Skip to content
October 2, 2013

Wagering practice – When third goes too hard

In his second game, future TOC champion Michael Falk was locked in a tight game with two challengers.

What are your thoughts on these wagers? The category: STATE CAPITALS.

Final Jeopardy! wagering practice 20131002 Slide1

Click here for my analysis!

(Thanks to the J! Archive)

Answers to Tuesday’s scenario:

In this regular game between mega-champions Tom Kavanaugh and Kevin Marshall, Tom found a Daily Double on the final clue of Double Jeopardy!.

This Daily Double scenario presents some excellent opportunities for the finder. Remember our discussion of situations of two-player games in which the leader MUST wager to tie? This is true if the trailer has exactly 1/2, 2/3, or 3/4 of the leader’s score.

How can he enter such a situation?

Return to top

5 Comments
  1. Kelly permalink

    Michael’s wager is of course perfectly acceptable. Suzan bet too much – her ideal range was between $3,600 and $4,000. Rory’s is OK – he chose the “low” bet in this type of scenario where 2nd can’t simultaneously bet to cover 3rd and stay above the leader if both are wrong (although if I were in his shoes I’d likely keep the bet at $1,600 or less in case Suzan bet nothing).

    A player in 2nd place is faced with this dilemma anytime his/her score is closer to the trailer than the leader (and is within 2/3 of the leader of course). The J-Archive calls this dilemma “Stratton’s Dilemma” after a 2005 player who apparently brought this common situation up)

    • Kelly permalink

      Sorry about the punctuation error at the end!

    • Blake permalink

      In my opinion, covering a zero wager is really lame and weak.

    • Blake permalink

      I think Suzan should’ve gone all in because if Michael is wrong he will have 4000 so Suzan will cap at 4000, but if she is right in mind games she will have 12000 and Michael will cap at 400 which means Suzan will have to get it right so go all in.

  2. Ken H permalink

    I agree with Kelly that a smallish bet by Rory is rational. However, I think he should bet at least 2401 to cover a rational 4000 bet by Suzan if she gets it right. This way he improves his chances of winning from 2/8 to 3/8. With a 2001 bet he would lose 11601 to 12000 to Suzan if they both get it right and Michael gets it wrong. I would rather give up the possibility of a loss if Suzan bet nothing and I missed than give up one of the two chances to win if I got it right and the leader got it wrong.

What do you think?