctly then that one should bet either the minimum or over $1,000 on DD in DJ? Do you like my $1,200 bet then?
I don’t know, Pete, a minimum bet (which crossed my mind) says I have next to no chance at getting this clue. On a bottom row clue in that category, I definitely felt I was more likely to not know it than know, but I wasn’t completely hopeless on the Bible and I wanted to get some value in case I did get it. To me, something around the minimum dollar value of a clue on the board is the very definition of a defensive value bet. But what do I know, I thought value was a subjective concept.
-
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:25 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Area
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.badscooter wrote:...I strongly disagree with the notion that $600 and $1200 are far too low for DJ! DD wagers regardless of the categories.
- --Pete
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:55 pm
- Location: Kent, Washington, USA
Non-mathematical answer on betting
Hi,
Modifying that basic theory are the conditions of the game. If a successful bet can change a lead to a crush or a crush to a lock, then the reward for winning is greater than the penalty for losing. If an unsuccessful bet can do the opposite, then the penalty becomes bigger than the reward.
Another major consideration is the amount still available on the board. That is the consideration which makes a DD in the J round a good candidate for a true DD in almost all cases.
Ultimately, if the leader finds a DD in the DJ round, especially toward the end of the round, usually the only two rational bets are the minimum and the whole of his lead. Small bets are defensive bets, the equivalent of not ringing in on a normal clue. If the only consideration is to burn the DD so that it can't be used against you, then $5 is enough to bet (and lose) to accomplish that goal.
--Pete
The DD are basically double or nothing bets. If that is the only consideration, then all that matters is the expectation of winning. If you have a greater than 0.5 expectation of winning, you should bet all you can. If you have less than that 0.5, you should refuse the bet.badscooter wrote: So which way is it?
Modifying that basic theory are the conditions of the game. If a successful bet can change a lead to a crush or a crush to a lock, then the reward for winning is greater than the penalty for losing. If an unsuccessful bet can do the opposite, then the penalty becomes bigger than the reward.
Another major consideration is the amount still available on the board. That is the consideration which makes a DD in the J round a good candidate for a true DD in almost all cases.
Ultimately, if the leader finds a DD in the DJ round, especially toward the end of the round, usually the only two rational bets are the minimum and the whole of his lead. Small bets are defensive bets, the equivalent of not ringing in on a normal clue. If the only consideration is to burn the DD so that it can't be used against you, then $5 is enough to bet (and lose) to accomplish that goal.
--Pete
"We are looking over our new domicile,
If we like, we stay for maybe quite a while."
If we like, we stay for maybe quite a while."
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:33 am
- Location: Indianapolis
Re: Non-mathematical answer on betting
Suppose I encounter a DD on the last clue of the DJ round, and I am leading with a score of $10,000, while my nearest competitor has only $5,500. I would argue that a wager between $1,000 and $1,750 is very rational in that situation as it allows me to achieve a lock if I respond correctly while at least preserving a crush if I don't.--Pete wrote:Ultimately, if the leader finds a DD in the DJ round, especially toward the end of the round, usually the only two rational bets are the minimum and the whole of his lead.
I realize that you softened your claim by including the term "usually", but I don't think situations like the above are terribly unusual.
- --Pete
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:55 pm
- Location: Kent, Washington, USA
Re: Non-mathematical answer on betting
Hi,
One of the major considerations here is the position of the 3rd place player. If losing your DD wager puts that player back into the game, then you should strongly consider a smaller wager.
Without considering 3rd place, there are three wagers to consider: the minimum wager to preserve the crush. A wager of 1005 (I think 1001 is not permitted for a DD) trying for the lock. A wager of 4495 to maximize the winnings without risking first place. Unless the category is *very* restricted and you feel very confident, that third wager is probably not worth it (and doubly so since it will in all likelyhood bring 3rd back into play).
So, yeah, the 1005 wager makes sense because of the circumstances. It is not just a small wager to keep the wagering small, which is basically what the topic is about.
--Pete
I don't know how usual this situation is. First, it requires DD to be the last clue exposed. With many people hunting for DDs, that isn't often the case. Second, it requires a crush that is very close to a lock. Just my impression, but most games are either dominated by one player or pretty even between two.BigDaddyJ wrote:Suppose I encounter a DD on the last clue of the DJ round, and I am leading with a score of $10,000, while my nearest competitor has only $5,500. I would argue that a wager between $1,000 and $1,750 is very rational in that situation as it allows me to achieve a lock if I respond correctly while at least preserving a crush if I don't.--Pete wrote: Ultimately, if the leader finds a DD in the DJ round, especially toward the end of the round, usually the only two rational bets are the minimum and the whole of his lead.
I realize that you softened your claim by including the term "usually", but I don't think situations like the above are terribly unusual.
One of the major considerations here is the position of the 3rd place player. If losing your DD wager puts that player back into the game, then you should strongly consider a smaller wager.
Without considering 3rd place, there are three wagers to consider: the minimum wager to preserve the crush. A wager of 1005 (I think 1001 is not permitted for a DD) trying for the lock. A wager of 4495 to maximize the winnings without risking first place. Unless the category is *very* restricted and you feel very confident, that third wager is probably not worth it (and doubly so since it will in all likelyhood bring 3rd back into play).
So, yeah, the 1005 wager makes sense because of the circumstances. It is not just a small wager to keep the wagering small, which is basically what the topic is about.
--Pete
"We are looking over our new domicile,
If we like, we stay for maybe quite a while."
If we like, we stay for maybe quite a while."
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:19 pm
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
That's basically all I'm saying. There are some things in J! that, assuming you are trying to maximize your chances of winning, are absolute regardless of who you are, what you know, and what the category is (e.g. betting it all in FJ if you're in second and the leader is exactly double your total). But I just don't know how betting more than $1,200 on a DJ! DD regardless of the categories can be for everyone.NJCondon wrote:Different strokes for different folks, I guess.badscooter wrote:...I strongly disagree with the notion that $600 and $1200 are far too low for DJ! DD wagers regardless of the categories.
Again, I submit THE NEXT BIBLE BOOK AFTER as exhibit A. This was not your stereotypical timid DD bet. I've seen four questions in the category and established that 1) it is exactly what the category name says it is, no more and no less, and 2) the level of dofficulty they're going for. I knew what I know about the Bible -- I knew the order of some of the books, but knowing there are people out where who can recite them backwards, I knew I likely did not know it at the $2000 level.
[/quote]
The DD are basically double or nothing bets. If that is the only consideration, then all that matters is the expectation of winning. If you have a greater than 0.5 expectation of winning, you should bet all you can. If you have less than that 0.5, you should refuse the bet.
[/quote]
I fully agree with Pete that if the objective is to maximize expected dollar value, the correct DD betting decision comes down to all-in on anything where you're more than 50% confident and nothing otherwise. However, the object of the game is to maximize likelihood of winning, so the DD decisions are not an end in and of themselves but part of a much more complex and dynamic equation that includes a whole bunch of variables such as the scores of the players, the number of questions left, the player's assessment of his and his competitors' knowledge etc, etc. It's a utility maximization problem -- you are trying to maximize your probability of winning, or more accurately, the probability of you winning as subjectively assessed by you.
In the expected value maximization problem laid out by Pete, you should go TDD whether your confidence level is 51% or 99%. But in the utility maximization case, downside matters and confidence level matters. The utility you derives from doubling your score may be great, but the dis-utility of having a zero score may be so much greater that you would really need the odds in your favour to make that TDD bet. On a DD, you control the risk (but also the upside) by varying the amount you bet based on your assessment of the likelihood of you getting the question right. Everything else being equal, the amount you bet would be higher the more confident you feel about your chances of coming up with the correct answer.
Pete's point that if you believe you are more likely to miss then you shouldn't bet anything at all has some validity. But I'm willing to allow that between zero and all-in, there is a justifiable amount to bet when your confidence level is somewhere between zero and 100%. Here's how I guide my betting decision (setting specific game situation considerations aside): on a non DD clue, I want to be at least about 80% sure about my answer before trying to buzz in, but I'm comfortable buzzing on a $400 question on which I am considerably less confident. Along those lines, something like the value of a top row clue seems like the a reasonable amount of risk and reward for taking a shot at a question that I have not seen, but based on board placement and category I don't feel highly confident on.
When you go on the show, being second guessed comes with the territory. That's fair game, and I'll be the first one to second guess some of the other decisions I made. But if after everything I've written, you are not convinced in any way that I made a reasonably well considered defensive bet on that DD -- not for anyone else, but for me -- then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
- The support is non-zero
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILE
Let's not forget David Madden's strategy of finding DD's just to keep them away from the other contestants (and usually betting low on them). Worked fairly well for him.