Would you bet to tie Arthur, or bet to win?

[Zhankfor]

Obviously, there's been a lot of talk about wagering strategy since Arthur's run began. Although this isn't likely to be news to anyone here, I'll quickly sum up the two main camps on this topic:

Pro-tie: Arthur's strategy is good because the absolute most important consideration is whether or not you will return to play another game, and wagering an extra dollar is an unnecessary risk in that respect.

Pro-win: A returning champion's greatest advantage over his or her opponents is experience on the buzzer, plus a player who ties is likely to be a relatively strong player compared to the average. Therefore, you're preemptively risking your next game by tying, since you'll be bringing a good player who has buzzer experience along with you. (I'm ignoring arguments like "it's unsportsmanlike," since those are purely subjective.)

So here's my question, especially aimed towards the pro-tie camp (of which I'm one at this point, I think): if you were in a game against Arthur and you went into FJ! ahead of him (which as far as I can recall hasn't happened yet), would his dominant play push you to bet the extra dollar to cover him, because the last thing you would want would be to face him (or someone as good as him) again? Or does the calibre of the player not enter into the equation for you?

(Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I haven't seen a thread about it, at least).

[lieph82]

I would absolutely bet to tie, because I would love to play Arthur the next day. As Bamaman has opined, playing against Arthur is preferable to playing against two players who are trying to beat you; all you have to do to win is get at least 50% of his pre-FJ score and get FJ right. If I were leading him going into FJ, I'd feel good about my chances of avoiding a lock against him the next day.

[Fishercat]

I think a lot of it depends on how exactly I went into FJ with a lead over Arthur in this hypothetical.

There's a huge difference, for me, in these scenarios:

A. I'm ahead of Arthur because I went big on a late-game DD that paid off or because he went big on a late-game DD and missed it, putting me in the lead
B. I'm ahead of Arthur because he went cold on the buzzer, but otherwise his knowledge base is deeper than mine.
C. I'm ahead of Arthur because I am genuinely as good at Jeopardy as he is (or close)

If I assess it to be C, offering the tie makes some sense sense. You get more buzzer time, a better chance at winning real big money and coming back, there's a debate to be had IMO.

However, in the first two scenarios, I then have to assess my chances of winning against two randoms in the next game: If I think it's even close to decent, I go to knock Arthur out right now. First, I have my doubts that a player will offer me a tie repeatedly if I am repeatedly in contention (including at least one game where I go into Final Jeopardy with the lead). I also have doubts that the rule stays in place or helps me if another player comes along who beats me out for second and presents a threat to Arthur (he can't offer me a tie if he's offering the actual second place finisher a tie).

Mainly though, let's say I go into FJ up 11k to 10k...but Arthur only has 10k because he botched a true daily double and he got his 10k in four categories. I don't think my ability to consistently get half his score is truly stated there. Additionally, the tie scenario isn't as pretty when you have to get FJ right to advance. Even this week, only about 15% of people here got all five FJs, and there were two questions below 50%. Against two newbies, real scenarios exist where I can miss FJ and win...not in this one if I'm betting Arthur to tie every time.

So yes, I'd take my chances on this FJ and try to knock Arthur out right there. The Patriots didn't kneel to the Rams to go to OT, I'm not doing it here. (Perhaps, if it's a real terrible category for me, I do consider it)

FWIW, I'm not 100% convinced Arthur would play this game on the 2nd placer's side either. If I were up 11k to 10k going into FJ (let's say third isn't a factor), I don't think he's going to wager all 10k (he can prove me wrong on this). I think he'd wager something small (1,001 to get ahead maybe), or upwards of 7,999 to maximize potential earnings). If I'm right on this, he takes that decision out of my hands: I'm wagering to win by default as Arthur would maximize his potential of staying by going for either a single get (Arthur) or a double miss. If I could guarantee a situation where I play the next day by offering the tie, I would probably do it then, but I'm not buying the premise I'm guaranteed that unless it's explicitly stated (would it have to be a crush game?)

Final Edit: With that said, if I were aware of Arthur's strategy and betting from second place, his "offer the tie" olive branches would certainly affect my usual second place wagering.

[ahirbhairav]

Definitely bet to tie Arthur, both so that he has a shot at breaking the one-day record continuously...but I'd bet to tie all the time...

[ihavejeoprosy]

Why would you even consider betting to tie him? Playing him again would give him the advantage of being familiar with your style and provide him an opportunity to correct his errors. If you think you can cover him, you should go for it.

[Budphrey]

The old sports maxim is if you have a choice, go for the tie on your home field (or court) and go for the win on the road. Arthur has made the J! stage his home court, so definitely I set up outside the 3-point arc.

[lieph82]

Why would you even consider betting to tie him? Playing him again would give him the advantage of being familiar with your style and provide him an opportunity to correct his errors. If you think you can cover him, you should go for it.

For the reasons given, other than the one by ahirbhairav? If I have a choice between playing against two average players who are playing to win, and one average player who is playing to win and one great player who is playing to tie, I would choose the latter. I know Arthur would return the favor if he had the lead the next day or the day after that etc., because he makes his wagering decisions by following his script, not considering who his opponent is or what he/she did in the past. I like my chances of getting 50% of Arthur's score or higher every day. That's my personal opinion, and there are valid reasons not to bet to tie him--but I'm more convinced by the reasons to tie him.

Also, I would give Arthur no indication that I was betting to tie him. Then, chances are he would not go all-in, and my bet to tie would actually be a bet to win anyway.

[ihavejeoprosy]

For the reasons given, other than the one by ahirbhairav? If I have a choice between playing against two average players who are playing to win, and one average player who is playing to win and one great player who is playing to tie, I would choose the latter. I know Arthur would return the favor if he had the lead the next day or the day after that etc., because he makes his wagering decisions by following his script, not considering who his opponent is or what he/she did in the past. I like my chances of getting 50% of Arthur's score or higher every day. That's my personal opinion, and there are valid reasons not to bet to tie him--but I'm more convinced by the reasons to tie him.

Also, I would give Arthur no indication that I was betting to tie him. Then, chances are he would not go all-in, and my bet to tie would actually be a bet to win anyway.

IIRC, didnt Arthur start his run by tying someone and then beating her the next day? I would always go for the win if given the opportunity.

[lieph82]

For the reasons given, other than the one by ahirbhairav? If I have a choice between playing against two average players who are playing to win, and one average player who is playing to win and one great player who is playing to tie, I would choose the latter. I know Arthur would return the favor if he had the lead the next day or the day after that etc., because he makes his wagering decisions by following his script, not considering who his opponent is or what he/she did in the past. I like my chances of getting 50% of Arthur's score or higher every day. That's my personal opinion, and there are valid reasons not to bet to tie him--but I'm more convinced by the reasons to tie him.

Also, I would give Arthur no indication that I was betting to tie him. Then, chances are he would not go all-in, and my bet to tie would actually be a bet to win anyway.

IIRC, didnt Arthur start his run by tying someone and then beating her the next day? I would always go for the win if given the opportunity.

That's fair, and that's a legitimate strategy, but it's not the only one. It's your opinion, and I have no problem with it--just don't state it like it's the only correct thing to do and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid.

In one of Arthur's games, he bet to tie someone, she went all-in, and they tied. The next day he locked her out. That is an entirely different situation than what the OP proposed. In this scenario, I would be leading Arthur going into FJ. Assuming I didn't have a huge daily double or two, Arthur didn't screw up a bunch of huge daily doubles, and I didn't have my dream categories, I would feel like I was at least a comparable player to Arthur, and I would feel confident that I could avoid getting locked out the next day.

[georgespelvin]

Looking at the issue subjectively (from my perspective), I might wager to tie Arthur if it were my first game because it would maximize my chances of winning, getting real money, and coming back the next day. If it happened the second day (even more unlikely than being in the situation on the first day) I would wager for the kill. The odds of any other player in the Green Room being as good as Arthur and using his strategy is astronomical. Yes, I know that there have been taping groups with two eventual ToC contestants in it (e.g. Tom Kavanaugh/Kevin Marshall, Bill MacDonald/Vik Vaz--Maria Wenglinsky might have been in that group too) but they are more conventional players. Of course, who am I kidding--Arthur would kill me on the buzzer alone.

[ihavejeoprosy]

That's fair, and that's a legitimate strategy, but it's not the only one. It's your opinion, and I have no problem with it--just don't state it like it's the only correct thing to do and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid.

Where should I send in your prescription for a chill pills?

[ihavejeoprosy]

That's fair, and that's a legitimate strategy, but it's not the only one. It's your opinion, and I have no problem with it--just don't state it like it's the only correct thing to do and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid.

Where should I send in your prescription for a chill pill?

[DadofTwins]

We've never seen Arthur in second place, so we don't know what he would do.

If he's down 20K to 14K (with 3rd out of it), does he bet zero and wait for you to miss, or does he go all in and hope you offered him a tie, too?

If he's in second and down 22K to 16K to 14K, does he bet small and hope the third place player doesn't pass him, or does he bet big and hope the leader misses?

He probably knows enough Jeopardy wagering theory to know what the "rational move" is in these -- and many, many other -- situations.

But my theory has always been that you base your bet on the numbers, not on the category and certainly not on the player.

That, and the only time in Jeopardy history where incoming players had enough information about a champion's tendencies to formulate specific strategies against him was the second season of Ken Jennings opponents. And even then, what beat him was a sub-optimal wager that happened to coincide with him missing FJ (and missing 2 DJ round DDs and having most of the opposition money on one podium).

So, for me, unless the numbers show a specific "bet for the tie" scenario, I'm going for the outright win from the lead no matter who I'm up against. And unless I have a LOT of data to the contrary (and not just green room chatter, since that can be gamesmanship as much as anything else), I'm assuming someone ahead of me will do the same.

[John Boy]

I haven't even gotten an invitation to an audition. So if I do, and get The Call, my appearance will doubtless be months away. If Arthur is still playing by that time I would have to slit my wrists in the green room.

I mean, I've got my fair share of confidence and all, but really....

[koam]

I bet to win by $1 against the King, even though I understand there's a slight chance that the dollar costs me the game.

Against an opponent I have observed, and think I have an edge against (assume equal buzzer skills, but I get fewer wrong than opponent), I probably bet to tie.

If that opponent flat out knew several responses that I didn't know or couldn't recall quickly, I bet to win by $1.
If the opponent has beaten me on the buzzer more than I like but we have roughly equal trivia skills, I bet to win by $1.
If the opponent has demonstrated less-than-thoughtful wagering on DDs, I bet to tie.

[Rex Kramer]

Yes, I know that there have been taping groups with two eventual ToC contestants in it (e.g. Tom Kavanaugh/Kevin Marshall, Bill MacDonald/Vik Vaz--Maria Wenglinsky might have been in that group too) but they are more conventional players.

I was in Maria's taping group my first tape day and Vik was in my taping group my second tape day. I wonder how often those kinds of linked multi-ToC taping groups have happened.

Rex

[lieph82]

That's fair, and that's a legitimate strategy, but it's not the only one. It's your opinion, and I have no problem with it--just don't state it like it's the only correct thing to do and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid.

Where should I send in your prescription for a chill pill?

Probably to the person who asks "why would you even consider doing that?" to someone who had already laid out his reasons for doing so above.

[koam]

I wouldn't expect Arthur to return or do me a favor if he determined I was a worthy opponent who had a better-than-average chance of ending his run. If he saw me as a strong player, I'm sure he'd go for the win if he were ahead. He's said he's there to stay there, not make friends and I think that's smart.

[morbeedo]

Bet to win!

[ihavejeoprosy]

Probably to the person who asks "why would you even consider doing that?" to someone who had already laid out his reasons for doing so above.

Look at the title of this thread. Why do you feel that comment was specifically addressed to you? Please don't get so worked up over a hypothetical situation.