Final Jeopardy: Famous Americans

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. erth says:

    At first, I thought it was gratuitously kind of Alan, or perhaps insulting in that he relished the chance to play against Catherine again. I also thought he may regret it on Monday because Catherine is a strong player. But then I considered that Alan is an actuary who would be wed to his game theory regardless of his assessment of the individual players. I think this was a brilliant bet. Think about it– Alan now has the advantage of knowing exactly how Catherine will wager in FJ on Monday: If she is in second place going into FJ, she will definitely bet everything with the expectation that Alan (if he’s in the lead) will play for a tie again. And if Catherine is in the lead going into FJ and Alan is in second, there is a strong chance she will reciprocate and play for a tie with Alan. I guess we’ll see on Monday.

  2. Paco says:

    Will someone explain the strategy of betting to tie?

    It just seemed like Alan was being nice to Catherine.

    • Eric S says:

      To be sure, it does seem like a nice thing to do. I, personally, was speaking from a purely strategical point of view. Strategically, it is probably best to offer a tie to a less-talented player (maybe who got a huge DD or hit a lucky category): I think that may have been AChu’s motive (although she was pretty and he may have had some explaining to do at home). It may also make sense if you fear an upcoming opponent and want to postpone their arrival.
      All of that is less important than kindness, of course.

    • VJ says:

      I’m pretty sure the last time we saw someone playing for the tie was this past July — Campbell Warner played 3 games (July 8-10) and each time, he played for a tie.

      In the last game, he commented on that post that he did it intentionally and “figured that was the best shot at keeping my winnings and moving on to the next game.”

    • Eric S says:

      Campbell! Yes, that was an unusual scenario.
      So, say the leader has 20,000 and second has 10,000 then the leader should bet zero! That is, to bet (risk) even 1 might mean losing the game, whereas staying put (betting zero) insures a return. Of course, regardless of the category, the person in second should bet it all!

      • Eric S says:

        This case is sort of an example of betting to tie, although perhaps more of a lesson in solid game theory.

        • john blahuta says:

          and remember the one game where the leader had excactly twice as much as the lady in second and she did NOT bety it all???? was about june or so……

      • VJ says:

        yeah that was the 7-8-14 game. Campbell had $22K going into FJ and second place had $11K

        • john blahuta says:

          yes, that was the game, exactly.thanks,vj, how do you keep track of all those things?????

        • VJ says:

          I actually forgot about the $22K / $11K game. I just remembered that Campbell mentioned why he bet to tie in the comments. Eric remembered that game and I looked it up.

          Over the summer, I apparently forgot I had a “co-champ” tag but found it when I decided that I would put in a “bet to tie” tag to make these games easier to find. Both will be good since every co-champ game isn’t bet to tie, and every bet to tie game doesn’t result in co-champs.

      • john blahuta says:


  3. Eric S says:

    I think that was very dumb on Alan’s part: she is way too good of a player for him to want to play again.