Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8937
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

Newhausen wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 12:26 am
seaborgium wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:49 pm
Newhausen wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:26 pm
Sherm wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:55 pm Jeff over-wagered. Then I read on here he minored in theology. Good over wager.
He didn't over-wager by a lot. Since he's only trailing by $800, he only needs to leave back $1,600 to stay ahead of where Juliet "should" be on a miss. Wagering $14,000 instead of $15,600 doesn't cost him nearly as much on the upside as he's giving up on the downside by conceding the triple stumper - and since he's clearly got the best Bible background, any clue that he misses is very likely to be a triple stumper.
There was another player still in it, though. Moreover, she was at exactly 2/3 of Jeff's score; he overwagered by $10,400.
You can't assume a third-place contestant's wager will be rational. Overbetting is *always* in the third-place contestant's range, so there's a little more leeway in betting to lock out third.
Likewise, you can't assume a third-place contestant's wager will be irrational to the tune of more than $8,800.
User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 5228
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by jeff6286 »

Yeah people throwing out "Bad wagers" or "irrational wagers" are thinking very much in shades of black and white. That is, thinking there is only one correct wager: 1st must wager this therefore 2nd should do this and thus 3rd obviously needs to do this. But there are multiple reasons why this is a bad approach, one is that there is no reason to ever assume even one player opposite you will act the way you predict, let alone two. 2nd is that game theory recommends mixed strategies, so that your opponent cannot always predict which one you will choose.

I'm not saying that all 3 of these players had valid game theory approaches or sound reasons for making the wagers they did but all of them are at least arguably logical:

Juliet Mayer: 16400-5000=11400
Jeff Mitchum: 15600+15600=31200 (New Champ)
Lara Phillips: 10400+10000=20400

The leader, Juliet, knows that if she bets to cover and misses, she's toast, and maybe she doesn't love the Bible category. She also knows that Jeff can bank on her missing and simply cover 3rd by a dollar and win on a triple stumper, so she decides to outsmart him and also bet to cover third, but by $600, beating Jeff by $599 if they are both right and he does as she anticipates. Third place is also strongly incentivized to bet $0 here being at exactly 2/3rds of 2nd so Juliet dropping to just $11400 leaves third out of luck on a $0 bet.

There is the thought process many have and particularly many on here are not shy about professing, that one must always "bet on myself" as it would be impossible to live the rest of their life knowing they were leading, got FJ right, and lost. And that's fine, for you. I might do the same. But any given J! player may not subscribe to such philosophy and so the assumption that "Player X made a bad wager because I would always cover from the lead" doesn't necessarily hold water, because Player X is not you.

So moving on to Jeff, what if he goes to 2nd and 3rd level thinking, considering the exact same possibility Juliet did, that she can bet small and outfox him. Well he's not going to fall for that, plus he has theology background and loves the category so it's even easier for him to decide to roll the dice and just bet it all. Yes it would have been wiser to leave $1600 behind and still have the backdoor possibility of winning on a triple stumper if first makes the MSB and third bets it all, but hey he's going all or nothing and he made it work so I can't fault him too much. Yes, one trial being successful doesn't mean he necessarily made the right choice but he has $31,200 reasons why he can tell you he did.

Finally, Lara, who a couple people, ahem Golf, pointed out made the worst wager of all. Why? Well obviously because she is at exactly 2/3rds of Jeff's score and therefore must bet $0 to be assured of beating him on a triple stumper. The leader is betting to cover and falling well behind Lara on a miss so a $0 bet wins the game on a brutally hard final. Except oops, none of that happened. The leader bet small and if 3rd made the recommended wager of $0, she is eliminated from the game before the FJ clue even appears. So again, not to say that she is a master of game theory or read the leader like a book but as it turned out, she made a wager that gave her a chance of winning, which she would not have had with a $0 wager. Explain to her again how awful that choice was.
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12895
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Bamaman »

Song of Solomon here.

Given that he grew up in a religious home and studied theology his bet seems fine. If FJ was “Golf”, what would the category’s namesake bet if he was in Jeff’s spot?
Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Golf »

Bamaman wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 3:49 pm Given that he grew up in a religious home and studied theology his bet seems fine. If FJ was “Golf”, what would the category’s namesake bet if he was in Jeff’s spot?
Golf would make the wager that shows the highest winning chances. Against a standard player $5201, against certain player types such as a timid librarian in a sports category $14000.

No way in hell Golf would wager $15600 because he feels he would win each and every game after that and he’s not going to risk it over a few thousand dollars. Although against Arthur Chu in pre tie-breaker days he would wager $15600 all day.
davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 6030
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey »

Golf wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:11 pm
Bamaman wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 3:49 pm Given that he grew up in a religious home and studied theology his bet seems fine. If FJ was “Golf”, what would the category’s namesake bet if he was in Jeff’s spot?
Golf would make the wager that shows the highest winning chances. Against a standard player $5201, against certain player types such as a timid librarian in a sports category $14000.
You make me hope that "timid librarian" has a specialty in sports books... :roll:
User avatar
Newhausen
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:02 pm

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Newhausen »

seaborgium wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:55 am
Newhausen wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 12:26 am
seaborgium wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:49 pm
Newhausen wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:26 pm
Sherm wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:55 pm Jeff over-wagered. Then I read on here he minored in theology. Good over wager.
He didn't over-wager by a lot. Since he's only trailing by $800, he only needs to leave back $1,600 to stay ahead of where Juliet "should" be on a miss. Wagering $14,000 instead of $15,600 doesn't cost him nearly as much on the upside as he's giving up on the downside by conceding the triple stumper - and since he's clearly got the best Bible background, any clue that he misses is very likely to be a triple stumper.
There was another player still in it, though. Moreover, she was at exactly 2/3 of Jeff's score; he overwagered by $10,400.
You can't assume a third-place contestant's wager will be rational. Overbetting is *always* in the third-place contestant's range, so there's a little more leeway in betting to lock out third.
Likewise, you can't assume a third-place contestant's wager will be irrational to the tune of more than $8,800.
I would absolutely put down money that, if you put 100 random Jeopardy! contestants in Lara's spot, more than half of them would bet more than $8,800.
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8937
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

Newhausen wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 3:09 am
seaborgium wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:55 am
Newhausen wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 12:26 am
seaborgium wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:49 pm
Newhausen wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:26 pm
He didn't over-wager by a lot. Since he's only trailing by $800, he only needs to leave back $1,600 to stay ahead of where Juliet "should" be on a miss. Wagering $14,000 instead of $15,600 doesn't cost him nearly as much on the upside as he's giving up on the downside by conceding the triple stumper - and since he's clearly got the best Bible background, any clue that he misses is very likely to be a triple stumper.
There was another player still in it, though. Moreover, she was at exactly 2/3 of Jeff's score; he overwagered by $10,400.
You can't assume a third-place contestant's wager will be rational. Overbetting is *always* in the third-place contestant's range, so there's a little more leeway in betting to lock out third.
Likewise, you can't assume a third-place contestant's wager will be irrational to the tune of more than $8,800.
I would absolutely put down money that, if you put 100 random Jeopardy! contestants in Lara's spot, more than half of them would bet more than $8,800.
Luckily, the second-place wager that would "assume a third-place contestant's wager will be rational" will also protect second place from an irrationally wagering third place if they're both right or both wrong. That's the nature of a two-thirds lead, an advantage that you potentially throw away if your wager only considers where first place will land if they cover and miss.
User avatar
LucarioSnooperVixey
Carrying Letters and Lemons
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:41 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by LucarioSnooperVixey »

59 R (Seagram's Whiskey is new to me.)
DD: 3/3
FJ: :mrgreen:
Douglas Squasoni
User avatar
OrangeSAM
(Unranked)
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by OrangeSAM »

LucarioSnooperVixey wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 5:17 pm (Seagram's Whiskey is new to me.)
Then use sparingly.
OCSam
MattKnowles
selwonKttaM
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by MattKnowles »

OrangeSAM wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 7:32 pm
LucarioSnooperVixey wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 5:17 pm (Seagram's Whiskey is new to me.)
Then use sparingly.
Skip it entirely and go to Drambuie.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.
Post Reply