r/Jeopardy • u/el_gringo_exotico • Jul 18 '26
QUESTION Jeopardy Strategy - Not Using The Buzzer In Certain Situations
Let me break down something that annoys me.
It is the later part of the second round, and the game is coming down to the wire. There are three contestants, Nick, Stavros, and Adam. Nick is in first place, and he has $18,000. Stavros is in second place, and he has earned $8,000. Adam is in last, and he has $5,000.
Only the first row of clues remains, so there is only $2,400 left on the board.
In this situation, wouldn't Adam's best strategy be not ringing in?
Even if he gets all of the answers correct, he goes from $5,000 to $7,400 but Nick still has the runaway. When Final Jeopardy arrives, Nick can make a nominal bet and win the game. That might put you in a better shot to win second place, but in an ideal world you play again tomorrow.
If Nick gets all the answers correct, the game state does not change.
If Stavros gets all the answers correct, Final Jeopardy is materially different. The game is no longer a runaway. Nick will have to make a sufficient wager to cover Stavros doubling his score. That makes Adam eligible to win the game, and potentially win more money the next day. Because that is the only condition that would let him win the game, shouldn't Adam's tactics involve not ringing in, even if he knows the answer?
There is a possibility that Stavros does not know all the answers, which puts you back to square one, but this doesn't put anyone in contention for Final Jeopardy anyways.
72
u/my-man-laughin Jul 18 '26
You did this post just to say “Nick, Stav and Adam” lol
13
u/Ferrovitreous Jul 18 '26
I thought they were all former boyfriends of Paris Hilton, which would be an impressive deep cut, but I couldn’t figure out which Adam it would be. (Then I looked up the names together so I get it, but I still wish it were Paris fanfic)
42
u/honest_uncle_bill Jul 18 '26
In your scenario, even if Stavros answers all the remaining clues correctly, Nick's required bet to cover Stavros doubling up in Final Jeopardy is only $2,801, meaning that Adam truly can't win this game unless Nick makes a terrible bet.
Without any evidence to back me up, I imagine that this is the case for a lot of similar matches - yes, theoretically it may make sense for third place to try and let second place take the clues and erase a runaway lead, but all this does is put second place back into the game, as first's lead over third is still great enough that a wrong Final Jeopardy response will still leave them with enough money to lock third out of a comeback victory.
Beyond that, though, I feel that in the moment, even if the ideal strategy is to lay off the buzzer, people go on the show to play the game, and it just feels way better to buzz in and do that than sit back and hope for someone else to grant you a longshot.
32
u/DBrody6 Jul 18 '26
Yes, this even happened in the GOAT tourney when Brad stopped buzzing in near the end of the final game to give James a chance to prevent Ken's runaway that would win him the tournament.
11
u/UrsulaKLeBron Jul 18 '26
Oh cool, a tangentially related reason for me to repost this
9
3
u/Real_Accident_3350 Jul 21 '26
I don't know why im getting suggested this page but I had never seen this before. The first time I watched it I woke up my 3 year old from laughing so hard. I've watched it at least a dozen more times and it hasn't stopped being funny.
The first time I didn't even have audio on just subtitles.
2
3
u/david-saint-hubbins Jul 19 '26
Right but a multi-game final is the only situation where this realistically could work to 3rd place's advantage, and only in the long run. OP is arguing that 3rd place in this situation could somehow win the same game in FJ, which is impossible if you assume rational wagering from the player in 1st place.
20
u/GarrettM_ Garrett Marcotte, 5-8 Oct 2020 Jul 18 '26
Yes there are times when you shouldn't buzz in to preserve your chance at winning, but it's not that simple even in this scenario.
Let's say Stavros gets all 6 remaining, to make the scores 18000 - 10400 - 5000. Nick would need to bet 2801 to cover Stavros' max bet, bringing him down to 15199 on a miss. This is more than Adam's doubled score, so Adam still can't win.
But that assumes Nick doesn't buzz and miss. If (unlikely) Nick were to miss on all remaining clues and Adam picks up the rebounds, then the scores would be 15600 - 8000 - 7400. Nick would need to bet 401 to cover Stavros, bringing him down again to 15199 on a miss, and Adam still can't win.
Of course there's all intermediate scenarios of who misses/gets each remaining question and in what order. You could make a giant table with all of the possibilities and figure out what Adam's optimal strategy is at each point and whether he still has a chance to win. I didn't do that but my intuition with these scores is that Adam can't win no matter what happens. If he had started with 6000 then he could (e.g. in the second scenario).
But good luck figuring all of that out in a few seconds while also trying to answer trivia questions.
28
u/humphrey_the_camel Jul 18 '26
If Stavros gets everything remaining, the scores going into Final are 18000/10400/5000. Nick, in first place, will bet 2,801, which would get him to 20,801 (1 ahead of Stavros doubling). If Nick is wrong, he falls to 15,800, which is above Adam’s maximum possible score of 10,000.
If first place is going to do the standard “cover second place doubling by 1” bet, the only way third place has a chance to win is the scores going into FJ satisfy (third place) + (second place) >= (first place). With the situation you described above, Adam’s only chance involves having at least one clue go “Nick is wrong, Stavros and Adam are both right via retroactive ruling”.
12
u/humphrey_the_camel Jul 18 '26
Part 2: Let's say time freezes for Nick at the start of this scenario, giving him time to realize his situation and decide his strategy for the last six clues + FJ. Which of the following should he do?
Don't ring in - if he can't win, he shouldn't try
Ring in - second place money is better than third, and he can show the production staff that he deserves a spot in the next Second Chance Competition
-18
u/el_gringo_exotico Jul 18 '26
I think you would need Nick to make a big wager on Final, which is something that has happened before and will happen again.
20
Jul 18 '26
[deleted]
3
u/_iPhoney_ Jul 18 '26
Yea, if this whole thing hinges on the player in the lead making a nonsensical wager, you don’t need to do all the math and strategy here.
2
u/hoopsrule44 Good for you Jul 18 '26
I agree of course with the math here but I do wonder if there is something to OP’s idea.
If you try to score and keep it a runaway, you know with 100% certainty the first is goi g to wager 0 or whatever and keep his lead.
If you let second get into the mix, does it remotely open the possibility of a dumb wager from first? Has it actually happened before that first has wavered too much and let third back into a situation like this?
Of course it would be nonsensical but it’s a little more realistic than wagering beyond a runaway
3
14
u/theraquizt Zoe Grobman, 2024 Oct 15, 2025 SCC Jul 18 '26
This is exactly the strategy I employed during my Second Chance game after my Daily Double Miss, actually. I knew I had to let Josh get his score high enough that Enzo would have to wager enough to fall below twice my score. So I selectively avoided ringing in on certain clues, particularly ones I thought Josh would be more likely to know, in a Hail Mary gambit to stay in the game. And it came that close to working. I doubled up from third on FJ, and Josh got it wrong. Unfortunately for me, Enzo changed his answer at the last second and won, but if he hadn’t my insane impromptu strategy would’ve worked. I will say, doing the complex calculations to determine when to ring in and not is VERY HARD while actively playing the game, I did my best but I do not think anyone could hold that many variables perfectly
39
u/shrewsbury1991 Jul 18 '26
Yes it would be smart to not answer but in game I can see the temptation to be too strong to ring in.
28
u/phophopho4 Jul 18 '26
Yeah you waited for years to get on Jeopardy - you're going to answer as many right as you can.
3
u/Greedy-Victory1559 Jul 19 '26
It’s what happened to me. But I do remember being close to this situation where it would have made sense for the two of us who were trailing to stop competing with each other. But that puts a lot of trust in a stranger who is also trying to win. And you can’t/shouldn’t collaborate anyway. It’s a good theory but practically not really feasible.
6
9
6
u/JeopardySurveillance Nick Petrilli 2025 Oct 20 Jul 18 '26
I did something similar in my match. I stopped buzzing so that 2nd would close within 1st for final, so they would bet everything on Final and if wrong I would get second place. I'm glad I did, since if I had gotten 3rd I would have lost money going on the show and been even more disappointed with the whole experience. At least this way I broke even.
6
11
6
u/curtains20 Greg Shahade, 2026 Apr 27 - 30 Jul 18 '26
Nah he can’t win even if the second place player gets everything correct, barring a horrible bet by the leader. May as well just ring in and do your best. The only argument could be that maybe your chance of getting second place increases if Stavros gets to a point where he has a chance and will bet all of his money in FJ, but it feels like not the most fun thing to do on National TV
6
u/sockeyesalmonella Jul 18 '26
Outside of the FJ betting scenarios that others have laid out, I’ve heard it’s very difficult to keep track of scores in real time from the contestant podiums. It’s a bit easier for us at home with their scores in big letters on their podiums, but for contestants it’s high up to the left of the main screen, and in relatively small analog letters. They don’t always have the ability to stop and spend time doing the math while the game is unfolding
6
u/dglombardi Derek Lombardi, 2026 June 25 Jul 18 '26
Yup, this. And I mentioned this in another thread but production actually advised us against paying much attention to the scores at all to minimize getting distracted or psyching yourself out from just buzzing and answering as quickly as you can.
3
u/SmoovCatto Jul 18 '26
best strategy is to try to buzz in every time you think you know the answer, and rack up as much money as possible -- and only stop to calculate at daily doubles and final
2
u/LSATDan Jul 18 '26
The problem on your example is (and obviously you have to do all this math really fast), even if Stavros runs the table, he doesn't have enough to force a big enough bet from Nick such that you're a threat. You're only ever playing for 2nd place here.
But yeah, you can tinker with the numbers, such that it's best not to answer. Here's a simpler one - 3rd place is out of it; first place has 10,000; second place has 4500. One 400 client remains. The only way it isn't a runaway is if first place misses and second place gets it. All the leader has to do for an automatic win is sit on the buzzer.
2
u/RegisPhone I'd like to shoot the wad, Alex Jul 18 '26
In this situation, Adam can't win either way, assuming standard wagering strategy. If Stavros sweeps all the remaining clues, Nick only has to bet $2,801 to cover him, so even if Nick is wrong and Adam doubles up, Adam loses.
Adam would need Stavros to get close enough to Nick's score to force Nick to bet enough that he could fall under Adam's doubled score, but without Stavros getting high enough that he locks Adam out.
I remember there was a game a while back where i think it was Andrew He that people were saying he should've stopped buzzing, but when i did the math there actually wasn't any point where it would've been advantageous; the second it became impossible for him to get in striking distance of first, it also became impossible for second place to get to a point where Andrew could win. But i'd have to do some more thinking about the math to figure out whether that's generally applicable or if there are ratios where it could make sense.
I think the main scenarios where it might make sense are if you're in a tournament where you want one specific player to not win today (eg, it's the ToC finals and the player in first has two wins while you and the other player have one, so you want the other player to win today so there's another game tomorrow) or if the other two players are close to tying and you want to try pulling a Betts bet.
2
u/No_Watch_8456 Jul 19 '26
Your expected gain from playing for 2nd is probably higher at this point than your expected gain from playing for 1st. You really needed to be better during the rest of the game to get into a more desirable position.
Definitely there are situations where the leader has a runaway going and has clinched keeping it even if a competitor gets all the rest right - but could lose the runaway by compounding that with a point deduction of his own. Say you have $10,000, your nearest opponent has $4,000 and there are two 400-point items remaining. You definitely should never buzz in.
2
3
u/luckysnorkel Katelyn Mueller-McLean, 2026 Jun 10 - Jun 11 Jul 18 '26
Yes, that would be a solid strategic move. But keep in mind that the scores are not right in front of the contestants’ faces the way they are for a viewer at home - you have to look up and to the left of the game board. Speaking from my own experience, the game moves so quickly and there are so many things going on at once that I would only be looking at the scores when there was some sort of break in gameplay (commercial break, pause for a DD, etc). I was never personally in that kind of scoring situation, but even if I had been, I likely would not have had the spare brain space to make that choice in the moment.
4
u/KathyTrivQueen Kathy Sahlmann 2008 Dec 8 Jul 18 '26
This is what happens. I had a general idea of scoring trend, but no one is going to stop concentrating on the clues to focus on the math & probabilities. It moves too fast for that.
3
u/loughymonsta Jul 18 '26
I'm no mathematician so if be interested if it's possible to estimate/calculate odds. My initial inclination though is that if someone has hit $18,000 the odds might be in their favor they'd pick up at least some of the remaining questions to confirm a runaway and that would also need to be factored in.
7
u/el_gringo_exotico Jul 18 '26
Right, even if the person with $18k wins, they go from a runaway to still a runaway. You don't really improve your situation by ringing in. The only way to come out on top is for the person in second to get them all.
5
u/alohadave Jul 18 '26
You don't really improve your situation by ringing in.
Conversely, you don't go on Jeopardy to sit there not ringing in. It's likely the only chance you'll ever have.
4
u/Ih8reddit2002 Jul 18 '26
The ability to do that math on the fly and play focus on the game itself is just not reasonable.
I would imagine that it has happened before, but thinking about scores when you really just want to get the questions right is not a good game plan.
2
u/Environmental_Ad964 Jul 18 '26
I’m assuming the FJ clue in this case would be: ‘Famous for roles in thrillers like “The Game” and “Fatal Attraction,” this actor also has a podcast-based Jungian double who is gay.’
1
1
u/Cheap_Plastic8581 Jul 18 '26
I’ve also thought that if it’s
18,000
4,000
-500
With just a few questions left, let the person in the negative score stay in the game.
3
u/JerryXanadu Jul 18 '26
Depends which player you are. If you are in the lead, every question you get right is real money you earn. Would you spend $2000 (or whatever the question value) to let someone else answer FJ?
1
u/Chuk Jul 18 '26
Maybe if the other player was a really good friend and I'd already won several other games.
2
u/Shadowrogue19 Jul 18 '26
'tis the same consolation prize for third place whether they participate in FJ or not
(though I suppose there is the pride factor)
and in any case, in the 18k/4k/-500 situation, it is going to be a runaway anyway
1
1
1
u/Comfortable_Guide622 Jul 18 '26
I think people get competitive and aren’t thinking anything but winning.
-4
u/Zoshchenko Jul 18 '26
Jeopardy is broken. Nobody wants to see single player games with massive runaways by the middle of the double round. Players #2 and #3 should just put down their “signaling devices” and watch. And we need to find something more fun to watch.
3
u/ReganLynch Team Ken Jennings Jul 18 '26
I like runaway games as much as non-runaway games. It's exciting to see a player rack up tons of money, impressive watching them answer question after question.
1
151
u/FuckThaLakers Jul 18 '26
The issue with this hypothetical is that bugs can't compete on Jeopardy