Jeopardy! to Eliminate Ties?

[clemon79]

It is draconian. And asinine.

It also doesn't solve the problem they are trying to solve, which is avoiding paying out twice. I can *absolutely* see people playing for a tie if they can guarantee themselves a quick 20K on their way out the door.

/and OMG would that be bad television

[TLEberle]

/and OMG would that be bad television

I didn't even address the fact that you have viewers thinking "hey wait, two people won money last night, and now they're gone. What happened?" And then you have to have Alex spend some time at the top of the next show explaining that you missed the Final Jeopardy to beat all of 'em but alas neither player gets to come back.

And since I have some leftover kerosene and we're around the bonfire, what if you have a tie on $1,201?

[PYLdude]

It is draconian. And asinine.

It also doesn't solve the problem they are trying to solve, which is avoiding paying out twice. I can *absolutely* see people playing for a tie if they can guarantee themselves a quick 20K on their way out the door.

/and OMG would that be bad television

There's also that.

[WarioBarker]

The "oust in the event of a tie" thing also presents a problem -- what if a taping session ends up with enough ties (and hence ousted players) that there aren't enough contestants in that day's pool to finish the tapings? IIRC, the show has about 12 or 13 contestants -- ten selected for the five-show day, the carryover champ, and at least one alternate in case something happens to one of the scheduled players before showtime.

And since I have some leftover kerosene and we're around the bonfire, what if you have a tie on $1,201?

Slightly confused here -- under the official "new" rule, or fthrmulcahy's suggestion? Under the former, the loser of the tiebreaker would get $2,000, not unlike finishing second to a <$2,000 score otherwise. Under the latter, the person who didn't tie would probably get the $2,000 for placing second, which would cost the show another $201.

They could drop the second-place award to $1,500 or $1,000, though, which would save a few bucks.

It also doesn't solve the problem they are trying to solve, which is avoiding paying out twice.

I think the other problem is that they don't want to turn anybody away from playing on the show due to a co-champ situation happening...but yeah, pretty sure it's more about the money.

[fthrmulcahy]

Admittedly, my idea was more spitballing than well thought out.  Everyone's comments about not solving the budget problem are well-taken.  I was looking at it from the point of view that the bigger problem is long-term and a threat to the integrity of Jeopardy, but as much as I don't like it the budget concern is probably the bigger issue to Sony.  There's a reason there are (relatively) more ties recently...there are considerable strategic advantages to playing for a tie in final jeopardy.  Most contestants either don't consider them or have more respect for the game than to play that way.  I was trying to think of a penalty punitive enough to discourage those that are looking at this from a mathematical perspective from playing for the tie purposely and messing with the integrity of the game.  On second thought, splitting the money half way probably dissuades them as well without the continuity problems that my idea creates. Unless they're the type that take the insurance on a blackjack, I guess.  Though on that note perhaps that's the point behind the one-question playoff, too...does that dissuade the game theorists from taking a tie for what is essentially a coin flip?

I'm for anything that discourages players from purposely playing for ties...I know that harms those that finish DJ with exactly half the total of the leader, but the historians here know much better than me how often that actually happens.

[clemon79]

The "oust in the event of a tie" thing also presents a problem -- what if a taping session ends up with enough ties (and hence ousted players) that there aren't enough contestants in that day's pool to finish the tapings?

This was one of Travis's points: you would have to plan for that. Which means, in theory, you'd have to schedule 14 potential contestants with the very real likelihood of having to send four of them home sad.

This was one of the advantages of doing away with retiring champions: you only have to line up ten contestants and unless there is a tie you know all of them are gonna play.

I was looking at it from the point of view that the bigger problem is long-term and a threat to the integrity of Jeopardy

Yeah, you're gonna want to get over that happy crappy right quick. This is a commercial venture, and the only concern Sony has for "the integrity of Jeopardy" is insofar as it affecting viewership. Which is exactly as it should be.

Most contestants either don't consider them or have more respect for the game than to play that way.

"Respect for the game?" Are you friggin' kidding me? We are talking about thousands of dollars here. Any contestant who knows what the correct financial move is and then fails to make it out of "respect for the game" never should have passed the contestant tests in the first place, because that person is an idiot.

[Matt Ottinger]

If I'm Harry Friedman, my "fix" is simple.  If two players tie, they share the pot.  Next subject.

[TLEberle]

And since I have some leftover kerosene and we're around the bonfire, what if you have a tie on $1,201?

Slightly confused here --

Reading comprehension of the thread means you shouldn't be confused. I was discussing the newly created idea, and saying "how do you deal with a tie on some value less than the second-place award?"

I was trying to think of a penalty punitive enough

The fact that you are looking to punish winners is the first issue.

does that dissuade the game theorists

I am tired of hearing this phrase used improperly in the realm of game shows. There is a difference between "having a battle plan and executing it" and looking at everything in terms of minimaxing potential. The Forrest Bounce is not game theory any more than the way I pick lotto numbers. Playing to snuff and minimize the impact of Daily Doubles is not game theory, it is a tactic.

[MSTieScott]

If I'm Harry Friedman, my "fix" is simple.  If two players tie, they share the pot.  Next subject.

This is the other reasonable solution if you want to discourage contestants from betting to tie. But if it happens, then you have to deal with viewers (and people such as the social media pot-stirrers who chime in when the show makes a "controversial" Final Jeopardy! ruling that has no real impact on the outcome of the game) who are upset that the two contestants who had $25,000 in front of them a second ago now only have $12,500.

And in a choice between upsetting the contestants or upsetting casual viewers of the show (along with the media that quotes their complaints and calls it news), I can understand why the show would (allegedly) choose to go with the tie-breaker clue.

[TLEberle]

And in a choice between upsetting the contestants or upsetting casual viewers of the show (along with the media that quotes their complaints and calls it news), I can understand why the show would (allegedly) choose to go with the tie-breaker clue.

If they were to couple the choice with one that eases restrictions on pronunciation and "Spelling counts except when it doesn't," I would be completely OK with it.

[Jimmy Owen]

Suggestion: Whomever questioned the most answers correctly during the game is the winner in case of a tie.

[Dbacksfan12]

Suggestion: Whomever questioned the most answers correctly during the game is the winner in case of a tie.

And if they answered the same amount correctly, what do you do then?

[Matt Ottinger]

Suggestion: Whomever questioned the most answers correctly during the game is the winner in case of a tie.

It's very not-good-television to declare a victory by some arbitrary statistic that no one at home is paying attention to.  Your suggestion also gives a disproportionate amount of weight to the smaller-value clues, which is counter-intuitive.

[clemon79]

And if they answered the same amount correctly, what do you do then?

Strength of schedule.

/and what if my aunt had balls

[Jimmy Owen]

Suggestion: Whomever questioned the most answers correctly during the game is the winner in case of a tie.

And if they answered the same amount correctly, what do you do then?

I'd be willing to wager that wouldn't happen often.  Just putting out an idea.  If Sony wants to use it, permission granted.