Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Post Reply
User avatar
LucarioSnooperVixey
Carrying Letters and Lemons
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:41 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by LucarioSnooperVixey »

58 R (Missed Disastrous Teams $600 and Bruce Willis Movie Quotes $1600.)
DD: 3/3
FJ: :mrgreen:
TB: :mrgreen:
LT: John Quincy Adams, Conchologist, Pillars of the Earth, U-2, Spoiler Alert, 12 Monkeys
Douglas Squasoni
User avatar
floridagator
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2192
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:39 am

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by floridagator »

Lefty wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:15 pm Didn't there use to be a poster with the handle "playforthetie"? I haven't noticed him around lately.
That handle doesn't have anything to do with Jeopardy. There's a Czech jazz musician named Forthetie.
I'd rather cuddle then have sex. If you're into grammar, you'll understand.
User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 10319
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin »

mjhunt wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:34 am Though, of course, that is precisely why the original rule worked for thirty years. It did not diminish the competitiveness of games or cause logistics problems as long as people generally did not aim for ties. And when too many did, well, everything changed.

Again, I don’t want every game to end in a tie. I just wish tie explosion of 2014 had not happened and that Jeopardy! could work the way it did for thirty years, with co-champions an occasional natural thing.
What explosion? Who are these "too many" who offered ties? I don't think contestant behavior changed at all after Arthur Chu. If it did, the change was very slight.
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8941
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

opusthepenguin wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:55 am
mjhunt wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:34 am Though, of course, that is precisely why the original rule worked for thirty years. It did not diminish the competitiveness of games or cause logistics problems as long as people generally did not aim for ties. And when too many did, well, everything changed.

Again, I don’t want every game to end in a tie. I just wish tie explosion of 2014 had not happened and that Jeopardy! could work the way it did for thirty years, with co-champions an occasional natural thing.
What explosion? Who are these "too many" who offered ties? I don't think contestant behavior changed at all after Arthur Chu. If it did, the change was very slight.
We've been over this before—I recall having a "sense" that it was happening more often leading up to the rule change in 2014, but not being willing to do the tedious data work (for me; the best I could do was go one game at a time through J! Archive) to determine whether that sense was anything more than confirmation bias. But Vermonter (Keith Williams himself) did the work in another thread (at least for the post-Jennings era):
Vermonter wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:27 am Here you go – Game AKJ #1 is Nancy Zerg's first win

Code: Select all

Game AKJ  	Date      	∆ games   	Player              	B all-in? 	Tie?
40        	1/24/05   	          	Ted Stratton        	          	
47        	6/2/05    	7         	tie                 	one       	
125       	11/29/05  	78        	tie                 	one       	
144       	12/26/05  	19        	Peter Rubin         	          	
168       	1/27/06   	24        	Paul Canty          	          	
286       	9/20/06   	118       	tie                 	both      	yes
332       	12/14/06  	46        	Cory Hartman        	          	
388       	3/16/07   	56        	Scott Weiss         	yes       	3-way
405       	4/10/07   	17        	David Haglund       	          	
486       	10/17/07  	81        	Linda Zell Randall  	yes       	yes
528       	12/28/07  	42        	tie                 	both      	yes
529       	12/31/07  	1         	Dan Pawson          	          	
536       	1/9/08    	7         	Dan Pawson          	yes       	
543       	1/18/08   	7         	Susan Forman        	          	
562       	2/28/08   	19        	Gwynne Ash          	yes       	yes
598       	4/18/08   	36        	Gabriel Schechter   	yes       	
609       	5/19/08   	11        	Mary Kay Schmidt    	          	
619       	6/2/08    	10        	Chris Vestuto       	          	
647       	7/10/08   	28        	tie                 	both      	yes
661       	9/10/08   	14        	Laura Novak         	yes       	
665       	9/23/08   	4         	Elza Reeves         	yes       	
730       	1/6/09    	65        	Ranjan Ramchandani  	yes       	yes
745       	1/27/09   	15        	Andy Walvoord       	          	
764       	2/23/09   	19        	Kenneth Burns       	          	
834       	6/30/09   	70        	Nina Ginocchio      	          	
849       	9/15/09   	15        	Enrique Machado     	          	
887       	11/25/09  	38        	Robert Bethune      	          	
907       	12/24/09  	20        	Stephen Weingarten  	          	
938       	2/23/10   	31        	Tom Toce            	          	
939       	2/24/10   	1         	Tom Toce            	          	
953       	3/16/10   	14        	Amanda Baber        	          	
1059      	10/25/10  	106       	Pam Jones-Pigott    	          	
1063      	10/29/10  	4         	Marie Braden        	          	
1079      	12/6/10   	16        	Christina Barley    	          	
1122      	2/3/11    	43        	Fred Cofone         	yes       	
1153      	4/6/11    	31        	Christopher Short   	          	
1243      	10/19/11  	90        	Liz Greenwood       	          	
1249      	10/27/11  	6         	Sunny Stalter       	          	
1274      	12/15/11  	25        	tie                 	both      	
1287      	1/3/12    	13        	Nicholas Campiz     	yes       	yes
1325      	3/23/12   	38        	Dennis Wright       	          	
1365      	6/8/12    	40        	Aaron Cappocchi     	          	
1369      	6/14/12   	4         	Kathy Wright        	          	
1385      	7/6/12    	16        	tie                 	one       	
1436      	11/5/12   	51        	Paul Nelson         	          	
1437      	11/6/12   	1         	Paul Nelson         	          	
1476      	1/14/13   	39        	Kristin Morgan      	yes       	yes
1492      	3/5/13    	16        	Dylan Wint          	          	
1502      	3/19/13   	10        	Lauren Girard       	          	
1523      	4/17/13   	21        	Michelle Martin     	          	
1540      	5/24/13   	17        	Mike Lewis          	          	
1549      	6/6/13    	9         	Greg Draves         	          	
1568      	7/3/13    	19        	Hunter Sandison     	          	yes
1612      	10/22/13  	44        	Bill Tolany         	          	
1672      	1/28/14   	60        	Arthur Chu          	          	
1673      	1/29/14   	1         	Arthur Chu          	yes       	yes
1675      	1/31/14   	2         	Arthur Chu          	          	
1680      	2/28/14   	5         	Arthur Chu          	          	
1705      	4/18/14   	25        	E.A. Srere          	          	
1741      	6/23/14   	36        	James Friscia       	yes       	
1752      	7/8/14    	11        	Campbell Warner     	          	
1753      	7/9/14    	1         	Campbell Warner     	yes       	
1754      	7/10/14   	1         	Campbell Warner     	          	
1755      	7/11/14   	1         	Andrew Harris       	yes       	
1757      	7/15/14   	2         	Ed Patterson        	          	
1761      	9/15/14   	4         	Elizabeth Williams  	          	
1770      	9/26/14   	9         	Alan Lange          	yes       	yes
1774      	10/2/14   	4         	Shawn Choe          	yes       	
1775      	10/3/14   	1         	Shawn Choe          	          	
1781      	10/13/14  	6         	Dan Tran            	          	yes
1783      	10/15/14  	2         	John Campbell       	yes       	
1790      	10/24/14  	7         	Matthew LaMagna     	          	
1792      	10/28/14  	2         	Bill Albertini      	yes       	yes
1801      	11/24/14  	8         	ties eliminated     	          	
("∆ games" is the number of regular games since the last tie offer. This includes games with a tie for the lead where one or both players bet everything, and lock-tie games where the leader bet nothing.)

From late 2004 to the middle of 2014, the longest run of tie offers coming less than two weeks after the last (i.e., having single-digit "∆ games" numbers, as 10 games is exactly two weeks) is 3: after Dan Pawson and Heather Doyle tied (each betting everything from a tied lead), Dan offered her a tie the next game, and then offered a tie in his losing game, and two Fridays later Susan Forman offered a tie in her losing game; then Arthur Chu offered four ties during his run. Then, starting in July at the end of season 30 with Campbell Warner's run, and going to the end when the tiebreaker rule was instituted, there were 13 similarly spaced tie offers.

Or another way of putting it: in the last 50 games that ties were possible, there were 13 tie offers, and in the 1,750 games before that, 60.
Last edited by seaborgium on Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 10319
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin »

seaborgium wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 am
Spoiler
Vermonter wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:27 am Here you go – Game AKJ #1 is Nancy Zerg's first win

Code: Select all

Game AKJ  	Date      	∆ games   	Player              	B all-in? 	Tie?
40        	1/24/05   	          	Ted Stratton        	          	
47        	6/2/05    	7         	tie                 	one       	
125       	11/29/05  	78        	tie                 	one       	
144       	12/26/05  	19        	Peter Rubin         	          	
168       	1/27/06   	24        	Paul Canty          	          	
286       	9/20/06   	118       	tie                 	both      	yes
332       	12/14/06  	46        	Cory Hartman        	          	
388       	3/16/07   	56        	Scott Weiss         	yes       	3-way
405       	4/10/07   	17        	David Haglund       	          	
486       	10/17/07  	81        	Linda Zell Randall  	yes       	yes
528       	12/28/07  	42        	tie                 	both      	yes
529       	12/31/07  	1         	Dan Pawson          	          	
536       	1/9/08    	7         	Dan Pawson          	yes       	
543       	1/18/08   	7         	Susan Forman        	          	
562       	2/28/08   	19        	Gwynne Ash          	yes       	yes
598       	4/18/08   	36        	Gabriel Schechter   	yes       	
609       	5/19/08   	11        	Mary Kay Schmidt    	          	
619       	6/2/08    	10        	Chris Vestuto       	          	
647       	7/10/08   	28        	tie                 	both      	yes
661       	9/10/08   	14        	Laura Novak         	yes       	
665       	9/23/08   	4         	Elza Reeves         	yes       	
730       	1/6/09    	65        	Ranjan Ramchandani  	yes       	yes
745       	1/27/09   	15        	Andy Walvoord       	          	
764       	2/23/09   	19        	Kenneth Burns       	          	
834       	6/30/09   	70        	Nina Ginocchio      	          	
849       	9/15/09   	15        	Enrique Machado     	          	
887       	11/25/09  	38        	Robert Bethune      	          	
907       	12/24/09  	20        	Stephen Weingarten  	          	
938       	2/23/10   	31        	Tom Toce            	          	
939       	2/24/10   	1         	Tom Toce            	          	
953       	3/16/10   	14        	Amanda Baber        	          	
1059      	10/25/10  	106       	Pam Jones-Pigott    	          	
1063      	10/29/10  	4         	Marie Braden        	          	
1079      	12/6/10   	16        	Christina Barley    	          	
1122      	2/3/11    	43        	Fred Cofone         	yes       	
1153      	4/6/11    	31        	Christopher Short   	          	
1243      	10/19/11  	90        	Liz Greenwood       	          	
1249      	10/27/11  	6         	Sunny Stalter       	          	
1274      	12/15/11  	25        	tie                 	both      	
1287      	1/3/12    	13        	Nicholas Campiz     	yes       	yes
1325      	3/23/12   	38        	Dennis Wright       	          	
1365      	6/8/12    	40        	Aaron Cappocchi     	          	
1369      	6/14/12   	4         	Kathy Wright        	          	
1385      	7/6/12    	16        	tie                 	one       	
1436      	11/5/12   	51        	Paul Nelson         	          	
1437      	11/6/12   	1         	Paul Nelson         	          	
1476      	1/14/13   	39        	Kristin Morgan      	yes       	yes
1492      	3/5/13    	16        	Dylan Wint          	          	
1502      	3/19/13   	10        	Lauren Girard       	          	
1523      	4/17/13   	21        	Michelle Martin     	          	
1540      	5/24/13   	17        	Mike Lewis          	          	
1549      	6/6/13    	9         	Greg Draves         	          	
1568      	7/3/13    	19        	Hunter Sandison     	          	yes
1612      	10/22/13  	44        	Bill Tolany         	          	
1672      	1/28/14   	60        	Arthur Chu          	          	
1673      	1/29/14   	1         	Arthur Chu          	yes       	yes
1675      	1/31/14   	2         	Arthur Chu          	          	
1680      	2/28/14   	5         	Arthur Chu          	          	
1705      	4/18/14   	25        	E.A. Srere          	          	
1741      	6/23/14   	36        	James Friscia       	yes       	
1752      	7/8/14    	11        	Campbell Warner     	          	
1753      	7/9/14    	1         	Campbell Warner     	yes       	
1754      	7/10/14   	1         	Campbell Warner     	          	
1755      	7/11/14   	1         	Andrew Harris       	yes       	
1757      	7/15/14   	2         	Ed Patterson        	          	
1761      	9/15/14   	4         	Elizabeth Williams  	          	
1770      	9/26/14   	9         	Alan Lange          	yes       	yes
1774      	10/2/14   	4         	Shawn Choe          	yes       	
1775      	10/3/14   	1         	Shawn Choe          	          	
1781      	10/13/14  	6         	Dan Tran            	          	yes
1783      	10/15/14  	2         	John Campbell       	yes       	
1790      	10/24/14  	7         	Matthew LaMagna     	          	
1792      	10/28/14  	2         	Bill Albertini      	yes       	yes
1801      	11/24/14  	8         	ties eliminated     	          	
He's missing the tie game on 10/30/14.
seaborgium wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 am Or another way of putting it: in the last 50 games that ties were possible, there were 13 tie offers, and in the 1,750 games before that, 60.
Thanks for that. Those offers resulted in 4 tie games in 117 games in the post-Chu pre-tiebreaker era. Seems like an acceptable level to me. Of course, it's possible that this trend would have continued upward if left unchecked. But my feeling is they stepped in too soon rather than waiting to see if the "problem" ramped up or died down. On the other hand, maybe they felt the level of 4 in 117 was already too high.
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8941
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

opusthepenguin wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:57 am
He's missing the tie game on 10/30/14.
That didn't involve a tie offer from the leader; she oddly bet $200 less than the tie offer, and Ryan bet $10,000 of his $10,200. (I'd say "oddly" about that wager too, but I've watched enough J! to know that second place rounding their score down to a nearby thousand for their FJ wager, while arbitrary, is not an odd occurrence!)
It's a little funny to me that although J! canceled ties during a spate of tie offers, the last tie game before that didn't involve one.
User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 5228
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by jeff6286 »

I'm confused about why games would be included where the leaders are tied, as that's really a totally different thing than what we're talking about. And also I can't see any indication in that list of how many of those games might be cases of tied leaders.
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8941
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

jeff6286 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:49 pm I'm confused about why games would be included where the leaders are tied, as that's really a totally different thing than what we're talking about. And also I can't see any indication in that list of how many of those games might be cases of tied leaders.
The "Player" column says who had the lead; ties are indicated by "tie." My guess is Keith just did an automated search for games where a player's score plus FJ wager equaled the score of another player who wasn't in last place.
User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 5228
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by jeff6286 »

seaborgium wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:19 am
jeff6286 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:49 pm I'm confused about why games would be included where the leaders are tied, as that's really a totally different thing than what we're talking about. And also I can't see any indication in that list of how many of those games might be cases of tied leaders.
The "Player" column says who had the lead; ties are indicated by "tie." My guess is Keith just did an automated search for games where a player's score plus FJ wager equaled the score of another player who wasn't in last place.
Oh yeah I guess I glanced through the info too quickly, was looking for perhaps two lines for the same game and totally overlooked the "tie" entries. So only 3 times in 10 years were two players tied, both bet it all, got it right and remained tied, I would have thought it was a lot more common than that!
arjavrawal
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:49 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by arjavrawal »

As is the case with most things these days, watching this match made me irrationally angry — both with the tiebreaker’s existence and with it being as much of a giveaway as it was. They really should have a harder clue than something that could conceivably be a $600 J! round clue IMO.

Went 3/3 on the DDs for the first time in a while though, which was nice :)
mjhunt
Valued Contributor
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by mjhunt »

opusthepenguin wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:57 am
seaborgium wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 am
Spoiler
Vermonter wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:27 am Here you go – Game AKJ #1 is Nancy Zerg's first win

Code: Select all

Game AKJ  	Date      	∆ games   	Player              	B all-in? 	Tie?
40        	1/24/05   	          	Ted Stratton        	          	
47        	6/2/05    	7         	tie                 	one       	
125       	11/29/05  	78        	tie                 	one       	
144       	12/26/05  	19        	Peter Rubin         	          	
168       	1/27/06   	24        	Paul Canty          	          	
286       	9/20/06   	118       	tie                 	both      	yes
332       	12/14/06  	46        	Cory Hartman        	          	
388       	3/16/07   	56        	Scott Weiss         	yes       	3-way
405       	4/10/07   	17        	David Haglund       	          	
486       	10/17/07  	81        	Linda Zell Randall  	yes       	yes
528       	12/28/07  	42        	tie                 	both      	yes
529       	12/31/07  	1         	Dan Pawson          	          	
536       	1/9/08    	7         	Dan Pawson          	yes       	
543       	1/18/08   	7         	Susan Forman        	          	
562       	2/28/08   	19        	Gwynne Ash          	yes       	yes
598       	4/18/08   	36        	Gabriel Schechter   	yes       	
609       	5/19/08   	11        	Mary Kay Schmidt    	          	
619       	6/2/08    	10        	Chris Vestuto       	          	
647       	7/10/08   	28        	tie                 	both      	yes
661       	9/10/08   	14        	Laura Novak         	yes       	
665       	9/23/08   	4         	Elza Reeves         	yes       	
730       	1/6/09    	65        	Ranjan Ramchandani  	yes       	yes
745       	1/27/09   	15        	Andy Walvoord       	          	
764       	2/23/09   	19        	Kenneth Burns       	          	
834       	6/30/09   	70        	Nina Ginocchio      	          	
849       	9/15/09   	15        	Enrique Machado     	          	
887       	11/25/09  	38        	Robert Bethune      	          	
907       	12/24/09  	20        	Stephen Weingarten  	          	
938       	2/23/10   	31        	Tom Toce            	          	
939       	2/24/10   	1         	Tom Toce            	          	
953       	3/16/10   	14        	Amanda Baber        	          	
1059      	10/25/10  	106       	Pam Jones-Pigott    	          	
1063      	10/29/10  	4         	Marie Braden        	          	
1079      	12/6/10   	16        	Christina Barley    	          	
1122      	2/3/11    	43        	Fred Cofone         	yes       	
1153      	4/6/11    	31        	Christopher Short   	          	
1243      	10/19/11  	90        	Liz Greenwood       	          	
1249      	10/27/11  	6         	Sunny Stalter       	          	
1274      	12/15/11  	25        	tie                 	both      	
1287      	1/3/12    	13        	Nicholas Campiz     	yes       	yes
1325      	3/23/12   	38        	Dennis Wright       	          	
1365      	6/8/12    	40        	Aaron Cappocchi     	          	
1369      	6/14/12   	4         	Kathy Wright        	          	
1385      	7/6/12    	16        	tie                 	one       	
1436      	11/5/12   	51        	Paul Nelson         	          	
1437      	11/6/12   	1         	Paul Nelson         	          	
1476      	1/14/13   	39        	Kristin Morgan      	yes       	yes
1492      	3/5/13    	16        	Dylan Wint          	          	
1502      	3/19/13   	10        	Lauren Girard       	          	
1523      	4/17/13   	21        	Michelle Martin     	          	
1540      	5/24/13   	17        	Mike Lewis          	          	
1549      	6/6/13    	9         	Greg Draves         	          	
1568      	7/3/13    	19        	Hunter Sandison     	          	yes
1612      	10/22/13  	44        	Bill Tolany         	          	
1672      	1/28/14   	60        	Arthur Chu          	          	
1673      	1/29/14   	1         	Arthur Chu          	yes       	yes
1675      	1/31/14   	2         	Arthur Chu          	          	
1680      	2/28/14   	5         	Arthur Chu          	          	
1705      	4/18/14   	25        	E.A. Srere          	          	
1741      	6/23/14   	36        	James Friscia       	yes       	
1752      	7/8/14    	11        	Campbell Warner     	          	
1753      	7/9/14    	1         	Campbell Warner     	yes       	
1754      	7/10/14   	1         	Campbell Warner     	          	
1755      	7/11/14   	1         	Andrew Harris       	yes       	
1757      	7/15/14   	2         	Ed Patterson        	          	
1761      	9/15/14   	4         	Elizabeth Williams  	          	
1770      	9/26/14   	9         	Alan Lange          	yes       	yes
1774      	10/2/14   	4         	Shawn Choe          	yes       	
1775      	10/3/14   	1         	Shawn Choe          	          	
1781      	10/13/14  	6         	Dan Tran            	          	yes
1783      	10/15/14  	2         	John Campbell       	yes       	
1790      	10/24/14  	7         	Matthew LaMagna     	          	
1792      	10/28/14  	2         	Bill Albertini      	yes       	yes
1801      	11/24/14  	8         	ties eliminated     	          	
He's missing the tie game on 10/30/14.
seaborgium wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 am Or another way of putting it: in the last 50 games that ties were possible, there were 13 tie offers, and in the 1,750 games before that, 60.
Thanks for that. Those offers resulted in 4 tie games in 117 games in the post-Chu pre-tiebreaker era. Seems like an acceptable level to me. Of course, it's possible that this trend would have continued upward if left unchecked. But my feeling is they stepped in too soon rather than waiting to see if the "problem" ramped up or died down. On the other hand, maybe they felt the level of 4 in 117 was already too high.
Well, I am very sure it never would have been the case that everybody offered a tie. After all, if nothing else, there’s Christina McTighe, Jonathan Marcus, Kelly Griffin, Dan Feitel, Mary Ann Borer, etc.

And, of course, nobody can forget Molly Rosenbusch, who came well before the tiebreaker.

I have to add a not-so-famous example that I really thought was funny: In the game below, the scores were 11,200-9,000-9,000 and Mary Mitchell took quite the opposite approach from Scott Weiss. Presumably, she assumed her opponents would both bet it all, so she figured the $200 she left (she may have found that less embarrassing than winning with $1), would be enough to win a triple stumper. And, she must have felt pretty confident about the category, so she figured she would win an extra $4,200.
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3627
Well, it didn’t work, but Robin wagered such that Mary’s overwager ended up not costing her anything.

And, there are many others who would bet extra from a crush position (the safest circumstance to do so), as Zach Newkirk did in his second game.

And, there would surely still be plenty who round up to the next thousand, bet the second place amount, etc.

And, I have to believe would those who are facing a very strong champion would realize the specious nature of Chu/Williams arguments compared to the actual reality of needing to dispose of competition they have little hope of leading again.

I don’t know what the acceptable level is. But, what I am trying to show with these diverse examples is that I really think there is a limit to how much higher it could have gone.
mjhunt
Valued Contributor
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by mjhunt »

seaborgium wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:12 am
mjhunt wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:06 am I see what you’re saying in your reply to Tom. You could have been on the receiving end of that in your fifth game. I wonder how Emily came up with her wager ($7,000? I can’t see it in the archive right now). Was it just completely random?
I've never been in contact with Emily since our game, so I can only guess, but I've thought about it a lot.
too much thinking
First, I think she was just given to low wagering (she hit all three DDs and bet $600, $1,000, and $1,600 on them), but also she may have recognized that I was in a situation for FJ where $0 was a viable wager. My guess is she was inclined, both by nature and by my circumstances, to bet less than her $1,600 lead over me, but she had just seen me bet five figures on FJ in the previous game, so for all she knew, I was a loose cannon. But she also couldn't bring herself to make the $14,801 cover wager (or $14,800, for that matter), and chose to compromise in the middle, indeed with $7,000. A nice $25,000 if she's right, still in five digits if she's wrong.

John, for his part, thought I would go crazy again in FJ (we talked on the walk back to the parking lot, so this is actually confirmed), and specifically bet to stay ahead of Emily if she covered me and they both missed. (He had $8,200 and bet $5,000, falling to $3,200; Emily would have fallen to $3,199 if she had bet $14,801.) Here's an interesting bit: J! Archive's wagering calculator's recommendation in a four-fifths game (and $16,400 is well within four fifths of $18,000) is for second place to bet double their deficit plus $1 (just as wagering your deficit plus $1 covers the leader wagering $0, wagering $1 above double your deficit covers the leader wagering their leading margin), and it just so happens that when third has half of second's score in a four-fifths game (although the WC deviates from its four-fifths recommendation in that case), the "stay ahead of covering leader if both wrong" wager for third place is also a "catch up to double-deficit-wagering second place if he's wrong and I'm right" wager; i.e. if I had wagered $3,200 (no +$1 because of sitting on a break point) expecting Emily not to score more than $19,200, and missed, and John had gotten FJ right, we would have tied at $13,200.

Now, back to the "spare your opponents regret" subject, while $0 was fine and it worked out, I wish I had bet $3,200, not only because the math would have been interesting, but also because if Emily did indeed push past an inclination to bet small, my passing her pre-FJ score would prevent her from regretting that decision. I'd rather she only regret getting FJ wrong than that and her wager.

One more thing: I mentioned she might have been influenced by my big wager in the previous game. Now, if I had bet small in the previous game, she might have bet small and won. And yet, because I lost $20,065 on the previous FJ and won $16,400 in my fifth game, it would have been worth a few thousand dollars more to me if I'd bet small in game 4 and lost game 5. But I decided in reflecting on this that $3,000 or so of winnings is far outweighed by being able to call myself a 5-time champion.
Very interesting. I had to read "too much thinking" a few times. I don't know if I understand it all yet.
I want to say Emily bet too little of daily doubles. But, then again, she got one wrong and very few players would have bet as much as she would have needed to lock the game anyway.
Of course, if she could managed to get to $24,600, that would have brought an especially interesting three-way tie possibility. But, it seems likely would have bet less than $8,200.
All this shows why the show is so interesting. Wagering is not always just about raw math. Trying to read a stranger is just as much a part of it, and that can never come close to being an exact science.
Post Reply