How I would fix the Jeopardy tiebreaker

[Joe Hass]

The tiebreaker in its current form is designed to be a skills exhibition of who can hit the button fastest. I know it's edited to show only the winning tiebreaker, but it seems the clues are from the top row of the board.

Instead of a single tiebreaker clue, there should be a tiebreaker round.

Three clues: Subject A for $200. Subject B for $300. Subject C for $400. Whomever was the last to have control at the end of Double Jeopardy gets control of the board (if the contestant who last had it isn't in the tiebreaker, go back to the last one of the contestants to have it. In the extremely unlikely event of three triple-stumpers, repeat.

I know I'll never get my real dream back of losers keeping the cash (or even a portion of it). But this would at least give you an truer winner.

Joe Hass

[JW]

> Instead of a single tiebreaker clue, there should be a tiebreaker round.

As you know, time is an issue here, and they want to declare a winner as quickly as possible.

I've always been OK with the idea of ties. Since the producers aren't, they're looking for something just slightly less arbitrary than a coin flip.

[Mark Jeffries]

Merv never seemed to worry if there was a tie, since "Jeopardy!" and "Wheel" had co-champions for significant portions of their run.  When "Wheel" started the bonus round, they went to a tiebreaker of the people tied playing another puzzle similar to the speedup round, with the first to solve declared the winner.  It's been a while since the last tie, but I suspect today they would do a tossup as the tiebreaker.

Mark Jeffries
spotl...@gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKSNnOFEUpK3gS2Pd0Zc%3Di-%2Br2zUgWQhqhxvX7TNcm%2BLe6N4Sw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Diner]

And here's why they added the tiebreaker:

https://www.theringer.com/tv/2021/1/23/22245900/jeopardy-tiebreaker-scenario-rules-changes

[Paul Murray]

Yes, I was going to say that ties only became a problem when some people deliberately sought to achieve them. 

Somebody proposed a simpler solution: Allow ties, but make the contestants split the earnings (i.e., half of their winnings). It seems like that would help kill the appeal of a deliberate tie.

I hate the tiebreaker, at least in its current form.

[David Bruggeman]

There's a possible angle to this issue that didn't come up in the article.  Collusion.

I know that the contestants are kept separated from the host, but how about from each other?

A recent episode of a podcast I listen to had a guest who'd been on Wheel of Fortune.  She mentioned that a lot of the prep before taping was on ways to cheat.  The contestant wranglers specifically mentioned making sure people didn't agree to play a certain way and split the winnings later.

Since, according to the article, the J! tiebreaker was prompted in part by 2 ties on shows taped the same day, I wouldn't be surprised if someone thought of the possibility.  I really wouldn't be surprised if it was a lawyer who thought about it.

David

[Ben Scripps]

On my first episode, I finished the DJ! round with $9,400; Megan was in the lead with $18,800.  My correct response in FJ! put us into a tie, and if she hadn't wagered anything, we would have gone to a tiebreak.  I'm forever grateful we didn't, 'cause she owned me on the button all day.

Looking at my contestant agreement, it doesn't appear to specifically exclude collusion between players, though there is an "I am aware that it is a Federal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment for anyone to rig the outcome of the Program with the intent to deceive the viewing public" and an "I shall not share, or make any agreement or promise to share, any prize or any portion of any prize with any other contestant".  It feels like even a mildly-competent lawyer could get his client off collusion charges if that was the crux of the show's case, but there's also plenty of opportunity throughout to allow the show to withhold prize money if you do something they feel is wrong.

Contestants who have yet to tape sit together in the first few rows of the audience section stage left.  I can't really speak to what it's like during the shows; I was on the first episode we taped that day, so I never got the experience of sitting in the audience and being nervous.  (Having lost on the Wednesday show, I also never got the experience of lunch in the Sony commissary.)  There's some down time in the green room while everyone takes turns in the makeup chair and going over which stories go on the card for Alex, but you're still within earshot of the contestant coordinators.  The only real opportunity to set something up would be in the van on the way to the studio--the 2-1/2 mile trip from the hotel to the studio in the rain took, rather remarkably, about 20 minutes--but at that point, you don't know anyone, and if you're gonna collude with someone, you're gonna need to trust them.  (And trust that none of the the four or five other people in the van who overheard your plotting will tattle to the contestant coordinators.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/645742991.426105.1612038484511%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Dave Sikula]

I won the Wednesday and lost the Thursday, so I had the commissary experience. I don't know if it was just my group, but no one really wanted to talk to anyone else; not the night before, on the bus, in the greenroom, or in the audience (though there was a little bit of "Dammit, why couldn't I get this board?"). There was some small talk and chatter, but people were pretty nervous and tense (I know my own reaction was "Well, I'm finally here; I damn well better produce"). Even at lunch, people didn't say a lot (maybe one or two congratulated me, since I'd just won).

That night, I tried to get everyone together for a drink in the hotel bar, but no one responded. As I say, I don't know if it was just my group, or if that's a typical reaction, but while I didn't make any enemies (I don't think so, anyway), I sure didn't make any lifelong friends.

--Dave Sikula

[Tom Wolper]

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:34 PM 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV <tvor...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

There's a possible angle to this issue that didn't come up in the article.  Collusion.

I know that the contestants are kept separated from the host, but how about from each other?

A recent episode of a podcast I listen to had a guest who'd been on Wheel of Fortune.  She mentioned that a lot of the prep before taping was on ways to cheat.  The contestant wranglers specifically mentioned making sure people didn't agree to play a certain way and split the winnings later.

Since, according to the article, the J! tiebreaker was prompted in part by 2 ties on shows taped the same day, I wouldn't be surprised if someone thought of the possibility.  I really wouldn't be surprised if it was a lawyer who thought about it.

If the producers assume collusion is happening, without a real accusation including evidence against real contestants, then the solution is to keep contestants apart, not change the rules of the game. I think the tiebreaker is a deterrent to making wagers in Final Jeopardy that result in a tie. Going into FJ where the game is competitive first place bets double second place's amount plus one dollar. But (without a tiebreaker) there's no incentive to add that extra dollar. First place banks winnings and comes back. The tiebreaker keeps this from happening.

[Brad Beam]

From: tvor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Wolper

>If the producers assume collusion is happening, without a real accusation including evidence against real contestants, then the solution is to keep contestants apart, not change the rules of the game. I think the tiebreaker is a deterrent to making wagers in Final Jeopardy that result in a tie. Going into FJ where the game is competitive first place bets double second place's amount plus one dollar. But (without a tiebreaker) there's no incentive to add that extra dollar. First place banks winnings and comes back. The tiebreaker keeps this from happening.

 

IIRC the story of the one non-zero three-way tie in history, the person in the lead expected his tied opponents to wager everything, so he took it upon himself to wager enough to match… if everybody answered correctly.

 

_   _

|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV

|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

 

[Dave Sikula]

That was pretty much my strategy: double the second-place player’s total, then bet enough that, even had I been wrong, I still would have won. Had I known that both the other players would get FJ wrong, I would have bet more.

On my second game, since I was in third place going into Final, so my only hope was to bet it all and hope the others got the answer wrong and bet enough to lose. Both of them bet enough that it would have worked, but the leader got it wrong (finishing third) and the woman in second-place got it right and ended up winning.

—Dave Sikula 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tvornottv/NlskNrx584Q/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/006701d6f804%24b2dc7bc0%2418957340%24%40suddenlink.net.

[JW]

I just want to say how nice it is that we have people hear who can relate their own experiences.

[Paul Murray]

To be clear, nothing I've read ever suggested that there was any collusion between players. It was just the leader deliberately making a Final bet that would allow the person in second to catch up if he/she bet everything.

I still don't like the entire game outcome resting on one button/reaction time question, though.

[Dave Sikula]

I agree on that, though doing another round of Final would probably lead to the same result over and over.

—Dave Sikula

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 1, 2021, at 6:16 AM, Paul Murray <pmur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

To be clear, nothing I've read ever suggested that there was any collusion between players. It was just the leader deliberately making a Final bet that would allow the person in second to catch up if he/she bet everything.

I still don't like the entire game outcome resting on one button/reaction time question, though.

On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 5:21:52 AM UTC-5 JW wrote:

I just want to say how nice it is that we have people hear who can relate their own experiences.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tvornottv/NlskNrx584Q/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/3ec18d96-2360-49d6-bdc0-8e782259a8b6n%40googlegroups.com.