Jeopardy! to Eliminate Ties?

[WilliamPorygon]

As for "Jeopardy!," a question: I don't get to watch as much as I'd like, but in the few times I've seen the show recently, I did notice a slight uptick in the number of players in the lead who were betting to tie in Final Jeopardy! rather than to win by a dollar (my hunch is that this is a result of the recent media attention to Arthur Chu and his gameplay methods, but that's a different discussion). Is this a trend that has been occurring this season, and more importantly, has it been succeeding?

As far as anyone at Jboard seems to know, the most ties in a season is five.  We got four just in the first two months of this season, though the last one was clearly a fluke caused by two equally dumb wagers rather than anyone deliberately trying to tie.

Personally, I don't like the idea of tiebreakers being used in regular play.  If a change had to be made, I'd be okay with them splitting the money between the tied players, though that doesn't help with the other problem some people have with ties; namely, that every tie game means one less person in the contestant pool gets to actually make it onto the show.

[WarioBarker]

More difficult bonus round puzzles will take care of that problem. (I don't know whether that's the case -- I don't have any win/loss statistics.)

I don't have any stats in front of me, either, but they've definitely pulled out some hard bonus puzzles if there's been too much winning -- for instance, after a $1,000,000 and $100,000 win during the "Celebrating 30!" taping day late in Season 30, the subsequent weeks in New York had such hard Bonus Round puzzles it ended up at 2-18.

I have noticed that ever since they moved the starting position of the wheel for each round, Pat has been landing on the $5,000 space in the Final Spin much less frequently, but I don't know when that change took effect.

They started doing that around the start of Season 27. As for Pat hitting $5,000 far less frequently, I think that's a combination of the Wheel weighing 2,400 pounds and Pat not exactly being as spry as he used to be.

a rather fundamental bit that's been there thirty years

I just remembered this -- the current rule for handling non-zero ties was in place for the original Fleming series, too. One of the circulating episodes (Kim/Kent/Karen, 1974) ends in a tie, and the players are declared co-champs by Art.

[PYLdude]

Personally, I don't like the idea of tiebreakers being used in regular play.  If a change had to be made, I'd be okay with them splitting the money between the tied players, though that doesn't help with the other problem some people have with ties; namely, that every tie game means one less person in the contestant pool gets to actually make it onto the show.

That's not really the issue those people make it out to be; the odds against you getting on once in the pool are pretty long as it is. My calculation when I was waiting out the eighteen months was about 10,000 to 1.

[gameshowcrazy]

I just can not understand why anyone would want to bet to tie, unless a rare mathematical situation dictates that betting to tie makes sense (such as leader has exactly twice as much as 2nd place going into the final).  The buzzer is the key to this game, and why would you want to risk having to face someone with buzzer experience after you've already become champion?

But this is now happening more often than just the few times we've had a tie this season.  Just because we don't see a tie, doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened if the right contestants got the final correct.

There is one (for lack of a better word) "strategy" I've thought about that I have kept to myself for about 25 years because I hoped it would never happen and ruin the show.  Yet, since here we are, I may as well put it out there; and it could even be a reason for the rumored change:

All contestants conspire to tie every game.

3rd place would bet nothing, while 1st & 2nd bet enough to drop to tie the 3rd place score.  All three come back every day for eternity.

[bscripps]

3rd place would bet nothing, while 1st & 2nd bet enough to drop to tie the 3rd place score.  All three come back every day for eternity.

So I've gotten myself into FJ! with $24,000, with competitors at $4,000 and $1,200.  I can wager nothing and leave with a significant portion of a year's salary in my pocket, but instead I'm going to throw away $22,800 to make sure that the guy who thought the capital of Kansas was "the dollar?" gets $200 more than he was already going to win?  And take a chance that second-place Ralph isn't gonna screw me by wagering nothing?

\And of course, he'll miss that late $2,000 clue on Not-So-Famous Etruscan Sculptors,
\\Now I'm gonna have to wager more than I have just to get into the red to tie him.

[gameshowcrazy]

Maybe you wouldn't, but many people would, because they could come back every day for eternity, or until Jeopardy would say, "enough guys, you ruined our show and we're going to implement a tie breaker system."

You would in the long run earn far more than that $24,000.

When people are faced with the opportunity to make large sums of money, they will often do whatever it takes to make that money.

Yes, one of the three could ultimately decide you're too ugly to look at for another minute and ruin the plan...I never said it WOULD happen; I only mentioned that it COULD happen.

[MikeK]

You seriously can't think this is a legit strategy?  First, producers of the show would likely notice what's happening by game two, if not game 1 with Ben's scenario above, and put the kibosh to this collusion immediately and second, what if someone breaks this secret pact and decides to win the game outright and you're the fool who purposely Cliff Clavined your way into Aleve consolation cash?  Cue Nelson Muntz here.  Third, aren't contestants heavily monitored or even sequestered so there is no communication by potential players?  And 3B, in order to get this to work, unless there are three new players (all 3 contestants on the previous show zeroed out), you need to get a defending champion aboard.  If I'm a champ averaging $30,000 per win and you ask me to get in on this plan where I can only win $3000 per game...ow, the headache is kicking in.

Yes, it could happen.  I could also go home tonight with the hottest supermodel in the world.  There is still a 99.99999999% chance I will go home tonight and do my usual Friday routine--spend the night on the couch with the cats while catching up with shows on the DVR.

[TLEberle]

All contestants conspire to tie every game.

Since you're not allowed to conspire with other contestants, enjoy your $0 consolation money as the show withholds your prize for refusing to follow their rules. We don't even have to address the trust issue or the fact that the DJ leader stands to win much more by playing the game than doing your thing, because your thing is against the rules and would be snuffed.

[clemon79]

Yes, one of the three could ultimately decide you're too ugly to look at for another minute and ruin the plan...I never said it WOULD happen; I only mentioned that it COULD happen.

Oh good lord. A lot of things COULD happen. For example, you COULD be trying to backpedal out of a really dumb statement.

The fact that you've been worried about this for 25 years speaks volumes.

[pacdude]

Yes, one of the three could ultimately decide you're too ugly to look at for another minute and ruin the plan...I never said it WOULD happen; I only mentioned that it COULD happen.

Oh good lord. A lot of things COULD happen. For example, you COULD be trying to backpedal out of a really dumb statement.

The fact that you've been worried about this for 25 years speaks volumes.

Well, he *is* game show crazy.

[Kevin Prather]

Ignoring GSC's goofy conspiracy theory, I'll address the other point he made.

I just can not understand why anyone would want to bet to tie, unless a rare mathematical situation dictates that betting to tie makes sense (such as leader has exactly twice as much as 2nd place going into the final).  The buzzer is the key to this game, and why would you want to risk having to face someone with buzzer experience after you've already become champion?

This is a debate that's as old as Jeopardy itself. There's no right answer, but your argument here is a good argument against tying. I'd suggest there are times when it's okay though. Yes, the guy you're allowing to tie you has buzzer experience, but in your assessment, if you've beaten him pretty handily today (maybe he got lucky on a big DD), perhaps you'd like to have him as an opponent again.

[TLEberle]

This is a debate that's as old as Jeopardy itself. There's no right answer, but your argument here is a good argument against tying. I'd suggest there are times when it's okay though. Yes, the guy you're allowing to tie you has buzzer experience, but in your assessment, if you've beaten him pretty handily today (maybe he got lucky on a big DD), perhaps you'd like to have him as an opponent again.

When he did the same thing in his first game, the point Bob Harris made is basically the question of "take the money or what's behind the curtain," the next game will be against a known quantity instead of two unknowns. Whether that's worth the chance that the co-champion will whip your ass tomorrow is one of risk assessment, and different people will have different levels of that, and maybe the co-champion will be more likely to return the favor.

A contestant who makes it that far has to be happy with the outcome because he only gets to do it that one time, whether that's betting zero on Final Jeopardy, or allowing for the back-door tie.

[Tony Peters]

I know that when the Scripps stations dropped Jeopardy! (and Wheel) for in-house shows, other stations in those markets took them up.  Still, I wonder if the current stations carrying the two (either one or both, in every market in the country) are raising complaints about the high license fees for them, considering the ratings have been slowly dropping over the years (but then, ratings lately have been dropping for every broadcast game show not named Family Feud)?

[Neumms]

They could divide the cash prize in half/thirds and allow both people to return; that actually saves them the consolation prize, doesn't introduce a new thing that changes a rather fundamental bit that's been there thirty years, and it discourages the "double up" situation, because the players go from a full amount to just half.

I've long thought this should be the case. A player shouldn't get the same payout for tying as for winning.

[Prizes]

According to a Sony source, the new tie rule is something they've been discussing and talking about implementing it, but it's not confirmed, and not being done as of right now. However, the same source notes this no tie rule is done on Sports Jeopardy, which I thought was interesting.

I have no reason to spout nonsense, or to otherwise be irrational, so if you don't believe me on the basis of proof or not real, you'll just have to wait for the actual show proof then.