
Jeopardy's controversial new champion is using game theory to win big - pyduan
http://www.businessinsider.com/jeopardys-controversial-new-champion-is-using-game-theory-to-win-big-2014-2
======
gdahl
Here is a better article with an interesting interview from Arthur Chu:
[http://mentalfloss.com/article/54853/our-interview-
jeopardy-...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/54853/our-interview-jeopardy-
champion-arthur-chu)

~~~
syllogism
Yes! This is exactly what I was hoping for in the comments. I found the
article intriguing but could see that there was a lot more to say.

Having read the interview, what I really take away from this is a rationality
success story. Chu kept a simple focus on what he was trying to achieve, and
worked to maximise his chances.

------
scarmig
Of course, the real game theoretic outcome has to include the incentives of
the rule maker.

This strategy generates controversy, which generates viewers, which generates
revenue. But once the novelty has worn off, there's nothing prevention g the
rulemakers from instituting a formal rule to replace what was once a cultural
norm.

~~~
pyduan
Well I would say that as far as Chu is concerned, any long term consequences
his actions may have on the game are likely to be mere externalities to him
since these will probably not happen until he's already extracted the value he
wanted out of the game.

You could also argue that the additional publicity he's enjoying thanks to his
unusual strategy (eg. this article) far outweigh the costs of any such
potential negative externality.

------
AznHisoka
Game theory? It's all a moot point unless you actually know most of the
answers which it seems he does. Game theory is just a tactic to give him that
extra edge.

~~~
josephagoss
It's not a moot point, assuming he knows as much as his opponent this
technique is giving him an advantage. (Which is what makes him and his
technique interesting.)

What surprises me is apparently he is the first person to play the game like
this.

------
xatnys
Forcing a tie is an interesting approach, but daily double hunting is not new
to the game at all. If you observe the way the contestants play, it becomes
obvious who is playing with a strategy and who is just running down the
categories. As for the ties, there's nothing wrong with it (honestly it's a
good play), I only feel bad for those contestants who end up waiting longer as
the queue becomes staggered.

------
saraid216
There's a difference between maximizing entertainment (which is how Jeopardy!
is designed) and maximizing victory (which is how Arthur Chu is playing). In
well-balanced games designed for competition, this is a non-issue. This does
not describe Jeopardy! (or virtually any other game show).

------
mikeleeorg
I've always wondered why contestants don't go looking for the Daily Doubles
first. It always seemed like a good strategy.

And now that his strategy has been publicized, it's only a matter of time for
other contestants to try the same thing.

------
simple1
Having all players move on when there is a tie has always baffled me. If any
three contestants ever agreed to always lose down to the lowest score in final
Jeopardy, they could all win forever until the rules changed.

~~~
maxerickson
I imagine the agreement between the studio and contestant includes big
loopholes giving the studio discretion to do whatever they want.

------
fsk
Offering a tie in Final Jeopardy wagering is a good idea. If you beat the
opponent already, why not play him again instead of a random new opponent who
might be better?

------
RK
I don't know that much about Jeopardy strategy, but it sounds like he's
following Ken Jennings' suggestions.

------
ilaksh
But can he beat Watson?

