extremely tickled that the native new yorker from portland lost because he blanked on two questions directly related to england
1 Like
I never watch when ken talks to the contestants. Was that dude not British?
he sounds like someone who grew up in england and maybe went to college in new york and lived there for a few years and maybe recently moved to portland. but ānative new yorkerā isnāt how anyone would describe that so idk wtf this guyās deal was.
Iām still like two weeks behind but I LOVE JAKE fuck the haters
2 Likes
Loving the change of pace champ. Two solo gets from 2nd and then 3rd so not sticking around.
Rubber brick time
17,600
8,800
Leader bets 0
Second bets 8,700
3 Likes
According to posts on the jboard, fully 1/3 of the time, 2nd does not go all-in.
That likely changes the $0 vs $1 math.
Feels like the word game stuff is more prevalent (and terrible) than itās ever been.
2 Likes
There was a question a few days ago about Friday Night Lights that I got instantaneously just from knowing itās a pet favorite of one of the writers. Iāve never seen the show and know absolutely nothing about it.
1 Like
Betting $1 makes no sense to me. That leader could have bet $7,599 to guarantee lock on third. Sometimes 2nd will make a dumb wager that beats you but if you think thatās likely you shouldnāt be betting at all. Poster in that thread just completely glazes over the $EV of it assuming that a slightly higher chance of winning magically works out to more money somehow. That fake example leaves somewhere between $10k and $20k on the table that could be wagered which is a significant amount of money to make up.
GTO is $1. Somewhere up thread and here and on the Jboard especially:
when you factor in that RR becomes 100% win and RR is something like a 3/2 favorite over WR (which becomes a 100% loss).
So you gain more win equity than you lose because first is a favorite to answer correctly (on average the person in first is ābetterā).
Make sense?
Itās like going for two down 1 and your two point conversion success is over 50%. Kicking the EP gets you a little less than 50% because XP success is more like 96%-ish.
It doesnāt make sense for exactly the reason I posted. Youāre narrowly focused on the odds of winning the game and not the $EV. Imagine this scenario heading into FJ:
1st: $20,000
2nd: $10,000
3rd: DNQ
Are you telling me that youād only bet $1 here from 1st place? I need to see some work on the $EV before Iām convinced.
1 Like
What is a better bet? 9999?
I think this has been discussed to death in the 22 thread, but the reason for the $1 bet is there are a surprising number of people in 2nd in that spot who would be some seemingly random number between $1 and $1 less than their total going into FJ. $1 bet gives you the best chance to win all of those times.
I think that is how the argument goes. I might be remembering it wrong.
1/3 of the time 2nd doesnāt bet it all.
Also winning in and of itself has an extra EV probably on the order of $10k minimum.
I think the largest bet is best in the scenario I gave but Iāll have to write it up in a complete post. I canāt find a single internet post where anyone has actually done the math despite a bunch of people claiming to have solved this.
Interested to see this complete post, but remember that this isnāt a 100% math problem for reasons that Melkerson mentioned a few posts ago.
Iām definitely on team $1 is better than $9,999, especially youāre weak in the category. And if itās some dogshit category for me like āThe Bibleā or āThe Tony Awardsā, Iām definitely betting $0 in that spot.
Letās put a little math to the equity for winning
Assume average win is $18,000
Assume champ has a 40% win equity the next day
So 7200 the first day
Plus another 2880 for the next win
Plus 1152, 460ā¦
Letās call it 12,000. We add on the 1,500 for day we lose (average of 2nd/3rd).
One can argue the 0.4 factor goes up if we prove to be a multi day champ (well above average winner)
So we can call it 13,500. Cant just look at todays EV in a vacuum.
Plus their is non cash value lifetime for being a champ. Plus the upside of a potentially few day run.
Itās not a poker hand. Play to win the game. Think of it more like a tournament hand- your ālifeā is way more important than getting max value out of any one hand.
Iām obviously talking about the total $EV including future game winnings, not just the current game. You derived an approximate value for future games but then stopped and didnāt finish the calculation. We need to compare the total value of each strategy.
Itās nothing like a poker tournament though because the āchipsā donāt change value. Every dollar you wager can potentially be cashed out 1:1 for an equivalent dollar. The exception would be any Jeopardy format with fixed prizes not based on game score such as the tournaments.
What if youāre strong in the category? Suspend disbelief for a moment and suppose youāre 100% to answer correctly in the category. In that case, youād clearly bet every single dollar you had, right? If I do a game theory analysis and compute the regions, thatās going to be in there by default and itās certainly gonna say bet every single dollar you have. Now letās start rolling it back to 99%, 95%, 90%, and so on. At what point are you preferring to bet $1 over betting everything except $1?