Online Jeopardy Test
Poll
 | 11 votes (29.72%) | ||
| | 2 votes (5.4%) | ||
| | 9 votes (24.32%) | ||
| | 15 votes (40.54%) |
37 members have voted
Quote: EvenBobHas it occurred to you that there are more
people like me than not? Why do you think
these examples are all over Youtube with
lots of hits, because people don't enjoy
seeing others fail? I make fun of schaden
all the time because people love to see
others in embarrassing situations. Look
at that video B9 posted today of the kid
getting his leg caught in the basketball hoop.
They're laughing their asses off at his
screams. It's human nature.
You're missing the point.
Sure, some people will laugh at someone who does something stupid on a game show. So what? Maybe it's really, really important to you that no one laugh at you, but, not everyone is like you. Some people don't care. If I were to go on a game show and get some embarrassingly bad question wrong, it wouldn't bother me at all. Again, the fact that you view it as a big deal is irrelevant. Not everyone is like you. This sort of thing was really, really important to me... until I got past adolescence, that is.
Quote: WizardIf getting on is so hard, why are the other two people you'll face so easy to beat? Is it the wagering Daily Double and Final Jeopardy wagering?
Well there are lots of reasons, and I will try to explain without sounding like I have too high an opinion of myself (in my day-to-day life, the opposite, in fact, is true).
The most important factor is that I am very quick to the buzzer. Most contestants know most clues correctly, especially in single Jeopardy. Who wins is often determined by who is quick to the buzzer. That's why Ken Jennings was so dominant -- granted, he also KNEW more answers than most contestants, but it was his buzzer skills that set him apart. When I played my two sample games at my two auditions, I consistently beat the other 4 contestants to the buzzer. Small sample size, I know, but I am pretty confident my buzzing skills are my strongest asset.
Another reason I think it would harder for me to get on the show than to win is the reality of TV game shows and Jeopardy in particular. I am a white guy between the ages of 25 and 50. Guess who the vast majority of people who pass the Jeopardy test are? You got it -- white guys between the ages of 25 and 50. If they selected contestants based on actual proportions of those who passed, there would be way more white guys 25-50 than there are currently on the show.
Now, in order to make for good television, and to appeal to multiple audience demos, the Jeopardy producers try to have a diverse group of contestants appear on the air. Not saying this is a bad thing at all -- I agree with it. But the reality is the producers have to dip into lower test scores to select women, other ethnicities, and other age groups to appear on the show. So if I were to make it onto the show, I'd probably be playing against at least one person who scored lower on the tests than I did.
Then, there is game strategy. Even the best players typically know next-to-nothing about this. Go watch a game of Jeopardy and see the very first clue selected. Most of the time, it's a $200 clue. This is a major error. When the Daily Doubles are still hidden, a player's foremost clue-selection strategy has to be to get the DD before his opponents do. Daily Doubles are never hidden in the first row of clues, and are usually in the bottom two rows. If you select anything other the last two rows of clues whenever a DD remains, you are making one of the worst errors you can make on the show.
Another error players make when they have control of the board is to work their way down a column of clues in the same category. This is silly. You have control of the board, and Jeopardy is a brutally fast-paced game. Why give your opponents time to think about which category the clue is in? Since you have control, you know what you're going to pick, you should use that to your advantage and bounce around the different categories, keeping your opponents off guard.
Finally, there is wagering strategy. I have seen some of the most illogical DD and FJ wagers you could imagine in my years watching the show. Bottom line is most players are much too conservative in their wagering. Something like 75%+ of all DD and FJ questions are answered correctly, and something like 80% of the time, the player leading at the end of double Jeopardy wins the game. Players need to factor that in to make optimal DD and FJ wagers.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
Some people don't care.
Really? You think more people than not don't
care if they make asses out of themselves?
You can't be serious. The only people that
don't, have ego's so huge they can't see the
forest for the tree's. They think it's impossible
for them to be in that position.
There are over 6000 members on this form. How
many of those actively participate? 4% maybe?
The rest never say anything because they're
afraid to. I have more posts than anybody here,
does it sound like I give a rats bee-hind about what
people think of me?
I mean, really..
Quote: sodawaterAnother reason I think it would harder for me to get on the show than to win is the reality of TV game shows and Jeopardy in particular. I am a white guy between the ages of 25 and 50. Guess who the vast majority of people who pass the Jeopardy test are? You got it -- white guys between the ages of 25 and 50. If they selected contestants based on actual proportions of those who passed, there would be way more white guys 25-50 than there are currently on the show.
Now, in order to make for good television, and to appeal to multiple audience demos, the Jeopardy producers try to have a diverse group of contestants appear on the air. Not saying this is a bad thing at all -- I agree with it. But the reality is the producers have to dip into lower test scores to select women, other ethnicities, and other age groups to appear on the show. So if I were to make it onto the show, I'd probably be playing against at least one person who scored lower on the tests than I did.
Maybe you should hire a makeup artist to get you ready for your in-person auditions....
Quote: EvenBobI have more posts than anybody here,
Yet, surprisingly, the fewest coherent ones...
Yes, I think that most people (most adults, anyway) don't care about that sort of thing. Why should they? It has no effect on them.
Mission tried to eat 100 nuggets. He agreed to have it recorded, and ended up puking into a trash can. So what? Who cares? It didn't hurt him in any way. No one thinks any less of him, and, even if they did, it wouldn't make any difference in his life. It just doesn't matter. Adults generally understand this concept. Teenagers, not so much.
Quote: sodawaterI'd probably be playing against at least one person who scored lower on the tests than I did.
.
You put way too much emphasis on the tests.
Many people who did great on the tests, far
better than you, failed on the show because
their brains froze under pressure. That's how
Doyle Brunson always won every golf wager
he ever made against better players than him.
He never ever fell apart under the pressure of
playing for big money, and his opponents always
did.
Quote: EvenBobYou want to be
that guy at work for the next 10 years?
Somehow I don't think it's worth the chance.
Quote: EvenBobI have more posts than anybody here,
does it sound like I give a rats bee-hind about what
people think of me?
I mean, really..
So ..... you don't think it's worth the chance to get on Jeapordy because you might make a fool out of yourself, but you don't give a "rats bee-hind about what people think of (you)?
Seems like there's a disconnect there.
Quote: MidwestAP
Seems like there's a disconnect there.
Not at all. You can fail on a small scale here and
so what, nobody really knows who you are. Doing
it on national TV is epic fail, everybody you know will
find out, and even future people you haven't met
yet will know eventually. It's not worth it having
it hanging on you for the next 10 years.
Quote: EvenBobNot at all. You can fail on a small scale here and
so what, nobody really knows who you are. Doing
it on national TV is epic fail, everybody you know will
find out, and even future people you haven't met
yet will know eventually. It's not worth it having
it hanging on you for the next 10 years.
Yeah, you can predict with certainty that, say, Mitt Romney will win the next US Presidential election hands down, no question, then not come back for three months, and hope everyone forgets about it.
Or that Gold prices will slump to $1340 and there will be a bloodbath in the market.
Or that you can win at roulette if you have a 'proper' random wheel as long as you practice hard enough in your office.
Yeah, people can fail here as well. And people you haven't met yet can find out. Hopefully it is worth it to you. After all, posting for your own instruction is worth it to you.
Quote: thecesspitMitt Romney will win the next US Presidential election .
Obama won, America lost.
Quote: EvenBobNot at all. You can fail on a small scale here and
so what, nobody really knows who you are. Doing
it on national TV is epic fail, everybody you know will
find out, and even future people you haven't met
yet will know eventually. It's not worth it having
it hanging on you for the next 10 years.
That's where we differ, not scoring well, or making a typo in FJ on a tv quiz show isn't an epic fail in my book. If I acted like a fool (like some people on the reality tv shows), that's a different matter.
Quote: MidwestAPmaking a typo in FJ on a tv quiz show isn't an epic fail in my book.
Getting most answers wrong on Jeopardy is not
a 'typo'.
Quote: EvenBob
LOL! Perfect example. You think her friends and
fam will ever let her forget this? It's not worth
it.
You know what I was referencing. And don't tell me that it was because that she didn't answer with "Who is Sonic the Hedgehog".
Quote: sodawaterWell there are lots of reasons, ...
Good post. Thank you.
Quote: AxelWolfSome guys make fools of themselves everyday ;)
I never seen a Jeopardy show where I looked at the person and thought what an ass/Idiot.
I have seen people on reality shows make complete asses of themselves....... all the way to the bank and popularity.
The idiots are on Wheel of Fortune.
Quote: boymimboThe idiots are on Wheel of Fortune.
Now, there's a show I might do well on.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYet, surprisingly, the fewest coherent ones...
Yes, I think that most people (most adults, anyway) don't care about that sort of thing. Why should they? It has no effect on them.
+100
Both in aggregate and percentage :P
But both of the clips that Bob says make people look stupid... both "fools" were in the champion's position. So they had already won at least one show.
Sometimes you lose on a late daily double and end up with no money. Shit happens. I don't think either guy was a "fool"
I just can't see someone going to work after losing on the show and having to deal with, "1890, really!? You thought Tegucigalpa became the capital of Honduras in 1890? Are you an idiot? Everyone knows it was 1880!"
Quote: beachbumbabsAnd if I go on the show and make an ass of myself, so be it. .
That's the spirit. Plenty of time for regrets later. Lots
and lots of time.. Now you can pile on me about never
taking chances. No, this is about taking chances on
national TV. There are chances and there are chances.
She had an interesting final jeopardy wager, or at least one I don't think I have seen too often.
She had just more than half as much money as the leader. She did not wager enough to overtake his current amount, but when he missed the question, since he wagered just enough to cover double her amount, he lost just enough for her to win.
Since there was no amount of money she could wager to win if he answered correctly, she wagered the minimum required to cover the minkmum she figured he would lose.
That also minimized the amount she would have lost if she were wrong.
Quote: Dalex64My former neighbor is the current 4 day champion.
She had an interesting final jeopardy wager, or at least one I don't think I have seen too often.
She had just more than half as much money as the leader. She did not wager enough to overtake his current amount, but when he missed the question, since he wagered just enough to cover double her amount, he lost just enough for her to win.
Since there was no amount of money she could wager to win if he answered correctly, she wagered the minimum required to cover the minkmum she figured he would lose.
That also minimized the amount she would have lost if she were wrong.
Yes, this is a standard, correct wager based on game theory.
Quote: sodawaterYes, this is a standard, correct wager based on game theory.
I would argue that game theory suggests she should randomize between doing that and betting big. If every player in that situation did that, then the first place player could lock in a win by betting $0.
but regardless, the optimal move for the leading player is to bet more than double the 2nd player -- if there is a game theory mix, this first strategy would be at least 80% of the mix -- hence the betting less in second would be at least 80% of her mix.
but i will amend my statement to say that it's the correct wager assuming the leading player bets enough to cover the 2nd place * 2. Which is a very good assumption to make.
Sure they do, but in this case the risk VS the reward is far greater. They will care more about what people are thinking about them, then what people actually are thinking about them. In reality only a small percentage of crackmudgeonly people like you really care if someone fails.Quote: EvenBobReally? You think more people than not don't
care if they make asses out of themselves?
You can't be serious.
does it sound like I give a rats bee-hind about what
people think of me?
I mean, really..
No, you don't SOUND like you care about what people think about you, But you do. I have a feeling what we think of you is far better then what you think about yourself. Your only defense is a, I'll make you think, I don't care defense. Anyways, it's hard for us to think any less of you. You have become somewhat numb from it by now.My God, you would have to, this may explain your increasingly rapid degeneration. Once you have hit rock bottom, their is no place to go but up.
After every contestant has written down their question and time has expired, I would like to see them show everybody's wager.
This would give the viewer a quick second to run through some possible outcomes.
Next I would reveal each contestant's question, without revealing the correct response.
Again, the viewer gets a second for some more possible outcomes.
Finally, Alex reveals the correct question, and the scores are tallied for each player.
Quote: RaleighCrapsAs for FJ, I would like to see them change the way the results are made known.
After every contestant has written down their question and time has expired, I would like to see them show everybody's wager.
This would give the viewer a quick second to run through some possible outcomes.
Next I would reveal each contestant's question, without revealing the correct response.
Again, the viewer gets a second for some more possible outcomes.
Finally, Alex reveals the correct question, and the scores are tallied for each player.
That's a pretty interesting sequence of events, Raleigh. Perhaps they'd give that a try in response to a viewer suggestion for a week?
Quote: RaleighCrapsAs for FJ, I would like to see them change the way the results are made known.
After every contestant has written down their question and time has expired, I would like to see them show everybody's wager.
This would give the viewer a quick second to run through some possible outcomes.
Next I would reveal each contestant's question, without revealing the correct response.
Again, the viewer gets a second for some more possible outcomes.
Finally, Alex reveals the correct question, and the scores are tallied for each player.
This is anticlimactic because most players know most correct FJ responses. Thus revealing the wagers last makes for the best drama. FJ isn't all that hard, and it's not designed to be that hard.
Quote: sodawateryou might be right -- however in practice, the leader almost always bets enough to cover the 2nd place doubling, for 2 reasons --- most players know most FJ responses, and there would be a huge "regret" factor if the leading player had the correct response and didn't bet enough. as you probably know, humans tend to guard against losses/regrets more than maximizing win chances.
Let's simplify this to a two-player situation. Assume that:
- Player A has $10,000
- Player B has $8,000
- Player A has a 80% chance of being correct.
- Player B has a 75% chance of being correct.
- There is no correlation between A and B being correct.
- A may bid only $6,001 or $0.
- B may bid only $8,000 or $0.
How much should A and B each bid? Randomizing is allowed, in which case, solve for the probabilities of each bid.
Quote: WizardLet's simplify this to a two-player situation. Assume that:
- Player A has $10,000
- Player B has $8,000
- Player A has a 80% chance of being correct.
- Player B has a 75% chance of being correct.
- There is no correlation between A and B being correct.
- A may bid only $6,001 or $0.
- B may bid only $8,000 or $0.
How much should A and B each bid? Randomizing is allowed, in which case, solve for the probabilities of each bid.
I am a little confused about your strategy for Player B. I would think the only two bets to consider for B are 8000 and 4000, not 8000 and 0. Also for player A, I would prefer a wager of 6000 to a wager of 6001 by a LOT.
Anyway, given your assumptions, I do not know how to formally solve this problem -- but my guess would be that Player A should wager 6001 dollars 80% of the time, and zero 20% of the time. And player B should wager zero 80% of the time, and 8000 dollars 20% of the time. That is based on Player B's actions in response to Player A's strategy.
You'd also have to factor in that winning is not the only consideration. If you win you get to keep your final score. So it would be much better for player A to win with $16,000 than to win with $10,000.
Quote: WizardLet's simplify this to a two-player situation. Assume that:
- Player A has $10,000
- Player B has $8,000
- Player A has a 80% chance of being correct.
- Player B has a 75% chance of being correct.
- There is no correlation between A and B being correct.
- A may bid only $6,001 or $0.
- B may bid only $8,000 or $0.
How much should A and B each bid? Randomizing is allowed, in which case, solve for the probabilities of each bid.
I suppose it's defeating the purpose of the problem, but I think player A should sometimes bet $1999, because based on the category (given before the commercial break), he may feel he can win more than the 10K he has, but he hedges to ensure that if both get it wrong, he still wins if B bets 0. If he thinks both will get it, he can wager 6001, but otherwise why not win the extra money if he thinks he will get it but player B will not?
Quote:Also for player A, I would prefer a wager of 6000 to a wager of 6001 by a LOT.
Why? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that in the event of a tie they split any benefit.
Quote: WizardLet me rethink those options and repost. Sorry about the last one but I was in a hurry to get out the door.
Why? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that in the event of a tie they split any benefit.
If two players tie for the highest dollar amount after FJ, both keep that money (they each get the full amount )and both come back the next show to face one new player.
Now if you're leading going into FJ, why would you want to unnecessarily eliminate a player you're probably better than? Wouldn't it be better to go into the next show knowing that you can beat at least one player to the buzzer? I never got why players in the lead always add that 1 to the FJ wager. I'd never do that.
I'd rather play the next game with a player I already had an edge over in the first game.
Quote: sodawaterNow if you're leading going into FJ, why would you want to unnecessarily eliminate a player you're probably better than? Wouldn't it be better to go into the next show knowing that you can beat at least one player to the buzzer? I never got why players in the lead always add that 1 to the FJ wager. I'd never do that.
I think the leader assumes the second place person is smarter than average, thus it would be better to replace him with a random person.
Quote: WizardI think the leader assumes the second place person is smarter than average, thus it would be better to replace him with a random person.
Where does that assumption come from?
The front runner ended up losing the next day.
1. He bounces around categories, never picking a clue in the same category two times in a row. This keeps opponents off balance and gives you a little lead time to think, since you know where you are picking and they have to react.
2. He searches for Daily Doubles aggressively, and bets either a very little or a lot. Notably, his opponents -- even seeing this strategy in action -- STILL didn't look for the Daily Doubles! Several times, they picked a Double Jeopardy clue in the same category as the first Daily Double! That's astoundingly bad strategy.
3. When leading going into Final Jeopardy, he bet to get a tie if the 2nd place player doubled -- and that's exactly what happened! The second-place player was a weak player who didn't search for Daily Doubles and was slower on the buzzer. So why not play against her again! They tied, they both got to keep the money, and now he knows the tendencies and weaknesses of one of his opponents for tomorrow's game!
All in all, Arthur is the best Jeopardy player I have ever seen, at least in terms of game strategy.
Quote: Business Insider
While it seems strange, [playing for the tie] is actually the correct move to make, says The Final Wager blog, the brainchild of former Jeopardy winner Keith Williams that breaks down the proper mathematical wagering. Basically, the whole point of the game is to move on to the next round. Whether or not someone joins you is largely irrelevant.
Quote: sodawaterAll in all, Arthur is the best Jeopardy player I have ever seen, at least in terms of game strategy.
And the most hated, lol.
At the Television w/o Pity forum, Arthur is loathed. They claim to despise everything about him, but clearly the root of the revulsion is his unwillingness to choose questions column by column. It's a situation that could damage the show's success if the OCD Foundation withdraws its endorsement :(
Quote: gpac1377And the most hated, lol.
At the Television w/o Pity forum, Arthur is loathed. They claim to despise everything about him, but clearly the root of the revulsion is his unwillingness to choose questions column by column. It's a situation that could damage the show's success if the OCD Foundation withdraws its endorsement :(
The show producers don't like it, either... but unless they change the rules, it's the only way to play logically.
Quote: sodawaterThe show producers don't like it, either... but unless they change the rules, it's the only way to play logically.
I'm not much of a traditionalist, so I tend to enjoy anything that freshens the show up a little. I might actually watch if they overhauled the rules every couple of months or so.
Quote: beachbumbabs+ev! Don't rush ahead. Just type your answer and let it collect.
Thanks! 36 minutes to go.
