Final Jeopardy! wagering analysis:
Monday, March 7, 2016
[php snippet=53]
On tonight’s video, I discuss my own personal hell. It involves the Carpenters.
[I apologize for the twitchiness of the scores on tonight’s video; I forgot to change back to manual focus!]
This is a good game heading into Final – all three players have five digits.
|
Natasha Gainey (1x) |
Eric Grebing |
Brent Povis |
| 11,400 | 17,400 | 12,400 |
Tonight’s Final Jeopardy! category is:
| SPORTS NICKNAMES |
The wagering here is straightforward; there’s a small amount of room for mind games.
First-order calculations
Natasha needs to stay small. Brent is in Stratton’s Dilemma, meaning he can either go for broke or risk getting passed from behind.
My fellow J! alum Ben Wiles did some research a few weeks ago about Stratton’s Dilemma. If I recall correctly, his conclusion was if neither trailer is forced to wager everything, the second-place player should go small, and the third-place player should go big. I’m going to check that out soon.
| Natasha |
Eric |
Brent | |||
| 11,400 | 17,400 | 12,400 | |||
| FIRST-ORDER | SECOND-ORDER | COVER ZERO | |||
| min | max | min | max | min | max |
| 1,400 | 7,400 | 10,400* | |||
| 2,400 | |||||
Second-order calculations
Natasha’s big wager is not so good here, I don’t think. I’m not even taking the category into consideration, but that is no guarantee of any particular outcome.
| Natasha |
Eric |
Brent | |||
| 11,400 | 17,400 | 12,400 | |||
| FIRST-ORDER | SECOND-ORDER | COVER ZERO | |||
| min | max | min | max | min | max |
| 1,400 | 7,400 | 10,400* | |||
| 400 | 2,400 | ||||
| 1,800* | |||||
Zero wagers
Score differences:
Eric and Brent: 5,000
Eric and Natasha: 6,000
Brent and Natasha: 1,000
| Natasha |
Eric |
Brent | |||
| 11,400 | 17,400 | 12,400 | |||
| FIRST-ORDER | SECOND-ORDER | COVER ZERO | |||
| min | max | min | max | min | max |
| 1,000 | 1,400 | 7,400 | 10,400* | ||
| 400 | 1,000 | ||||
| 5,000* | 5,000 | 2,400 | |||
Then we add a dollar to the minimum wagers, and subtract a dollar from the maximum wagers.
What actually happened
| Natasha | Eric | Brent | |||
| 11,400 | 17,400 | 12,400 | |||
| 6,500 | 7,401 | 12,389 | |||
| 4,900 | 9,999 | 24,789 | |||
| min | max | min | max | min | max |
| 1,001 | 1,399 | 7,401 | 12,400 | ||
| 401 | 999 | ||||
| 11,400 | 4,999 | 2,399 | |||
This was a really hard clue. Congrats to Brent for figuring it out! Our Streak of Futility soldiers on.
The Final Jeopardy! clue
| SPORTS NICKNAMES |
| COLLECTIVE NICKNAME FOR THE GROUP WHO “FORMED THE CREST OF THE SOUTH BEND CYCLONE” |
[spoiler]Who were the Four Horsemen? (Notre Dame football’s backfield in 1924)[/spoiler]
[php snippet=53]
The lyrics of the Carpenters’ song DO say, “. . . always get me down.” I’m not ashamed to admit that I knew that without having to look it up. 🙂 So no reversal was warranted on that particular response.
I see that now – I must have had the cadence confused with another song. (Now I’m going to have that phantom melody stuck in my head for far too long!)
Personally, as Carpenters tunes go, I think “Top of the World” is much more of an earworm . . .
This is the point where I need to stop thinking about this, lest I get sucked into another Carpenters wormhole 🙂
Tonight’s FW was an easy get for people of a certain age, like me, and impossible for people who are substantially younger. The Four Horsemen were the backfield players on the 1924 Notre Dame team (kudos for getting that far) that was coached by Knute Rockne. Now I’m not old enough to have been around then but there was a famous movie about Rockne that featured TFH prominently. It came out in 1940 (still too far back). But it would play regularly on TV in my youth and that’s where I learned about them. When TV went “all color” the movie fell out of the rotation and soon only sports or old movie buffs learned of them. BTW, the other seven players on the team, the linemen, acquired the nickname “The Seven Mules”.
Yep! I knew who they were, I just didn’t figure out that’s what the writers wanted to hear 🙂
I too was confused by the clue. But I got to Notre Dame, as you did. From there, it was the only thing that made sense. “Cyclone” pointed me toward the football team rather than say the school as a whole. The “formed the crest” part led me to conclude they were not going for the whole team. And I could see the backfield fitting, barely.
I’m sure the quote was supposed to make the connection. At my leisure I did a web search. It turns out it was from a piece by Grantland Rice, a big deal sports writer way back in the day (1920’s). I am certainly not familiar with him or the quotation. It appeared in the October 18, 1924 New York Herald Tribune.
There must be a truly die hard old time sports fan on the writing staff to come up with this clue. It definitely falls into the “don’t beat yourself up if you miss it” category.
Remember when analyzing Stratton’s Dilemma games to distinguish between the four types as I once sent an e-mail to you about. This game is an example of “Type C” in which Natasha can cover a zero, but not a maximum “small” bet, of Brent without falling below Eric’s MSBIW.
From second’s perspective, here’s what I think would be the types from most to least inclined to go “small”:
Type B (with the strongest mind games against third who goes in above the leader’s MSBIW but can’t cover second’s zero bet and stay above the leader if wrong)
Type C (mind games vs. third weaker but still present as shown in this game)
Types A and D (in the former third is forced to go “big” without going in above MSBIW, and in the latter third can cover a “small” wager from second and stay above MSBIW – in both cases second going “small” is essentially betting on both of your opponents missing FJ!)
From third’s perspective, like second’s Types A and D are the simplest. In the former going “small” is not an option (unless you want a gray grade from TFW), while in the latter there is really no justification in going “big” unless the contestant suspects there might be mind games from the leader (unlikely in a close game as Keith has previously pointed out). In Type B it depends on what you think second will do and your estimated FJ! probability. In Type C going “small” is probably generally better unless the FJ! category is a favorite of yours or you think second is very likely going to go with a “small” bet.
You’re right, of course. I almost bet nothing, and I should have, but I was trying to be brave and locked in the other. Why, indeed! And I will definitely be back to look at this tomorrow…see what you make of Tuesday’s show’s betting, which is very interesting. I would have been more upset if it would have ultimately made a big difference — kudos to Brent! The worst was that I didn’t even give a reasonable answer — I knew South Bend was Notre Dame, but I knew I didn’t know the right answer. I can’t explain it clearly now, but I saw south and was thinking midwest and jumped to south side Chicago. I was thinking Leroy Brown, and it’s lucky didn’t write that.
Thanks for coming by, Natasha! I know it’s hard (and scary) to stand pat in third, hoping the other players miss and wager big. I know it’s also hard to keep your wits about you the shortest 30 seconds on television.
You played two great games – you know what they say about the randomness of the board on any given day. Looking forward to tonight’s game.
Keith