Audience Jeers Contestant Who Uses Game Theory To Win At 'Jeopardy' 412
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "USA Today reports that Arthur Chu, an insurance compliance analyst and aspiring actor, has won $102,800 in four Jeopardy! appearances using a strategy — jumping around the board instead of running categories straight down, betting odd amounts on Daily Doubles and doing a final wager to tie — that has fans calling him a 'villain' and 'smug.' 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. 'The more unpredictable you are, the more you put your opponents off-balance, the longer you can keep an initial advantage,' says Chu. 'It greatly increases your chance of winning the game if you can pull it off, and I saw no reason not to do it.' Another contra-intuitive move Chu has made is playing for a tie rather than to win in 'Final Jeopardy' because that allows you advance to the next round which is the most important thing, not the amount of money you win in one game. 'In terms of influence on the game,Arthur looks like a trendsetter of things to come,' says Eric Levenson. 'Hopefully that has more to do with his game theory than with his aggressive button-pressing.'"
He's Playing To Win (Score:5, Insightful)
He's playing to win, not necessarily to win the most money possible. He's using a strategy that prevents the other players from getting the Daily Doubles and limits their potential earnings while increasing his odds of earning enough to win.
He's not making people happy, but he's playing to win.
Re:3 Day Old News (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought it was that people were being AC instead of a real username.
Upredictable WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is he unpredictable if he's known to jump categories after knocking off the two hardest questions? Sounds like a storm in a teacup - dumbasses pissed off because the guy isn't playing how they would.
"Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess a lot of Americans hate smart people, don't they? I'd have thought it would have been far more entertaining to watch someone do something different, interesting and successful, but what do I know. I'm sure the Idiocracy version will be along any time now.
Play for the tie (Score:5, Insightful)
I've wondered for years why more players don't play for the tie instead of the win. For one thing, doesn't that mean that the person who would have been in second place but who tied instead also gets to keep their money? Seems to me like it's kind of a dick move to not play for the tie, unless you just don't like the person for some reason. For another, wouldn't it be to your advantage to take someone with you into the next game that you already know you can beat? I mean, I'd feel safer going up against Steve from Montana who I was a few thousand ahead of going into Final Jeopardy than risk facing Watson and Ken Jennings on tomorrow's show.
Re:They'll stop him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They'll stop him (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, it could actually increase ratings. People love to have something to be righteously indignant about. They'll watch him just so they can bitch about him.
Very little "game theory" here (Score:4, Insightful)
Just common sense. Don't bet big on daily doubles if you don't know the subject. Hit the big numbers first. I'm always stunned when two contestants are $4k back and they keep picking the $200 questions.
Re:"Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, it's a game show that people watch to be entertained and perhaps they don't find it as entertaining, regardless of whether or not it's a smart strategy.
Ken Jennings won 3 million dollars and something like 75 matches in a row on Jeopardy. But, he did it in an entertaining enough fashion, so people didn't bitch like this. It's not about hating on the smart guy.
Re:"Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy questions with humorous punishments for wrong answers seems like the perfect Idiocracy approach - makes you wonder why approach hasn't taken over US TV gameshows.
Liability.
Re:He's Playing To Win (Score:5, Insightful)
He still has to answer the questions correctly. So I'm not seeing the problem.
The first person who got the last question right gets to pick the next block. So even if he is selecting this block, he still has to get it right before the other players.
Game theory? (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting strategy, and makes sense. But unless I've missed something, this doesn't seem to be applying Game Theory, which is about conflict and cooperation between competitors in order to succeed. His strategy is simply a statistical approach to playing in order to create a better likelihood of success.
Re:They'll stop him (Score:3, Insightful)
What a contradiction! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing more pathetic than Slashdotters declaring "Huhr, Idiocracy!" at any given time, especially when they're the stupid fucks in the equation. "The audience peoples" are angry that he's disrupting the narrative of the game, not that he's "too smart" to play Jeopardy. Gameshows are supposed to be interesting to watch, but if he kills the tension that builds when bids get higher and questions get tougher, then the show is a complete decrescendo. He's not there to make money anymore than gladiators were there just to kill people. If Rome wanted people dead, they'd just slit their throats and let them bleed out. If Jeopardy wanted to simply award people with trivial knowledge, they'd give them a written test and hand them an envelope with a correct-response-proportionate amount of money inside.
Personally, I'm on Team Chu. He seems as good a guy as any to win a lot of money, but I'm definitely not on Team Tantrum-Throwing-Manbaby (you)
Stupid people confused (Score:5, Insightful)
by smart strategy, news at 11. We will use small words.
Re:Upredictable WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is he unpredictable if he's known to jump categories after knocking off the two hardest questions? Sounds like a storm in a teacup - dumbasses pissed off because the guy isn't playing how they would.
The phoney "controversy" is merely because he formulated and applied a strategy. The mainstream mind has been conditioned to be subconsciously yet deeply resentful of any kind of preplanned strategic thinking. In a different but related observation, simply suggesting that corporations can and will plan several moves ahead in order to maximize their profits or control of a market, or suggeting that powerful people in government will systematically abuse their sweeping powers (hello Snowden) will often cause the small-minded to emotionally respond by calling you a tinfoil-hatter.
The takeaway is that those who live their own personal lives in a haphazard, unplanned, thoughtless manner really want to believe that there is no other way to do things. It's what "protects" them from taking a hard look in the mirror and asking themselves some pertinent and overdue questions.
Re:He's Playing To Win (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not necessarily playing to win, because the rules of the game don't encourage him to do that...from his perspective, ties are as good or better than a win. If the rules were changed such that the two tying contestants would split the amount that each of them accrued, he'd most certainly play to win. But a tie means a) he keeps his whole total for himself, b) he comes back to play again and, possibly most importantly, c) he brings with him to the next game an opponent he's fairly certain he can beat. To see why the last one is important, you have to realize that there are a certain number of exceptional players that are really hard to beat (call them a "Ken Jennings"). Until each contestant plays the game, there's a certain probability that one of them will be a Ken Jennings. A typical winner will get two new contestants each game and so doubles the odds that he or she will face a Ken Jennings. Chu, by halving the number of new players he faces, also halves the odds of running into an opponent who's better than he is.
Given all the advantages of playing not to lose instead of playing to win, I'd say he's pretty smart for doing so. He's getting to keep a winner's amount each time, gets to come back to play again and limits the number of untested contestants he has to play against. Basically, he's playing to win money rather than win the game, which are close enough to the same goal that they've historically been inseparable. But he's figured out how to separate them and, in doing so, has angered people who enjoy the game more than the money.
Dumb motherfuckers (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Arthur Chu is too polite to say it but I'm not.
Gee, I'm sorry that he plays to win and in a new and smart way.
I'm sorry you are all a bunch of dumb motherfuckers.
I'm sorry that he interrupted your sorry-ass motherfucking lives.
I'm sorry that he didn't play by your imaginary rules.
I'm sorry for your sad existence where a game is all you
live for.
Why don't you go eat your microwave dinner and drink for your
miserable excuse for a life. Then cry yourself to sleep
over the universe's cruelty.
Boo-fucking-hoo!!!!
Fucking losers...
He doesn't have to know the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing one point - if you pick the higher value questions in a category without seeing the first few (to understand the types of answers that are wanted), it makes them even harder. It also means that there's a good chance that no one will want to risk buzzing in to answer. And if no one buzzes in, he gets to pick another random block.
So, that's what's happening, and a lot of the outrage is because he is 'wasting' the questions because no one can answer them out of context and it makes the game less fun for the audience and other players.
Re:"Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" (Score:5, Insightful)
One should not minimize the value of knowledge either. I'm a lot more scared of ignorant smart people than of ignorant idiots. You could argue the point that trivia isn't knowledge, but even then, some basic knowledge of culture, cinema, politics and sports make for better rounded people. Most of the cultural questions have to do with influential people and it's still worth knowing about them, if only to know how they influenced trends or some such.
Re:"Looks like we got ourselves a thinker!" (Score:2, Insightful)
Gameshows are supposed to be interesting to watch
Really? I watched an gameshow on a US network once. The format was something like this
[commercials]
Previously: [recap asking one question for 3 minutes]
Now: ask new question, guy gives new answer, guy founds out if he's right [4 minutes]
Next: [preview guy being asked more questions for 2 minutes]
[commercials]
And so on. If you trim it down you get about 15 minutes an hour of new material. That's not interesting.
The viewers are just too stupid to keep up ! (Score:5, Insightful)
He's getting booed because he's taking all the fun out of the game for the viewers
What Mr. Chu did did not take the fun out of the viewers who can keep up. On the contrary, those who could keep up with Mr. Chu's strategic moves find the whole thing very stimulating and refreshing.
It is those Joe Sixpacks who are so perplexed by the unconventional moves deployed by Mr. Chu who are doing all the booing.
Re:3 Day Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The viewers are just too stupid to keep up ! (Score:5, Insightful)
He's getting booed because he's taking all the fun out of the game for the viewers
What Mr. Chu did did not take the fun out of the viewers who can keep up. On the contrary, those who could keep up with Mr. Chu's strategic moves find the whole thing very stimulating and refreshing.
It is those Joe Sixpacks who are so perplexed by the unconventional moves deployed by Mr. Chu who are doing all the booing.
Thank you. The guy is fairly smart and seems to have a broad base of trivia knowledge. Were I to be a contestant, I'd use a similar strategy.
It's Sony/Jeopardy's goal to make money entertaining the masses. Mr. Chu's goal is to win games. Seems reasonable to me.
Re:3 Day Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no, succes is quite welcome in American culture.
It just has te be gained without any intelligence, talent or effort.
Re:He's winning b/c he gets the right answers (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the big issue. Because guess who pays his prize money? The people watching it on TV!
Jeopardy is pretty popular (so it's not a question of being "too smart"), and most viewers know the people on the show are damned smart. But one thing people love to do is try to answer the question themselves, but being more "normal", they have to take time to understand the category and the answer.
And the writers of Jeopardy often have fun - not just puns, but put a lot of effort making "fun" categories where things are totally oddball. Follow it top down and everyone gets a laugh at the end. Do it randomly and it's just a sucky experience for everyone.
It's like people who complain about movies - the movie's goal is not to entertain you, but to put asses in seats. Now, entertainment generally makes it easier to do so, hence special effects laden summer blockbusters. Jeopardy is the same - the writers have a little fun because the point is to entertain the home viewers so they return night after night to watch it.
What this guy does is probably "right" and "correct", but it makes for a boring and annoying game.
It's a case of where the "product" is at risk (viewer's eyeballs) in the eyes of the customer (advertisers) because viewers are turned off by what they see and it's not entertaining. In other words, this guy, by playing "smart", he makes the whole thing boring for everyone.
Re:3 Day Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
He's getting booed because he's taking all the fun out of the game for the viewers. It's not the freaking Olympics. It's a tv show, meant to entertain. He's not being entertaining.
The network, I'm sure, is ok with people being angry as long as they're getting angry by watching.
Re:Play for the tie (Score:2, Insightful)
I had a friend who was a 3 time winner who explained this to me. If you're the current champ and you tie you'll almost definately loose the next game. Why? Because the biggest thing tn Jepaordy is the buzzer and if someone whos first time on the buzzer can play you to a tie, the next game they'll beat you. So you're risking your winnings today at a chance to play weaker opponents in the next game. Now obviously you're risking loosing but people have apparently done analysis and going for the win generally nets you more money. Or so says my friend but he was super big into the strategy and analysis so I at least beleive he's credible.
He showed me analysis people did by trawlling http://www.j-archive.com/ and some of it was really interesting.
AC because at work.
Re:He doesn't have to know the answer (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more about disorientation than knowledge - recall is not instant. If you get people along a line of thought it helps them remember related facts. Basically, he's changing the subject constantly and not caring if he can come up with the answer quickly, because if he finds the Daily Double he gets to pause for a bit before answering it without competition.
Re:He doesn't have to know the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
It is fun for me because this is exactly how I played with my family and friends on numerous "at home" versions including computer and console software over the decades (and no, I didn't know all the answers -- it's just a good strategy). I like seeing the more intelligent player triumph and I hope this becomes how Jeopardy is played in the future -- the high-scoring brackets are desired foremost and the lower stuff is pigeon poop to be swooped up by the scavengers or stolen from their beaks. The programmers will have to change up where the Daily Doubles are located but this will not stop the trend of smarter or more confident players grabbing the higher scoring brackets sooner to keep them away from the others.