Toughest wagering situation ever?

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

UniquePerspective
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:36 pm

Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by UniquePerspective »

In all games of Jeopardy you've seen or are aware of, what is the toughest wagering scenario you've seen? I would stick with games other than TOC quarterfinals.

My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
User avatar
MDaunt
Weighed in the balance and found wanting
Posts: 748
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by MDaunt »

Honestly, the toughest wagering situation is when you're on the winning end of a lock game.

How much of your own money are you willing to bet that you know the correct response to a random question in the given category?
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12897
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Bamaman »

MDaunt wrote:Honestly, the toughest wagering situation is when you're on the winning end of a lock game.
Yeah, that's a real bummer of a spot to be in. ;)
MFalk
KJL #152
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by MFalk »

UniquePerspective wrote:My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).

Outside of that, anytime you're in Stratton's Dilemma or Prisoner's Dilemma.
User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 16471
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by MarkBarrett »

What would Jeeks answer?
User avatar
Vermonter
2003 College Champion
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Vermonter »

MFalk wrote:I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).
That game was not a wager-to-tie situation - both Jeff and Celeste wagered poorly.
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
User avatar
Vermonter
2003 College Champion
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Vermonter »

UniquePerspective wrote:In all games of Jeopardy you've seen or are aware of, what is the toughest wagering scenario you've seen? I would stick with games other than TOC quarterfinals.

My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
In that situation Pastor Dave also had the option of wagering up to 5,200 - perhaps letting Cora back into the game, but covering outright a zero from Larissa.

The most work I've done on a Final Wager this season was the game from April 17.
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by lieph82 »

Vermonter wrote:
UniquePerspective wrote:In all games of Jeopardy you've seen or are aware of, what is the toughest wagering scenario you've seen? I would stick with games other than TOC quarterfinals.

My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
In that situation Pastor Dave also had the option of wagering up to 5,200 - perhaps letting Cora back into the game, but covering outright a zero from Larissa.
Does anyone here think Larissa Kelly has ever said the word zero in her life...?
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by dhkendall »

lieph82 wrote:
Vermonter wrote:
UniquePerspective wrote:In all games of Jeopardy you've seen or are aware of, what is the toughest wagering scenario you've seen? I would stick with games other than TOC quarterfinals.

My vote as of now would be the TOC semi between Larissa Kelly, Cora Peck, and Pastor Dave, where Dave was in a Faith Love scenario. Dave should normally wager for the tie, and in fact he did, however since it's a tournament, does he want to do that normally? Or does he go one way or the other and risk either Cora doubling or Larissa wagering 0? It's quite a pickle to think about, at least for me?
In that situation Pastor Dave also had the option of wagering up to 5,200 - perhaps letting Cora back into the game, but covering outright a zero from Larissa.
Does anyone here think Larissa Kelly has ever said the word zero in her life...?
If she was faster on the buzzer, she would have. (IN THE DICTIONARY $400) ;)
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8941
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by seaborgium »

Toughest (one-day) wagering situation ever, if I read "toughest" as "most complicated," is first equals third plus half of second, or as I like to call it, "Faith Love on [drug of choice here; I think I've used at least two of 'acid,' 'speed,' and 'crack' (and no, that's not what I meant by 'used')]." It's particularly complicated if third has more than two thirds of second's score. Here's an example of one, in which only third place made a right wager, and ended up winning on a TS.

The rundown:
Third's "catch up to second if right" wager is also a "tie first place on a double miss if first offers a tie to second" wager.
First's "offer a tie to third" wager is also a "tie second place's pre-FJ score on an incorrect response" wager.

So first should either offer second a tie (to potentially tie third on a double miss or worse) or offer third a tie (to potentially tie a zero-wagering second or a "catch up to second"-betting third who gets FJ right). Second should bet zero (to tie first and/or third) or bet everything (to tie first on a double get). And third should bet to catch up to second (to possibly tie first on a triple stumper, or tie first and/or second on a sole miss by first or a sole get), or bet everything (to possibly tie first on a double get)
User avatar
Mathew5000
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Mathew5000 »

How about this game:
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=1877
Scores $4,800 : $4,000 : $3,200
(evenly spaced, with third having 4/5 of second and 2/3 of first).

If 1st bets $3,200 to cover 2nd, and 2nd bets $2,400 to cover 3rd, then they tie at $1,600 if both wrong. But 2nd may decide to wager $800, to match 1st's pre-FJ score if right and 3rd's pre-FJ score if wrong. If 1st thinks that 2nd will wager to cover 3rd, then 1st can wager $1,600, to possibly tie the other players at $6,400 if right, or to possibly tie the other players at $3,200 if wrong. 3rd place might wager $1,600, possibly tying another player at $4,800 if right or at $1,600 if wrong.

The actual wagers were not so interesting. First bet $3,201. Second bet $2,100. Third bet $3,199. It was a triple-miss so second won.
GoodStrategy
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by GoodStrategy »

Vermonter wrote:
MFalk wrote:I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).
That game was not a wager-to-tie situation - both Jeff and Celeste wagered poorly.
Actually it was Christian who made the other sub-optimal wager - Jeff made the usual cover-by-a-dollar-from-the-lead bet.
User avatar
Vermonter
2003 College Champion
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Vermonter »

GoodStrategy wrote:
Vermonter wrote:
MFalk wrote:I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).
That game was not a wager-to-tie situation - both Jeff and Celeste wagered poorly.
Actually it was Christian who made the other sub-optimal wager - Jeff made the usual cover-by-a-dollar-from-the-lead bet.
Ah yes, got the names mixed up. Thanks!
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
MFalk
KJL #152
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by MFalk »

GoodStrategy wrote:
Vermonter wrote:
MFalk wrote:I agree that quarterfinals with wild cards are a tough scenario, and I'd expand what you said above to include any tournament game when the "right" thing to do is wager for a tie (thinking of the Jeff Spoeri/Celeste DiNucci/Christian Haines SF), just because of the looming tiebreaker (and in some scenarios, the possibility to wager the extra dollar, when it might win or lose you the game outright).
That game was not a wager-to-tie situation - both Jeff and Celeste wagered poorly.
Actually it was Christian who made the other sub-optimal wager - Jeff made the usual cover-by-a-dollar-from-the-lead bet.
Mmm... sorry. I thought they were tied before FJ. That's what happens when I try to do those by memory rather than actually looking them up.

The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
User avatar
Mathew5000
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Mathew5000 »

MFalk wrote:The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
In a regular-play game this scenario is not especially tough: if you're one of the tied players, betting zero should maximize your chance of winning.

(In this example from a few months ago, I dislike all three players' wagers.)

If it's a tournament semi-final, betting zero might still be the optimal choice, but it would depend on the category (as well as, perhaps, your assessment of your ability to buzz in first on the tiebreaker).

If it's a tournament quarter-final (like Stephanie Jass's from February 2013) it obviously depends on what your score is, compared to what you think the wild-card cutoff might be.
User avatar
Mathew5000
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Mathew5000 »

seaborgium wrote:Toughest (one-day) wagering situation ever, if I read "toughest" as "most complicated," is first equals third plus half of second, or as I like to call it, "Faith Love on [drug of choice here; I think I've used at least two of 'acid,' 'speed,' and 'crack' (and no, that's not what I meant by 'used')]." It's particularly complicated if third has more than two thirds of second's score.
A Faith-Love-on-crack game from 2010 was discussed on the boards a few months ago. Nice round numbers and, as a bonus, second has exactly three-quarters of first:
Phil 16000 - 3999 = 12001
Hilary 12000 - 8001 = 3999
Chris 10000 - 9999 = 1

The remarkable thing about those wagers is that Phil and Hilary clearly gave some thought to them, but not quite enough thought. Phil thought that Hilary and Chris might wager 0, so he bet to stay at least a dollar above their scores (with a sole win on a triple stumper regardless of their bets). But Phil didn't notice that if he's right, he'll be one dollar short of Chris's doubled score. Hilary, meanwhile, wagered so as to beat Chris's doubled score by a dollar, and she didn't notice that this might well cause her to lose by a dollar against Phil (if he wagered $8,000 and it's a triple-stumper).

Since Chris held back a dollar, Phil and Chris would have tied at $19,999 if they were both correct.
User avatar
Rex Kramer
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 1338
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Rex Kramer »

Mathew5000 wrote:
MFalk wrote:The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
In a regular-play game this scenario is not especially tough: if you're one of the tied players, betting zero should maximize your chance of winning.
It can't be that simple. If it were then the leader would bet zero, too.

Rex

P.S. -- To clarify -- if it were the other way around -- the two tied players were in the lead -- and I were betting from third, I would bet zero confidently. Even knowing this, the leaders would almost certainly bet everything.
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8941
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by seaborgium »

Mathew5000 wrote:Hilary, meanwhile, wagered so as to beat Chris's doubled score by a dollar, and she didn't notice that this might well cause her to lose by a dollar against Phil (if he wagered $8,000 and it's a triple-stumper).
You got the math muddled here. If she'd wagered to get $1 ahead of Phil (not $1 ahead of Chris's doubled score), she'd have lost by that dollar to a tie-offering Phil.
User avatar
Mathew5000
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by Mathew5000 »

seaborgium wrote:
Mathew5000 wrote:Hilary, meanwhile, wagered so as to beat Chris's doubled score by a dollar, and she didn't notice that this might well cause her to lose by a dollar against Phil (if he wagered $8,000 and it's a triple-stumper).
You got the math muddled here. If she'd wagered to get $1 ahead of Phil (not $1 ahead of Chris's doubled score), she'd have lost by that dollar to a tie-offering Phil.
You're right; thanks.
Rex Kramer wrote:
Mathew5000 wrote:
MFalk wrote:The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
In a regular-play game this scenario is not especially tough: if you're one of the tied players, betting zero should maximize your chance of winning.
It can't be that simple. If it were then the leader would bet zero, too.
Look at it this way: suppose the scores are 9000, 6500, 6500 and the player in first agrees with me that the other two players would each maximize their chance of returning by wagering zero. The problem for this player (in first) is that she doesn't know whether the other players know that they should bet zero. If she's confident that they will both bet zero then sure, she should bet zero from the lead. But in reality, it's likely that at least one of them will bet large, meaning that from the lead she will maximize her own chance of returning by wagering at least 4000.

So now going back to the perspective of one of those players tied for second with 6500, it's a pretty safe assumption that the leader will bet to cover. (I'm not saying they can be certain of it, just that it's a fairly high probability.) Because of that, and because a triple-stumper is more likely than a get by that player parlayed with a miss by the leader, a zero wager is going to maximize the probability of returning.
User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Toughest wagering situation ever?

Post by lieph82 »

Mathew5000 wrote:
Rex Kramer wrote:
Mathew5000 wrote:
MFalk wrote:The situation I'm thinking of is that the leader is alone but 2nd and 3rd are tied, with more than 2/3 of the leader. I don't know if that has a name.
In a regular-play game this scenario is not especially tough: if you're one of the tied players, betting zero should maximize your chance of winning.
It can't be that simple. If it were then the leader would bet zero, too.
Look at it this way: suppose the scores are 9000, 6500, 6500 and the player in first agrees with me that the other two players would each maximize their chance of returning by wagering zero. The problem for this player (in first) is that she doesn't know whether the other players know that they should bet zero. If she's confident that they will both bet zero then sure, she should bet zero from the lead. But in reality, it's likely that at least one of them will bet large, meaning that from the lead she will maximize her own chance of returning by wagering at least 4000.

So now going back to the perspective of one of those players tied for second with 6500, it's a pretty safe assumption that the leader will bet to cover. (I'm not saying they can be certain of it, just that it's a fairly high probability.) Because of that, and because a triple-stumper is more likely than a get by that player parlayed with a miss by the leader, a zero wager is going to maximize the probability of returning.
Right, but let's say the leader knows the other two are canny wagerers. Then the leader, expecting the other two players to bet $0, might bet up to $2500. And if the other two players expect the leader to bet up to $2500 then maybe they can put something like a $5000 bet out there. It's never that simple, as Rex says--there are so many different orders you can think on. The less information you have, the better a first-order rational wager sounds to me.

Of course, in a situation in which you have more information, like a TOC semifinal, it's a completely different situation because tie != win. We can debate about whether the two trailers should bet $0 or $1 or $6500 or something else in that case.
Last edited by lieph82 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply