Finishing Double Jeopardy with <$0

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'221363\' date=\'Jul 28 2009, 11:16 PM\']From what I've seen in the past, Mental Floss is not exactly big on the research and fact checking.[/quote]
Sounds about right...I noticed they also have that bizarre "1 in 25 million odds" thing about a three-way tie.

[chad1m]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'221373\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 08:26 AM\']I noticed they also have that bizarre "1 in 25 million odds" thing about a three-way tie.[/quote]Well, heck, you can't blame them there. That quote came from the show itself.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'221374\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 08:37 AM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'221373\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 08:26 AM\']I noticed they also have that bizarre "1 in 25 million odds" thing about a three-way tie.[/quote]Well, heck, you can't blame them there. That quote came from the show itself.[/quote]
...which doesn't make it right, as you'd think a site that refers to itself as "Mental Floss" might realize.

[chad1m]

There's a comment on a different article from the site about a year ago that discusses how that particular professor came up with his caluclations and what other calculations others experienced in the field came up with.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'221376\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 08:42 AM\']There's a comment on a different article from the site about a year ago that discusses how that particular professor came up with his caluclations and what other calculations others experienced in the field came up with.[/quote]
More specifically, the difference between the odds calculated by a person familiar with Jeopardy and a person unfamiliar with Jeopardy.  The guy who's familiar with the show came up with a much more rational-sounding 1 in 20,000.  Still, there are so many variables, some of which are human (how often will the person in the lead like that deliberately play for a tie?) that any odds calculated for an event like that are a little suspect.

To the larger point, yeah, I wanted to get it out there fairly quickly that Mental Floss doesn't do a lot of independent reporting, so a reference that appears to merely repeat something we're already disputing hardly "confirms" anything.

[Mr. Armadillo]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'221377\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 08:24 AM\']Still, there are so many variables, some of which are human (how often will the person in the lead like that deliberately play for a tie?)[/quote]
For your typical non-game-theorist (or at least Final-Jeopardy!-theorist) contestant, 1 in 25 million sounds about right.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'221379\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 10:00 AM\']For your typical non-game-theorist (or at least Final-Jeopardy!-theorist) contestant, 1 in 25 million sounds about right.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if you're saying that someone unfamiliar with the game would accept the 1 in 25 million number, you're probably right.  Such a person would probably just as easily accept one in 10 million, or one in 50 million or any other incomprehensibly large, lottery-sized number.  They'd probably be even more likely to accept something like one in 23.473 million, because it sounds like the math guys worked harder to come up with it.  Still, none of that makes the "one in 25 million" claim any more correct.

On the other hand, those of us very familiar with the game know that it should have happened twice already.  Several years ago, they had a situation going into Final Jeopardy where the leader had exactly twice as much as the two other tied players.  The only reason that game didn't end in a three-way tie was because one of the trailing players irrationally held back one dollar.

So that's twice it should have happened, if not for the impossible-to-predict human factor, in less than six thousand shows.  That's why the much lower number makes a lot more sense to anybody who actually understands the program.

[Mr. Armadillo]

I was saying that nobody ever goes for the tie.  That was a direct answer to 'how often does the leader deliberately go for the tie?'

Slightly exaggerating my point to get it across, but that's all I was saying.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'221398\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 02:19 PM\']I was saying that nobody ever goes for the tie.  That was a direct answer to 'how often does the leader deliberately go for the tie?'
Slightly exaggerating my point to get it across, but that's all I was saying.[/quote]
Oh, of course.  Negative score for me for not recognizing that.

And yeah, you're probably right there too.  The most likely scenario for a tie game is probably the other example I mentioned, with two players tied at half the leader's total.

[Mr. Bill]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'221400\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 02:59 PM\'][quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'221398\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 02:19 PM\']I was saying that nobody ever goes for the tie.  That was a direct answer to 'how often does the leader deliberately go for the tie?'
Slightly exaggerating my point to get it across, but that's all I was saying.[/quote]
Oh, of course.  Negative score for me for not recognizing that.

And yeah, you're probably right there too.  The most likely scenario for a tie game is probably the other example I mentioned, with two players tied at half the leader's total.
[/quote]
Having seen the situation being discussed, Matt, it was an unusual move by the champion.  Earlier in the episode, Alex had mentioned getting a question asking if there had ever been a three-way tie.  So, because the scenario occurred, the champ intentionally played for a three-way tie so if the question ever came up again, Alex could say "Yes it's happened".

As for the wager, it sounds irrational, and maybe was, but it was a deliberate wager.

[Kevin Prather]

[quote name=\'Mr. Bill\' post=\'221411\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 02:17 PM\']As for the wager, it sounds irrational, and maybe was, but it was a deliberate wager.[/quote]
It's been discussed here many times before, with great arguments both for and against going for the tie. On the one hand, you have to face off against two experienced players instead of two new players on the next show. On the other hand, you know these players now, and you've essentially beaten them, so why not play them again?

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'221429\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM\']It's been discussed here many times before, with great arguments both for and against going for the tie. On the one hand, you have to face off against two experienced players instead of two new players on the next show. On the other hand, you know these players now, and you've essentially beaten them, so why not play them again?[/quote]If the scores are all three players on $x, then the question becomes "will I be right?" If yes, then you bet the wad, because you're guaranteed to return. If not, then you bet zero, because if anyone else is right, they win and you don't.

If the scores are $2x, $x and $x (as they were in the case of the woman who held back the dollar) there's no reason to bet X-1, because the person in the lead isn't going to bet anything. You've consigned yourself to a loss no matter what.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'221439\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 10:35 PM\']If the scores are all three players on $x, then the question becomes "will I be right?" If yes, then you bet the wad, because you're guaranteed to return. If not, then you bet zero, because if anyone else is right, they win and you don't.[/quote]
Of course, it's so hard to gauge that just by the category.  If you really, truly don't think you'll have a clue, I guess betting zero isn't completely inexcusable, but I'd sure hate to go home a loser totally because I didn't trust myself.

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'221439\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 10:35 PM\']If the scores are $2x, $x and $x (as they were in the case of the woman who held back the dollar) there's no reason to bet X-1, because the person in the lead isn't going to bet anything. You've consigned yourself to a loss no matter what.[/quote]
Yet after a little more research, it turns out that pretty much has happened not once but twice.  Here's the example I was talking about earlier, where one player held back a dollar and prevented a three-way tie (and as you say, consigned herself to a loss).  Now here's a similar example, but this time all three players had the same amount going into FJ, all three players got the clue right, and one player just didn't bet enough.

So really, if not for some pretty sorry wagering, a three-way tie should have happened three times already.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'221441\' date=\'Jul 29 2009, 08:01 PM\']Of course, it's so hard to gauge that just by the category.  If you really, truly don't think you'll have a clue, I guess betting zero isn't completely inexcusable, but I'd sure hate to go home a loser totally because I didn't trust myself.[/quote] But at least you have something to go on. If I see "The Solar System", I will be more likely to back myself than if I see "12th Century Italy." I could be totally wrong and see an Astronomy clue that has me bewildered, or the Ancient History question could be something I read just last night. You never know, and that's what makes it so interesting.

Like you said, it is rarely so simple, and it's those 998 times in the middle that you have to worry about.

[Mr. Armadillo]

Not to mention, with categories like those two, there's a half-decent chance you could conceivably get the exact same clue behind either.