lieph82 wrote:Right, but let's say the leader knows the other two are canny wagerers.
But why would we say that?
In a regular-play game it is totally unwarranted to assume that both your opponents are canny wagerers.
It's possible they're both canny wagerers, and okay you could postulate unusual situations where you've all been discussing wagering strategy in the green room or something like that, but without such information the best assumption you could make is that at least one of your opponents will not wager cannily. This is based on empirical evidence: 30 years of televised games.
lieph82 wrote:Right, but let's say the leader knows the other two are canny wagerers.
But why would we say that?
In a regular-play game it is totally unwarranted to assume that both your opponents are canny wagerers.
It's possible they're both canny wagerers, and okay you could postulate unusual situations where you've all been discussing wagering strategy in the green room or something like that, but without such information the best assumption you could make is that at least one of your opponents will not wager cannily. This is based on empirical evidence: 30 years of televised games.
I agree-- but to say it's so simple is to sell it short. If you're going on the show, and you know about wagering strategy, then why on Earth would you not try to drop a couple of subtle hints about wagering throughout the day so you can try to get a sense of how canny your opponents are? Plenty of people on this board have talked about planning to do this very thing. I wouldn't call it an "unusual situation."
Rex Kramer wrote: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.
If you had more than half of the (tied) leaders' scores you should probably bet at least enough to cover their zero bets just in case one or both of them should bet that. With less than half of their scores you're probably right though since a TS is the most likely way you'd be able to win (and if either or both of the leaders should get it right and/or bet zero there's nothing you can do about that). (The most entertaining tie-for-the-lead scenario would be if third has exactly half of the leaders' totals; in that case the trailer has a choice to make, and a no-winner finish that is not due to bad wagering becomes possible - only one of three possible scenarios that is applicable*.)
*The other two being a three-way-tie going into FJ!, and a two-way-tie with third not playing because of a zero or negative score (which has happened IRL).
GoodStrategy wrote:(The most entertaining tie-for-the-lead scenario would be if third has exactly half of the leaders' totals; in that case the trailer has a choice to make, and a no-winner finish that is not due to bad wagering becomes possible - only one of three possible scenarios that is applicable*.)
In the 9000-6500-6500 scenario, I don't think the 0 wager is a gimme for one of the trailers. I think a 6500 is also rational, the same way it would be in a tied two-player game. This is a scenario where comfort with the category could affect your wager.
I think trailers should generally assume that the leader will wager to cover, even though the "Faith-Love-on-crack" game below is an exception, and so were Pam's and Colby's recent wins in the tournament. Pam's and Colby's were clearly second-order thinking, though a lot of wagers that don't cover (including my first game) probably aren't that.
MFalk wrote:In the 9000-6500-6500 scenario, I don't think the 0 wager is a gimme for one of the trailers. I think a 6500 is also rational, the same way it would be in a tied two-player game. This is a scenario where comfort with the category could affect your wager.
I think trailers should generally assume that the leader will wager to cover, even though the "Faith-Love-on-crack" game below is an exception, and so were Pam's and Colby's recent wins in the tournament. Pam's and Colby's were clearly second-order thinking, though a lot of wagers that don't cover (including my first game) probably aren't that.
Regarding a potential 0 wager by the leader:
In regular play, expecting one of your opponents to put thought into his wager is a stretch. But two?! Probably not worth the risk, despite my best efforts.
[quote="Mathew5000"]
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.
When I was in this situation, as a challenger in my first game, I did not realize this strategy would maximize my chances, so I bet everything. The champ, who was leading after Double Jeopardy with a little less than twice the other challenger's and my tied total, not only overbet, but she had a classic brain fart that led to her crying out in frustration as the time ran out, as her realization that she had fatally malapropped apparently came with only a second or two left on the countdown. The category was 20th Century, and the clue was "He was assassinated in Mexico City on August 21, 1940,' and she had written down "Who was Tolstoy?" instead of "Who was Trotsky?' A shame; I had been leading well into DJ, and she came back like a champ, reeling off the last five or six clues to take a solid lead. But brain farts happen, and since I thought it was an easy FJ, her gasp and moans led me to think I was be a co-champ with the guy in the middle. In third position and tied for second, I was revealed first, doubling my score. The guy I was tied with also was right, but for some insane reason he wagered everything LESS A DOLLAR, so when the champ's error was revealed and her score went down to third place, I won by a dollar to be sole champ. Certainly one of the silliest betting strategies ever; we've had triple stumpers, to be sure, but was there ever a final score of 1-0-0? And why in God's name would you assume that the champ is going to bet everything when she simply doesn't need to in order to win? So I totally lucked out in this scenario.
Randy Kaplan wrote:Certainly one of the silliest betting strategies ever; we've had triple stumpers, to be sure, but was there ever a final score of 1-0-0? And why in God's name would you assume that the champ is going to bet everything when she simply doesn't need to in order to win? So I totally lucked out in this scenario.
There has been, but there the $1 winner had a $1 lead going into FJ! (from his DD wager) and both trailers (suboptimally) bet it all.
As I've said before, betting everything but a dollar (or other small amount) is very rarely an optimal wager from 2nd place (it's much more likely for the leader to offer a tie than to bet everything when not tied for the lead). If you're trailing in a crush and aren't concerned with 2nd vs. 3rd place, or you're exceeding the maximum 2/3 wager for whatever reason (e.g. Stratton's Dilemma or you think the leader will play mind games), you probably should go ahead and bet it all. An exception where leaving a dollar behind would've won you the game as a trailer going into FJ! (not involving tied leaders) was the 2nd game of the Trebek era. (ETA2: Another exception was the second semifinal of last year's Teen Tournament.)
ETA: Another exception to the don't-bet-everything-but-a-dollar-from-second guideline is in tournament quarterfinals (in case it's like the 2003 ToC where some who finished with $0 got a wildcard, and having anything left would get you a spot).
