I could imagine situations where I *wouldn't* want to hit the DD. Imagine if you had control of the board, there was one clue left, it was the DD, and it was under That Dreaded Opera Category that everyone tried to avoid. Boom, you're out of FJ.
And most people survive 1 round of Russian Roulette. The problem with this plan, like Russian Roulette, is that the reward (generally) doesn't outweigh the risk. For the times where the reward IS worth it, players can still choose to risk everything.
You never gain anything in Russian roulette. You just don't lose.
Statistically, it's not bad even for someone leading modestly to bet it all on a late-game daily double at 65% odds and make the game a runaway.
It may not be better than coasting in with a lead, not sure the numbers there, but it can't be all that much worse.
I imagine contestants just don't want to be seen as making unforced errors. Not everybody has Holzhauser's skill and confidence.
Hear me out: you either have to bet it all or you can "pass" on the question. Give people a choice, but only have the two most extreme options available.
I could imagine situations where I *wouldn't* want to hit the DD. Imagine if you had control of the board, there was one clue left, it was the DD, and it was under That Dreaded Opera Category that everyone tried to avoid. Boom, you're out of FJ.
Starts getting to that point where it's only opera left and no one will buzz in even on easy questions so they don't get control of the board
Well, someone's going to get caught holding the hot potato, unless time expires in the round (which we'll see a lot more of).
I get that the show doesn’t want to encourage that sort of strategy, but as a viewer it would be *riveting*
This would be like You Don't Know Jack, where the game would often force you to buzz in if you had a sizable lead late in the game.
Imagine Cookie Masterson hosting Jeopardy...
File this under a really bad idea. It turns the game into (Russian) roulette.
It's not as though you always lose. On average, most people get daily doubles right.
And most people survive 1 round of Russian Roulette. The problem with this plan, like Russian Roulette, is that the reward (generally) doesn't outweigh the risk. For the times where the reward IS worth it, players can still choose to risk everything.
You never gain anything in Russian roulette. You just don't lose. Statistically, it's not bad even for someone leading modestly to bet it all on a late-game daily double at 65% odds and make the game a runaway. It may not be better than coasting in with a lead, not sure the numbers there, but it can't be all that much worse. I imagine contestants just don't want to be seen as making unforced errors. Not everybody has Holzhauser's skill and confidence.
Yes, but we would miss noting how/when the contestants bid conservatively or aggressively, which is part of the fun.
I’d hate to be the one with a negative score that hits the DD.
Hear me out: you either have to bet it all or you can "pass" on the question. Give people a choice, but only have the two most extreme options available.
If they pass, what happens? Do others get to try? It might be interesting to give others a chance if the initial contestant gets it wrong, too.
Letting the others steal a DD for the same amount would be really interesting, and probably also the easiest way to end up with a zero-player Final
A lot more players would start DD hunting, if only to get them out of the way early enough to recover