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.'"

29 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. He's Playing To Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:He's Playing To Win by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He still has to answer the questions correctly. So I'm not seeing the problem.

      The first person who got the last question right gets to pick the next block. So even if he is selecting this block, he still has to get it right before the other players.

    2. Re:He's Playing To Win by curunir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's not necessarily playing to win, because the rules of the game don't encourage him to do that...from his perspective, ties are as good or better than a win. If the rules were changed such that the two tying contestants would split the amount that each of them accrued, he'd most certainly play to win. But a tie means a) he keeps his whole total for himself, b) he comes back to play again and, possibly most importantly, c) he brings with him to the next game an opponent he's fairly certain he can beat. To see why the last one is important, you have to realize that there are a certain number of exceptional players that are really hard to beat (call them a "Ken Jennings"). Until each contestant plays the game, there's a certain probability that one of them will be a Ken Jennings. A typical winner will get two new contestants each game and so doubles the odds that he or she will face a Ken Jennings. Chu, by halving the number of new players he faces, also halves the odds of running into an opponent who's better than he is.

      Given all the advantages of playing not to lose instead of playing to win, I'd say he's pretty smart for doing so. He's getting to keep a winner's amount each time, gets to come back to play again and limits the number of untested contestants he has to play against. Basically, he's playing to win money rather than win the game, which are close enough to the same goal that they've historically been inseparable. But he's figured out how to separate them and, in doing so, has angered people who enjoy the game more than the money.

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    3. Re:He's Playing To Win by jxander · · Score: 5, Informative

      While true (answering the questions correctly is the real determiner) his method increases the odds of finding the Daily Doubles. Statistically, DDs are in the bottom few blocks on the board. Picking the top blocks just creates more chances for someone else to take control. Especially if other players are sticking with the traditional top-down approach.

      Example. First player pick box 1 (the top box in a given category) and Arthur Chu answers correctly. He then jumps down to box 4 in that category. Lets assume it's not a DD, and the other player answers it. Other player picks box 2 (continuing where they left off) and then box 3. If Chu gets either of those right, he takes #5 in that category, ensuring the best possible odds for DD.

      Daily Doubles are the real wildcard here. They're worth the most money (based on your own wager) and you are given time to think it over, instead of rushing to beat out the competition. "He who controls the spi- err, Daily Doubles, controls the game."

      --
      This signature is false.
  2. Upredictable WTF? by _merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Upredictable WTF? by number17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is Jeopardy's nipplegate that keeps them in the news and relevant. Its been on the air for 50 years and this is the first time somebody has "played the game" as opposed to picking random squares or going at it sequentially top to bottom?

    2. Re:Upredictable WTF? by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      The phoney "controversy" is merely because he formulated and applied a strategy. The mainstream mind has been conditioned to be subconsciously yet deeply resentful of any kind of preplanned strategic thinking. In a different but related observation, simply suggesting that corporations can and will plan several moves ahead in order to maximize their profits or control of a market, or suggeting that powerful people in government will systematically abuse their sweeping powers (hello Snowden) will often cause the small-minded to emotionally respond by calling you a tinfoil-hatter.

      The takeaway is that those who live their own personal lives in a haphazard, unplanned, thoughtless manner really want to believe that there is no other way to do things. It's what "protects" them from taking a hard look in the mirror and asking themselves some pertinent and overdue questions.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Upredictable WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you RTFA you'd know that someone else did it in the 80s, whom Chu is copying deliberately.

  3. "Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:"Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Easy questions with humorous punishments for wrong answers seems like the perfect Idiocracy approach - makes you wonder why approach hasn't taken over US TV gameshows.

      Liability.

    2. Re:"Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

      I watched an gameshow on a US network once.

      Whoa guys watch out, we've got an expert here.

      The format you're describing is the "new breed" of shows which, as you've correctly determined, are designed to get people to watch commercials. They aren't limited to game shows, either. Those include shows like the one that Howie Mandel hosted a couple years ago which apparently is no longer on the air, or "Minute To Win It" hosted by Guy Fieri (that show has several reasons not to watch it), or nearly any other prime-time game show that appears on a major network. They also include reality shows, for example I think that "Hell's Kitchen" has the highest ratio of commercials to content in minutes. Yes, those shows exist to sell ads. Jeopardy is not one of those shows. Jeopardy doesn't rely on stupid hooks to try and get people to stick around while stretching out the limited content as much as possible. Jeopardy actually shows the entire game without any summary of what just happened or what's about to happen, they take breaks at pre-determined times instead of when the drama is heating up, etc.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  4. They'll stop him by The_Star_Child · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They'll stop him somehow. Playing like that will decrease ratings. And ratings are, obviously, all they care about.

    1. Re:They'll stop him by pseudofrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Playing the way he is will lead to news stories, which will lead to better ratings.

  5. Play for the tie by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:MODS! EMERGENCY! DIAL 1011! [MoD PaReNt Up] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its been changed 0118 999 881 999 119 725 ... 3

  7. Stupid people confused by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    by smart strategy, news at 11. We will use small words.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Re:3 Day Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!"

  9. Same as Wheel of Fortune? by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  10. Dumb motherfuckers by satan666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  11. He doesn't have to know the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:He doesn't have to know the answer by asmkm22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He's also quickly buzzing for questions that he knows he can't answer, just to deprive someone else from being able to answer them, lol. He's what the RPG community calls a "power gamer." It's actually kind of awesome to watch.

    2. Re:He doesn't have to know the answer by eyenot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is fun for me because this is exactly how I played with my family and friends on numerous "at home" versions including computer and console software over the decades (and no, I didn't know all the answers -- it's just a good strategy). I like seeing the more intelligent player triumph and I hope this becomes how Jeopardy is played in the future -- the high-scoring brackets are desired foremost and the lower stuff is pigeon poop to be swooped up by the scavengers or stolen from their beaks. The programmers will have to change up where the Daily Doubles are located but this will not stop the trend of smarter or more confident players grabbing the higher scoring brackets sooner to keep them away from the others.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  12. The viewers are just too stupid to keep up ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 !
    1. Re:The viewers are just too stupid to keep up ! by NotSanguine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Thank you. The guy is fairly smart and seems to have a broad base of trivia knowledge. Were I to be a contestant, I'd use a similar strategy.

      It's Sony/Jeopardy's goal to make money entertaining the masses. Mr. Chu's goal is to win games. Seems reasonable to me.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  13. Re:3 Day Old News by Silvrmane · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe he should behead his opponent and then shout, "Are you not entertained?"

  14. Re:3 Day Old News by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  15. He's winning b/c he gets the right answers by globaljustin · · Score: 5, Informative

    He still has to answer the questions correctly.

    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
    1. Re:He's winning b/c he gets the right answers by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      because it makes it harder for them to play along at home

      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.

  16. Re:3 Day Old News by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.