James Holzhauer on Jeopardy
Quote: MDawgI'm not saying he should have bet all in. He should have bet 3201 or more.
This way, if she decided to wager nothing or a dollar, then he would have a chance to win in that secondary way. I mean, he already saw that she was potentially risk adverse, betting only 3K on the second daily double.
But mostly he just realized that it was curtains and that he didn't have a greater chance of answering a question in that category more accurately than she did. This is the element that the statisticians here refuse to accept.
Obviously he's not going to come out and say, "Well, she seemed like she'd be more of an authority in Shakespeare than I, so I went for second place since I figured she'd probably answer right." That isn't going to further his gambling career as much as trying to do something clever and seem like a brilliant handicapper to the end.
Like I said there was an almost 0% chance of her betting low. No one does this and there is no way someone is going to be this close and just hope he doesnt bet anything.
Now for us we have seen him and his crazy bets which if you are in first place you have to assume he is going to do that again. However, have these people even gotten to see him? I assume they were filmed well before his streak. They may know he has won a bunch when they get there but they don't know how he won or how he plays.
Quote: EdCollinsThis makes NO sense because the difference between 2nd Place and 3rd Place is just $1,000. When you've already won 32 games and earned 2.4 million in the process, an extra $1,000 is nothing. After his run, 3rd Place on his final show would be nothing to be ashamed of.
Well now nothing you say makes any sense. lol You're contradicting your own prior posts, where you were defending with your life how/why he ensured second place. Now you're saying that he couldn't and didn't care about ensuring second?
If he didn't care, then why didn't he bet more?
So let's start over....why did he say that all he cared about was making sure he got second?
James: "So my only concern was getting overtaken by third place, and I bet just enough to make sure of locking him out."
"only" means...uh, only. He also started the sentence with the word "So," meaning that he made the bet that he made "so" that he would ensure second place.
Yeah, I'm sure he prattled on about how brilliant it was, and convinced people like you into thinking it was brilliant, that it gave him a good chance to win, but at the time he made it he knew he was done for and that she had a better chance of getting that Shakespeare category right than he did. So he went for second place since he knew his chances of winning first were small.
I mean if we are going to examine everything after the fact, we're not all on the same page.
I think his bet had as much to do with that he felt that she would be superior in that category, as anything else we are discussing. I think he might have bet differently if the category were something he had felt more confident that she might be reluctant to wager heavily on.
I am not discounting the strategy of betting to ensure second place, just saying that it wasn't all (bet amount) numbers, I think it also had to do with that he felt like she had a better chance than he did at that category.
Quote: MDawgOkay then, if he KNEW she was going to bet a lot, then he should have bet a lot. Because he DID know that she was risk adverse, betting only 3K on the second daily double, so he could have hoped that she might not bet enough to ensure a win.
Bottom line is that he realized that she had a better chance at that category than he did, or - put another way, that someone with her background and proven prowess in the literature category would probably answer right, so he gave up and went for a guaranteed second place.
No. She was going to bet enough to cover ANY wager he made up to the full amount. That's the only smart play for her and he assumed right. It didn't matter if he risked it all. If both he and she got the answer right....he wasn't going to beat her. His betting ensured him a win if both he and she got it wrong but the 3rd place guy got it right.
Quote: MDawgYou're looking at this after the fact, knowing how much she bet. Given that she bet only $3K in the second daily double, she might have been expected to be risk adverse, and bet less than the $20,201.
I mean if we are going to examine everything after the fact, we're not all on the same page.
I think his bet had as much to do with that he felt that she would be superior in that category, as anything else we are discussing. I think he might have bet differently if the category were something he had felt more confident that she might be reluctant to wager heavily on.
I am not discounting the strategy of betting to ensure second place, just saying that it wasn't all (bet amount) numbers, I think it also had to do with that he felt like she had a better chance than he did at that category.
He didnt bet to ensure 2nd place. He bet to ensure victory should she have been incorrect. His ONLY shot to win was if she were wrong. By betting as he did. If she is wrong, he wins regardless a) if he is right or wrong and b) if 3rd place is right or wrong
If he didn't realize based on her background and prowess in answering the prior literature category that she had a better chance of answering that particular Shakespeare category right than he did, then he's weaker even than he looked.
I think he did realize that she had a better chance, so he bet to ensure second place. He even said so himself, that ensuring second place was his "only" concern. We're talking motives here. We may never know for sure, but we do have his own words.
I figured his loss would be like Ken Jennings....not having double the money of his next closest opponent and they risk all and he misses final jeopardy and the opponent gets it right.
Not covering double what James had would be an epic failure on her part if they both got it right. Both played it correctly.
Quote: EdCollinsAh, but an all-in bet would not have won him the game. He would have still lost by exactly $1.00.
Yes, he would have still lost by $1, but only because Boettcher wagered $20,201.
He had no idea what she was going to bet. If she bet anything less than $20,201, he would have won the game.
He should have taken the shot.
The odds may not have been in his favor for first place, but the betting strategy only guaranteed a measly extra $1K before taxes, to a person who already won more than $2.5 million. In effect, he would have been betting a few hundred after tax dollars with an all in, for the chance to win another $46K and the opportunity to play another day, and possibly many more.
It was worth the risk to go all in. Especially since his record for correct answers is 97%, and his average win is $77K per game.
We associate Jeopardy contestants with people having Superior knowledge and knowing everything. The fact that the buzzer timing is more of a factor is flawed.
Quote: MDawg
Obviously he's not going to come out and say, "Well, she seemed like she'd be more of an authority in Shakespeare than I, so I went for second place since I figured she'd probably answer right." That isn't going to further his gambling career as much as trying to do something clever and seem like a brilliant handicapper to the end.
You really should just stick to keeping us enthralled with your -EV gambling tales of glory.
Anyway, as noted, we're talking Motive here. Staring at the facts long enough it makes perfect sense that he made a skilled handicapper bet that maximized his odds to win. But the same facts also support that he realized that she had a better chance than he at getting the final answer right, so he, as he stated himself, bet "only" to ensure second place.
For some reason they seem to really like internet forums
Quote: GialmereI wonder if the new "buzzer practice" session helped her.
Also, any action on her losing tomorrow?
I say it's a certainty. If she loses tomorrow, I would argue "the fix was in" to keep Ken on top.
Quote: RigondeauxA certain type of person can be shown that they are in error in the most stark, black and white objective terms but the will still flail about like an animal in a tar pit trying to discover some way to be right rather than accept the new knowledge.
For some reason they seem to really like internet forums
I have a cute response to this, but I'll withhold it because I also like my clean record.
Quote: MDawgI'm not saying he should have bet all in. He should have bet 3201 or more.
This way, if she decided to wager nothing or a dollar, then he would have a chance to win in that secondary way. I mean, he already saw that she was potentially risk adverse, betting only 3K on the second daily double.
But mostly he just realized that it was curtains and that he didn't have a greater chance of answering a question in that category more accurately than she did. This is the element that the statisticians here refuse to accept.
Obviously he's not going to come out and say, "Well, she seemed like she'd be more of an authority in Shakespeare than I, so I went for second place since I figured she'd probably answer right." That isn't going to further his gambling career as much as trying to do something clever and seem like a brilliant handicapper to the end.
https://www.vulture.com/2019/06/jeopardy-emma-boettcher-james-holzhauer-defeat-interview.html?utm_source=undefined&utm_medium=undefined&utm_campaign=feed-part
So there is her thought process. She did consider betting zero, because she thought that the logical bet from him would have been zero. So to say that there was no way she would have bet zero, is wrong. She considered it. And she even thought that his bet should have been zero.
And that's what's missing from a lot of the analysis here - a lack of consideration for the human thought process of the opponent. It was not a given that she would bet $20.2K, just that's the way it turned out. And it turned out that way only because of the category, as I've stated before. Given the possibility that she might have bet zero, a bet of $3201. or more from James might have increased his odds of winning 1st place, versus his stated "only" goal, of second.
Q: It was such a perfect nail-biter when you two were so close going into Final Jeopardy, especially when you factor in James’ professional background of being a sports gambler with years of wagering experience. Can you talk about the psychology behind why you chose to wager what you did? And why do you think he wagered so conservatively?
A from Emma: His conservative wager would’ve served him fairly well if I got the clue wrong. If you’re in second place going into Final Jeopardy, that’s what you need to be looking at. I can’t speculate on why he did what he did, but I will say that’s exactly what I would’ve done in that situation — staying ahead of third place but enough to cover me if the other person got it wrong. I wagered as large as I did because our scores were so close. Wagering isn’t something I’m terribly nuanced in, but I had a couple of options. The first was, assuming James was going to wager zero, and that third place — who played a great game, but unfortunately didn’t get any Daily Doubles and couldn’t catch up — wasn’t going to be a threat. I thought James was going to bet zero because that’s the logical thing to do in that situation. I thought, Do I have to wager anything at all? But when I saw that the category was Shakespeare-related … if there’s a dream category for me, it’s Shakespeare. James had been making so much money, and if he made a huge wager, I didn’t want to lose if I knew the correct response but didn’t wager enough to beat him. I figured I bet on myself knowing the answer, and wagered accordingly.
"I thought James was going to bet zero because that’s the logical thing to do in that situation." She probably would have bet zero. But then she saw the category:
"But when I saw that the category was Shakespeare-related … if there’s a dream category for me, it’s Shakespeare."
And that's the rub, something James must have realized, that someone like her would have had a much better chance at answering that category correctly. In fact, someone else commented on that
that Shakespeare was not James' strong suit. So again, here, it would be amiss to assume that James bet low without consideration for the fact that he knew he was weaker in the Shakespeare department, than he rightly should have assumed, that she would be.
Given a different category, she might well have bet zero.
So anyway we are back to motive. Did he bet low because he thought that would maximize his odds, or because he realized that she had a better chance of getting the answer right than he did? And, should he have considered the possibility of her betting zero? which is something that she did in fact consider.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with James’ Final Jeopardy bet of $1,399. He knew that Emma was overwhelmingly likely to bet what she did and, thus, his only chance of winning was if Emma did not get Final Jeopardy! correct. $1,399 ensures that his score stays above Jay’s and gives James the best chance of winning the game. Had James gone all-in, he would have finished at $46,800 and lost by $1.
https://thejeopardyfan.com/2019/06/final-jeopardy-6-3-2019.html
While I grew tired of the blow outs, he has changed the way the game should be played.
Looked like Alex got a bit choked up at the end over the loss. Considering the nice card he received from James' daughter....understandable.
It's going to be a bit strange watching now.
Some critics have laughed at Holzhauer’s seemingly paltry Final Jeopardy wager Monday night: $1,399. But it was the right move from a betting perspective.
Holzhauer went into Final Jeopardy with $23,400 to Boettcher’s $26,600. He had one option if he wanted to give himself the best chance of winning: Take the low, which is gambling parlance for essentially betting that your opponent will lose.
Since Boettcher had more money than him, he couldn’t count on beating her if they both answered the question correctly — because double her total would still trump double his. Assuming that she would bet enough to beat him even he doubled his own winnings — which is, in fact, what she bet — Holzhauer put up a sum that would enable him to win even if they were both wrong. Had that come to pass, Boettcher, with her bet of $20,201, would have wound up with $6,399; Holzhauer, meanwhile, with his wager of $1,399, would have had a winning $22,001. (He’d also calculated what he needed to bet in order to cover — by $1 — the third-place contestant, Jay Sexton, who had $11,000 going into Final Jeopardy and could have had as much as $22,000 if he’d wagered it all.)
“Sometimes taking the low is your only good option,” professional gambler Joanna Wlodawer tells The Post. “He evaluated all of his options and made the right play” – even though they both answered correctly and he lost the game.
https://nypost.com/2019/06/03/jeopardys-james-holzhauer-did-not-throw-the-game-and-heres-why/
Quote: EdCollinsFrom the New York Post:
Some critics have laughed at Holzhauer’s seemingly paltry Final Jeopardy wager Monday night: $1,399. But it was the right move from a betting perspective.
Holzhauer went into Final Jeopardy with $23,400 to Boettcher’s $26,600. He had one option if he wanted to give himself the best chance of winning: Take the low, which is gambling parlance for essentially betting that your opponent will lose.
Since Boettcher had more money than him, he couldn’t count on beating her if they both answered the question correctly — because double her total would still trump double his. Assuming that she would bet enough to beat him even he doubled his own winnings — which is, in fact, what she bet — Holzhauer put up a sum that would enable him to win even if they were both wrong. Had that come to pass, Boettcher, with her bet of $20,201, would have wound up with $6,399; Holzhauer, meanwhile, with his wager of $1,399, would have had a winning $22,001. (He’d also calculated what he needed to bet in order to cover — by $1 — the third-place contestant, Jay Sexton, who had $11,000 going into Final Jeopardy and could have had as much as $22,000 if he’d wagered it all.)
“Sometimes taking the low is your only good option,” professional gambler Joanna Wlodawer tells The Post. “He evaluated all of his options and made the right play” – even though they both answered correctly and he lost the game.
https://nypost.com/2019/06/03/jeopardys-james-holzhauer-did-not-throw-the-game-and-heres-why/
Alex didn't help the doubt by his seemingly dumbfounded expression that his wager was so low. It was calculated and correct. I can only conclude that Alex simply was basing his comment and reaction on nothing but his previous final wagers.
Quote: MDawgAnd I thought it might be possible to carry on a debate for several pages without having someone come in with an off-topic, snide remark. Too much to ask I suppose.
Anyway, as noted, we're talking Motive here. Staring at the facts long enough it makes perfect sense that he made a skilled handicapper bet that maximized his odds to win. But the same facts also support that he realized that she had a better chance than he at getting the final answer right, so he, as he stated himself, bet "only" to ensure second place.
The problem is you’re speaking like someone who has never watched the show and has no clue how it works. Your advice and ideas have been horrible
Quote: MDawghttps://www.vulture.com/2019/06/jeopardy-emma-boettcher-james-holzhauer-defeat-interview.html?utm_source=undefined&utm_medium=undefined&utm_campaign=feed-part
So there is her thought process. She did consider betting zero, because she thought that the logical bet from him would have been zero. So to say that there was no way she would have bet zero, is wrong. She considered it. And she even thought that his bet should have been zero.
And that's what's missing from a lot of the analysis here - a lack of consideration for the human thought process of the opponent. It was not a given that she would bet $20.2K, just that's the way it turned out. And it turned out that way only because of the category, as I've stated before. Given the possibility that she might have bet zero, a bet of $3201. or more from James might have increased his odds of winning 1st place, versus his stated "only" goal, of second.
Q: It was such a perfect nail-biter when you two were so close going into Final Jeopardy, especially when you factor in James’ professional background of being a sports gambler with years of wagering experience. Can you talk about the psychology behind why you chose to wager what you did? And why do you think he wagered so conservatively?
I'm happy to be proven wrong but only if your explanation incorporates all the facts, not merely considers the outcome after the fact.
A from Emma: His conservative wager would’ve served him fairly well if I got the clue wrong. If you’re in second place going into Final Jeopardy, that’s what you need to be looking at. I can’t speculate on why he did what he did, but I will say that’s exactly what I would’ve done in that situation — staying ahead of third place but enough to cover me if the other person got it wrong. I wagered as large as I did because our scores were so close. Wagering isn’t something I’m terribly nuanced in, but I had a couple of options. The first was, assuming James was going to wager zero, and that third place — who played a great game, but unfortunately didn’t get any Daily Doubles and couldn’t catch up — wasn’t going to be a threat. I thought James was going to bet zero because that’s the logical thing to do in that situation. I thought, Do I have to wager anything at all? But when I saw that the category was Shakespeare-related … if there’s a dream category for me, it’s Shakespeare. James had been making so much money, and if he made a huge wager, I didn’t want to lose if I knew the correct response but didn’t wager enough to beat him. I figured I bet on myself knowing the answer, and wagered accordingly.
"I thought James was going to bet zero because that’s the logical thing to do in that situation." She probably would have bet zero. But then she saw the category:
"But when I saw that the category was Shakespeare-related … if there’s a dream category for me, it’s Shakespeare."
And that's the rub, something James must have realized, that someone like her would have had a much better chance at answering that category correctly. In fact, someone else commented on that
that Shakespeare was not James' strong suit. So again, here, it would be amiss to assume that James bet low without consideration for the fact that he knew he was weaker in the Shakespeare department, than he rightly should have assumed, that she would be.
Given a different category, she might well have bet zero.
So anyway we are back to motive. Did he bet low because he thought that would maximize his odds, or because he realized that she had a better chance of getting the answer right than he did? And, should he have considered the possibility of her betting zero? which is something that she did in fact consider.
Fact: she stated herself that she was considering betting zero. Fact: she stated that she assumed that he was going to bet zero. Fact: She stated that she decided instead to bet a lot because she was familiar with the subject.
Fact: He stated that he did what he did because his "only" concern was coming in second place.
The rest, is dicto simpliciter, assigning general rules of probability to this outcome, and ignoring the individual circumstances, i.e. facts. At best, you guys are coming up with a hypothesis contrary to the facts. Just for example, you keep saying that there was "no way" she was going to bet zero, and yet she herself states that she was considering it.
Facts aren't just the way things turned out, in a probability analysis they include the way things might have turned out. And in this case, she said herself that she would have bet zero but for her familiarity with the subject matter.
In the end, the best you may come up with is quoting someone else who agrees with your hypothesis? i.e. a newspaper article? You can't think for yourself?
There's a lot of poisoning the well going on too, which is indicative of that for most of you, a good argument consists of jumping up and down, insisting that you're right, repeating the same thing over and over, then resorting to trying to put down anyone that disagrees with you, versus coming back with any sort of response that incorporates the facts that have been presented that contradict your hypothesis. That's what this debate shows more than anything else.
Show me how even if she had bet zero, that a bet of $1399. was the right thing? If you can do that, you'll have made a new argument that actually incorporates the facts here, instead of mindlessly repeating that she would never have bet zero. She herself states that she would have had she not been so familiar with the subject.
No. Your facts are wrong. He didn't say that.Quote: MDawg...Fact: He stated that he did what he did because his "only" concern was coming in second place.
“I knew I could only win if Emma missed Final Jeopardy, as there was no way she wouldn’t bet to cover my all-in bet,” Holzhauer told The Action Network on Monday. “So my only concern was getting overtaken by third place, and I bet just enough to make sure of locking him out.
Read his response again.
His concern was getting overtaken by third place. He gets overtaken if he gets the Final Jeopardy question wrong and Third Place gets it right.
That's not at all the same thing as, "his only concern was coming in second place."
For the last time, he wanted to be sure third place could not win. He was very much still interested in coming in first place. And with his bet he would have won if Emma covers his all-in bet (which she did, which she should have done, which they all do), and if she misses the question, which she did not.
How can you not understand that?
When you say that he said, "his only concern was coming in second place" that's 100% wrong. He didn't say that at all.
Key Factors
(a) Emma bets $20201 or bets $0
...from Emma's view
(i) $20201 ensures she wins if she gets the question right regardless of other factors
(ii) $0 to $1800 wins if James gets the question wrong or James bets $1399 or less
(iii) $1801 to $3199 wins if James gets the question wrong
(iv) $3201 to $20199 wins under some circumstances but gives chances for the others to win.
Thus from Emma's view she has two logical approaches, bet big or bet small. So she needs to determine whether P(Emma=correct) is greater than P(James=wrong). If it's a category she knows nothing about, her best approach might be to stick and hope James gets it wrong; however usually she's better off betting she'll get the question right. There also might be the shame effect of betting low and getting the question right but losing. She had shown she was going for it when she went all-in on her first Daily Double.
Thus her correct approach was bet high.
(b) James bets $0 or $1399.
...from James' view
(i) He can work out the two possible approaches Emma might make and that it is usually correct for her to bet big.
(ii) $0 to $1399 wins if Emma bets big and gets the question wrong (a small wager is needed to ensure 3rd place can't overtake him).
(iii) $1401 to $3199 wins if Emma bets big but has the factor of what 3rd place does.
(iv) $3201 upwards wins if Emma bets $0 and James gets question correct.
Thus from James's view there are two logical approaches, bet small or bet medium (there is no advantage of betting big). So he needs to determine P(Emma=wrong)&P(Emma=bets big) against P(James=correct)&P(Emma=bets small).
Guessing that Emma is unlikely to bet small (say 20% of the time), then his best odds are to hope Emma gets the question wrong.
(I haven't checked the exact numbers and avoided tied situations, but hopefully you get the idea that it's all about weighing up the best chances while keeping other adverse factors out of play.)
Quote: MDawgSpoken by someone with close to 500 posts a year.
not sure what that has to do with anything, but FYI 1953 / 5 = 390. 390 is far from 500
clearly Ken Jennings was the mastermind behind the conspiracy?
Quote: MDawg
Fact: He stated that he did what he did because his "only" concern was coming in second place.
That’s misleading.
Here’s the full quote I see from an interview:
Quote: James“I knew I could only win if Emma missed Final Jeopardy, as there was no way she wouldn’t bet to cover my all-in bet,” Holzhauer told The Action Network. “So my only concern was getting overtaken by third place, and I bet just enough to make sure of locking him out. Betting big would have looked good for the cameras, but now I turn my straight bet (Emma misses) into a parlay (Emma misses and I get it right).”
His assumption that she would cover his all in bet, makes James bet the logical choice. His last sentence hits the mark for gamblers about turning a straight bet into a need to hit a parlay if he bets more.
Now if James assumes Emma would bet zero with at least 50% probability, then James could bet what you suggest. But that would be an illogical assumption given normal Jeopardy contestant behaviors (even though Emma considered doing just that). And James of course knew that she was a lit professor so would like the topic. this para wrong. It’s more complicated than this. It’s actually an interesting decision tree and depending on probabilities.
Quote: odiousgambitonce we get tired of this controversy, we can go to discussing whether or not 'the fix was in' for the librarian, as was mentioned by that Moustache Bill in a previous post. Some perfect categories for her, perfect Final J for her, and what was that about special training on buzzer timing?
clearly Ken Jennings was the mastermind behind the conspiracy?
I am not one to every believe in conspiracy theories but there seems to be a lot here.
1. training on buzzer
2. good categories for her.
3. he gets 1 DD and it is on the first question so really it isn't even a DD
4. She gets BOTH DDs in the 2nd round.
5. perfect final for her
This all happens on the game before him breaking Ken's (The next Jeopardy host) record.
This seems like the perfect storm and probably the only way to take him down.
He was still able to keep it very close.
I don't think anything nefarious was going on. Kind of a perfect storm for her coupled with her being a strong player.
On paper, he looked unbeatable in every episode. Like gambling, shit happens.
Quote: GWAEI am not one to every believe in conspiracy theories but there seems to be a lot here.
1. training on buzzer
2. good categories for her.
3. he gets 1 DD and it is on the first question so really it isn't even a DD
4. She gets BOTH DDs in the 2nd round.
5. perfect final for her
This all happens on the game before him breaking Ken's (The next Jeopardy host) record.
This seems like the perfect storm and probably the only way to take him down.
I think it bears a reminder that they (Alex & James) had been in cahoots the whole time. I suspect Ken caught wind of this and told them to shut it down. The evidence is pretty damning.
Quote: Gabes22He didnt bet to ensure 2nd place. He bet to ensure victory should she have been incorrect. His ONLY shot to win was if she were wrong. By betting as he did. If she is wrong, he wins regardless a) if he is right or wrong and b) if 3rd place is right or wrong
So knowing he would insure second she should have bet ZERO and not even written an answer.
-first place getting it right or wrong
-the champion getting it right or wrong
-first place betting big or small
-third place finishing with $22k or not
After that it becomes pure algebra to know the correct bet size.
Anyone who is unable to even attempt to estimate the probabilities has virtually nothing to offer about this. It seems like it really hinges on the chance the first place lady bets high or low. Holzhauer thought she had a near 100% chance of betting a lot (from a google search and previously mentioned here: " there was no way she wouldn’t bet to cover my all-in bet"). I agree it is probably close to that. For him to extend his streak by being down going in to Final Jeopardy and the first place leader still loses after gets the question right is just too crazy a scenario.
The other issue is that there could definitely be a correlation between some of these events. I would think that if one contestant gets the Final Jeopardy wrong, the chance that the others also get it wrong goes up. We might believe they both have an 85% chance of getting it right. But if first place doesn't know it, then the chance Holzhauer knows it drops to 60%. Which makes the smaller bet for Holzhauer an even better move.
Messing around with the numbers a bit and it seems the difference in him winning when he bets 1399 compared to 3201 looks to be pretty small, but likely favors the lower total. Maybe some people think he really needs the extra $1802 to cover his rent and car note this month. . .
They did something similar to end Austin Rogers $413,000 run, when he lost to a stay at home housewife from Tennessee, with a Double Jeopardy Round category devoted to Tennessee native Dolly Parton.
She swept the category and beat Rogers by $51.
Quote: standbymymanSo knowing he would insure second she should have bet ZERO and not even written an answer.
That's where game theory comes in.
So then if she bets zero because she knows James won't bet enough to overtake her....then James will bet enough to overtake her....so then she bets enough to cover that amount....up until the total amount that James bets, which would ultimately be the total amount he's holding ($23,400 IIRC?)....and so it repeats.
Considering that just about everyone was expecting him to wager the whole shabang and the other players played accordingly, he "won" the strategic part of the game on that end.
Quote: TankoThat final Shakespeare question against a librarian Princeton English Lit. major was no coincidence.
They did something similar to end Austin Rogers $413,000 run, when he lost to a stay at home housewife from Tennessee, with a Double Jeopardy Round category devoted to Tennessee native Dolly Parton.
She swept the category and beat Rogers by $51.
He was on the show 33 times. There is almost no chance that he would not run into someone who got extremely favorable categories.
1. Emma bets zero.
2. Emma bets $20,201.
3. Emma bets it all.
4. Emma bets somewhere in between these numbers.
Then these have to be examined against.
1. James bets zero.
2. James bets 1399.
3. James bets 3201.
4. James bets it all.
5. James bets somewhere in between these numbers.
I think you'd need Calculus applied to game theory to get an exact answer, since James' action should be applied to the derivative of her (possible) relative actions.
Plus - the topic - Shakespeare - do we need to input the probability that James or Emma would have been familiar with this topic, and gotten the answer right, or is that irrelevant to the analysis?
So, simply coming in and saying "you don't know game theory" or "game theory says this" without doing or showing us the precise math, is not helpful.
Worse still is to come in and say "she never would have bet zero," especially given that she herself stated that she would have bet zero if it were not for the topic. So the possibility must be statistically examined, since it is a possible outcome.
Some of the posts above attempt a more mathematical analysis. I think the one which opined after some degree of calculation that betting 1399. might be slightly statistically better than betting 3201 is worthwhile, certainly better than coming in without any sort of mathematical analysis and saying that betting anything other than 1399. would be stupid.
Apparently they have a very good idea who leaked the episode. Producers are pissed. Don't blame them.
Not sure how they can determine who leaked it....but if true, I'd say his/her career is ruined.
Quote: TDVegasNot sure about anyone else, but the episode was kind of ruined for me as I knew the outcome.
Apparently they have a very good idea who leaked the episode. Producers are pissed. Don't blame them.
Not sure how they can determine who leaked it....but if true, I'd say his/her career is ruined.
Had it not been leaked I would not have watched it. I am guessing the true fans watched it anyway. It may have been a net positive for them,
Watching it again James was still in the lead at 12 minutes, but then Emma got several questions correct including the Daily Double (3k) to take the lead. It is interesting that James applauded Emma at several times during the show and went over to congratulate her immediately after it was announced she had the last question correct.
Quote: AyecarumbaCongratulations to James on his awesome run. I'm bummed I missed his finale, but I look forward to his return for the "Tournament of Champions". I wonder if the woman who cracked him is going to PSO on the next episode.
The expression she gives Alex today when answering a Daily Double is hilarious.
That said, I haven't done any math yet, but my feeling watching the show is that James played right. He lost because he didn't find the Daily Doubles (except the very first question where he was limited to $1,000) and his opponent was simply very strong. Regarding every conspiracy theory, especially that James took a dive, I'm very skeptical. He played that game right, including the final Jeopardy wager. This was a similar situation in the 5/23 show against Nate, where I spent hours preparing this post, that, of course, got very little attention. With Monday's show, having not crunched the number yet, I strongly believe James was right to go low.
Stay tuned, I'll watch it again and do a more careful analysis. I also plan to make this the topic of my next Live Stream and newsletter.
Quote: Wizard...He lost because he didn't find the Daily Doubles...
It would be an interesting article trying to explain the various strategies of betting in the final round. Since watching for James' run I've got to understand some of the ideas (hence appreciated the logic used on his final game), but don't understand some references to 3/4 and 2/3 on https://thejeopardyfan.com/final-jeopardy-betting .
| Season | Probability* |
|---|---|
| 35 | 37.5% |
| 34 | 35.3% |
| 33 | 45.8% |
| 32 | 36.2% |
| Total | 39.0% |
* Probability second place player (going into Final Jeopardy) gets Final Jeopardy right if first place player gets it wrong.
This strengthens the argument that James was correct to go low.
Does it matter that James was a bit weak in history questions, had missed a fair amount of history related questions (when considered among the questions that he did miss, I mean) during his reign as Jeopardy champion, and specifically had blown a prior Final Jeopardy question on Shakespeare?
Final Jeopardy:
Don't be afraid of the dark: Shakespeare's Portia says, "How far that little" this "throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world"
Holzhauer's incorrect guess: Sun
Correct Answer: Candle
This is a quote from "The Merchant of Venice," and is meant to be a metaphor for hope in a world of darkness.
i.e. that he knew or should have known that Shakespeare was not his strength, and that his opponent, being a college librarian, would likely have a better shot at getting this answer right.
