Jeopardy controversy...
I have to start by asking... is this really a thing?
There were some people in past games who basically trained specifically for Jeopardy by dissecting most common categories and most common answers in the those categories. I thought that was what this was going to be about. While I would defend that as well. This is FAR more asinine.
The complaint? He is hunting for the daily double rather than mindlessly consuming categories in order.
Oh, and some people are miffed by his wagering, both in final Jeopardy, and in those daily doubles.
If the game wasn't meant to be played in this way (I'll call it "strategically"), then the contestants would choose a category and Trebek would simply read the questions in sequential order until all were consumed. The ability to jump between categories creates the ability to exploit this for the purpose of strategy. Anyone who complains about someone using strategy in a competition should be removed from the gene pool.
Firstly, the strategy isn't really all that exploitative. The game is built to allow for it, and daily doubles have special strategic value in and of themselves. Which means, depending on peoples dispositions and strengths, most players are either actively hoping to find or avoid them. In fact, I have seen the opposite, where people will clear out the lowest 2-3 point value answers in each category and moving on.
I've seen many people hunt for the daily double in the past. Many will start with the second highest point value in a category, and then finish it off from there... but it is no different in that respect. Virtually anyone not starting at the lowest point value answer and working the way to the end is exploiting some sort of strategy. Since, it is always obvious from the title the exact form the answers will take.
Basically, by making these random daily doubles and given them the potentially immense advantage to double ones score basically says that anyone not hunting for them, or strategically avoiding them is throwing their chances to the wind.
There is another added bonus to this tactic. Which, according to the article is part of the source of the debate. And that is, it can make it hard for the viewer to keep track of the format of the questions. Well, if it makes it harder for casual observers, it likely also makes it more difficult for his competitors. Which again, makes it all the more brilliant a tactic.
The next was the wagering. He wagered $5 on a sport category because he knows nothing about the topic. Great! Know your weakness. This is clearly a fairly obvious move. I've people tank entire categories before hitting a daily double and wager "conservatively" by "only" wagering $1000 in the jeopardy round. Comparatively speaking, the other contestants are just morons.
Then there was the final jeopardy round where he ended in a tie. The basis was that the only objective of the game is to progress to the next round. It is irrelevant if it is by a tie or not. So, he should make the bet that best assures him of winning.
Lets assume he had $1200 and she had $800 and she was not in a run-away position for second place. She *should* wager $400. Even if Arthur had wagered nothing, she would still tie/win if he got it wrong, and it would also have her spending the least to do that, given her the best odds of beating the 3rd place player should she get it wrong. This is the wager Arthur should assume she made. If she played the same tactic and went for the tie instead of the win, but Arthur bet $401 instead to secure that $1 lead and the other player wagered nothing, he would have lost. Playing for the tie no longer sounds like such a foolish move?
I'll admit, I was a bit confused by his wager as well. But, I also wasn't aware that a tie resulted in both progressing rather than some sort of tie breaker. And when you break down the math of the potential consequences you see that he actually made the right move. He eliminated an extra possible outcome where he would have lost while sacrificing none of his chances of progressing to the next round. Be it only ever so slightly, he actually increased his odds of winning with that wager.
There were some people in past games who basically trained specifically for Jeopardy by dissecting most common categories and most common answers in the those categories. I thought that was what this was going to be about. While I would defend that as well. This is FAR more asinine.
The complaint? He is hunting for the daily double rather than mindlessly consuming categories in order.
Oh, and some people are miffed by his wagering, both in final Jeopardy, and in those daily doubles.
If the game wasn't meant to be played in this way (I'll call it "strategically"), then the contestants would choose a category and Trebek would simply read the questions in sequential order until all were consumed. The ability to jump between categories creates the ability to exploit this for the purpose of strategy. Anyone who complains about someone using strategy in a competition should be removed from the gene pool.
Firstly, the strategy isn't really all that exploitative. The game is built to allow for it, and daily doubles have special strategic value in and of themselves. Which means, depending on peoples dispositions and strengths, most players are either actively hoping to find or avoid them. In fact, I have seen the opposite, where people will clear out the lowest 2-3 point value answers in each category and moving on.
I've seen many people hunt for the daily double in the past. Many will start with the second highest point value in a category, and then finish it off from there... but it is no different in that respect. Virtually anyone not starting at the lowest point value answer and working the way to the end is exploiting some sort of strategy. Since, it is always obvious from the title the exact form the answers will take.
Basically, by making these random daily doubles and given them the potentially immense advantage to double ones score basically says that anyone not hunting for them, or strategically avoiding them is throwing their chances to the wind.
There is another added bonus to this tactic. Which, according to the article is part of the source of the debate. And that is, it can make it hard for the viewer to keep track of the format of the questions. Well, if it makes it harder for casual observers, it likely also makes it more difficult for his competitors. Which again, makes it all the more brilliant a tactic.
The next was the wagering. He wagered $5 on a sport category because he knows nothing about the topic. Great! Know your weakness. This is clearly a fairly obvious move. I've people tank entire categories before hitting a daily double and wager "conservatively" by "only" wagering $1000 in the jeopardy round. Comparatively speaking, the other contestants are just morons.
Then there was the final jeopardy round where he ended in a tie. The basis was that the only objective of the game is to progress to the next round. It is irrelevant if it is by a tie or not. So, he should make the bet that best assures him of winning.
Lets assume he had $1200 and she had $800 and she was not in a run-away position for second place. She *should* wager $400. Even if Arthur had wagered nothing, she would still tie/win if he got it wrong, and it would also have her spending the least to do that, given her the best odds of beating the 3rd place player should she get it wrong. This is the wager Arthur should assume she made. If she played the same tactic and went for the tie instead of the win, but Arthur bet $401 instead to secure that $1 lead and the other player wagered nothing, he would have lost. Playing for the tie no longer sounds like such a foolish move?
I'll admit, I was a bit confused by his wager as well. But, I also wasn't aware that a tie resulted in both progressing rather than some sort of tie breaker. And when you break down the math of the potential consequences you see that he actually made the right move. He eliminated an extra possible outcome where he would have lost while sacrificing none of his chances of progressing to the next round. Be it only ever so slightly, he actually increased his odds of winning with that wager.
Comments
Post a Comment