The many games of Jeopardy

January 14, 2020. Double Jeopardy Daily Double:
What is Chad?

Jeopardy is incredibly instructive. It has come up a number of times on the blog. The best summary is the June 2021 NPR Planet Money podcast.

First, Jeopardy is not a trivia game. Jeopardy is a television show. It’s a game within a game within a game within the game of life. Life is a game in the sense that there are rules (hard like physics, soft like psychology), consequences, and randomness.

Penn Jillette notes the gaminess. ‘Winning’ a game like Jeopardy or The Apprentice, wrote Penn, meant being interesting not being champion. His victory is selling tickets to the Penn & Teller theater show, not to make the best beans.

Like all games, the game maker can change the rules. Jeopardy is a pretty clean operation, but games like Survivor change the rules all the time. Governments change rules like “interest rates” or “bailout”. Regulators change rules too, maybe that’s their chief job?

Until 2003, Jeopardy contestants could only win five times. Then the rules changed and Ken Jennings showed up to win seventy-four games. Jennings has a very particular set of skills. Jeopardy was one of the few American shows Jennings watched growing up in South Korea and Singapore. But it wasn’t the clue collection, it was the cadence.

Jeopardy really isn’t a trivia game so much as (per the NPR episode) “a really crappy computer game.” Just as Jeopardy is a game within a game, there are three games within the game of Jeopardy too.

Before addressing the three games, it’s helpful to remind ourselves about the skill and luck spectrum. The “success equation” is to disentangle what games within games are skill based and which are luck based. Skill based games, wrote Michael Mauboussin, are games where some set of actions consistently returns some set of results. Another way to find skill based games is to ask: can you lose on purpose? Most games are a mix.

The outcome of this arrangement, says Mauboussin, is the “paradox of skill”. As each game within a game optimizes, the impact of luck grows.
Kawhi Shot

Jeopardy’s Three Games.

Jeopardy is a series of sequential games. If a contestant wins one, they get to try at the next, then the third, until the process resets. The first game is the buzzer.

Buzzer. “A crappy computer game”. There are a lot of ways to practice the buzzer, the most common among fans is the toilet paper roll holder.

During IBM’s Watson appearance some fans thought that the computer was too fast, though the engineers note the accommodations. Humans, wrote David Gondek, have the ability to anticipate when the buzzer window will open.

Like a basketball free-throw is preceded by a foul, winning the buzzer is precedes a chance to answer.

Trivia. Jeopardy screens contestants via a written test, then (a randomly selected) audition. Everyone that’s on Jeopardy is already good at trivia and getting much better is difficult. Not only that, Jeopardy as a sampling issue: it’s only full of people who really want to be there and do well.

The potential contestants (by now) know that not all trivia is important. The United States (capitals, geography) and its history (presidents) are important. Literature and Science are important. Professional wrestling and heavy metal are unimportant. Jeopardy’s trivia topics are wide but not deep, except for a few areas.

This used to be a data problem. Besides watching each night, how might a potential contestant figure out what mattered? Since 2004 there is a J-Archive, a fan curated collection of all things Jeopardy. Thanks to the internet, this part of the game within a game has shimmied from the luck end of the spectrum to the skill portion.

Though luck still matters. James Holzhauer only knew Sadie Lou was a nickname for Sarah Lawrence College because he and his wife considered ‘Sarah’ as a baby name.

Game-theory-optimal.
In the season before James Holzhauer, the top ten Daily Double bets ranged from seven to fifteen thousand dollars. Holzhauer raised that to eleven to twenty-five. Holzhauer nearly doubled the Daily Double bets.

It’s not just the betting. Daily Doubles are tactical. If a player finds one early in the round, they won’t have enough to bet to make it ‘a true Daily Double’. Bet too little of a big stack and it lets the other players ‘stay in the game’. Bet too much of a big stack too late and a lead will evaporate.

It was gambling that let Holzhauer to reframe the Daily Double. Think of a coin flip. What is the price and payout someone would play? A dollar to win a dollar is kinda boring.

Or not? At our house we play this dice game called Left, Center, Right. At the start, each player has three chips and they roll three dice, one for each chip. If the dice say left or right, a player must pass a chip left or right. Center and the player adds a chip to the pot. A player can also roll a dot and they keep that chip. It’s a fun game, especially for the younger-non-gaming-gamers. But there’s no skill. The “successes equation” of LCR is: have fun.

The bet a dollar to win a dollar coin toss is meh. What about bet a dollar to win two? That is interesting. That’s how Holzhauer saw Daily Doubles. It cost a dollar to win a dollar but rather than the payout being skewed the odds were.

Jeopardy seems simple. It’s fun to feel smart, that’s part of the big game too, and play along at home. Like poker’s appeal maybe there’s more to it. What is, a richness of thinking?

Timestamps in the episode:
A jarring style, First 20 years, Trivia’s paradox of skill, Finding Daily Doubles, J-Archives, Betting Daily Doubles.

Cuban Missile Crisis (58 years)

It’s about halfway through the Cuban Missile Crisis anniversary and if you want to dip in, Dan Carlin did a great podcast about the event.  I enjoy listening this time of year to ‘feel it’. Media transports us through time and space but to listen on anniversaries or read in places adds a something.

Three ideas:

1/ It’s no wonder game theory thinking came from this era. John von Neumann worked on the Manhattan project and later advocated for mutually assured destruction. My prior is more Oppenheimer less Neumann, but as Carlin reminds us, life is complicated:

“What if the US had gone the full force Robert Oppenheimer ban-this-stuff route? What would the Soviets and Joseph Stalin had done? To a man they (the Russian advisors) say it would have been seen as weakness and Stalin would push forward with his weapons program.”

Like the prisoner dilemma, if one player will choose with certainty it reduces the opportunities for the other.

2/ As we covered, Eisenhower liked to argue well. That can be difficult for leaders to model. One technique according to Marc Andreessen, is for those in charge to challenge each other.

Eisenhower gives the Atoms for Peace speech but before playing a clip Carlin confesses, “nothing can be trusted from this era, nothing. The presidents, from Truman to Eisenhower all have two faces to them and I don’t know which one is real.”

Or, it’s hard to have ‘Yes’ men if no one knows what you’re thinking.

3/ That Atoms for Peace speech only comes about because of career capital. Eisenhower succeeds Truman, born in 1884, the year the steam turbine was invented. Carlin suggests we imagine Truman as a grandfather calling his grandchildren asking how to turn the damn devices off.

Eisenhower is elected, gives the speech and coins military industrial complex eight years later. Carlin adds, “I can’t imagine our leaders today giving a speech like (Atoms for Peace). In 1953 he laid the whole situation out.”

If you’ve a long solo fall drive, fall walk, or evening outside take a listen. There’s many more parallel ideas like between humanitarian intervention (related: With the Old Breed) and herd immunity. It’s also a prompt for thinking about hot and cold communication (it took half a day for Kennedy’s letters to make it to Krushchev as well as alternative histories.