Arthur Chu Is Playing Jeopardy the Right Way | Hacker News Reader

Arthur Chu Is Playing Jeopardy the Right Way

slate.com

97 pointsjerryhuang10034 comments

I think Ken nails the real issue when he mentions this isn't the first "Daily Double hunter" the show has seen. Realistically, excluding Chuck Forrest, who was bouncing around the board to keep his opponents off-balance as opposed to hunting for daily doubles, it's been going on for a few years now from more than a few players. So why is Arthur Chu getting the attention now?

I'd hope it's for the fact that he has a bit of a grating buzzer practice (I'm surprised he isn't anchoring his hand against the lectern to reduce any windup and help with precision) and that he was flippant with some Daily Doubles early on (the $5 sports "I don't know" caught me off-guard), but I have a feeling it's more sinister than that.

Basically he is playing the game optimally. Problem is, optimally playing this game isn't really that interesting.

Must be interesting since everyone is talking about it..?

Interesting for the audience I mean. There is a fighting style in fighting games called turtling which is an extremely defensive position that waits for other player to make mistake and capitalize on it. It's a very good strategy but really dull one to watch.

>optimally playing this game isn't really that interesting

Disagreed completely. Doesn't become uninteresting to me. Of course I watch it to see how many questions I know and shout the answers out at the TV. ;)

If they didn't want people to play the game that way, then they can change the damn rules.

He is just the first daily double hunter in the days of the angry internets. This is mostly a crazy media story. For once, I applaud Slate for running a thoughtful piece by Ken Jennings.

Within the past year I saw someone who was DD hunting; Trebek commented on it as well. The player did well, and I expected that more players would pick up on this approach. I think while this guy was winning his opponents also started doing it, but once he was beaten I did not see this again until Chu.

So there has been at least one other person doing this in angry Internet days yet this kind of deliberate playing still seems rare.

I'm surprised more contestants don't use more strategy. It seems foolish.

It seems obvious that if you want a Daily Double don't pick the first row. Yet so few players ump right to the higher valued questions.

I caught a bit of an NPR show which had some interview snippets from Arthur Chu. He's clearly thought this out.

In particular was the realization that making decisions under pressure would be sub-optimal, so he worked out in advance what to do under various circumstances (tight game or big lead, early/late in the game, etc) and sticks to the plan.

There are some plausible reasons to delay, at least a little, especially if you think (as is likely with a challenger) you may need a little time to acclimate to the game's buzz-in rhythm and get the gist of categories. Also, the daily-doubles are worth more later: when you've got more to wager, and know more about relative standings.

In addition to the reasons you've stated, an additional one is that there are fewer questions for your opponents to use to reach over half of your total. Hitting the two daily doubles with most of the board left in play in round two means you'll still likely need to outplay your opponents on the buzzer that round.

Also if you manage to find the daily double in the jeopardy round too early, you can only wager up to $1000.

I haven't run the numbers, but I think I would prefer that vs my opponents finding the daily double later in the game.

> Also, the daily-doubles are worth more later: when you've got more to wager, and know more about relative standings.

You can always wager the max value for the round for any daily double, even if you have no money. Plus answering the highest value questions early boosts your standings faster, so searching for them right off is generally win/win.

It is plausible that picking the first row can be optimal to understand an unclear category's "style." Since not all categories are obviously understood (double entendres, etc.) I could see an optimal strategy being to go first row followed by fourth row in categories that are non-obvious.

If he picks the first row, it also allows his opponents to understand the category. By going after the Daily Doubles, he is insuring that his opponents do not get them.

Here's the NPR interview: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/02/04/jeopardy-arthur-chu

Here's the "sphincter clenching" Roger Craig double daily double referenced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRwK8SyVeJE

The video was embedded right below it in the article as well

I don't really watch Jeopardy, but after reading about how this guy plays, and knowing that there are local Jeopardy clubs in pretty much every High School in America acting as feeders into the show, I'm surprised more strategy hasn't come to play until Arthur.

I hope more players do it, it would make the game more competitive and multidimensional, you have to have knowledge and strategy.

You say "I'm surprised more strategy hasn't come to play until Arthur."

This might have something to do with the selection of players by the show organisers. If your goal as a show organiser is to get as many spectators as possible, there are proven player profiles to optimise for...

And having a ringer like Chu from time to time gets you more press. So I would not be surprised if the occasional strategic player is intentionally selected.

During Ken Jenning's $2 million Jeopardy! run the ratings for the show increased dramatically.

> local Jeopardy clubs in pretty much every High School in America

Are there? There's quiz bowl (also known by a number of other names), but while that is also an answering-questions contest with buzzers, the format has little in common, and none of the strategy mentioned here applies there.

It reminds of the tension for professional athletes between playing simply to win and playing to put on a good show for the audience.

Of course, athletes have a more direct commercial relationship with their fans, so have a greater degree of responsibility to entertain them.

For a jeopardy contestant who plays once, it seems reasonable that they play in whatever fashion they determine gives them they best chance of winning.

But for a jeopardy contestant who wins consistently and plays a large number of shows, do they accrue any responsibility to be the equivalent of "a good sport" and put on a show for the fans -- who are, indirectly, paying for their continued winnings?

I appreciate Arthur Chu's strategy and applaud him for his rational approach to the game. But, as a regular watcher, I definitely enjoy the game less when he's playing, because I find it harder to follow along with the questions. I don't necessarily think this is a Bad Thing, but I think it's worth exploring.

It's all about incentives. A professional athletes popularity directly translates (mostly) to them getting to play more, play longer, and make more money. On Jeopardy, if you lose you're off. The buzzer and the board don't care if anyone likes you or not. Obviously in some extreme circumstance they could kick someone off the show for spouting racial slurs or assaulting another player or something. And injury haunts pro athletes no matter how well liked. None of that changes the fact that in jeopardy there's no incentive for showmanship or PR.

Really interesting stuff. In researching more, the data culled and analyzed by a former Jeopardy winner blew my mind as well:

http://gawker.com/5860275/how-a-geek-cracked-the-jeopardy-co...

Reminds me of Michael Larson who memorized the Press Your Luck board when he realized it wasn't random! He won $110,237 in 1984 ($247,165.36 in 2003 dollars)

He then went on to get in trouble with the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Larson

I attended a talk by Gerald Tesauro, from the IBM Watson team. Watson is the computer that beat the human champions at jeopardy. A significant portion of Watson's success was attributable to Watson's superior strategy. Hunting for the Daily Doubles, mentioned in this article, is one of the strategies I remember. I was amazed at the time that human players weren't doing this already. On reflection I've spent a long time studying decision making problems and comparatively less time cramming on general knowledge. I might have a good idea on strategy but I'd probably get pwned on Jeopardy.

mind sharing those insights? I'm far more interested in the general strategy than just cramming for the questions.

I'm surprised to learn that the daily doubles arn't fully random.

In the article, Ken Jennings references some of those stats and associated articles on them. [1]

> For example, they’re much more likely to be in the fourth row of clues (36 percent of the time, in recent years) than the second row (just 10 percent).

He also states that this was a factor in his defeat:

> I was converted to Daily Double hunting during my 2011 match against the IBM supercomputer Watson. During a practice round, Watson took the clues in order, like a good citizen; I won the game in a runaway. But during the televised match, Watson’s minders switched it into “game mode,” which of course involved smart strategies like hunting for Daily Doubles. This time, Watson roared into a huge lead.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/02/ill_ta...

Watson also (in my mind obviously from watching) had a faster way to ring in.

Of course it then had to be able to answer the question, but it was going up against players that would also get most of them.

"Playing Jeopardy the Right Way"

Well, he's winning. so he's obviously playing it the right way. The wrong way would be losing.

As Ken points out Daily Double searching is not new, and Chu is no innovator.

I only watch Jeopardy to see this guy using game theory and his awesome $5 daily double wagers. I don't think he is back on until end of Feb

Reply on news.ycombinator.com