Ties on Jeopardy! RIP

[squarekara]

Thank you (and the others who also replied) for the first hand information.

As someone with a long term goal of getting into the pool, it's nice to understand the costs involved. Living fairly close to the studio (around 40 miles or so), I knew airfare wasn't a concern for me. But the other costs, mainly lodging, are not insignificant.

The whole experience is "priceless," as AFRET CMS says, and it'd probably be worth any expense just to have a sandwich with Maggie Speak and hear Johnny Gilbert say your name. But, yeah, it's good to know what you're getting into, budget-wise.

[mikebdoss]

Simple fix is share the dollars and cue it up the next game. TPTB are you listening?

This isn't the only space on the Internet where so many Americans are being so wilfully ignorant towards the possibility of collusion.

It was plainly apparent to TPTB that it was becoming easier to possibly collude to tie.

Because such an action is illegal, TPTB felt they needed to close that loophole in the rules immediately. In fact, it was of such an urgent matter that they felt the need to close that loophole in the middle of a season.

"Split the $ and cue it up next game" is still a positive outcome for both players, and thus an incentive to collude is still there.

I understand and appreciate all of your reasoning, but still hate that it comes down to a single (seemingly easy, in the example we saw) question.

[Woppy T]

On all the contestant paperwork, Sony makes it very clear that contestants pay all expenses. Even if you're offered a taping day and make it out to the studio, there's no guarantee that you'll appear on the show. I figured that covered situations when people might show up drunk or belligerent, or maybe they become ill or too nervous to cope with the demands of the taping schedule, but I guess it applies to ties as well. (The local alternates show up with the understanding that if they don't play that day, they're guaranteed a taping in the near future.) Most out-of-town contestants pay out-of-pocket to stay at one of two Culver City hotels serviced by the Sony shuttle, and, depending on the season and your corporate loyalty status, the hotel expenses can vary. If you carry over from one taping day to the next, you're still paying for your own hotel stay. As a traveller used to paying Econo-Budget-Micro cheapskate rates in the "flyover" states, I paid about FIVE or SIX times what I'm used to paying per night--even with the "Sony rate." To fly me back to LAX as returning champ, Sony arranged and paid for round-trip air travel only, not lodging, local transportation, food, or incidentals. Hell, yeah, I played for second.

Thank you (and the others who also replied) for the first hand information.

As someone with a long term goal of getting into the pool, it's nice to understand the costs involved. Living fairly close to the studio (around 40 miles or so), I knew airfare wasn't a concern for me. But the other costs, mainly lodging, are not insignificant.

I know that L.A. traffic is horrible, but why would you need lodging in Culver City if you live only 40 miles away? I guess if the taping were first thing in the morning you'd want to be close to the studio, but if I could sleep in my own bed the night before a taping, I would want to.

[squarekara]

I know that L.A. traffic is horrible, but why would you need lodging in Culver City if you live only 40 miles away? I guess if the taping were first thing in the morning you'd want to be close to the studio, but if I could sleep in my own bed the night before a taping, I would want to.

For a local, being in Culver City the night before will give peace of mind. If you're already keyed up about remembering the Missouri Compromise or the Dardanelles or whatever, at least you don't have to stress out over traffic on top of that. Since the day starts with a barrage of legalese and paperwork, you might get left out in the cold if you're late.

[Volante]

I know that L.A. traffic is horrible, but why would you need lodging in Culver City if you live only 40 miles away? I guess if the taping were first thing in the morning you'd want to be close to the studio, but if I could sleep in my own bed the night before a taping, I would want to.

From my perspective, those 40 miles could still take 4 hours and I'd rather eat the hotel costs and have piece of mind being on time.

[Peter the accountant]

I know that L.A. traffic is horrible, but why would you need lodging in Culver City if you live only 40 miles away? I guess if the taping were first thing in the morning you'd want to be close to the studio, but if I could sleep in my own bed the night before a taping, I would want to.

I'm not sure you fully grasp the level of horrible. The most horrible thing about it is it's unpredictability.

That particular drive would take me between 45 minutes and 4 hours, depending on the time of day, the day of the week, and the exact axis of spin on those 4 quarks over in the corner. Weather sometimes plays a role, but only if it's raining or not raining. If it's raining it takes longer, unless it doesn't.

So you can't really say that if I want to be in Culver City at 9 am, I need to allow a specific amount for travel time. You don't know how much time to allow for travel, so you have to allow for the maximum reasonably possible amount. Granted, that's going to get you there in time, but at the cost of getting up far earlier than you likely need to.

So yes, in the unlikely event this local makes it all the way through to that magic call, he will be staying in a hotel somewhere close to the studio.

[mikebdoss]

I know that L.A. traffic is horrible, but why would you need lodging in Culver City if you live only 40 miles away? I guess if the taping were first thing in the morning you'd want to be close to the studio, but if I could sleep in my own bed the night before a taping, I would want to.

I'm 40 miles away in Orange County, and 45 minutes - 3 hours is the likely traffic time range. In addition to not wanting to be late, it's nice to be able to get a decent night sleep before you tape (or at least wake up after the sun rises).The stress of the drive and lack of sleep would both be pretty detrimental.

[mfc248]

In the case of those 57, you have enough questions to separate from the pack. A really good player will most likely get through the buzzer race often enough -- while also answering ones only they know -- that it isn't such a big issue. That's not the case when it's only one question.

mfc248 put the clock to a recent Final Jeopardy round. It took 67 seconds for Alex to read the clue, the 30 seconds to tick down, and for the first two players' responses to be revealed.

It is literally impossible to cut a minute and seven seconds out of an episode in order to fit that sort of a tiebreaker in.

Being that the previous status quo was shown to be untenable, and the show already had a rule used in tournaments, a single-clue tiebreak is literally the only feasible solution.

Don't like it? Don't tie.

The episode that I timed was the March 1 game in which the tiebreaker occurred.

The description of the interval I timed isn't quite right. I started the stopwatch upon Alex finishing reading the clue, so it included the words "30 seconds, good luck," the Think! music, and the first two responses. Timing from the return from the commercial break (including the Final introductory spiel, the clue read, Think!, and two responses), it's 85 seconds. Consider also that in Final, the wagering effectively happens while we at home are watching a commercial break - wagering on a tiebreaker would either require another break, or result in some kind of a jump cut (which I'd expect the producers can handle).

The impetus for this was the suggestion by @JeopardyGuesser on Twitter that the tied players should play another Final Jeopardy. In either that case or the tiebreaker format actually used, a clue has to be read, so I was interested in how much more time would have to be carved out for a second FJ, in contrast to a ring-in and a response, which excluding the clue read, was about five seconds.

[AndyTheQuizzer]

The episode that I timed was the March 1 game in which the tiebreaker occurred.

The description of the interval I timed isn't quite right. I started the stopwatch upon Alex finishing reading the clue, so it included the words "30 seconds, good luck," the Think! music, and the first two responses. Timing from the return from the commercial break (including the Final introductory spiel, the clue read, Think!, and two responses), it's 85 seconds. Consider also that in Final, the wagering effectively happens while we at home are watching a commercial break - wagering on a tiebreaker would either require another break, or result in some kind of a jump cut (which I'd expect the producers can handle).

The impetus for this was the suggestion by @JeopardyGuesser on Twitter that the tied players should play another Final Jeopardy. In either that case or the tiebreaker format actually used, a clue has to be read, so I was interested in how much more time would have to be carved out for a second FJ, in contrast to a ring-in and a response, which excluding the clue read, was about five seconds.

Considering that Sarah said on #JeopardyLivePanel tonight that "they cut every single pause out of the episode" in order to fit in a tiebreaker in the first place, there's no way possible they'd be able to find 85 seconds for a second Final Jeopardy, as it were.

[Woppy T]

I know that L.A. traffic is horrible, but why would you need lodging in Culver City if you live only 40 miles away? I guess if the taping were first thing in the morning you'd want to be close to the studio, but if I could sleep in my own bed the night before a taping, I would want to.

I'm not sure you fully grasp the level of horrible. The most horrible thing about it is it's unpredictability.

That particular drive would take me between 45 minutes and 4 hours, depending on the time of day, the day of the week, and the exact axis of spin on those 4 quarks over in the corner. Weather sometimes plays a role, but only if it's raining or not raining. If it's raining it takes longer, unless it doesn't.

So you can't really say that if I want to be in Culver City at 9 am, I need to allow a specific amount for travel time. You don't know how much time to allow for travel, so you have to allow for the maximum reasonably possible amount. Granted, that's going to get you there in time, but at the cost of getting up far earlier than you likely need to.

So yes, in the unlikely event this local makes it all the way through to that magic call, he will be staying in a hotel somewhere close to the studio.

Between 45 minutes and 4 hours? That's insane. I would get a hotel room as well. (Actually I wouldn't need to; my brother-in-law lives walking distance from Sony studios).

[acthomas]

The episode that I timed was the March 1 game in which the tiebreaker occurred.

The description of the interval I timed isn't quite right. I started the stopwatch upon Alex finishing reading the clue, so it included the words "30 seconds, good luck," the Think! music, and the first two responses. Timing from the return from the commercial break (including the Final introductory spiel, the clue read, Think!, and two responses), it's 85 seconds. Consider also that in Final, the wagering effectively happens while we at home are watching a commercial break - wagering on a tiebreaker would either require another break, or result in some kind of a jump cut (which I'd expect the producers can handle).

The impetus for this was the suggestion by @JeopardyGuesser on Twitter that the tied players should play another Final Jeopardy. In either that case or the tiebreaker format actually used, a clue has to be read, so I was interested in how much more time would have to be carved out for a second FJ, in contrast to a ring-in and a response, which excluding the clue read, was about five seconds.

Considering that Sarah said on #JeopardyLivePanel tonight that "they cut every single pause out of the episode" in order to fit in a tiebreaker in the first place, there's no way possible they'd be able to find 85 seconds for a second Final Jeopardy, as it were.

Prefacing this with "I'm fine with the current tiebreaker format":

If the only thing we're worrying about in this extreme hypothetical is the format of the final question, then surely with The Magic Of Editing it would be easy enough *from an editing standpoint* to:

- read the tiebreaker question
- give the players their 30 seconds, which gets jump-cut (put in an animated clock or something -- you know, for kids)
- cut to a split screen with the responses written out, one of which must be judged correct (since you'd just run more questions until this happened)
- award the win to the one player who got it right.

I don't know how much more difficult this would be *from a production standpoint* but it's clearly tougher -- let alone staging and coordination, writing a good FJ question seems tougher than a good main-play question, and the invisible parts would run longer since both players knowing it would necessarily extend the number of trials -- so it would be foolish of me to endorse this plan blindly. Plus, the regular game tiebreaker is so rare. I do wonder if it would be seen as more useful for the tournaments.

[AndyTheQuizzer]

- read the tiebreaker question
- give the players their 30 seconds, which gets jump-cut (put in an animated clock or something -- you know, for kids)
- cut to a split screen with the responses written out, one of which must be judged correct (since you'd just run more questions until this happened)
- award the win to the one player who got it right.

I don't know how much more difficult this would be *from a production standpoint* but it's clearly tougher -- let alone staging and coordination, writing a good FJ question seems tougher than a good main-play question, and the invisible parts would run longer since both players knowing it would necessarily extend the number of trials -- so it would be foolish of me to endorse this plan blindly. Plus, the regular game tiebreaker is so rare. I do wonder if it would be seen as more useful for the tournaments.

My only concern with giving the contestants 30 seconds which gets jump-cut in post-production: the home viewer doesn't get the 30 seconds as well to come up with their answer, whereas with a speed tiebreaker, the viewer at home ostensibly has the same amount of time as the contestants in-studio.

[twelvefootboy]

- read the tiebreaker question
- give the players their 30 seconds, which gets jump-cut (put in an animated clock or something -- you know, for kids)
- cut to a split screen with the responses written out, one of which must be judged correct (since you'd just run more questions until this happened)
- award the win to the one player who got it right.

I don't know how much more difficult this would be *from a production standpoint* but it's clearly tougher -- let alone staging and coordination, writing a good FJ question seems tougher than a good main-play question, and the invisible parts would run longer since both players knowing it would necessarily extend the number of trials -- so it would be foolish of me to endorse this plan blindly. Plus, the regular game tiebreaker is so rare. I do wonder if it would be seen as more useful for the tournaments.

My only concern with giving the contestants 30 seconds which gets jump-cut in post-production: the home viewer doesn't get the 30 seconds as well to come up with their answer, whereas with a speed tiebreaker, the viewer at home ostensibly has the same amount of time as the contestants in-studio.

I LOVE this solution! A real remedy that parses a rightful champion! As to the depriving us of a chance at a double FJ and a possible 62 clue show:

PAUSE YOUR DVR!!!!

Perhaps you will need a warning (which also takes air time) or most the people who really care probably will know after the first time.

and now for an unsolicited PSA from a very casual and otherwise indifferent TV viewer:

If you don't have a DVR (or equivalent),

GET ONE!!

It will change your life whether you think it will or not. Make the small financial sacrifice for total control of your time and schedule. Give up your spouse's meds if you have to!

End of PSA

[mfc248]

The episode that I timed was the March 1 game in which the tiebreaker occurred.

The description of the interval I timed isn't quite right. I started the stopwatch upon Alex finishing reading the clue, so it included the words "30 seconds, good luck," the Think! music, and the first two responses. Timing from the return from the commercial break (including the Final introductory spiel, the clue read, Think!, and two responses), it's 85 seconds. Consider also that in Final, the wagering effectively happens while we at home are watching a commercial break - wagering on a tiebreaker would either require another break, or result in some kind of a jump cut (which I'd expect the producers can handle).

The impetus for this was the suggestion by @JeopardyGuesser on Twitter that the tied players should play another Final Jeopardy. In either that case or the tiebreaker format actually used, a clue has to be read, so I was interested in how much more time would have to be carved out for a second FJ, in contrast to a ring-in and a response, which excluding the clue read, was about five seconds.

Considering that Sarah said on #JeopardyLivePanel tonight that "they cut every single pause out of the episode" in order to fit in a tiebreaker in the first place, there's no way possible they'd be able to find 85 seconds for a second Final Jeopardy, as it were.

Prefacing this with "I'm fine with the current tiebreaker format":

If the only thing we're worrying about in this extreme hypothetical is the format of the final question, then surely with The Magic Of Editing it would be easy enough *from an editing standpoint* to:

- read the tiebreaker question
- give the players their 30 seconds, which gets jump-cut (put in an animated clock or something -- you know, for kids)
- cut to a split screen with the responses written out, one of which must be judged correct (since you'd just run more questions until this happened)
- award the win to the one player who got it right.

I don't know how much more difficult this would be *from a production standpoint* but it's clearly tougher -- let alone staging and coordination, writing a good FJ question seems tougher than a good main-play question, and the invisible parts would run longer since both players knowing it would necessarily extend the number of trials -- so it would be foolish of me to endorse this plan blindly. Plus, the regular game tiebreaker is so rare. I do wonder if it would be seen as more useful for the tournaments.

The words "number of trials" hit on another issue with this form of a tiebreaker. Since the start of Season 31 for all games in the Archive, the aggregate FJ! get rate is 46.8%. Using that as a jumping off point, the probability that a two-player FJ-style tiebreaker would be indecisive (either both players right, or both players wrong) is (46.8%)^2 + (53.2%)^2 = 50.2%. Thus, half the time, you'd need to play more than one clue to settle the match. Granting the sample size is small, only one of the eight tiebreakers so far has required more than one clue. There may be an interest in seeking to keep the number of clues required as low as possible, analogous to the overtime rules in college football (which require teams to attempt a 2-point conversion after any touchdown in the third or later overtime). I don't pay close enough attention to the end credits to note how often "portions of game play not affecting the outcome have been edited" appears, but I can certainly understand why TPTB might want to reach a resolution in the shortest possible time.

[mjhunt]

Simple fix is share the dollars and cue it up the next game. TPTB are you listening?

This isn't the only space on the Internet where so many Americans are being so wilfully ignorant towards the possibility of collusion.

It was plainly apparent to TPTB that it was becoming easier to possibly collude to tie.

Because such an action is illegal, TPTB felt they needed to close that loophole in the rules immediately. In fact, it was of such an urgent matter that they felt the need to close that loophole in the middle of a season.

"Split the $ and cue it up next game" is still a positive outcome for both players, and thus an incentive to collude is still there.

Today's game brought up the tiebreaker rule in my mind and I have more to post. I think it makes sense to go back to this thread.

Posts like this are some of the most mind boggling I have ever seen in my entire life. In the fall of 2013, were you thinking that Jeopardy was grievously violating S&P laws by allowing ties? If so, did you say anything? I have found no such posts from you or anyone else. Through the first tie in over 2 years on 10/18/11, through the time Nichole Mancone threw her lock-tie away 12/28/2012, through Kristin Morgan tying twice in 2013, through Ben Ingram's tie, until Arthur Chu came along, I have not found a peep from you or anyone else that Jeopardy should have or was about to make any rule changes.

You make a great deal of the fact that the world is much more connected today than in 1964, yet there is not that much difference between today and 2013 (or even 2009), certainly not enough to say that allowing ties posed no S&P risk then, yet would be essentially illegal today.

Social media existed for years before 2014. Jeopardy started on twitter in 2009! And, message boards existed for many years before that. Yet, I have failed to find anyone ringing the alarm bells that Jeopardy was inviting collusion by allowing ties.

If I have read correctly season 24 had four ties (one lock-tie, one an accident, and two that were tied going to FJ), season 25 had one (lock-tie), but there was not a single tie in season 26 or 27, even though the world did not become less connected in that stretch of time.

Then ties remained sporadic until season 31. And, there is a logical explanation for the spike: People bought into the Chu/Williams game theory arguments in favor of wagering to tie, whereas the generally accepted strategy for most of jeopardy's history was that it was most important to avoid facing an opponent with buzzer experience. Whether the Chu/Williams game theories were right or wrong, they have nothing to do with collusion and S&P was wrong to infer any.

And your comments regarding proposals to split the money are also profoundly irrational. Do you really not see the logical implications for shows like Wheel of Fortune and Pyramid? The structure of those shows allows all contestants to win high amounts of money, or one person to win a very high amount and the others little or none. Contestants could theoretically collude to guarantee each some money. Does that mean these shows cannot allow non-winners to keep their money? The answer is a very strong no. S&P laws do not work that way. Each individual contestant on these shows tries to win all the money he/she can. Contestants do not collude to guarantee each some money.

Yes, I understand there are reasons why Wheel of Fortune allows non-winners to keep their money but Jeopardy! does not, but there is no difference between Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune doing so from a collusion perspective.

In fact, the ways I can think of try to collude tie on Jeopardy!, apart of the standard tie offer, involve giving up a significant amount of potential money (and would be very difficult to carry out). And, even the former might if a contestants is apt to wager more than the MSB.

Now, are frequent ties good for waiting contestants? Perhaps not. If Jeopardy! thought the frequent wagering to tie would continue, I can see why they would have wanted to change the rules. But, the point is that just S&P laws would have allowed Jeopardy! to choose to have the money split and/or wait to make any changes.

Of course, one may still favor the tiebreaker, but my point is that it cannot be legally required, as the poster I am replying to basically seems to insist.

Why do I post things like this? Do I expect Jeopardy! to change the rules back? Not really. But, I feel good taking a stand and defending the character and intelligence of those who disagree with the tiebreaker. And, I am concerned that if posts like the above go unchallenged, game shows like pyramid and wheel of fortune might decide they cannot allow non-winners to keep their money. I want no part of such a world.

If S&P laws require that, they need to be changed.

[opusthepenguin]

You know who else favors bringing back ties? Jeff Kirby.

[alietr]

You know who else favors bringing back ties? Jeff Kirby.

Well done, sir.

[Robert K S]

Mr. Kirby doesn't need or want your ties. His tie is perfectly satisfactory for all occasions. Weddings, Jeopardy!, parent-teacher conferences, funerals, Jeopardy!...

Mr. Holzhauer, on the other hand...

[Picked Off]

You know who else favors bringing back ties? Jeff Kirby.

[talkingaway]

And your comments regarding proposals to split the money are also profoundly irrational. Do you really not see the logical implications for shows like Wheel of Fortune and Pyramid? The structure of those shows allows all contestants to win high amounts of money, or one person to win a very high amount and the others little or none.

I've always hated the prize structure on the new Pyramid, specifically because of the possibility of collusion. Quick review - two contestants play two games, specifically to allow for the possibility that one celeb is significantly better at the game than the other. In the bonus round, you get $50K for winning your first game, $100K for winning two (for a total of $150K). So, the total prize money available is either $100K or $150K. The rational solution to this problem would be for both contestants to agree to split the money, and that whoever won game 1 also wins game 2. Of course, that's illegal. The better solution would be for each game to be worth $62,500 (would be the same amount of money per show, on average), and no bonus for winning two in a row. Or, just bump it up and call it the $64,000 Pyramid - certainly no S&P issues with that number, right?

As far as J! changing horses in the middle of (or 36 years into) the stream with changing the tiebreaker rule...I don't mind it. It's a little like finding a security flaw in a program. Maybe nobody else found it. But once you find it, fix it. It's not the biggest flaw, and certainly not always exploitable. And, frankly, if I were playing, I might be a bit of a jerk and not offer the tie. My goal is not to liberate Sony's money, per se. I just wouldn't want to have to play the same person twice - as has been stated, buzzer experience and calming of nerves makes it that much more difficult. Same reason why I'd inwardly groan if I were the sole challenger in a game where they bring a prior dethroned champ back because of an error.