Don't Bet To Tie

[TLEberle]

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).

$19,000 to $3,000, double up on clues 59 and 60. I think that would qualify as a shellacking.

Even if it was $19,000 to $5,000 and the opponent doubles up, that's someone I would think about keeping around. If I'm stronger in every category than my opponent, how much incumbency on the buzzer is going to help him out? Plus I have the advantage that he knows he got thrashed in that game and survived only on my largesse and a right response in FJ. There's also the possibility that he'll offer the same thing back to me on the chance that the positions are reversed "tomorrow."

Much of Jeopardy is about assessment of risk tolerance and how to act on it, and I think this is a fascinating part of the game.

[Kevin Prather]

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.

Out of curiosity, any idea if this has ever actually happened? Someone returning the tie after receiving it the first time?

[J.R.]

Wasn't there a three-way tie a few years back?

I seem to recall the reasons the leader allowed it was to be nice and thought the idea of everyone coming back was cool.

[TLEberle]

I seem to recall the reasons the leader allowed it was to be nice and thought the idea of everyone coming back was cool.

Helped a great deal by his two opponents being joint second, and them both betting all $8000 and being right.

[Matt Ottinger]

I seem to recall the reasons the leader allowed it was to be nice and thought the idea of everyone coming back was cool.

Helped a great deal by his two opponents being joint second, and them both betting all $8000 and being right.

Yes, it all had to work out right, but the leader could have locked the others out and yeah, evidence is he just did it 'cause he thought it was cool.  As I recall, he lost to one of them the next day.  So there's that.

Seems like there was one other time where a leader was exactly 2x ahead of two tied players, but one of the dingbats below him held back a dollar and lost.

[gameshowcrazy]

I would always go for the win.

It is difficult enough to get on the show, and everyone that does is good enough to be there.  Jeopardy is very much a game of reaction time as it is about recall on demand.  You can clearly see all three contestants trying to buzz in first on an overwhelming amount of questions (I'll just leave the definition of overwhelming up to each individual here, but I think many readers can agree with me about many questions have all three pushing the button).

Studies have shown that the more a person does a task, the more automatic and easier it becomes (just ask anyone certified to test drivers for DUI for those studies); and I would much rather play against someone with less experience on that buzzer.

[TLEberle]

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.

I have no idea how I came up with this, but I did anyway: if you really want to tamp down on rampant ties (if it gets to that point) an easy and evil fix is to have everybody come back and nobody gets any money for that episode.

[Kevin Prather]

I have no idea how I came up with this, but I did anyway: if you really want to tamp down on rampant ties (if it gets to that point) an easy and evil fix is to have everybody come back and nobody gets any money for that episode.

Not sure if this is exactly what you are going for, but isn't that how WoF handled ties in the old days? All three players came back, and they continued the same game the next day, building off the same scores?

[TLEberle]

Not sure if this is exactly what you are going for, but isn't that how WoF handled ties in the old days? All three players came back, and they continued the same game the next day, building off the same scores?

That's what prompted the idea, but instead of building from "yesterday," I would zero it out, as if there was no show that day at all. If you want to discourage something, you penalize it. Obviously, we're nowhere near that point yet.

[Kevin Prather]

Not sure if this is exactly what you are going for, but isn't that how WoF handled ties in the old days? All three players came back, and they continued the same game the next day, building off the same scores?

That's what prompted the idea, but instead of building from "yesterday," I would zero it out, as if there was no show that day at all. If you want to discourage something, you penalize it. Obviously, we're nowhere near that point yet.

So if all three players are tied at the end of DJ, or two are tied and one has exactly double, everyone is more or less borked?

[TLEberle]

So if all three players are tied at the end of DJ, or two are tied and one has exactly double, everyone is more or less borked?

I would choose to look at it from the perspective of they all get to play the game again, and that's assuming you get a tie, because people still have to be right in FJ.

(I also did say that it would be an evil solution.)

[Dbacksfan12]

So if all three players are tied at the end of DJ, or two are tied and one has exactly double, everyone is more or less borked?

I would choose to look at it from the perspective of they all get to play the game again, and that's assuming you get a tie, because people still have to be right in FJ.

This is perhaps the lamest idea I've read in some time.  Put yourself in the contestant podium.  You, Travis Eberle, passed the test, the audition and are on the show.  You have racked up $28,000.  The two contestants below you end the game at $14,000 apiece.  You don't get $28,000.  You come back the next day and blow it on a daily double.  You get $1,000 instead.  How little sense does this make?  And please don't tell me that you're not disappointed about making $27,000 less.

[Kevin Prather]

(I also did say that it would be an evil solution.)

Sorry, Travis. It's so beyond evil that it's not even a solution, IMO. "A dominating game, Travis and Ken! But since you two are tied, no soup for either of you."

I wouldn't mind seeing the WoF approach though. "Travis and Roger are tied, so we'll all come back tomorrow and continue this game. Someone must be the champion."

[TLEberle]

I wouldn't mind seeing the WoF approach though. "Travis and Roger are tied, so we'll all come back tomorrow and continue this game. Someone must be the champion."\

Do you start them with their total from the previous day (because that would actually make the SJ Daily Double interesting) or treat it like day two of a Grand Final?

(Mark will get his own back when I'm home from work in a couple.)

[Kevin Prather]

I wouldn't mind seeing the WoF approach though. "Travis and Roger are tied, so we'll all come back tomorrow and continue this game. Someone must be the champion."\

Do you start them with their total from the previous day (because that would actually make the SJ Daily Double interesting) or treat it like day two of a Grand Final?

I'd just carry over the scores.

That said, this is just hypothetical. I don't really support doing anything to discourage tying. But if you're gonna do it, I like this way best.