@stevek said:
They say that all good things must come to an end. Holzhauer sure had a helluva run.
Interesting that Holzhauer got timid with his Final Jeopardy wager. He got the answer correct. But as it turned out, the size of his wager didn't even matter.
He wasn't timid. He actually bet perfectly.
If the leader gets the question right, she wins, so his bet amount doesn't matter.
If she gets it wrong, there are a couple scenarios:
1) He gets it right. In that case, he wins, since she will surely have bet enough to fall behind him. In this scenario, what the 3rd place guy answers doesn't matter.
Here's the important one:
2) He gets it wrong but the 3rd place guy gets it right. Holzhauer bet the maximum possible ($1399) to still win under this scenario. In this scenario, the 3rd place guy doubles up but Holzhauer would still have $1 more. This is also the only scenario where the amount he bet could impact the outcome of the game.
His bet was 100% correct.
Your analysis is badly flawed. His wager was timid. Even Alex Trebek alluded to that, although Trebek referred to it as "modest."
What if she wagered nothing? Then her being correct or incorrect doesn't matter. With him timidly wagering $1,399 then he cannot win. She automatically wins.
The bottom line is you keep going with what got you there. To yell with worrying about the third place guy. You stay aggressive, go all in, hope you get the answer right, and hope that the leading opponent gets the answer wrong, bets nothing or being a newbie under pressure that she somehow wagers incorrectly.
His wager was exactly correct. It gave him the best chance of pulling off a win. If she bet less than enough to guarantee victory if he doubled up then she would have gone from a tremendous player to an idiot in the matter of a few minutes.
I saw his streak end when I was playing my weekly 500/800 rummy game with my grandma and she happened to have the TV going (apparently she was into it for some reason but I always thought she was more a Wheel of Fortune person). I did think the wager he made was a little odd (and NO I don't mean because it was an odd number!).
And BTW, one of my MAJOR pet peeves is when news articles and such refer to the clue/response incorrectly as question/answer...the whole point of Jeopardy is that they give you the answer and you provide the question!! The clue is the "answer" and the response is the "question"!! smacks forehead
@Brick said:
His wager was exactly correct. It gave him the best chance of pulling off a win. If she bet less than enough to guarantee victory if he doubled up then she would have gone from a tremendous player to an idiot in the matter of a few minutes.
Sorry but i'll take Alex Trebek's reaction to Holzhauer's wager over your analysis any time.
When you're batting in the bottom of the ninth, and the game looks bleak, if you're gonna lose then ya go down swinging, not with the bat on your shoulder.
Your analysis is badly flawed. His wager was timid. Even Alex Trebek alluded to that, although Trebek referred to it as "modest."
What if she wagered nothing? Then her being correct or incorrect doesn't matter. With him timidly wagering $1,399 then he cannot win. She automatically wins.
The bottom line is you keep going with what got you there. To yell with worrying about the third place guy. You stay aggressive, go all in, hope you get the answer right, and hope that the leading opponent gets the answer wrong, bets nothing or being a newbie under pressure that she somehow wagers incorrectly.
"what if she wagered nothing"? Say what?!? That wasn't a possibility. There was no way she'd wager nothing. She wasn't guaranteed a win and had to assume that Holzhauer would answer correctly. So she'd have to bet to win. I guarantee you that no leader in Final Jeopardy whose win is not guaranteed had ever bet $0. Ever.
Trebek made his comment because he didn't understand the math.
Your analysis is badly flawed. His wager was timid. Even Alex Trebek alluded to that, although Trebek referred to it as "modest."
What if she wagered nothing? Then her being correct or incorrect doesn't matter. With him timidly wagering $1,399 then he cannot win. She automatically wins.
The bottom line is you keep going with what got you there. To yell with worrying about the third place guy. You stay aggressive, go all in, hope you get the answer right, and hope that the leading opponent gets the answer wrong, bets nothing or being a newbie under pressure that she somehow wagers incorrectly.
"what if she wagered nothing"? Say what?!? That wasn't a possibility. There was no way she'd wager nothing. She wasn't guaranteed a win and had to assume that Holzhauer would answer correctly. So she'd have to bet to win. I guarantee you that no leader in Final Jeopardy whose win is not guaranteed had ever bet $0. Ever.
Trebek made his comment because he didn't understand the math.
Alex Trebek, hosting the game show for decades, "didn't understand the math."
"I like Jeopardy but I haven't watched it in a long time. I may have watched it around ten or fifteen times over the years."
Who said this? The guy saying that James' final bet was an incorrect one. James was a brillant Jeopardy player and that includes his final bet. The bet he made covered all possibilities of what the other 2 players were most likely to bet given the circumstances.
@dennis07 said:
"I like Jeopardy but I haven't watched it in a long time. I may have watched it around ten or fifteen times over the years."
Who said this? The guy saying that James' final bet was an incorrect one. James was a brillant Jeopardy player and that includes his final bet. The bet he made covered all possibilities of what the other 2 players were most likely to bet given the circumstances.
I didn't watch that last game except for the video replay of the ending.
My guess is that even though Holzhauer had a good game, it wasn't as good as usual for various reasons, and so he found himself in second place going into the Final Jeopardy round. He obviously panicked a little bit with his timid wager which sometimes happens when things aren't going the right way. The unusual situation affected his better judgment of staying aggressive.
Turns out it didn't matter anyway, but without question it was a timid wager.
It's not hard to predict everyone's wager in Final Jeopardy; I've been able to do it since the 80s as a young lad. There's only one strategy and they all bet exactly as they should to give themselves the best chance of winning.
@LarkinCollector said:
It's not hard to predict everyone's wager in Final Jeopardy; I've been able to do it since the 80s as a young lad. There's only one strategy and they all bet exactly as they should to give themselves the best chance of winning.
Yeah, not sure why this is hard to understand. 3rd place had to bet to double up. 1st place had to bet enough to cover up a double-up by 2nd place. 2nd place has to bet enough to cover a missed-question by 1st place (any amount will do that) and a double-up by 3rd place (any amount will do that). That leaves what 2nd should bet if 1st and 2nd both miss but 3rd doesn't. The maximum amount under that scenario, which also covers all the other scenarios, was $1399. And that's what Holzhauer (2nd place) bet.
@LarkinCollector said:
It's not hard to predict everyone's wager in Final Jeopardy; I've been able to do it since the 80s as a young lad. There's only one strategy and they all bet exactly as they should to give themselves the best chance of winning.
Yeah, not sure why this is hard to understand. 3rd place had to bet to double up. 1st place had to bet enough to cover up a double-up by 2nd place. 2nd place has to bet enough to cover a missed-question by 1st place (any amount will do that) and a double-up by 3rd place (any amount will do that). That leaves what 2nd should bet if 1st and 2nd both miss but 3rd doesn't. The maximum amount under that scenario, which also covers all the other scenarios, was $1399. And that's what Holzhauer (2nd place) bet.
This, well said.
To add to this topic, there might have been some luck involved in Emma's favor because James got the DD on the very first question (so the max he could wager was $1,000), and Emma got the other 2 DD's.
I'm not trying to take away from her game, because it was a heck of an accomplishment to defeat Holzhauer. She basically had a perfect game.
@LarkinCollector said:
It's not hard to predict everyone's wager in Final Jeopardy; I've been able to do it since the 80s as a young lad. There's only one strategy and they all bet exactly as they should to give themselves the best chance of winning.
Yeah, not sure why this is hard to understand. 3rd place had to bet to double up. 1st place had to bet enough to cover up a double-up by 2nd place. 2nd place has to bet enough to cover a missed-question by 1st place (any amount will do that) and a double-up by 3rd place (any amount will do that). That leaves what 2nd should bet if 1st and 2nd both miss but 3rd doesn't. The maximum amount under that scenario, which also covers all the other scenarios, was $1399. And that's what Holzhauer (2nd place) bet.
You have your opinion and i have mine. Alex Trebek would obviously disagree with you and so do I.
It's all a waste of time further discussing it at this point especially since as it turned out, nothing Holzhauer did would have mattered.
Holzhauer got beat and that's that. The big difference now is that he looked silly getting beat with that timid wager. Some may remember him for that.
But hey if someone handed me a two million dollar check and says some out there may remember the timidness that I displayed at the end, it wouldn't bother me one bit.
It was not timidity, it's basic math that no amount of game theory he used in the rest of the match can overcome. He was in a situation that he had to pray the leader missed the Final Jeopardy question. If they get it right, it doesn't matter how far behind he is in second place from $1-$50,0000, he still only gets a fixed amount of prize money. If they paid out each player based on their total, he would not have made the same "timid" bet (and would make the Final betting far less predictable and add a level of strategy to the match).
@LarkinCollector said:
It was not timidity, it's basic math that no amount of game theory he used in the rest of the match can overcome. He was in a situation that he had to pray the leader missed the Final Jeopardy question. If they get it right, it doesn't matter how far behind he is in second place from $1-$50,0000, he still only gets a fixed amount of prize money. If they paid out each player based on their total, he would not have made the same "timid" bet (and would make the Final betting far less predictable and add a level of strategy to the match).
Well i will agree with ya that it is game theory.
However we disagree on how the game should be played at that point, particularly with this player who had previously won over 2 million dollars and was red hot up until this point. In my view there's no thought involved for this guy, you go all in. You stay with the aggressiveness that got ya there.
It's not an exact analogy, but I've watched WSOP main event final tables where the chip leader going into the final table, starts betting timidly and winds up getting beat because of it. Being timid with the final wager didn't get Holzhauer beat because again it didn't matter. However the timidity could have gotten him beat, and that's a situation that he shouldn't have placed himself in considering all the circumstances.
Give me the three contestants totals going into Final Jeopardy, and I can tell you what each will bet. Trebek knows this logic also and was only playing entertainer, pretending to be shocked at the bet, as he's paid to do.
It's not an exact analogy, but I've watched WSOP main event final tables where the chip leader going into the final table, starts betting timidly and winds up getting beat because of it. Being timid with the final wager didn't get Holzhauer beat because again it didn't matter. However the timidity could have gotten him beat, and that's a situation that he shouldn't have placed himself in considering all the circumstances.
Given that there's no way the 1st place person would have bet anything other than what she did, please explain in detail how Holzhauer's "timidity could have gotten him beat".
@LarkinCollector said:
Give me the three contestants totals going into Final Jeopardy, and I can tell you what each will bet. Trebek knows this logic also and was only playing entertainer, pretending to be shocked at the bet, as he's paid to do.
<<< Give me the three contestants totals going into Final Jeopardy, and I can tell you what each will bet. >>>
It's not an exact analogy, but I've watched WSOP main event final tables where the chip leader going into the final table, starts betting timidly and winds up getting beat because of it. Being timid with the final wager didn't get Holzhauer beat because again it didn't matter. However the timidity could have gotten him beat, and that's a situation that he shouldn't have placed himself in considering all the circumstances.
Given that there's no way the 1st place person would have bet anything other than what she did, please explain in detail how Holzhauer's "timidity could have gotten him beat".
@stevek said:
I'm not gonna knock ya. You had the stones to take a stab at it. 👍
It should be labeled 'The Most Embarrassing Win Ever'. The other two bet exactly as they should and she could have went home with an extra $7,599 in her pocket at no additional risk.
This horse has been beat to death but I thought I'd throw this article from Time Magazine out there just for posterity sake.
It explains why James would make a "timed" bet and why that "timid" bet was his best chance to win. Winning is the object after all not losing with a lot of money by a dollar.
The Math Behind James Holzhauer's Streak-Ending Final Jeopardy! Wager
Emily Barone Time Magazine
The $1,399 wager was specific and deliberate because, mathematically, it was his best play.
As Trebek revealed the final Jeopardy! question, the standings were Boettcher at $26,600, Holzhauer at $23,400 and third contestant Jay Sexton at $11,000.
Imagine that Holzhauer wagered everything. A correct response would have put him at $46,800. So Boettcher sensibly put $20,201 on the line, ensuring that if she answered correctly, she would win with $46,801.
On the other hand, if Holzhauer wagered it all and responded incorrectly, he would be left with nothing. If Boettcher were incorrect, she would still have $6,399.
So Holzhauer had no chance to win against Boettcher unless she answered incorrectly and he had wagered only a small amount, to keep his total north of $6,399.
To determine how much that small amount should optimally be, Holzhauer needed to ensure that third-place Sexton, with $11,000, could not come out ahead if he doubled his score to $22,000. Holzhauer could wager $1,399 of his $23,400 and, if he flubbed, still beat Sexton by $1.
In the end, all three contestants responded correctly. Sexton wagered $6,000 for a third place finish of $17,000. Holzhauer took second with $24,799. As runners up, they will only take home $1,000 and $2,000, respectively.
@stevek said:
I'm not gonna knock ya. You had the stones to take a stab at it. 👍
It should be labeled 'The Most Embarrassing Win Ever'. The other two bet exactly as they should and she could have went home with an extra $7,599 in her pocket at no additional risk.
I don't follow ya on the "no additional risk." She got the question wrong. If she wagers just $2, she loses the match.
In my opinion, she played it quite shrewd, knowing he might wager the $7,001. She took a chance and it paid off.
Also i think the short stack bet it wrong. I think he should have wagered $0 and just hope the other two go all in and miss.
Sorry, didn't have the audio on to realize she was incorrect. She won by betting on herself to fail and hoping the leader did also. That's not how you make a historic run.
The short stack realized they were irrelevant and went down swinging.
@dennis07 said:
This horse has been beat to death but I thought I'd throw this article from Time Magazine out there just for posterity sake.
It explains why James would make a "timed" bet and why that "timid" bet was his best chance to win. Winning is the object after all not losing with a lot of money by a dollar.
The Math Behind James Holzhauer's Streak-Ending Final Jeopardy! Wager
Emily Barone Time Magazine
The $1,399 wager was specific and deliberate because, mathematically, it was his best play.
As Trebek revealed the final Jeopardy! question, the standings were Boettcher at $26,600, Holzhauer at $23,400 and third contestant Jay Sexton at $11,000.
Imagine that Holzhauer wagered everything. A correct response would have put him at $46,800. So Boettcher sensibly put $20,201 on the line, ensuring that if she answered correctly, she would win with $46,801.
On the other hand, if Holzhauer wagered it all and responded incorrectly, he would be left with nothing. If Boettcher were incorrect, she would still have $6,399.
So Holzhauer had no chance to win against Boettcher unless she answered incorrectly and he had wagered only a small amount, to keep his total north of $6,399.
To determine how much that small amount should optimally be, Holzhauer needed to ensure that third-place Sexton, with $11,000, could not come out ahead if he doubled his score to $22,000. Holzhauer could wager $1,399 of his $23,400 and, if he flubbed, still beat Sexton by $1.
In the end, all three contestants responded correctly. Sexton wagered $6,000 for a third place finish of $17,000. Holzhauer took second with $24,799. As runners up, they will only take home $1,000 and $2,000, respectively.
I'm done, finished and out.
Emily Barone? I don't place much credibility on anything from Time Magazine.
Besides, Holzhauer has already stated his reasoning for the timid wager. I disagree with him. This was more than about the math, it was about playing the player. Holzhauer did that poorly. Turns out the woman is a pretty good Jeopardy player, but superstar Holzhauer had to play it as though she would make a mistake either through the wrong question or the wrong wager. That she would make mistakes under pressure. That was his best chance to win, not the so-called math.
Yes, i'm finished here as well. But I enjoyed the debate. It's back to coins and cards for me, and oh yea, sports talk.
steve you are a sharp cookie, but you are surprising me here. you made an analogous comparison to a wsop final table. i can make the argument that anyone who incorporated your math & reasoning never would have reached the final table in the first place.
boettcher was in the catbird seat -- if she gets the question right, she wins. period, end of story, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. there was no other prudent amount for boettcher to wager than $20,201.
holzhauer needed help from the get-go. his fate was out of his control, as boettcher had to miss for him to have any chance of surviving. and in the same breath, he knew the EXACT amount she was going to bet. armed with that information, he then focused on sexton. sexton was sitting at $11k. holzhauer had to guard against a double up by him, so he made the most sagacious wager he could: $1,399. that amount ensured that he would simultaneously fend off sexton and emerge victorious with a boettcher miss.
if holzhauer puts any amount north of $1,399 on the line, he would've opened the door for a loss far worse than the clip up above. no one would have remembered his incredible run; the indelible mark left would have been that of a brain fart for the ages. if boettcher misses, he misses AND he loses his mind by betting > $1,399, that sexton dude potentially could have sucked both of them up..............which would have been analogous to winning the power ball based on how smart the two people ahead of him were.
James Holzhauer is an admitted Gambler. the rumors/stories I am hearing now is that he had someone "wager" that he would lose when he did and made a tidy sum by taking a dive.
Just a bit of an FYI. Back in the original run of Jeopardy 2nd/3rd place finishers were allowed to keep the cash they had amassed. So even if they knew they could not win, they would not bet anything thereby going home withe their total $ to that point. Leaving with more $. When Alex took over the show it was decided to eliminate that option. Alex stated he felt it made the show more interesting at the Final Jeopardy segment. To engage the 2nd/3rd place contestants to be more aggressive, knowing that they could not hold pat and walk away with the $ earned up to that point.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Just a bit of an FYI. Back in the original run of Jeopardy 2nd/3rd place finishers were allowed to keep the cash they had amassed. When Alex took over the show it was decided to eliminate that option.
There are pros & cons to every choice, but this one has a big downside imo. Because of Holzhauer's aggressive/successful style of play, his opponents accomplishments got unnoticed/unrewarded. Several of his competitors had remarkable scores of their own, scores that would have wiped the floor with any other field at any other time period in the game. Example: Adam Levin had $53,999 at the end of the game, while Holzhauer had $54,018.
$53,999 would beat 99% of contestants and guarantee a return the next day, but instead, he walks away with only $2k?
Yea, and I think it's starting in September or October, when he buys something off Ebay or Amazon, he and every other Californian will be charged a new approximate 10% sales tax.
Answers
Your analysis is badly flawed. His wager was timid. Even Alex Trebek alluded to that, although Trebek referred to it as "modest."
What if she wagered nothing? Then her being correct or incorrect doesn't matter. With him timidly wagering $1,399 then he cannot win. She automatically wins.
The bottom line is you keep going with what got you there. To yell with worrying about the third place guy. You stay aggressive, go all in, hope you get the answer right, and hope that the leading opponent gets the answer wrong, bets nothing or being a newbie under pressure that she somehow wagers incorrectly.
His wager was exactly correct. It gave him the best chance of pulling off a win. If she bet less than enough to guarantee victory if he doubled up then she would have gone from a tremendous player to an idiot in the matter of a few minutes.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I saw his streak end when I was playing my weekly 500/800 rummy game with my grandma and she happened to have the TV going (apparently she was into it for some reason but I always thought she was more a Wheel of Fortune person). I did think the wager he made was a little odd (and NO I don't mean because it was an odd number!).
And BTW, one of my MAJOR pet peeves is when news articles and such refer to the clue/response incorrectly as question/answer...the whole point of Jeopardy is that they give you the answer and you provide the question!! The clue is the "answer" and the response is the "question"!! smacks forehead
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
Sorry but i'll take Alex Trebek's reaction to Holzhauer's wager over your analysis any time.
When you're batting in the bottom of the ninth, and the game looks bleak, if you're gonna lose then ya go down swinging, not with the bat on your shoulder.
"what if she wagered nothing"? Say what?!? That wasn't a possibility. There was no way she'd wager nothing. She wasn't guaranteed a win and had to assume that Holzhauer would answer correctly. So she'd have to bet to win. I guarantee you that no leader in Final Jeopardy whose win is not guaranteed had ever bet $0. Ever.
Trebek made his comment because he didn't understand the math.
Alex Trebek, hosting the game show for decades, "didn't understand the math."
Now that's funny. 🤣
"I like Jeopardy but I haven't watched it in a long time. I may have watched it around ten or fifteen times over the years."
Who said this? The guy saying that James' final bet was an incorrect one. James was a brillant Jeopardy player and that includes his final bet. The bet he made covered all possibilities of what the other 2 players were most likely to bet given the circumstances.
I didn't watch that last game except for the video replay of the ending.
My guess is that even though Holzhauer had a good game, it wasn't as good as usual for various reasons, and so he found himself in second place going into the Final Jeopardy round. He obviously panicked a little bit with his timid wager which sometimes happens when things aren't going the right way. The unusual situation affected his better judgment of staying aggressive.
Turns out it didn't matter anyway, but without question it was a timid wager.
It's not hard to predict everyone's wager in Final Jeopardy; I've been able to do it since the 80s as a young lad. There's only one strategy and they all bet exactly as they should to give themselves the best chance of winning.
Funny and true aren't mutually exclusive. Lots of people apparently didn't understand the math, including some in this thread.
Yeah, not sure why this is hard to understand. 3rd place had to bet to double up. 1st place had to bet enough to cover up a double-up by 2nd place. 2nd place has to bet enough to cover a missed-question by 1st place (any amount will do that) and a double-up by 3rd place (any amount will do that). That leaves what 2nd should bet if 1st and 2nd both miss but 3rd doesn't. The maximum amount under that scenario, which also covers all the other scenarios, was $1399. And that's what Holzhauer (2nd place) bet.
This, well said.
To add to this topic, there might have been some luck involved in Emma's favor because James got the DD on the very first question (so the max he could wager was $1,000), and Emma got the other 2 DD's.
I'm not trying to take away from her game, because it was a heck of an accomplishment to defeat Holzhauer. She basically had a perfect game.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
You have your opinion and i have mine. Alex Trebek would obviously disagree with you and so do I.
It's all a waste of time further discussing it at this point especially since as it turned out, nothing Holzhauer did would have mattered.
Holzhauer got beat and that's that. The big difference now is that he looked silly getting beat with that timid wager. Some may remember him for that.
But hey if someone handed me a two million dollar check and says some out there may remember the timidness that I displayed at the end, it wouldn't bother me one bit.
It was not timidity, it's basic math that no amount of game theory he used in the rest of the match can overcome. He was in a situation that he had to pray the leader missed the Final Jeopardy question. If they get it right, it doesn't matter how far behind he is in second place from $1-$50,0000, he still only gets a fixed amount of prize money. If they paid out each player based on their total, he would not have made the same "timid" bet (and would make the Final betting far less predictable and add a level of strategy to the match).
Well i will agree with ya that it is game theory.
However we disagree on how the game should be played at that point, particularly with this player who had previously won over 2 million dollars and was red hot up until this point. In my view there's no thought involved for this guy, you go all in. You stay with the aggressiveness that got ya there.
It's not an exact analogy, but I've watched WSOP main event final tables where the chip leader going into the final table, starts betting timidly and winds up getting beat because of it. Being timid with the final wager didn't get Holzhauer beat because again it didn't matter. However the timidity could have gotten him beat, and that's a situation that he shouldn't have placed himself in considering all the circumstances.
Give me the three contestants totals going into Final Jeopardy, and I can tell you what each will bet. Trebek knows this logic also and was only playing entertainer, pretending to be shocked at the bet, as he's paid to do.
Given that there's no way the 1st place person would have bet anything other than what she did, please explain in detail how Holzhauer's "timidity could have gotten him beat".
<<< Give me the three contestants totals going into Final Jeopardy, and I can tell you what each will bet. >>>
Okay then, let's give it a go:
Contestant 1 $14,000
Contestant 2 $3,200
Contestant 3 $21,000
I'll post the URL after your reply.
Good luck.
I already previously explained it.
You're welcome to take a stab at this as well:
Okay then, let's give it a go:
Contestant 1 $14,000
Contestant 2 $3,200
Contestant 3 $21,000
I'll post the URL after your reply.
Good luck.
Contestant 3: $7,001 or more
Contestant 1: $7,599
Contestant 2: Irrelevant ($1 or $3,200)
ETA: Contestant 3: min $7,001 up to $14,599
Notice 2nd has no flexibility in what the correct bet is.
No sense waiting for Tabe.
I'm not gonna knock ya. You had the stones to take a stab at it. 👍
It should be labeled 'The Most Embarrassing Win Ever'. The other two bet exactly as they should and she could have went home with an extra $7,599 in her pocket at no additional risk.
Is that example somehow supposed to go against what I said? Because...it doesn't.
This horse has been beat to death but I thought I'd throw this article from Time Magazine out there just for posterity sake.
It explains why James would make a "timed" bet and why that "timid" bet was his best chance to win. Winning is the object after all not losing with a lot of money by a dollar.
The Math Behind James Holzhauer's Streak-Ending Final Jeopardy! Wager
Emily Barone Time Magazine
The $1,399 wager was specific and deliberate because, mathematically, it was his best play.
As Trebek revealed the final Jeopardy! question, the standings were Boettcher at $26,600, Holzhauer at $23,400 and third contestant Jay Sexton at $11,000.
Imagine that Holzhauer wagered everything. A correct response would have put him at $46,800. So Boettcher sensibly put $20,201 on the line, ensuring that if she answered correctly, she would win with $46,801.
On the other hand, if Holzhauer wagered it all and responded incorrectly, he would be left with nothing. If Boettcher were incorrect, she would still have $6,399.
So Holzhauer had no chance to win against Boettcher unless she answered incorrectly and he had wagered only a small amount, to keep his total north of $6,399.
To determine how much that small amount should optimally be, Holzhauer needed to ensure that third-place Sexton, with $11,000, could not come out ahead if he doubled his score to $22,000. Holzhauer could wager $1,399 of his $23,400 and, if he flubbed, still beat Sexton by $1.
In the end, all three contestants responded correctly. Sexton wagered $6,000 for a third place finish of $17,000. Holzhauer took second with $24,799. As runners up, they will only take home $1,000 and $2,000, respectively.
I'm done, finished and out.
I don't follow ya on the "no additional risk." She got the question wrong. If she wagers just $2, she loses the match.
In my opinion, she played it quite shrewd, knowing he might wager the $7,001. She took a chance and it paid off.
Also i think the short stack bet it wrong. I think he should have wagered $0 and just hope the other two go all in and miss.
Sorry, didn't have the audio on to realize she was incorrect. She won by betting on herself to fail and hoping the leader did also. That's not how you make a historic run.
The short stack realized they were irrelevant and went down swinging.
Emily Barone? I don't place much credibility on anything from Time Magazine.
Besides, Holzhauer has already stated his reasoning for the timid wager. I disagree with him. This was more than about the math, it was about playing the player. Holzhauer did that poorly. Turns out the woman is a pretty good Jeopardy player, but superstar Holzhauer had to play it as though she would make a mistake either through the wrong question or the wrong wager. That she would make mistakes under pressure. That was his best chance to win, not the so-called math.
Yes, i'm finished here as well. But I enjoyed the debate. It's back to coins and cards for me, and oh yea, sports talk.
steve you are a sharp cookie, but you are surprising me here. you made an analogous comparison to a wsop final table. i can make the argument that anyone who incorporated your math & reasoning never would have reached the final table in the first place.
boettcher was in the catbird seat -- if she gets the question right, she wins. period, end of story, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. there was no other prudent amount for boettcher to wager than $20,201.
holzhauer needed help from the get-go. his fate was out of his control, as boettcher had to miss for him to have any chance of surviving. and in the same breath, he knew the EXACT amount she was going to bet. armed with that information, he then focused on sexton. sexton was sitting at $11k. holzhauer had to guard against a double up by him, so he made the most sagacious wager he could: $1,399. that amount ensured that he would simultaneously fend off sexton and emerge victorious with a boettcher miss.
if holzhauer puts any amount north of $1,399 on the line, he would've opened the door for a loss far worse than the clip up above. no one would have remembered his incredible run; the indelible mark left would have been that of a brain fart for the ages. if boettcher misses, he misses AND he loses his mind by betting > $1,399, that sexton dude potentially could have sucked both of them up..............which would have been analogous to winning the power ball based on how smart the two people ahead of him were.
James Holzhauer is an admitted Gambler. the rumors/stories I am hearing now is that he had someone "wager" that he would lose when he did and made a tidy sum by taking a dive.
Just a bit of an FYI. Back in the original run of Jeopardy 2nd/3rd place finishers were allowed to keep the cash they had amassed. So even if they knew they could not win, they would not bet anything thereby going home withe their total $ to that point. Leaving with more $. When Alex took over the show it was decided to eliminate that option. Alex stated he felt it made the show more interesting at the Final Jeopardy segment. To engage the 2nd/3rd place contestants to be more aggressive, knowing that they could not hold pat and walk away with the $ earned up to that point.
One more thing. I wish to thank all of the participants who joined in on this thread with their views and comments.
There are pros & cons to every choice, but this one has a big downside imo. Because of Holzhauer's aggressive/successful style of play, his opponents accomplishments got unnoticed/unrewarded. Several of his competitors had remarkable scores of their own, scores that would have wiped the floor with any other field at any other time period in the game. Example: Adam Levin had $53,999 at the end of the game, while Holzhauer had $54,018.
$53,999 would beat 99% of contestants and guarantee a return the next day, but instead, he walks away with only $2k?
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
i have lots of friends in Cali whom i deeply admire and respect, but oh how i love living in Texas instead of taxes
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/james-holzhauer-jeopardy-taxes-winnings-cash-total
Yea, and I think it's starting in September or October, when he buys something off Ebay or Amazon, he and every other Californian will be charged a new approximate 10% sales tax.
The tax "fun" never ends. 😒