Don't Bet To Tie

[Don Howard]

All this wagering to win by a buck if you're right and the opponent closer in score to you bets it all and is right.
"The person you tie today could beat you tomorrow".
Well, the person you tie today could tie you tomorrow, too.
Fess up, producers, you suggest not to tie because that's a potential heap of extra money you have to pay out.

Even during the five wins and you're out period, there'd be people on their fifth day with a lock game who'd still bet to win by a buck if they question the FJ! answer incorrectly. What's that to prove? That you're a great big dick?

Your thoughts, please.

EDITED MUCH LATER: To clarify that those going for their 5th win and an undefeated championship with a lock score for a win would still venture for winning by $1 even if they were to respond incorrectly.

[Dbacksfan12]

Even during the five wins and you're out period, there'd be people with a lock game who'd still bet to win by a buck if they question the FJ! answer incorrectly. What's that to prove? That you're a great big dick?

If I'm competing, I want to get the optimal advantage that I can.  I'd rather have two people unfamiliar with the buzzer system than one.  How is it a dick to beat your competition?

I have the same beef with NFL coaches who go for the tie and hope to win the coin toss in overtime.  Go for the dang win.

[Don Howard]

How is it a dick to beat your competition?

If you're guaranteed the fifth win and instant qualification to the tournament, what harm is there in throwing your opponent a bone?
That's where, in my belief, the dickishness kicked in.

[Mr. Armadillo]

If I'm competing, I want to get the optimal advantage that I can.  

Generally, if there's any way I can convince my opponent to bet the lot in Final, I'd love for him to, since that means he can't possibly win if we both miss.  

There's also the fact that, if you were beating him by a considerable margin going into Final, you'd rather play someone you've already "beat" once than a fresh player from the pool.

[TLEberle]

Here's another angle: Jeopardy has about a dozen people back in the green room ready to go on the show. If you have tying co-champs all the way through, that's five people who either have to wait until "tomorrow" or just won't get on the show.

If it ever got to the point where there were revolving co-champions and the show was paying out an additional $2.5 million or so in prize money, you'd probably see a fix of some sort.

[Jay Temple]

During the first season, after the announcement of the 2nd- and 3rd-place prizes, Alex explained (more or less daily) that if there was a tie for second and third, second place would go to the player who led going into FJ. I assumed that they'd do the same thing for first place until I saw it happen. That would be the easy fix to make.

ETA: Nevertheless, when the limit was five games and someone bet to win by $1, I always asked, "What are you afraid of? Do you think he's going to come back and beat you in the Tournament of Champions?"

[TLEberle]

During the first season, after the announcement of the 2nd- and 3rd-place prizes, Alex explained (more or less daily) that if there was a tie for second and third, second place would go to the player who led going into FJ. I assumed that they'd do the same thing for first place until I saw it happen. That would be the easy fix to make.

What if they're tied going into FJ?

ETA: Nevertheless, when the limit was five games and someone bet to win by $1, I always asked, "What are you afraid of? Do you think he's going to come back and beat you in the Tournament of Champions?"

It is entirely possible that the victory was ingrained into the players's heads, and the idea that you would leave the back door open just didn't occur to people that it was a possibility.

[Matt Ottinger]

The "fix" is easy:  If you tie, you split the prize money.  Jeopardy obviously doesn't believe it has to worry about that, so I doubt prize money is much of a consideration.

Most people come down on the "don't tie" side.  I agree with Don, but only in some respects and not as passionately.  I don't believe you're being a dick to play for the win, except possibly in that narrow window of the fifth game retiree, which isn't even relevant anymore.  Still, as our scaly friend pointed out below, if I'd dominated my opponent and a tie was still possible, I'd be tempted to leave open that possibility.  There are never guarantees, but in a Jeopardy pool, I'll take the somewhat-known vs the unknown just about every time.  However, Mark's also right that familiarity with the buzzer is HUGE, and giving a player a second chance with it could come back to bite you.  I don't think there is one "right" answer, which is one more reason why this game is so much fun to dissect.

[Don Howard]

I don't believe you're being a dick to play for the win, except possibly in that narrow window of the fifth game retiree

Yas.

[TLEberle]

I have the same beef with NFL coaches who go for the tie and hope to win the coin toss in overtime.  Go for the dang win.

Doing some 'research,' I found out that the PAT was made 95% of the time last year, and 2-point conversions a little less than 50/50. Why is it not "going for the dang win" if you intend to do so during the fifth quarter instead of the fourth?

[Don Howard]

Tom Walsh was one of my favorite players.

I have the same beef with NFL coaches who go for the tie and hope to win the coin toss in overtime.  Go for the dang win.

Doing some 'research,' I found out that the PAT was made 95% of the time last year, and 2-point conversions a little less than 50/50. Why is it not "going for the dang win" if you intend to do so during the fifth quarter instead of the fourth?

I don't know. Why don't you go over to the Off-Topic section to discuss this?

[TLEberle]

I don't know. Why don't you go over to the Off-Topic section to discuss this?

I thought you didn't listen to what I had to say because I was a detestable human being. Why should I extend you any courtesy at all?

(I think it is very on topic because it deals with the same sort of tactics and strategy of when to press an advantage if you have it. and when to hang back.)

[MSTieScott]

The "fix" is easy:  If you tie, you split the prize money.  Jeopardy obviously doesn't believe it has to worry about that, so I doubt prize money is much of a consideration.

My hunch is that prize money absolutely is the primary consideration. The occasional tie is interesting and not appreciably detrimental to the budget. But if contestants started regularly betting to tie and the show found itself paying out twice as much money per episode, then they'd have to do something to keep their budget in check. So either they'd split the prize money (changing a firmly-established rule while simultaneously making them look stingy) or they'd write more difficult Double Jeopardy and Final Jeopardy clues to keep players from racking up high scores. Either way, it doesn't look good to the viewers at home.

Still, as our scaly friend pointed out below, if I'd dominated my opponent and a tie was still possible, I'd be tempted to leave open that possibility.

I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where you can thoroughly dominate an opponent but still have less than twice their score (unless they succeeded on a large Daily Double wager).

Technically, you can always bet to tie -- if you have a lock game, wager enough to fall back to twice your nearest opponent's score if you get Final Jeopardy wrong. But odds are that in that situation, your opponent isn't going to wager everything, so what's the point, I suppose.


I would also argue that this is a game, and we've been conditioned to expect a game to have one winner. I'm not sure it would be as satisfying for the average home viewer if episodes regularly ended with nondefinitive co-champions.

[Don Howard]

Why should I extend you any courtesy at all?

Such a big man you are. Your parents must be very proud.

[Matt Ottinger]

I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where you can thoroughly dominate an opponent but still have less than twice their score (unless they succeeded on a large Daily Double wager).

Well...yeah, pretty much that, I guess.  As I've said before, DDs and FJ are the closest thing Jeopardy has to a random equalizer, and if not for them, Ken Jennings might still be playing today.  Jeopardy uberfans have something called a "Coryat Score" that purports to show how you performed separate from those wager clues.  You're not going to be calculating that score in your head while you're playing, but I bet you could have a good sense of how things are going.
   

Technically, you can always bet to tie -- if you have a lock game, wager enough to fall back to twice your nearest opponent's score if you get Final Jeopardy wrong. But odds are that in that situation, your opponent isn't going to wager everything, so what's the point, I suppose.

To allow for a tie in a lock game might seem the greatest heresy of all, but this is actually one of the things I'm talking about.  If I've got a lock, I can see betting the round number instead of the protective 999.  If I get it right, or if he misses, it doesn't matter.  If I get it wrong and the guy below me didn't wager everything, then it's his problem.  But if all the stars align for him, then I'm bringing along a player I decisively beat the first time AND a new best friend, stunned by my generosity, who might be willing to return the favor if our situations are reversed tomorrow.