The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: chad1m on November 06, 2014, 12:53:30 PM
-
A couple of sources are corroborating the idea that games will no longer end in a tie on Jeopardy! Any ties at the end will be broken by a sudden death clue. The winner gets their score, the loser gets second-place prize. I believe this is the biggest (and only) rule change since they altered buzz-in procedures in 1985.
If this indeed happens, how will you feel? I don't mind ties going away. Organic ties are fun, but it feels like more of them have been "manufactured" in the last season or two. Ties were a novelty for a while, but I think the tiebreaker clue will be a more exciting finish to the show.
-
Citations?
I like ties; it's fun to watch more people winning money, especially when the tie is unexpected like the one on $20,200 last week. How is a tie manufactured, anyway? Usually things have to happen just-so for it to work; it isn't like the leader after DJ is betting enough that he'll tie if he's right, and second-place has to double-up and be right too.
-
Citations?
A discussion at The Jeopardy Fan (http://www.thejeopardyfan.com/), plus someone I know who talked to a reliable source. (I understand they're important, but I'd like to think I've established enough credibility at this point that I'm not spreading bowling-buddy information.)
-
(I understand they're important, but I'd like to think I've established enough credibility at this point that I'm not spreading bowling-buddy information.)
My intent wasn't to impugn your reputation; I just wanted to know who was putting it out there, because it's a rather big change (I think the elimination of retiring champions would qualify as a big rule change as well).
-
it isn't like the leader after DJ is betting enough that he'll tie if he's right, and second-place has to double-up and be right too.
That's pretty much what's happening, yes.
-
That's pretty much what's happening, yes.
Pardon me, I left off a clause. That's not happening every day, otherwise we'd be having ties all the time.
-
Not a huge fan of the idea, and not because it's a "not broke, don't fix it" deal. I kinda feel that Jeopardy! is unique in that, after questioning 61 answers, if you tie with someone, you earned that payday. To lose it all on a 62nd question seems more manufactured IMO, and kinda anticlimactic. Besides, the show already seems kinda rushed at times, so I wonder how this would look. And unlike other shows, the highest score here doesn't send you to the bonus round.
That said, if two contestants tie at $15,000, I totally get the producers' wanting to give away $17K instead of 30K, even if it doesn't happen that often.
-
I don't like the shootout in hockey.
I don't like this.
-
Agreed with those who don't like this change- if it ends up in a tie, it ends up in a tie; bite the bullet on the extra money and deal with it.
-
I look at it as nearer to the wild-card round that MLB gave us: instead of being more special, it is less special because it is predictable. The tie-breaker clue is a special thing because it only happens in tournaments, and the implication of that clue is huge.
If the show is going to change something, why not change "spelling counts except when it doesn't"? That comes up far more often and is a thing that should actually be dealt with instead of ties. I'd actually be in favor of the tie-breaker if the losing co-champion was allowed to come back the next day but won no money for it.
According to BuzzerBlog, one of the sources is Ryan Alley, recent three-game winner, who says it is his strong belief that the rule change will happen after the tournament.
-
I too don't like this change. That said, during the first season, they explained on a daily basis that if there was a tie for second and third place, the player who led going into FJ would take second place. I just assumed, until it happened, that they would do the same thing for first place. I'd even prefer that over a 62nd question.
-
To me, that seems even more unfair and just as anticlimactic as the extra question. If I have $7,500 and my opponent has an even $15K, I could go for broke, but it still wouldn't matter because I'm pretty much going home with the consolation cash.
-
To me, that seems even more unfair and just as anticlimactic as the extra question. If I have $7,500 and my opponent has an even $15K, I could go for broke, but it still wouldn't matter because I'm pretty much going home with the consolation cash.
Not only that, your opponent is being forced to wager something on the FJ in that event to ensure a tie doesn't happen. That just makes the whole exercise stink.
-
It seems ties have been happening more frequently lately, but if this is true I don't like it either. I agree with what the others have said - if you're tied with someone after FJ, you've earned that money. It's not like the production company is going to go broke anyway.
-
It's not like the production company is going to go broke anyway.
Probably not, but based on this post (http://buyavowel.boards.net/post/61889/thread) by Jess (Prizes) over at the Buy A Vowel forum where she goes through the company's recent financial statements, Sony's not exactly swimming in money either.
Even so, it's still a pretty bad change.
-
I don't like this at all. Ties are fun because you and your opponent take home the same amount of money and come back to face each other again.
If I were to guess why they want to get rid of ties, I say because of budget-saving costs. I say this because clues are getting more ridiculously hard almost every episode and contestants are having a tough time answering questions, thus leading to low-scoring games. Eliminating ties will just be a cheap tactic to give away less money.
And I agree that tie-breaking clues should be just for tournament purposes only because it builds suspense. Getting rid of ties will make the game less suspenseful.
-
Is there a statistic kept for number of ties in a given year of regular play?
-
If it's really a budget thing, there are less transparent ways to save money. Maybe scale back on the tournaments (or if tournaments are cheaper, run more of them). More difficult material, particularly FJs, would come across as less bush league than a rule change, and even celebrated by some Jeopardy enthusiasts.
-
Not a fan of a tiebreaker in regular play. Not crazy about it in tournaments, frankly, but I realize you have to do something.
-
If it's really a budget thing, there are less transparent ways to save money.
What's interesting is that while Jeopardy is looking to save money (and really, it's $20,000 out of $500,000 a month), while Wheel of Fortune steadily increases the prize money and prizes that the contestants can win.
-
If it's really a budget thing, there are less transparent ways to save money.
What's interesting is that while Jeopardy is looking to save money (and really, it's $20,000 out of $500,000 a month), while Wheel of Fortune steadily increases the prize money and prizes that the contestants can win.
Do they though? Has the average win on WoF gone up appreciably this year? Just because the numbers are bigger on the wheel doesn't mean that money's going in the players' pockets.
By the way, the ToC costs $49,000 a day. The College and Teachers tourneys cost $26,500 a day, and the Teen tourney costs $20,500 a day. Those are minimums and can go up by finalists scoring hot, but don't usually go up too much. Make of that what you will.
-
If the wheel values are 500-900, as opposed to 300-900, then I would think averaged for a sample size, yes, the players are winning more money in both the main game and bonus game. First thing I'd do is nuke some of the middling values on the bonus wheel; either 35k, 40k or 45k.
(Even with the massive grand prize and smaller prizes for entrants, the Decades Tournament daily prize budget was about $33,000 over the duration.)
-
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned what I thought when I first read this: If this rule change is (potentially) going to be enacted after the Tournament of Champions, what, pray tell, took place during said tournament to prompt it?
Also, is there the possibility this could be a "tournaments-only" rule, for elimination games?
-
If the wheel values are 500-900, as opposed to 300-900, then I would think averaged for a sample size, yes, the players are winning more money in both the main game and bonus game.
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 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.
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?
Naturally-occurring ties are exciting, but it's my opinion that a tie that comes about because the leader bet $2,400 instead of $2,401 is not a satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, if that behavior is becoming more common, then the only way to discourage it is either with more difficult Final Jeopardy! clues (also bad television, and doesn't stop contestants with a lock game from betting to tie if they get Final Jeopardy! wrong) or a rule change. I don't like the idea of a tiebreaker clue in ordinary gameplay, but I have to admit that it would be the least conspicuous way to encourage contestants to wager to win.
-
Just had a thought...with scores qualifying contestants for a tournament, does anyone know offhand how a tie in Sports Jeopardy! works? Do they go to a tiebreaker clue, or do both winners get $5K and qualify?
-
It doesn't scan: if the parent company is losing money at that huge a rate, eliminating the ties is like putting a single lettuce leaf in a tub of nachos and saying "it has a salad, so it's healthy now!" It's not going to turn around the company.
-
It doesn't scan: if the parent company is losing money at that huge a rate, eliminating the ties is like putting a single lettuce leaf in a tub of nachos and saying "it has a salad, so it's healthy now!" It's not going to turn around the company.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FWMBAmo_1cQ
(Sorry, had to)
-
Dammit, the two best things about a taco salad are also the two least healthy things. :)
-
It doesn't scan: if the parent company is losing money at that huge a rate, eliminating the ties is [...] not going to turn around the company.
I don't think "turn around the company" would be the point of the change so much as "save a bit of money". Even if the tie is at less than about $1,500, where it'd cost more to bump the tiebreaker loser(s) to $2,000 than it would to give both/all of them the tied amount, they'd be spending less than they are with the current rule.
-
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. If it happens naturally those are the breaks, but I bet it would cut down significantly on DJ leaders who are being friendly with Sony's money.
I look at it the way I would look at canning the Double Showcase; sure you save the money every once in a while, but it eliminates something rare and interesting.
-
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, (http://jboard.tv/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2423&start=20#p141560) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
However, the same source notes this no tie rule is done on Sports Jeopardy, which I thought was interesting.
Makes sense from a budget standpoint. This way, they know that their prize budget is exactly $8,000 per episode plus the prize money for the championship game. No sense in allowing one or more unexpected $3,000 overages on this untested internet program.
(How does "Sports Jeopardy!" pay out consolation money if there's a tie for second place? For that matter, how does "Jeopardy!"?)
-
However, the same source notes this no tie rule is done on Sports Jeopardy, which I thought was interesting.
(How does "Sports Jeopardy!" pay out consolation money if there's a tie for second place? For that matter, how does "Jeopardy!"?)
On original recipe J!, whichever of the two was leading the other going into Final Jeopardy! gets the 2nd place prize. (If they were tied then too, it's whichever one was ahead of the other most recently.) I'd figure it's likely the same for Sports J!
-
For those looking for more public proof, the spouse of an upcoming contestant confirmed it (http://jboard.tv/viewtopic.php?p=144808#p144808) on JBoard.
-
I wonder if they'll discuss the rule change on the air, or just slip it in and see if anyone notices.
-
I wonder if they'll discuss the rule change on the air, or just slip it in and see if anyone notices.
Seems to me they would be able to slip it in if they wanted to (Approves (http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Ron+Jeremy+_8nm88fQ-9Pm.jpg)), because with the rule in place, FJ wagers that set up the possibility will be WAY fewer and further between.
-
I wonder if they'll discuss the rule change on the air, or just slip it in and see if anyone notices.
Seems to me they would be able to slip it in if they wanted to (Approves (http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Ron+Jeremy+_8nm88fQ-9Pm.jpg)), because with the rule in place, FJ wagers that set up the possibility will be WAY fewer and further between.
Good point. No more charity ties. You'll only see a tie in certain stalemate situations.
And sadly, this eliminates one of my favorite strategies we've discussed but I've never seen. Getting the DD as the last clue in the DJ round, and purposely whiffing it to force a tie situation.
-
And sadly, this eliminates one of my favorite strategies we've discussed but I've never seen. Getting the DD as the last clue in the DJ round, and purposely whiffing it to force a tie situation.
Which really illustrates perfectly why the tie is being killed: if you've got a situation where it *might* be beneficial to intentionally answer incorrectly, eliminate that situation.
-
And sadly, this eliminates one of my favorite strategies we've discussed but I've never seen. Getting the DD as the last clue in the DJ round, and purposely whiffing it to force a tie situation.
Which really illustrates perfectly why the tie is being killed: if you've got a situation where it *might* be beneficial to intentionally answer incorrectly, eliminate that situation.
Fair cop. I made a similar point regarding "Millionaire Hot Seat" on another message board. There's a point in the game where "strategy" dictates you should probably pass even if you know the answer. That flies in the face of the game.
-
I was trying to find a story I had read about Swarthmore college quiz bowl and the big reveal was that the student in question was Arthur Chu and didn't find that. What I did find was an interview where Arthur relates dueling stories about his "bet to leave a tie" thing that he did: one tweet back to him said that "your bet on Jeopardy! restored my faith in humanity," and the other one said "This is everything that's wrong with the Millenial generation; everyone gets a prize."
You really can't please everyone.
-
I was trying to find a story I had read about Swarthmore college quiz bowl and the big reveal was that the student in question was Arthur Chu and didn't find that.
Here you go: http://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=293796#p293796
-
Bless you sir. Pick up your hundred Eberle escudos at any open window.
-
Feel free to think I am taking this too far....in the event of a tie you could pay both players out but neither comes back as champion...you would never have players purposely playing for a tie ever again. Maybe it's draconian but in this age of game theory it might me necessary. Just my two cents...
-
Feel free to think I am taking this too far....in the event of a tie you could pay both players out but neither comes back as champion...you would never have players purposely playing for a tie ever again. Maybe it's draconian but in this age of game theory it might me necessary. Just my two cents...
It is draconian. And asinine.
-
But then you kill the reward of finishing first, even if as co-champions. And now you penalize two people who worked their butts off for 22 minutes. Sure they get their money, but they don't get to defend the crown. It would be like NFL two teams finishing 12-4 in the division, calling them both division champions, but not allowing them to go to the playoffs. Besides, I think viewers would scratch their heads if, on the next program, Alex says "Well...we had a thrilling tie for first place yesterday...but those two won't be back today."
I'm not the biggest fan of a sudden death, but sending both home is unfair IMO.
-
Feel free to think I am taking this too far....in the event of a tie you could pay both players out but neither comes back as champion...you would never have players purposely playing for a tie ever again. Maybe it's draconian but in this age of game theory it might me necessary. Just my two cents...
Or maybe they say "If I get FJ right I win thirty grand. Yes please."
Most people who get on the show don't win so it stands to reason that if you allow more people to win they will take you up on it. You also need to have more contestants in the green room, as opposed to the ten that you need now; and then you have the issue of having leftover players at the end of the week. (I'm sure the show has twelve or more people backstage because someone might get sick or scared, but I wouldn't want to go through the whole day only to find out that I have to come back tomorrow and do it again, with no assurance that I'll get to play.)
If pressed to come up with something new, I would have the winner of the tie-breaker clue keep the money, but the other player gets to come back. Or let them divide the prize money.
-
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
-
/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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If I'm Harry Friedman, my "fix" is simple. If two players tie, they share the pot. Next subject.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Suggestion: Whomever questioned the most answers correctly during the game is the winner in case of a tie.
-
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?
-
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.
-
And if they answered the same amount correctly, what do you do then?
Strength of schedule.
/and what if my aunt had balls
-
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.
-
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.
Now answer his question.
-
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.
Now answer his question.
Champ would win unbeaten. If champ is not involved, the person who wagered the most in FJ wins.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Escher%27s_Relativity.jpg)
-
Champ would win unbeaten. If champ is not involved, the person who wagered the most in FJ wins.
"And by the time they get through all the rules, the first question they ask is 'Can you come back tomorrow?'" -- George Carlin
-
Since the thread has already gone over the cliff, don what Wheel of Fortune does: a single toss-up puzzle determines the winner.
/And for once, a picture contributes to the discussion instead of detracting from it.
//"champ would win unbeaten"? What does that even mean?
///the fact that someone is now saying that a third tiebreaker is whoever bets the most in FJ wins tells you where this has gone.
////Steak tonight for J. Bradford Owen the Third.
-
Well, in order to defeat the Champ, you actually have to beat the Champ. Not tie.
-
Well, in order to defeat the Champ, you actually have to beat the Champ.
(http://www.wwe.com/f/styles/superstar_bio/public/talent/bio/2012/01/ric-flair-bio.png)
-
Well, in order to defeat the Champ, you actually have to beat the Champ.
(http://www.wwe.com/f/styles/superstar_bio/public/talent/bio/2012/01/ric-flair-bio.png)
Loser spotted, he's wearing a tie.
I was hoping this thread was about Jeopardy! becoming less formal in attire.
I was wrong.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Escher%27s_Relativity.jpg)
I think this post of mine from 2012 (http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,23000.msg280945.html#msg280945) still holds true.
Technically, I think you wanted this:
(http://www.chicagoreader.com/binary/10fb/1333737253-scratch2.gif)
-
Thinking about it a bit, I'm fine with a tiebreaker question. It's SOP in just about any other game show and while co-champs was a cool novelty, it won't detract from me watching.
Trying to think of other shows where a tie wouldn't be broken. PYL comes to mine.
-
Didn't Wheel use to just bring all three players back if there was a tie?
-
Didn't Wheel use to just bring all three players back if there was a tie?
In daytime, yes. I want to say they continued the game, adding together both days' scores. In nighttime, it's always been an extra speed-up round, or now, a toss-up.
-Jason
-
If we're going to be unserious, solve the Jeopardy! ties problem the way Tic Tac Dough did. If two players tie on, say, $20,000, put $20,000 in a pot and whoever wins the next show gets what's in front of them plus the $20K. That could even be the new player. The idea that the player who wasn't even on the day before could get the money will spur players not to go for the tie.
Hell, it worked for Merv Griffin's Crosswords.
[/sarcasm]
-
If we're going to be unserious, solve the Jeopardy! ties problem the way Tic Tac Dough did. If two players tie on, say, $20,000, put $20,000 in a pot and whoever wins the next show gets what's in front of them plus the $20K. That could even be the new player. The idea that the player who wasn't even on the day before could get the money will spur players not to go for the tie.
If there was a way to convey to the audience that a carryover pot was only available to the previously tied players (maybe you bring it up at the top of the show and just before Final Jeopardy) I think that would be genius. (It's one of the few things I like about the Raj/Hols de Geier family of card games; if two players play the same card on the previous trick, that prize is carried forward but the other players aren't eligible to win it).
-
The idea of building up a potential five-figure pot to tie, but still going home with "just" $2,000 still leaves a bit of a sour aftertaste, but I dunno if there's a perfect alternate; they all have flaws in a way.
Semi-serious idea here. On Win Ben Stein's Money, if a contestant tied Ben in the Best of Ten Test of Knowledge, he or she received a $1,000 bonus. I wouldn't mind giving the tie-breaker runner-up an extra $3,000 (simply a flat $5K) for his or her work. Then again, with a tiebreaker, the ending is prolly already rushed enough; I wonder if Alex has time to explain why the 2nd place contestant's scoreboard now says $5,000 and not $2,000. I guess a quick explanation right before the category is revealed? "The winner comes back tomorrow, the runner-up takes home $5,000."
There's also the fact that two contestants could tie at $500...
-
Then again, with a tiebreaker, the ending is prolly already rushed enough;
No moreso than it is normally. "We have co-champions! Great game, players. See you tomorrow on Jeopardy."
Maybe they could cut back on the chat segments which seem to have expanded over time or the long credit roll.