Slashdot Mirror
Audience Jeers Contestant Who Uses Game Theory To Win At 'Jeopardy'
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "USA Today reports that Arthur Chu, an insurance compliance analyst and aspiring actor, has won $102,800 in four Jeopardy! appearances using a strategy — jumping around the board instead of running categories straight down, betting odd amounts on Daily Doubles and doing a final wager to tie — that has fans calling him a 'villain' and 'smug.' It's Arthur's in-game strategy of searching for the Daily Double that has made him such a target. Typically, contestants choose a single category and progressively move from the lowest amount up to the highest, giving viewers an easy-to-understand escalation of difficulty. But Arthur has his sights solely set on finding those hidden Daily Doubles, which are usually located on the three highest-paying rungs in the categories (the category itself is random). That means, rather than building up in difficulty, he begins at the most difficult questions. Once the two most difficult questions have been taken off the board in one column, he quickly jumps to another category. It's a grating experience for the viewer, who isn't given enough to time to get in a rhythm or fully comprehend the new subject area. 'The more unpredictable you are, the more you put your opponents off-balance, the longer you can keep an initial advantage,' says Chu. 'It greatly increases your chance of winning the game if you can pull it off, and I saw no reason not to do it.' Another contra-intuitive move Chu has made is playing for a tie rather than to win in 'Final Jeopardy' because that allows you advance to the next round which is the most important thing, not the amount of money you win in one game. 'In terms of influence on the game,Arthur looks like a trendsetter of things to come,' says Eric Levenson. 'Hopefully that has more to do with his game theory than with his aggressive button-pressing.'"
He's playing to win, not necessarily to win the most money possible. He's using a strategy that prevents the other players from getting the Daily Doubles and limits their potential earnings while increasing his odds of earning enough to win.
He's not making people happy, but he's playing to win.
I thought it was that people were being AC instead of a real username.
How is he unpredictable if he's known to jump categories after knocking off the two hardest questions? Sounds like a storm in a teacup - dumbasses pissed off because the guy isn't playing how they would.
I guess a lot of Americans hate smart people, don't they? I'd have thought it would have been far more entertaining to watch someone do something different, interesting and successful, but what do I know. I'm sure the Idiocracy version will be along any time now.
I've wondered for years why more players don't play for the tie instead of the win. For one thing, doesn't that mean that the person who would have been in second place but who tied instead also gets to keep their money? Seems to me like it's kind of a dick move to not play for the tie, unless you just don't like the person for some reason. For another, wouldn't it be to your advantage to take someone with you into the next game that you already know you can beat? I mean, I'd feel safer going up against Steve from Montana who I was a few thousand ahead of going into Final Jeopardy than risk facing Watson and Ken Jennings on tomorrow's show.
Playing the way he is will lead to news stories, which will lead to better ratings.
Nah, it could actually increase ratings. People love to have something to be righteously indignant about. They'll watch him just so they can bitch about him.
Just common sense. Don't bet big on daily doubles if you don't know the subject. Hit the big numbers first. I'm always stunned when two contestants are $4k back and they keep picking the $200 questions.
Interesting strategy, and makes sense. But unless I've missed something, this doesn't seem to be applying Game Theory, which is about conflict and cooperation between competitors in order to succeed. His strategy is simply a statistical approach to playing in order to create a better likelihood of success.
Game shows have been pretty heavily regulated since the scandals in the 1950s. They'd have to do something obvious like change the rules, which could also hurt ratings.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Jeopardy is all about intellectual competition (and money, and marketing, and Hollywierd...). So one player used his academic understanding of the science known as game theory and applied it to this game, and the viewers are unhappy? I guess the player is smarter than the viewers - hardly surprising, I guess.
by smart strategy, news at 11. We will use small words.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Mr. Arthur Chu is too polite to say it but I'm not.
Gee, I'm sorry that he plays to win and in a new and smart way.
I'm sorry you are all a bunch of dumb motherfuckers.
I'm sorry that he interrupted your sorry-ass motherfucking lives.
I'm sorry that he didn't play by your imaginary rules.
I'm sorry for your sad existence where a game is all you
live for.
Why don't you go eat your microwave dinner and drink for your
miserable excuse for a life. Then cry yourself to sleep
over the universe's cruelty.
Boo-fucking-hoo!!!!
Fucking losers...
You're missing one point - if you pick the higher value questions in a category without seeing the first few (to understand the types of answers that are wanted), it makes them even harder. It also means that there's a good chance that no one will want to risk buzzing in to answer. And if no one buzzes in, he gets to pick another random block.
So, that's what's happening, and a lot of the outrage is because he is 'wasting' the questions because no one can answer them out of context and it makes the game less fun for the audience and other players.
He's getting booed because he's taking all the fun out of the game for the viewers
What Mr. Chu did did not take the fun out of the viewers who can keep up. On the contrary, those who could keep up with Mr. Chu's strategic moves find the whole thing very stimulating and refreshing.
It is those Joe Sixpacks who are so perplexed by the unconventional moves deployed by Mr. Chu who are doing all the booing.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
On the contrary; it's the most entertaining thing to happen to the show in years and has everybody talking about it. I bet the show's producers love him.
Oh no, succes is quite welcome in American culture.
It just has te be gained without any intelligence, talent or effort.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
And that's the big issue. Because guess who pays his prize money? The people watching it on TV!
Jeopardy is pretty popular (so it's not a question of being "too smart"), and most viewers know the people on the show are damned smart. But one thing people love to do is try to answer the question themselves, but being more "normal", they have to take time to understand the category and the answer.
And the writers of Jeopardy often have fun - not just puns, but put a lot of effort making "fun" categories where things are totally oddball. Follow it top down and everyone gets a laugh at the end. Do it randomly and it's just a sucky experience for everyone.
It's like people who complain about movies - the movie's goal is not to entertain you, but to put asses in seats. Now, entertainment generally makes it easier to do so, hence special effects laden summer blockbusters. Jeopardy is the same - the writers have a little fun because the point is to entertain the home viewers so they return night after night to watch it.
What this guy does is probably "right" and "correct", but it makes for a boring and annoying game.
It's a case of where the "product" is at risk (viewer's eyeballs) in the eyes of the customer (advertisers) because viewers are turned off by what they see and it's not entertaining. In other words, this guy, by playing "smart", he makes the whole thing boring for everyone.
He's getting booed because he's taking all the fun out of the game for the viewers. It's not the freaking Olympics. It's a tv show, meant to entertain. He's not being entertaining.
The network, I'm sure, is ok with people being angry as long as they're getting angry by watching.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.