Question regarding co-champions

[StrangerCoug]

Earlier this year we had Kristin Morgan play against not one, but two people who became co-champions with her. Thinking about it had a question pop in my head: Has a game in which there are two returning champions ever ended in such a way that the champions got to come back for at least their third game each?

[legendneverdies]

Dane Garrett was involved in two tiebreakers early in season two), as per the opening remarks from Alex as said in the archive. He was a losing contestant in Chuck Forrest game one, and didn't appear on that day with a co-champ. The archive says he was either a three or four time champion with winnings of $17900, $500 lower than the lowest qualifier for the 1986 TofC, 4xer Gary Palmer(whose $18400 was and is still the lowest winning contestant to make the TofC). Whether he tied on two consecutive days(if he was a three time champ he would have tied on the first two days) remains to be seen, or if he did, did he tie the same contestant on both days?

[seaborgium]

No, but it got close a couple of times.

In Dan Pawson's second game, he entered FJ in a tie with Heather Doyle. They both bet everything and got it right. The following game, he led and she was in second entering FJ. He offered a tie for novelty's sake, and they both got FJ right, but Heather made a strategically tiny wager and ended up finishing in third.

In Arthur Gandolfi's third game, he led into FJ by a significant margin in a "first equals second plus third" scenario. To eliminate the risk of losing to third placer Sean Morris on a sole get by Sean, he offered a tie to Janice Dooner Lynch in second. She bet it all, FJ was a triple get, and they tied. (It's a moot point, but Sean held back $100, thereby eliminating any chance of winning). The following game, Arthur and Janice entered FJ tied. Both bet everything, but Janice had the sole miss.

I'm sure there have been more close calls like this, but those are the ones that spring to my mind.

[Bamaman]

No, but it got close a couple of times.

In Dan Pawson's second game, he entered FJ in a tie with Heather Doyle. They both bet everything and got it right. The following game, he led and she was in second entering FJ. He offered a tie for novelty's sake, and they both got FJ right, but Heather made a strategically tiny wager and ended up finishing in third.

In Arthur Gandolfi's third game, he led into FJ by a significant margin in a "first equals second plus third" scenario. To eliminate the risk of losing to third placer Sean Morris on a sole get by Sean, he offered a tie to Janice Dooner Lynch in second. She bet it all, FJ was a triple get, and they tied. (It's a moot point, but Sean held back $100, thereby eliminating any chance of winning). The following game, Arthur and Janice entered FJ tied. Both bet everything, but Janice had the sole miss.
.
I'm sure there have been more close calls like this, but those are the ones that spring to my mind.

In Dan's second game, the third place player was only $1,000 behind going into FJ. The first round had four TSs in the bottom row, including one where the third place guy got it wrong, so a three way tie was very close to happening.

Not getting the co-champ's bet the next day.

[seaborgium]

Not getting the co-champ's bet the next day.

It's very similar to a bet Dan himself made three games later.

[ahirbhairav]

If Dan could explain a little bit more, please? (pdano is Dan)

[Woof]

If Dan could explain a little bit more, please? (pdano is Dan)

You are familiar with Pawson's Gambit?

[econgator]

If Dan could explain a little bit more, please? (pdano is Dan)

You are familiar with Pawson's Gambit?

It'll be a while before he's able to respond ...

[pdano]

I could be wrong, but I think, in my third game, Heather was in Stratton's Dilemma and bet small instead of big. A little different from my sixth game and Pawson's Gambit (where I purely bet against second-place getting it right).

I think I offered the tie because third-place was still in play and for all I knew the dollar I saved there might matter if I got it wrong. But it probably wasn't particularly well thought out.

[Bamaman]

I could be wrong, but I think, in my third game, Heather was in Stratton's Dilemma and bet small instead of big. A little different from my sixth game and Pawson's Gambit (where I purely bet against second-place getting it right).

I think I offered the tie because third-place was still in play and for all I knew the dollar I saved there might matter if I got it wrong. But it probably wasn't particularly well thought out.

You had some interesting finishes in your games.

[Mavwreck]

Moderators- Hi...I've only been reading for a month or so with interruptions (and this is my first comment) so if I'm reviving a too-long-dead thread feel free to send this to oblivion.

As new kid on the block, I had two questions:

1. I assume "offering a tie" in FJ means "wagering in such a way that a rational opponent's bet would lead to a tie", right? I was under the impression that active collusion/discussion in FJ wagers wasn't allowed.
2. Some Google work suggests that "Pawson's Gambit" is wagering based on your judgment of your opponent's habits, not game theory. If that's correct, would it be worth adding to the J-Archive glossary?

[bpmod]

Moderators- Hi...I've only been reading for a month or so with interruptions (and this is my first comment) so if I'm reviving a too-long-dead thread feel free to send this to oblivion.

As new kid on the block, I had two questions:

1. I assume "offering a tie" in FJ means "wagering in such a way that a rational opponent's bet would lead to a tie", right? I was under the impression that active collusion/discussion in FJ wagers wasn't allowed.
2. Some Google work suggests that "Pawson's Gambit" is wagering based on your judgment of your opponent's habits, not game theory. If that's correct, would it be worth adding to the J-Archive glossary?

I cannot comment on the second, but you are correct on the first, except that offering a tie is not collusion. Your opponent does not know it has been offered, and in most cases, it also requires that he/she still needs to get the correct response.

Brian

P.S. Welcome to the board!

[jeff6286]

Seeing this thread near the top of the page had me wondering if we might see co-champions in Thursday's game, and as the two leaders were dueling down the stretch I thought maybe they would finish with the same score and both bet it all. Then I realized that the final DD wager left them with scores that were not separated by a number divisible by $400, so a tie for the lead at the end of DJ was not possible.

[RCraig]

<snip>
[*]Some Google work suggests that "Pawson's Gambit" is wagering based on your judgment of your opponent's habits, not game theory. If that's correct, would it be worth adding to the J-Archive glossary?

Incorporating your judgment of your opponent's habits is not separate from game theory, it's part of it.

[Jasoni22]

Sometimes the wagering calculator seems to tell the players to use different strategies. Like in my final regular season game, I led Jennifer $17000 to $13000. The calculator tells me to make the MSB (which I did, plus a little extra), but it tells Jennifer to wager small ($4,001) and hope I get it wrong. If the "best" or "ideal" bet for Jennifer was to go small and let me lose on a miss (which is what happened), why wouldn't mine have been to anticipate her making the small bet and to go small myself, forcing her to get it right to win?

Maybe it's just the programming behind the calculator, but it doesn't make much sense to me for player B's wager to take into account what player A might do in this instance (anticipating A making the MSB and countering this by going small), while player A's wager essentially ignores any strategy player B might use (not taking into account losing on a miss if B bets as previously mentioned). It's as if player B is thinking several steps ahead, and player A is making no such attempt to do so.

For some scenarios, I think there really is no single "ideal" wager. Because player A could anticipate B going small and also go small so as to still win on a double miss, but player B could go big instead and beat A on a get, so player A would make the MSB to prevent losing on a double get.... and so on and on we go in a circle.

Of course, for some (crush, lock-tie), there is clearly only one smart bet (or contiguous range) to make. When that lady earlier this season had the lead in a lock-tie scenario going into FJ and ends up losing because she made a non-zero wager and was wrong... well, there's really no justifying that.

(As an aside, I don't regret the bet I made, and given the same scenario, I would do it again. Given the alternative of not making the MSB and losing if second-place went all in and got it... well, if that happened, let's just say that I would mbclev myself.)

[crazymatt1]

For some scenarios, I think there really is no single "ideal" wager. Because player A could anticipate B going small and also go small so as to still win on a double miss, but player B could go big instead and beat A on a get, so player A would make the MSB to prevent losing on a double get.... and so on and on we go in a circle.

I'll just leave this here...

(As an aside, I don't regret the bet I made, and given the same scenario, I would do it again. Given the alternative of not making the MSB and losing if second-place went all in and got it... well, if that happened, let's just say that I would mbclev myself.)

I'm with you on this one. I would be much more disappointed if I got FJ and lost because of a small wager.

[Bamaman]

The phrase 1"offer a tie" does not mean you lean over and whisper "Hey, you wanna have a tie?". It means you bet as to where you will have exactly twice what second place has before FJ. If you do that and they do not go all in, that's their tough luck.

If I'm the leader, I'm making the MSB, unless offering a tie is in my best interest, such as an exact 2/3 game or a lock-tie situation. Their are probably others, but not many where you're better off offering a tie. And I wouldn't offer a tie just to bring back someone I think I can beat. I'd rather not face someone with real game experience.

If I'm in second, I'm going to calculate the leader's MSBIW score. If I'm above that now, I'm going to bet to stay above it, unless it puts me at risk of being passed by third place.

[Mavwreck]

Incorporating your judgment of your opponent's habits is not separate from game theory, it's part of it.

I guess I meant "game theory" in terms of "game theory between two purely rational players" (i.e., the only thing you know about the players is that they're rational) . Knowing your opponent's habits means you have an extra fact added to the game.

PS - bpmod and Bamaman, thanks for the answers on #1.