Masters Wednesday, May 24, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

[This Is Kirk!]

I understand it's mostly an act, but I'm tiring of James's villain schtick.

Agreed. I think it's time for some new material. And I do like James.

[trainman]

My only suggestion for when they do another Masters tournament would be to try to schedule it for the weeks after the regular syndicated season ends.

I assume ABC would strongly prefer to run it during a sweeps month, though.

[Mathew5000]

My only suggestion for when they do another Masters tournament would be to try to schedule it for the weeks after the regular syndicated season ends.

I assume ABC would strongly prefer to run it during a sweeps month, though.

Is sweeps still relevant in that way, though? These two articles suggest not:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate ... -happened/

https://marketshare.tvnewscheck.com/201 ... s-history/

[Mathew5000]

We know for absolute certainty James is going to wager GTO optimal in this situation. He knows that if Mattea answers correctly it's all over but if they miss he's going to wager to win every time. In short he's going to wager nothing or next to it. Guaranteed.

Since this is a known fact, in both situations a 0 wager locks up a win.

I agree with Bob, that Golf's use of the term "game theory optimal" is not apt here. If James's wager could have been known by his opponent with "absolute certainty", then James's play was not optimal because Mattea could have exploited it in exactly the way that Golf proposes.

What game theory would say is this:

Mattea and James should each assess the probability that their opponent bets "big" or "small". (For Mattea we can take a big wager as meaning 5915 and a small wager as 0; for James let's say a big wager is 9600 and a small wager is 2200.)

Then Mattea should bet small iff the probability James bets small is greater than x/(1-u), and James should bet small iff the probability Mattea bets small is less than y/(1-u), where

x is the probability Mattea and James both get FJ,
y is the probability Mattea and James both miss FJ, and
u is the probability Mattea gets FJ while James misses it.

[jeff6286]

I said this in the game where Matt and James were tied, but I think again it's well worth considering that James has an incredible FJ record. Granted it's not quite as incredible in tournament play where some of the clues have been harder, even discounting the ones he seemingly didn't attempt to answer. But still he is such a strong FJ player that the possibility could exist that he bets "big" knowing that this gives him two ways to win, either Mattea misses and bets big, or Mattea bets small (where it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong). In either case if James solves FJ he wins.

We always talk about the leader making the cover wager and "betting on themselves", as it would be hard to live with oneself if you were leading, got FJ right, and lost. No matter how logical something like a Shoretegic wager might have seemed. Well imagine you're James, one of the best players ever at this game, imagine you solve FJ and lose, because you made a small wager which Mattea successfully countered with a small wager. I could see a player of that caliber having the mindset that this would be hard to live with, therefore betting big and counting on getting the clue right in order to maximize winning chances.

[Mathew5000]

At present, James has no reason to employ a mixed strategy as none of his opponents are making any adjustments. Not until an opponent wagers $0 in Emma or Mattea's situation will he resort to a mixed strategy. Until then, it's by the book and he knows it.

In this video, at timecode 4:38 to 5:22, James sheds some light on his thinking. He makes it clear that he seriously considered the possibility of Mattea betting small (rather than dismissing it out of hand because none of his opponents has done so yet). James says, "In poker sometimes the right move is to flip a coin and randomize your strategy like that", which alludes to the game-theory concept of a mixed strategy. (Presumably during FJ wagering James did not actually flip a coin, however.)

[Bob78164]

At present, James has no reason to employ a mixed strategy as none of his opponents are making any adjustments. Not until an opponent wagers $0 in Emma or Mattea's situation will he resort to a mixed strategy. Until then, it's by the book and he knows it.

In this video, at timecode 4:38 to 5:22, James sheds some light on his thinking. He makes it clear that he seriously considered the possibility of Mattea betting small (rather than dismissing it out of hand because none of his opponents has done so yet). James says, "In poker sometimes the right move is to flip a coin and randomize your strategy like that", which alludes to the game-theory concept of a mixed strategy. (Presumably during FJ wagering James did not actually flip a coin, however.)

When I was on, I had decided that if I were in a situation that called for randomization, I would use the seconds digits of my watch as a makeshift random-number generator. --Bob

[Lefty]

The only time I remember using a random number generator was in a "think different" game that asked you to name one of the planets of the solar system. It paid off, as only two of us went for Jupiter.

[Woof]

They didn't really clarify at the end whether $100,000 would go to James's charity.

I thought Ken said $100,000 would be going to each of the finalists' selected charity.

P.S. just got around to watching tonight. I was surprised Mallory was a triple stumper. I certainly wasn't expecting to get both FJs for the finals, but I did!

Ditto, Kirk. Was shocked that Malory went as a TS in that crowd.

[This Is Kirk!]

They didn't really clarify at the end whether $100,000 would go to James's charity.

I thought Ken said $100,000 would be going to each of the finalists' selected charity.

P.S. just got around to watching tonight. I was surprised Mallory was a triple stumper. I certainly wasn't expecting to get both FJs for the finals, but I did!

Ditto, Kirk. Was shocked that Malory went as a TS in that crowd.

Oops, one L in Malory. Glad J! wouldn't penalize for my incorrect spelling.

[kprather895]

So did anybody keep track of how many times James picked the Daily Double on his first pick? It felt like more than 50% of the time to me. Has he unlocked some sort of algorithm?

Even if you assume the DDs will favor the bottom two rows, that's still a 1/12 chance. To do it multiple times is remarkable.

[TheTabbyWhisperer]

I was disappointed when Ken said all three finalists would be back for next year's Masters. Nothing against the final three, but with such a small group of players, now half the field is already set.

[davey]

They didn't really clarify at the end whether $100,000 would go to James's charity.

I thought Ken said $100,000 would be going to each of the finalists' selected charity.

P.S. just got around to watching tonight. I was surprised Mallory was a triple stumper. I certainly wasn't expecting to get both FJs for the finals, but I did!

I just watched it. Ken said "$100,000, in honor of the winner..."
I wouldn't worry about the extra l. Apparently in an early printing the name was rendered as Thomas Malleorre....
https://libraryguides.mdc.edu/c.php?g=862745&p=6184862
And after all, as has been recently pointed out here, Shakespeare didn't know how to spell his name either!...

[Don't Think Twice]

I was disappointed when Ken said all three finalists would be back for next year's Masters. Nothing against the final three, but with such a small group of players, now half the field is already set.

During the "Inside Jeopardy" podcast linked below, Michael Davies speculated that they may increase the number of players in the Masters for next year. They may also increase the prize money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ibwl9Zzemk

[JFanForever]

I guess you learn something new every day, didn’t know Dar-Es-Salaam was the capital of Tanzania, so I guessed Lagos since I knew that was the capital of Nigeria before Abuja.

I loved the George Santos comment.

Thank goodness James won, have never really like Mattea all that much.

Edit: As I’m learning about the Dugong now, a YouTube video is saying its nickname as the sea cow. So, would my guess of sea cow be valid as correct?

[seaborgium]

Edit: As I’m learning about the Dugong now, a YouTube video is saying its nickname as the sea cow. So, would my guess of sea cow be valid as correct?

"Malay gives us the name of this marine mammal that's similar to a manatee"

I don't think so; "sea cow" applies across the whole Sirenia order and thus includes manatees, plus "sea cow" doesn't come from Malay.

[Bamaman]

I just saw the SF and finals last night. I had been spoiled on who won and who finished fourth so there was no real drama in watching it.

Viewing the last FJ, I predicted Mattea would lose due to betting to cover while James would bet small.

I wound up enjoying this more than I expected. Rotating the lineups every game kept it from getting stale like the TOC finals did.

So all three will be back for Masters II? I wonder if they’ll dig deeper for the other players. Looks like this will be James’ regular job for a few years at least.

[gameshowfandanny]

So all three will be back for Masters II? I wonder if they’ll dig deeper for the other players. Looks like this will be James’ regular job for a few years at least.

It was mentioned on the January 16 episode of Inside Jeopardy! that for next year's Masters, one of the remaining three slots will go to the 2023 ToC winner, another will go to the Jeopardy! Invitational Tournament winner, and the last is at producers' discretion.

[This Is Kirk!]

Thank goodness James won, have never really like Mattea all that much.

What a weird comment. You didn't like Mattea much, so "thank goodness" James won? That seems awfully petty.

[Bamaman]

I read somewhere the charity donation was James’ idea.