If they ARE gonna do it, they at least need to let the other player keep the winnings.
Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 632
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:50 pm
-
- Second Banana
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:21 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Allowing an exception in this case to let second place keep the winnings invites the exact collusion scenarios the show seeks to avoid.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:22 pm
- Location: Mid-Missouri
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I got the final, but with low confidence, thinking that it might have been Mengele, or a third guy whose name I couldn't come up with.
I'm going to admit that I choked on the tie-breaker. I misread the clue and responded with the name of the second lightest of the noble gases.
I'm going to admit that I choked on the tie-breaker. I misread the clue and responded with the name of the second lightest of the noble gases.
- Volante
- Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
What would've helped me, Operation Finale, is in the 300s of my NetFlix queue...
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:34 am
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Tiebreaker clues are too easy. I was shocked that Roey lost the buzzer race on that one.
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:56 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
They'll probably always be "too easy" because it's not in the best interest of the show to have multiple tiebreaks.Philliesfan02 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:47 am Tiebreaker clues are too easy. I was shocked that Roey lost the buzzer race on that one.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:30 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Can someone research the get rate for tie-breaker clues? I've only seen a handful but my recollection is that they have all been fairly easy and they reduce to a buzzer speed competition.
- econgator
- Let's Go Mets!
- Posts: 10671
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
-
- Second Banana
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:21 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
The get rate of tiebreakers isn't going to be found on the Archive because the show will edit out any double stumpers and only show whichever question garners a correct answer.
- LucarioSnooperVixey
- Carrying Letters and Lemons
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:41 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
54 R (Missed Cracklings and the Bottom Three in Comic Strips.)
DD: 3/3
FJ:
TB:
LT: Pocket Bread, *Triglyceride*, Opticalifornia, Analgezic, (Noninvasive)
DD: 3/3
FJ:
TB:
LT: Pocket Bread, *Triglyceride*, Opticalifornia, Analgezic, (Noninvasive)
Douglas Squasoni
- Robert K S
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 5247
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
- Contact:
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
The interesting thing about Mengele (from a trivia perspective) is that he was never captured (after being released in the immediate postwar period by U.S. forces unaware of his significance). At at few different times in the '60s Mossad knew exactly where he was, but they didn't prioritize a mission to get him. By the '80s, when they started to believe that a policy of finishing off any remaining Nazis would set an example against Palestinian militantism, the agency was entertaining all kinds of kooky schemes, including kidnapping Mengele's friend's 12-year-old son in hopes of ransoming him for information, and a dangerous operation to tap Mengele's adult son's phone in West Berlin in hopes of intercepting birthday greetings. Only later did they learn that Mengele had drowned after having a stroke while swimming in 1979. The "Angel of Death" died free, or as free as a hunted man could die.
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12895
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=4557
Here is one such example. This was in the co-champs era with very simple math involved.
The urinating contest between Direct TV and my local Jeopardy station continues. At least I saw there was a tiebreak on the show’s Facebook feed. The station also carries SEC football, so it should at least be fixed by the fall.
Took me a bit to pull FJ’s name. I saw the movie about his capture a couple years ago.
-
- Second Banana
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:21 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Wow, and with a comically easy FJ to boot.Bamaman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:08 pmhttp://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=4557
Here is one such example. This was in the co-champs era with very simple math involved.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I did full time for a few years. People were giving money away online, figured I may as well scoop it up. While profitable, it was never overly fulfilling nor healthy for me however.CasketRomance wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:54 pm do you play poker? just wondering because i have seen you use poker terminology on several occasions in here
And then the FBI fired me on Black Friday.
You are assuming all four possibilities have a 25% chance of occurring. They do not. The >80% chance of the leader winning takes this into account in both scenarios.MattKnowles wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:21 am Roey played really well. I like the "whoever's closest" numerical idea for a tiebreaker instead of the buzzer face off.
Assume Player 1 has twice the score of Player 2 and both contestants independently have a 50% chance to answer FJ correctly and Player 2 wagers everything.
If Player 1 bets $1 they win in RR/RW/WW (75% to win) and lose on WR (25% to lose) - they have a 75% chance to win.
If Player 1 bets $0 they win in RW/WW (50% to win) and tie in RR/WW (50% to tie ->25% to win) - they have a 75% chance to win.
(RW = Player 1 Right, Player 2 Wrong)
Nope. Players have wagered to only cover third as already linked. Played have wagered all but $1, one reason why wagering $0 holds up so well. You never wager to win by more than $1 from the lead. Each and every extra dollar reduces winning chances because players wager so sub-optimally.Category 13 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:38 am If he chose to wager at all, his optimal bet would've been $5199.
The only valid wagers are $0 or $1.
-
- selwonKttaM
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:33 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Ok. The assumptions I made are fine for a quick estimate. Players do answer FJ correctly about 50% of the time but their success is not independent - players are more likely to get it both right or both wrong. If we want to be more accurate, which you've probably already done, we can use a data table from season 34 to get the probabilities instead of naively assigning them 25% each and then we get these odds:Golf wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:24 pmYou are assuming all four possibilities have a 25% chance of occurring. They do not. The >80% chance of the leader winning takes this into account in both scenarios.MattKnowles wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:21 am
Assume Player 1 has twice the score of Player 2 and both contestants independently have a 50% chance to answer FJ correctly and Player 2 wagers everything.
If Player 1 bets $1 they win in RR/RW/WW (75% to win) and lose on WR (25% to lose) - they have a 75% chance to win.
If Player 1 bets $0 they win in RW/WW (50% to win) and tie in RR/WR (50% to tie ->25% to win) - they have a 75% chance to win.
(RW = Player 1 Right, Player 2 Wrong)
If Player 1 bets $1 they win in RR/RW/WW (84% to win) and lose on WR (16% to lose) - they have a 84% chance to win.
If Player 1 bets $0 they win in RW/WW (54% to win) and tie in RR/WR (46% to tie ->23% to win) - they have a 77% chance to win.
http://j-archive.com/finalstats.php?season=34
Did you have a different way to get >80% for both options or did you just use more data than season 34? It's an estimate based on assumptions no matter what.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
MattKnowles wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:21 am
Assume Player 1 has twice the score of Player 2 and both contestants independently have a 50% chance to answer FJ correctly and Player 2 wagers everything.
If Player 1 bets $1 they win in RR/RW/WW (75% to win) and lose on WR (25% to lose) - they have a 75% chance to win.
If Player 1 bets $0 they win in RW/WW (50% to win) and tie in RR/WR (50% to tie ->25% to win) - they have a 75% chance to win.
(RW = Player 1 Right, Player 2 Wrong)
OK, good. Now we're making progress.MattKnowles wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:08 pm Ok. The assumptions I made are fine for a quick estimate. Players do answer FJ correctly about 50% of the time but their success is not independent - players are more likely to get it both right or both wrong. If we want to be more accurate, which you've probably already done, we can use a data table from season 34 to get the probabilities instead of naively assigning them 25% each and then we get these odds:
If Player 1 bets $1 they win in RR/RW/WW (84% to win) and lose on WR (16% to lose) - they have a 84% chance to win.
If Player 1 bets $0 they win in RW/WW (54% to win) and tie in RR/WR (46% to tie ->23% to win) - they have a 77% chance to win.
http://j-archive.com/finalstats.php?season=34
Did you have a different way to get >80% for both options or did you just use more data than season 34? It's an estimate based on assumptions no matter what.
I seem to remember we used more data for the RW scenarios, but what you did is close enough for the leader wagering $1.
However, we need to tweak a couple of things for then the leader wagers $0. For 2nd place to win, three things have to occur.
1, answer FJ correctly
2, wager everything
3, win the tie-breaker
You've got the percentage correct for #1, but not #2 and #3. Keep in mind if the leader has double second place, their chances of winning the tie-breaker is greater than 50%. Also, as discussed, #2 is not 100%.
So, adjust those two percentages and recalculate. Then you should be in the 80-85% neighborhood just like if the leader wagers $1.
-
- selwonKttaM
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:33 pm
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Do you know which old thread talked about this? I'll go read the previous discussion.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.
- Category 13
- Wagering Viking
- Posts: 1912
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:43 pm
- Location: This side of paradise
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
But in this case, Alex made a point to mention out loud that Nathan had exactly half of the leader's score.Golf wrote:Nope. Players have wagered to only cover third as already linked. Played have wagered all but $1, one reason why wagering $0 holds up so well. You never wager to win by more than $1 from the lead. Each and every extra dollar reduces winning chances because players wager so sub-optimally.Category 13 wrote: If he chose to wager at all, his optimal bet would've been $5199.
The only valid wagers are $0 or $1.
Whether he bets $1 or $5199, at least Roey still controls his own destiny.
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8937
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
The only thing that makes that relevant is a record on lock-tie FJs and Alex's post-DJ comments in those games. If there's a correlation between Alex saying second place is at exactly half of first and second place betting it all, so be it. But the fact that Alex pointed it out doesn't itself indicate how second place will wager.Category 13 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:52 pmBut in this case, Alex made a point to mention out loud that Nathan had exactly half of the leader's score.Golf wrote:Nope. Players have wagered to only cover third as already linked. Played have wagered all but $1, one reason why wagering $0 holds up so well. You never wager to win by more than $1 from the lead. Each and every extra dollar reduces winning chances because players wager so sub-optimally.Category 13 wrote: If he chose to wager at all, his optimal bet would've been $5199.
The only valid wagers are $0 or $1.
Whether he bets $1 or $5199, at least Roey still controls his own destiny.
- xxaaaxx
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:29 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: Thursday, July 18, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Hmm...out of all the times 2nd place in a lock-tie failed to make the all-in wager, I'm curious how often Alex pointed out the scores but was ignored. But I don't have recordings of the show so I have no way to check.seaborgium wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:20 pm *snip*
If there's a correlation between Alex saying second place is at exactly half of first and second place betting it all, so be it. But the fact that Alex pointed it out doesn't itself indicate how second place will wager.