“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.
Ok. It was fixed. Happy now?
I think I said it earlier, I was explaining what he said. I don’t really care to get into it with viewers with theories. This means almost nothing to me. It’s a TV show. Go outside for a walk.
Have to disagree. In 2nd place, you have to assume that if the leader gets the answer right, they have bet enough to defeat you even if you are right and bet all you have.
So - you have to hope they get it wrong - and if they do, you want to have enough left to beat them after they lose the bet that covers double yours.
Your mistake is assuming that she would know his bet - she wouldn’t so she has to cover his max bet.
In addition, in this case, he had to be concerned about the 3rd place guy betting all he had and getting it right.
His bet was the right amount that allowed him to maximize his chances to win, or alternatively, come in 2nd