Posted on 02/02/2014 10:52:21 AM PST by 1rudeboy
Meet Arthur Chu, Jeopardy's latest and greatest star, who has used Jeopardy game theory to become nightly must-see TV. But his unorthodox methods — though correct by the numbers — have made him a polarizing figure in the Jeopardy community.
Arthur first appeared on the show on Tuesday, and has gone on a nice run of three straight wins. Thus far, he's been quick and confident with his answers and has a good brain on his shoulders. But the story is firmly on how he's playing, as his game theory strategies have made for a frustrating television experience for viewers. Those methods have Philly.com calling him a "hero," Mental Floss breaking down the source of his success, and Bar Stool anointing him a "mad genius." Of course, others haven't taken his strategies so kindly, with a mix of real and faux outrage directed at Arthur (guilty!).
Can’t stand Arthur or how he plays the game. #jeopardy — Tombo (@twd3pdx) January 31, 2014
Who is this dude that ruins the organization of the #Jeopardy board by hunting down the Daily Doubles? You give me a headache — Bree kulis (@KulBree) January 31, 2014
So what's the controversy all about?
It's Arthur's in-game strategy of searching for the Daily Double that has made him such a target. Typically, contestants choose a single category and progressively move from the lowest amount up to the highest, giving viewers an easy-to-understand escalation of difficulty. But Arthur has his sights solely set on finding those hidden Daily Doubles, which are usually located on the three highest-paying rungs in the categories (the category itself is random). That means, rather than building up in difficulty, he begins at the most difficult questions. Once the two most difficult questions have been taken off the board in one column, he quickly jumps to another category. It's a grating experience for the viewer, who isn't given enough to time to get in a rhythm or fully comprehend the new subject area. And it makes for ugly, scattered boards, like above.
However, Wednesday's game showed the benefits of that strategy. Arthur's searching was rewarded with all three of the game's Daily Doubles. Arthur was particularly fond of the "true" Daily Double, wagering all his money the first time (he lost it all) but quickly recovering with a massive wager later on another Daily Double. While most contestants are hesitant to go all-or-nothing, Arthur is happily taking those calculated risks.
One Daily Double, in which he wagered just $5, was particularly strange. Arthur's searching landed him a Daily Double in a sports category, a topic he knew nothing about. (Ever the joker, he tweeted he'd rather have sex with his wife than learn about sports). Most contestants will avoid their topics of weakness, but not Arthur. Instead, he wagered just $5 on the sports question, effectively making its specifics irrelevant. Trebek and the audience giggled, and when the question came, Arthur immediately blurted out "I dont know." But that wasn't a waste of a Daily Double, as he kept that question out of the hands of the other contestants. Winning in Jeopardy just means beating the other two, and this strategy made that possible.
Some of the dislike for Arthur is a matter of personal style. Arthur is an incessant buzzer-clicker, who emphatically presses his answering button like there's no tomorrow. Given that he knows almost every answer, he's perpetually smacking on that buzzer in public view. It's pretty annoying, as the Vine to the right shows.
He also plays a furiously quick pace, often bowling over Alex Trebek's words to get to the next question. This is also a matter of strategy—the more questions he can get to before the time runs out, the more money he can win—but it isn't the most endearing style of play.
Due to Arthur's newfangled shenanigans, Wednesday's Jeopardy ended in a rare tie. In Final Jeopardy, the leading contestant typically wagers $1 more than double of the 2nd place contestant. If both answer correctly, then the person in the lead wins by that extra buck. But Arthur did not add the $1, wagering enough so that if he and Carolyn both answered correctly, they would tie. And that's exactly what happened, as both moved on to the next round. He made the same move on Tuesday, as well, though he was the only contestant to answer correctly. "Interesting wager," host Alex Trebek condescended, after the tie.
While it seems strange, it's actually the correct move to make, says The Final Wager blog, the brainchild of former Jeopardy winner Keith Williams that breaks down the proper mathematical wagering. Basically, the whole point of the game is to move on to the next round. Whether or not someone joins you is largely irrelevant. In addition, there's a certain mind-game tactic that can make the trailing contestant bet an irrational number. While the numbers stand behind these ideas, Tuesday's tie-targeting move was the first to do so all season, Williams said. "It's really cool to see this happen," he said. In fact, Arthur admitted to Williams that he got the idea from his videos.
It's only been three episodes, of course, so it's too early to declare Arthur the next Ken Jennings, who won 74 (!) straight games in 2004. But in terms of influence on the game, Arthur looks like a trendsetter of things to come. Hopefully that has more to do with his game theory than with his aggressive button-pressing.
There was another group that would come into the bar and insist on turning off the music, or whatever sport was on the tube (that we were wagering on, but I digress), and watch Jeopardy.
The boys and I would shake our heads at what inevitably would happen--winners playing to lose, and losers playing to lose.
Long story short, if this guy has figured it out (and I suspect he has), the conventional way of "playing" Jeopardy is over.
And yes, I'm a nerd. And I have no money.
ping
As long as it is within the rules, everything is in play.
Good for him in applying new scientific strategies to the game — it certainly has been fun and interesting.
As for the Jeopardy-followers who say “you are giving me a headache” — GET A LIFE! IT IS JUST A SHOW — ONE YOU ARE NOT COMPETING IN! (/Shatner)
I never watch jeopardy but I did recently and saw this guy. I didn’t quite get what he was doing. But it was fun to watch.
Ken Jennings also searched for the daily doubles, losing an early double is outweighed by advantage of winning early double, forces the other two opponents to play “catch-up” and take chances...
Looks like he did the math. lol
And that's my point! If a bunch of drunks (myself included) could figure out that the "conventional" method of playing was screwed-up, then why didn't it happen earlier?
And yes it happens all the time. Witness how no one used middle-relievers in the MLB until one manager figured it out (was it Sparky Anderson?) . . . next thing you know every team has a squad of middle relievers.
I watch the show maybe three times a year, but I did wonder why in a category that someone has knowledge of, why they didn’t immediately go for the big amounts, instead of going with the small amounts first.
Daily Double hunting is more common in the Tournament of Champions. Those contestants are all proven winners on the show, and they need to be more aggressive to beat other winners.
Even back then there were contests who didn't go systematical down a column but would be all over the board looking for the DD.
In college (in the ‘80s), we had a team Jeopardy! tournament based on dorm room. We actually employed part of his strategy. There was no buzzer for the round end, so there was no reason to rush with answers, but I personally suggested that we find our best category and start at the top to build up an early lead. It worked great. Often we played girls’ teams. I remember one round where we were paired against a sharp group of ladies, but we got first category pick. It went something like this.
Our team: We’ll take guns and Ammo for $500, Matt.
MC: This WWII German munitions manufacturer . . .
Out team: Ding! Who is Krups?
MC: Correct!
(Girls’ team looks flummoxed, sonn rings in on $300 question getting it wrong).
We did work from top to bottom, rather than hunting Daily Doubles. If we were up against a girls’ team we would purposely pick categories that they were less likely to know, as well as things we were familiar with. So, even if we knew Ebglish Lit, we would pick Sports or Comic Book Heroes instead.
Related topic, in honor of Super Bowl Sunday:
The Cost to Punting, The Sports Economist, January 12, 2013.re: "generally accepted practice."
oops . . . January 13, 2012
I often express frustration at the way some women play Jeopardy. They can be knowledgeable in a certain category but are risk averse and don’t do the double or risk a sizable amount.
I’ve been watching this guy. His strategy is fun to watch, but in the end, you still have to be able to answer the questions....er, answer the clues in the form of a question.
/johnny
I remember the Art Fleming years.
I was having babies then and used to fold diapers while watching Jeopardy and the little ones napped.
.
Ummmmmmm .....
| Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 | Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,004 | |||
|
||||
| Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!! | ||||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.