WHAT A F_CKING MORON

Very good call. It's especially bad when they have a category of all video clues. They take up a bunch of time. If you're behind, skip the category or go bottom up. Also, when the minute signal sounds, stop saying the category unless you're changing it. Wastes precious seconds and they know you're staying in the category if you just say the value, or abbreviate the category title (say "NASA, $800" instead of "NASA's Missions to the Moon and Beyond for $800"). And, conversely, if you're up by a wide margin, take your time calling out the next clue ("Ummmm, I ... will ... take ... uhhh ... NASA's Mission ... excuse me, missions ... to Mars, I mean the Moon ... and ... uhh ... Beyond ... for ... uhhhhh ... $800, please, Alex ... thank you, kind sir.")

 

Watch Jeopardy! every night on DVR. Have gotten the last five or six Final Jeopardy questions correct (Pope Pius!), which has made me very happy.

Others are right about strategy, but what is most impressive to me about any streak on the show is overcoming the inherent luck of it all. I guess you can completely overcome that if you have such a broad base of knowledge, but there are some categories where I am absolutely hopeless outside of deductive guesses.

 

Can't believe you got one wrong.

 

"Foods that start with the letter Q......"

 

Sorry, I thought this thread was about me.

BTW, this was an excellent piece on the Price Is Right contestant who hit the bid on the nose. Drew Carey was so skeptical, he downplayed the whole thing when it occurred.

The Contestant Who Outsmarted 'The Price Is Right'

 

Trebek gets pissy when people start categories in the middle. He'll always give that half-sec pause to register his disdain. But yeah, you're right, there are almost never any Daily Doubles in the $100 slots in single Jeopardy. Pretty sure there never are.

 

When I was in college Price Is Right had a Home Viewer Showcase. One of the prizes was a Kohler spa.

Genius that I thought I was, I called the Kohler company. Guy answers and immediately says, "Price of the spa is $7,325."

Naive me: "Oh, have you had other calls about this?"
Him: "About 38,000 or so."

 

The last guy who went on a run used a strategy to defend against second place players 'underbidding.' His bet wasn't the minimum to win, but the minimum to tie. So if the second place player used the strategy and got the answer right, the first place guy would still tie if he didn't get the answer right. This counterstrategy works only if the second place guy has less than 75% (and obviously more than 50%) of the first place guy, I think.

That guy was also the one who jumped around and hunted for Double Jeopardys.

 

I'm not quite sure I follow what he did. I think I remember him, but I'm drawing a blank on what the strategy was. Can you make an example?

 

I screwed this up. I will think about it more. It is on one of the Jeopardy fan sites.

 

Try it again. I was thinking wrong in my original post. I go the breakeven points wrong. It's above 66% when the counterstrategy works.

#1 always has to bet to ensure he wins if #2 doubles up. The conventional is view is whatever it takes to get to twice #2 has +$1. Say the amounts are #1 has $10G and #2 $7G. Both get Final Jeopardy right, #1 wins regardless of #2's answer if he following that view. #1 is wrong and #2 is right, the latter will win unless #2 bet only $3000 and #1 bet nothing, which is unlikely because he assumes #2 will try to double up.

There is only one scenario left. #2 has to increase his odds if both he and #1 are wrong because betting to double up is an automatic loss in that scenario. In the example, the conventional bet for #1 is $4001. Both answer incorrectly. If #1 made the conventional bet and #2 bet $1000, #2 wins $6000 to $5999. So #2 players have adopted this strategy of 'underbidding' in case both lose. And the counterstrategy is for #1 to bet to tie if both get the correct answer and #2 doubled up, in this case $4000 by #1 ($14000=$14000). And he also ties if both get it wrong and #2 underbid. The counterstrategy always works in a certain range. Ties are wins in Jeopardy because both move on (or used to move on?).

It works in a different way I believe below 67%. If #1 is at $10G and #2 at $6G, #2 could bid only $2000 to protect himself from falling to third with the assumption that #1 will bet $2001 and win if he answers correctly. If #1 answers incorrectly, #2 wins if he answers correctly and bet at least $2000. #1 betting only $2000 gives him protection in this scenario, but is meaningless if both are incorrect.

This is where the game theory comes in because if a player in the lead doesn't like a Final Jeopardy category, he could underbid in the hopes that #2 also did it. So in the $10G to $7G scenario, #1 could bet less than $2000 guessing #2 was trying to protect himself if both answered incorrectly.

All this depends on third place.

 

Pre-Internet, Summer Bartholomew was about as good of a visual option on a screen that a teenage boy could encounter before noon in 1986.

Once Kari Wuhrer appeared on Remote Control in 1988, the options changed.