He knew that he could not beat the woman. He knew the woman knew she HAD to bet it all to beat him. He could bet a little and hope she missed, or he could bet it all, and risk getting blown out entirely.
He is a professional gambler, as as such, he does these types of risk assessments all the time—in seconds.
He figured the odds and knew he was probably going to lose. So why not bet for $2k instead of $1k. I know a lot of people do not think like that—but that is what he’s trained himself to do.
Clever of you, I hadn’t thought of that.
You’re exactly right. At that point he couldn’t control the outcome. He had to expect her to miss the field goal.
He knew she’s bet it all. He decided to bet the minimum needed to win to cover the outcome of her missing and the third place guy getting the right answer.
“He figured the odds and knew he was probably going to lose. So why not bet for $2k instead of $1k. I know a lot of people do not think like that—but that is what he’s trained himself to do.”
You always bet enough to be one dollar over what your opponent bets if betting everything. As an example, player one has 15,000 dollars going into final jeopardy. Player two has 10,000. The assumption by player one has to be player two will bet all 10,000. This means for player one to win, providing both have the correct answer is to bet 5,001 dollars.
He didn’t, which means either he was distracted, he decided he didn’t want to go on or was given a talk that he needs to lose tonight.
That’s correct. Though I didn’t see the show there are books on this kind of thinking. For example if on a game show you could choose from Door A, B or C knowing one of the doors had $100,000 and the others had nothing. You pick A. If they offer you the chance to pick again between B and C or keep A you are supposed to discard A and choose again. There is only a 33% chance it is behind any door - and it may be in door A. But there is only a 33% you are throwing away the winning door, while a 66% chance it is behind Door B or C. So it is better to toss your first choice and pick again. It’s all math/game theory - but of course on this TV show it has a lot to do with knowing trivia and reading people.
“He knew that he could not beat the woman. He knew the woman knew she HAD to bet it all to beat him. He could bet a little and hope she missed, or he could bet it all, and risk getting blown out entirely.”
That doesn’t make sense. The woman didnt have to bet it all to beat him, she only had to bet 20201. If she is right she wins even if he bets it all and both are correct. Holzhauer did not have a reason to assume the woman would be confident just because the question was about Shakespeare. Not all librarians are familiar with that topic. She could have bet NOTHING and still beat him given his bet was so small. His best strategy would have been to make a large wager and hope that she didn’t bet enough to beat him.