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.
They'll stop him somehow. Playing like that will decrease ratings. And ratings are, obviously, all they care about.
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.
People hate it because they can't understand whats going on, and the questions being so hard.
People don't usually watch these shows to root for a contestant, but to 'feel intelligent' by knowing answers, which is more likely with the easier questions.
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.
When I read the into it made me think of the Nash equilibrium. I wasn't the only one apparently.
'Hero-villain' Jeopardy! contestant returns to game show Feb. 24
In the movie "A Beautiful Mind," actor Russell Crowe plays John Nash, the mathematician behind the "Nash equilibrium." There's a scene in the film where Nash realizes that he and his friends should avoid simultaneously trying to win the heart of the most attractive woman in the bar. He urges them, instead, to confer and woo her less attractive friends. Therefore, everyone leaves the bar happy. In some sense, Chu is John Nash allowing his fellow contestant to leave the bar happy, too.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Its been changed 0118 999 881 999 119 725 ... 3
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.
In another tidbit, Chu has been providing the voice acting for some short story clips on erfworld.com . The author there notes that Chu's disruptive and intelligent gaming is similar to the protagonist of the comic there; it's interesting to see this. A comic about a shrewd strategist who makes waves and steps on toes with his unconventional warfare and leveraging minutiae has a vociferous fan who reads it aloud for other fans before appearing on Jeopardy where he's a shrewd strategist...
And hey, that's some trivia about a contestant on a trivia show.
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.
IBM's Watson will take him down
by smart strategy, news at 11. We will use small words.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.'
How to be called "smug" in American culture: be successful and have a method to your success that is more than a matter of opinion or belief.
The number of ignorant, envious people in America who think their articles of faith are equal to demonstrated facts is just staggering. "I have intensely strong feelings about something so it JUST HAS TO BE right!"
The shows are taped months in advance. None of what you said applies.
If Daily Doubles were 100% random, they would be located in the 3 higher slots more than 50% of the time because those slots make up 60% of the board. Of course the real article http://www.mentalfloss.com/art... states that when IBM's Watson analyzed Jeopardy it discovered that Daily Doubles actually were more likely to be placed in the highest 2 slots indicating non-random placement.
It could still be random, just over a subset of the board and not the entire board.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Arthur Chu is a bit of a renaissance man, like Leonardo da Vinci, albeit on a much smaller scale. He's a trivia buff, game theorist, and voice actor. I first heard of him through his work on Erfworld. I wish him well as he makes history on Jeopardy!
In the old days of Wheel of Fortune, in the last round, they had you select a certain number of consonants and a vowel, and then you had to guess the phrase. After awhile, people started always picking the most common consonants and vowels. Was there similar controversy? I don't recall. At any point, after this got boring, they changed the game to where they gave you these letters automatically and then let you guess some more. I'm not sure if they have now started always receiving the same secondary list of letters or not. Maybe eventually it will get to the point where they give you all of the characters and just see if you can manage to read it.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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 ... begins at the most difficult questions. [then] 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.
Most people too dumb to appear on Jeopardy and get annoyed at player who makes them realize this. Film at 11.
[In addition, I've seen many cases where contestants don't run a category top to bottom.]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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...
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.
So..everyone in the history of the show has followed a linear, easiest to hardest, one line at a time strategy to try and win? Of course not. It is incredibly odd to me that people would be upset over this and call him smug and a "villain"...really!?!?
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.
>Contestant jeered for playing correctly
If the hammer in your new Rock-Paper-Scissors-Hammer game beats rock AND scissors, don't blame the fucking players when they all pick it. They didn't "ruin" anything; your design already did.
That would require a whole moment's reflection on how the situation actually got to be that way. The average person doesn't look even that tiny little bit beyond the most superficial layer of thought. Rather, they decide based on emotion that they like this person or don't like that other person, and then go back and look for ways to justify their stance.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
On Comedy Central. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.... One of the most effective designs, the wedge was also the most painfully uninteresting to watch.
Is it politically incorrect now to play to win? Guess what, when people go on game shows they aim to win. What a novel concept.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why are innovators always trashed. Good for him. Hope he blows everyone out of the water. But still, I thought game theory was like Monte Carlo simulations that run multiple simulations to determine the most likely outcome.... did he do that before the game and decide a new strat?
...would press the button for ANY daily double that popped up and then simply bet a trivial amount of money to deny it to the other players if he didn't think he could answer the question is an example of violating the spirit of the game without violating the law.
That's the kind of thing that people didn't like as far as I can tell.
It comes down to what kind of person you are: does the end justify the means?
This sort of conflict is common in society; i.e., should you screw other people over when it isn't illegal even if it is immoral? Anyone seen "Suckers"?
Loading...
So did you have to look the new number up?
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.
Maybe he should behead his opponent and then shout, "Are you not entertained?"
planet texture maps and more
Easy questions with humorous punishments for wrong answers seems like the perfect Idiocracy approach...
Sadly, that has already happened.
On the internet, there is the 'Darwin Awards' site.
I would be curious what percentage of award winners(including honorable mentions in a separate column) where from the USA.
It used to be called the 'rat race', but it has turned into a race to the bottom. /. some years back where some lab cultured rat brain cells learned to fly a plane in a simulator.
I don't think rats are that stupid!
I remember an article on
I, for one, welcome our new rat-brain overlords! ;-)
Heck, they could not do much worse.
*disclaimer*
This comment will register strongly on installed hyperbole, sarcasm, and BS meters, maybe others as well...YMMV.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Contestants aren't paid to entertain; they're paid to win.
He said viewers complained he's too robotic, but the again his wife is named ELIZA.
You don't need to become part of the hivemind if you don't want to.
Seriously !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The way I looked at it when I thought about it was that the more different people you'd face in Jeopardy the more likely you'd come across someone that could absolutely clean your clock. Given that I had thought it was in your best interest to face a few different people as possible, and you could do that by getting tie and facing the same guy a second time. (Versus facing a new person that might be much better.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I get the sense that the Daily Doubles have historically been located in the high dollar values of a category because it has been more traditional behavior for contestants to start at the top of the board and work their way down. That way, the Daily Doubles tend to get exposed later in the round, when contestants generally have more money to wager and the game situation is more likely to be swung by a big win or loss. As I understand it, the DD wager may still be made for up to the highest dollar amount on the board for the round even if the player's current score is less than that amount, but it still is undesirable from an audience point of view for the only DD of the first round to be "wasted" on the first question.
Of course, from what you might call a "power player" perspective, the Daily Double spaces are very valuable, both in terms of the potential money you can earn and in terms of denying your opponents that potential. It's smart to try and find them as soon as possible. Making the DD spaces truly random on the board may limit the use of the "harder levels first" strategy, but there's still value in building an early lead (this is assuming that as a "power player," the hard questions on Jeopardy aren't going to be substantially harder for you than the easy ones) and maintaining control of the board, so I don't think it would totally go away.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
I couldn't pass this one up... Remember when Mr Data played Kolrami, the galaxy's greatest Stratgema player... and how instead of seeking to win, sought to keep the game going indefinitely? :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... (The game scene is at the halfway mark.)
"He busted him up!" ;)
Willie...
This story has been making the rounds since the weekend, and now slashdot gets around to it? No wonder this site is going into the toilet and readership drying up.
I can't believe I'm the first person to welcome you to slashdot.
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?
exactly.
he's not winning "using game theory"...
he's using game theory to *disorient his opponents* by creating *uncertainty* for them but not himself
that's all that's happening here...he puts his opponents (and himself) at a disadvantage because he's disturbing the expected game flow. Only he has the benefit of **knowing what to expect** which allows him to concentrate more on thinking up the right answer.
it's a good strategy, nothing you could write a thesis on...it's more like a smokescreen tactic.
he's winning because he gets the answers right...people are complaining because of how he handles himself and because it makes it harder for them to play along at home
Thank you Dave Raggett
So contestants earn more by entertaining than by winning?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Is it politically incorrect now to play to win?
Well ... we live in a world where there are some schools which does not grade their students - for fearing of "discouraging those students who are under performing".
And then there are schools which bans "zero marks" - even for the students who failed at every single questions in the exam.
So I guess the answer to your question is a definite "YES".
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If the game is meant to be entertaining then the creator needs to change the game.
So he has to questions the answers! Not the other way around :D
In Jeopardy! it's referred to as "solving the clue".
It is a competition and he is using logic and statistics to use the optimal strategy - well done! He is actually teaching algorithms to anyone who is taking note. I have heard of a TV program somewhere which was a '20 questions' format to identify a word. someone did a binary chop search and had a guaranteed win - the program was cancelled. The shocking thing about this is that the people who planned the program did not realise that there was a trivial solution but they probably had degrees in something ending with studies. I remember the link to this but can't find it - annoying.
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.
I recall him always going down the rows.
The way I looked at it when I thought about it was that the more different people you'd face in Jeopardy the more likely you'd come across someone that could absolutely clean your clock. Given that I had thought it was in your best interest to face a few different people as possible, and you could do that by getting tie and facing the same guy a second time. (Versus facing a new person that might be much better.)
You have an equal chance of getting a new guy who's much worse. And the new guy won't have the experience of playing against you that the old guy will. You'd have to balance the perceived ability of the current player against the perceived ability of the average Jeopardy! player against the extra money you could have if you increase your wager. And of course that's all further weighed against your confidence in solving a clue in the given category (you don't see the clue until after you wager, only the category). Intentionally tying is absolutely stupid unless your opponent happens to be an utter retard who you know you can beat again.
It's all moot though, because then the show's producers decide that it's time for your antics to stop, it'll stop. Right now, it's got people talking about Jeopardy! so they want it to continue.
This isn't a Larson scenario. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I find reading about Chu kick ass at Jeopardy far more entertaining then Jeopardy. Maybe if he keeps it up, new audiences will like jeopardy.
i say bring back ken jennings. he would be a good replacement for the old AT.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that folks weren't more familiar with Jeopardy!.
Normally if a player is in the lead by more than twice as much as the next closest person (that is, a guaranteed win), he will bet an amount that, if he misses the question and the second-place person answers it correctly, will leave him or her in the lead by a dollar. For example, if Alice has $15,000, Bob has $7,000, and Carol as $4,000, Alice will bet $999. If Alice misses the question and Bob gets it correct, Alice will end up with $14,001 and Bob will end up with $14,000, thus securing Alice the win.
To play for the tie instead, Alice would bet $1,000. Thus if she answers incorrectly and Bob answers correctly, they will both have $14,000. Both win the cash prize instead of the consolation prize(s), and both come back on tomorrow's show. If Alice is hardcore nice, she might even miss the question deliberately (yes, that means she'll be foregoing $2,000 extra in prize money) since that will net Bob $14,000 and she'll be bringing someone into the game tomorrow that she's relatively confident she can beat.
If Alice does not have the game locked up, then normally she would bet just enough so that, if she and Bob both answer correctly, she would end up one dollar ahead. For example, if Alice has $15,000, Bob has $10,000, and Carol has $3,000, Alice would bet $5,001, assuming that Bob will bet the entire amount. If both answer the question correctly, then Alice will end up with $20,001 and Bob with $20,000. If both answer incorrectly, Bob will likely end up with something close to $0, and Alice will end up with $9,999. If Alice answers incorrectly and Bob answers correctly, then unless Bob really screwed the pooch on his betting strategy, he will win and there's nothing Alice can do about it. (Which, incidentally, I have seen before.)
However, if Alice is playing for the tie, she will bet $5,000. That way, if she and Bob both answer correctly, they will both win $20,000, and again, she will carry a player she's likely to beat into the next game.
Obviously, that's not the whole story, because you might adjust your betting strategy based on where the third place person is to ensure that you capture at least second place, and sometimes you tweak the amount so that if everyone blows it, you come out ahead. Or sometimes you might do something irrational if you have some ulterior reason for it; for example, Alice might bet more on the question if it is about 18th Century Authors and she happens to be a literature professor with extensive knowledge in that field. But still, hopefully that paints a good enough picture to understand what "betting for the tie" means, versus trying to win outright.
Don Pardo is in Jeopardy !!
Is he telling you now what you didn't win?
it's just a 'psychological' tactic if you will...eventually people will learn to expect it and adapt...eventually someone will get more right answers and beat him
the strategy is sound, but it is going to have decreasing marginal returns until it is virtually abated by another person's superior ability
remember like I said it's about who answers the most questions right not how they are picked
Thank you Dave Raggett
He didn't say "real pseudonym" so your clarification isn't.
Learn to love Alaska
"I'm not your monkey."
That's not Idiocracy; that's Nickelodeon's Marc Summers. Double Dare contestants who get a question passed back to them had to answer the question or take a sloppy physical challenge. What Would You Do? had plenty of cream pie-related* penalties for failure.
* Literally. Get your mind out of the gutter.
My response when someone says it's an unwritten rule is "So, where exactly is it in the rules?". And when they repeat that it's an unwritten rule, I say "So, it's not actually a rule then. Good, that means I'm still playing by the rules.". It's the same as the Redwood City team's use of the full-court press: entirely within the rules, it just violates an unstated agreement not to play at 100% the entire game. Sure it comes as a shock when you're suddenly faced with a team that doesn't back down from 100% ever, that doesn't back off and give you position. But is it really their fault that you're not ready for that? You can do the same thing just as easily as they did. Is it really reasonable to insist that they play the game the way you'd like it to be played, as opposed to the way the rules say it should be played?
NB: the above is why, in friendly card games, the groups I played in had explicit rules about checks and calls and minimum bids/raises to keep the game moving (and maximum raises to keep someone who's up from buying the pot).
I do recall a Jeopardy contest where the second highest score was exactly 1/2 the leader. The second place contestant did the logical thing and bet all. The leader bet nothing, guaranteeing at least a tie.
What does betting odd amounts have to do with strategy? Making the final Jeopardy math harder?
Kind of.
I had a friend go for a local version of "who wants to be a Millionaire.
They had all sorts of out clauses in that the show was pre-recorded well in advance. One of the major ones was that unless they aired an episode featuring you, they did not have to pay you, and no payment would be coming until after airing.
I am sure that this was incase of dispute or a question - or other reason, but just by agreeing to their terms,if the show deemed because you weren't entertaining enough - No matter how much you won, you could end up with nothing.
. .
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.
What Americans hate is the wise guy who ruins the game for everyone else. .
With over 6,000 episodes aired as of May 2011, the daily syndicated version of Jeopardy! has won a record 30 Daytime Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award. Game Show Network (GSN) ranked the show number 2 on its 2006 list of the 50 greatest game shows, and TV Guide ranked it number 1 in its 2013 list of the 60 greatest game shows ever. The program has gained a worldwide following with regional adaptations in many foreign countries. The 30th season of the daily syndicated version of Jeopardy! premiered on September 16, 2013.
Jeopardy!
A Peabody Award is not a celebration of stupid.
Category:Peabody Award winning television programs
"Intentionally tying is absolutely stupid unless your opponent happens to be an utter retard who you know you can beat again."
Well, he did just handily beat said opponent so evidence is precisely in that effective direction. Having the next opponent possibly be "even more weaker" is of negligible benefit, since continuing to play is binary. If you feel confident about handling player X, then the stupid thing would be to increase your sample size beyond player X.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
If Dicedot weren't making more money this way, then the old Slashdot would be back.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
This story has been making the rounds since the weekend, and now slashdot gets around to it?
No wonder this site is going into the toilet and readership drying up.
If that's what it takes to get the "gotta have the latest news RIGHT NOW!" crowd to leave, then I'm all for it.
The show first aired in 1964 - it's been on for nearly 50 years. I think they know something about how they're structured and what they're doing.
Maybe he should behead his opponent and then shout, "Are you not entertained?"
For those who don't believe in reading TFA, it includes a relevant image :)
It's rare that they run a category straight through. I'm used to watching the players jump around the different categories trying to find the "Double Doubles". It's been that way as long as I can remember, this isn't new. There's plenty of forums that discuss optimum strategies for finding the "Daily Doubles" and how to bet on "Final Jeopardy".
Other trends I have noticed is that they usually avoid the math and science categories, I hate that!
Oh, if only /. still gave me mod points.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Don Pardo is in Jeopardy !!
No. Johnny Gilbert is in Jeopardy. Don Pardo is in "The Illinois Enema Bandit."
And you're welcome.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
GP here. The sporting example of basketball in that essay might be apropos. Nobody has banned the full-court press. Even though it's controversial, especially with a bunch of 12-year old girls (I have to laugh just saying those two things in one sentence) it isn't seen as detracting from the game. A lot of other examples in that essay are from war. Even war has rules; but it's much more about winning than sports is. Only time will tell if these Jeopardy tactics are regarded as a full-court press or icing. Read the history section there. Plainly, icing was seen as detracting from the joy of the game of hockey. FWIW, I think some aspects of this man's strategy are a bit like icing. Minimum bets on daily-doubles and a requirement to start categories at low dollars and run them until you lose your turn? Maybe they will put that in next season.
That's why a major league sports team, at the end of a season where they finish last in the league, refunds all admissions to all fans in acknowledgement that they didn't get what they paid for.
Oh lord how I dream of the day when my life's most trying moments are how I mentally handle the way some guy plays Jeopardy.
Don't get me wrong, good post, nerdy stuff, love it. But... who are these people that have nothing better to complain about than Jeopardy strategy?
If only there was some way to get them to put their worries towards something productive.
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.
It may be the the network's goal to entertain the people, but it is his goal to win money.
Kind of.
I had a friend go for a local version of "who wants to be a Millionaire.
They had all sorts of out clauses in that the show was pre-recorded well in advance. One of the major ones was that unless they aired an episode featuring you, they did not have to pay you, and no payment would be coming until after airing.
I am sure that this was incase of dispute or a question - or other reason, but just by agreeing to their terms,if the show deemed because you weren't entertaining enough - No matter how much you won, you could end up with nothing.
While that may be the case for shows with only one contestant at a time, it would be highly impractical in shows with multiple contestants. Say, an unentertaining player won. Would the network just toss him and allow a new contestant and new game? How would second place player feel if he'd beaten the re-crowned old champ? Etc. If Jeopardy ran that way, we'd have it heard it by now from disgruntled players.
I've made it to the in-person interview round for Jeopardy. The producers are emphatic that merely being good at answering questions is not enough to get you on the show.
Yes. But once you're on the show, they're not going to kick you off for not being entertaining without some major blowback from the viewing audience. I suppose they could rig your button so it doesn't work right, but do you really think they'd risk the consequences of cheating?
Don't hate the playah, hate the game...but who could possibly hate Jeopardy??
I've always wondered why more contestants didn't go for the big value questions first, since the last two rows account for 60% of the board value (not counting daily doubles). Sure, it's nice to 'warm up' to a subject, but if you happen to get a couple of them cold, it's a huge advantage, and if nobody answers them, then at least they're off the table. Sounds brilliant to me...
Of course, that only works if your opponents either don't know the answer or can't come up with it in time, and that's what it sounds like he's generating with his rapid column-hopping. Keeping your opponents off balance is a viable strategy, so nothing to see here, folks, move along...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Back in the day, if you won the battle in the coliseum through underhanded tactics, the crowd would boo and Caesar would kill you anyway.
Back in the day, if you won the battle in the coliseum through underhanded tactics, the crowd would boo and Caesar would kill you anyway.
His tactics are not underhanded. They are completely within the rules.
So change the rules to require that players work their way down a column rather than jumping past unopened windows. That would smooth out the viewing experience a bit. As for the rest -- rules is rules, live with it.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
the crowd disagrees and the crowd is the ultimate arbiter here. how much of his winnings can he enjoy when he doesn't have his head?
the crowd disagrees and the crowd is the ultimate arbiter here. how much of his winnings can he enjoy when he doesn't have his head?
Fortunately, that is not the case, as these are modern times, and mob rule is no longer the case.
The players can always see the context of the question, the category and its value, as they're considering their answer; at home, we can't see any of that. I think they'd take away some of the annoyance for home viewers if they'd show that context on-screen while a question is being considered. If you're watching casually, you can "play along" without having to pay so much attention to what the selected category is.
I thought his strategy was brilliant, and answering hardest questions first guarantees succsss at easier questions, given your peraonal knowledge. I answered more questions(close to half) than my average (between 1/3 and half depending on categories) correctly while he was on the show. He was also delightful to watch because we cheered for him and he was winning.
Of course, the peer groups in question are fellow quizzers, Scrabblers, etc. Not the man on the Clapham omnibus.
If the games designers design a game with a weakness in it's rule set, that's their problem. They do know that if the game is successful, they're going to attract the attention of some of the smarter people in the general population. So they'd better get it right!
Who give a shit about the audience? Certainly not the contestants.
(footnote : a couple of 15-to-1-ers, a team of Egghead contenders and several Scrabble-ists ; the categories are not exclusive.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
HOW DARE YOU SWEAR AT ME! I refuse to start off my day with such a slap in the face.
Tough shit. Don't let the door smack you on the arse as you leave.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
SHRUG. Not a quiz that I'd waste effort on applying for.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You know what? You can kiss my "arse", whatever that is.
he's using game theory to disorient his opponents
Would this strategy disorient Watson?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.