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.
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?
-
- (1/6) Tom’s got the Daily Double on the last clue of Double Jeopardy!.
-
- (2/6) Tom can have exactly 1/2 of Kevin’s score by wagering 3,400 and getting the clue wrong – perhaps intentionally.
-
- (3/6) Kevin’s score is not divisible by 3, so Tom cannot have exactly 2/3 of Kevin’s score. (You can tell if a number is divisible by 3 by adding together the digits. If the sum is divisible by 3, then it is. 1+7+2 = 10.)
-
- (4/6) Tom can reach 3/4 of Kevin’s score by wagering 900 and getting it right. But if he gets it wrong, he’ll have 11,100 – not a great situation.
-
- (5/6) Tom’s best bet is to tank the question on a 3,400 wager. Then he’ll just have to get the final clue correct and wager everything.
-
- (6/6) If he wagers small, first he’ll have to get it right. Then he gets into a wagering battle with Kevin. Too much going on!
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)
Sorry about the punctuation error at the end!
In my opinion, covering a zero wager is really lame and weak.
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.
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.