Anybody care to suggest a basic strategy for the old "Card Sharks" game show's big money game? I have a small wager out saying that you bet it all on every card except an 8, no matter where you are in the game. Bet the minimum if forced to play an 8.
Please post to let me know if you agree or disagree. Thanks!
Suppose the player is a very poor individual. Would he bet all of his wealth on each play? I guess Bill Gates should bet it all when he has the edge, given how trivial the amount of money is. The only generic strategy you can really come up with here is whether to pick hi or lo. Betting strategy is something different.
Same on the Wheel of Fortune. I am often surprised to see people solve the puzzle with only a few hundred dollars. Spinning is usually positive expectation.
Betting strategy on Jeopardy is easier to figure since you can't take the money with you unless you win. Final Jeopardy is usually pretty easy but it is amazing to see how conservative losing players bet when they are lucky enough to hit a Daily Double near the very end of the game.
Someone once worked out the proper basic strategy for The Price is Right's Showcase Showdown. They figured where the first player should stand or spin, and how far the second player should then go also. That problem is closer to our blackjack strategy.
strategies then both of you realize.Wheel of fortune example late round you are leading in total score, you may decide to solve a puzzle early to block the person next to you on this round because that person has enough money(for the current round) that if he solves the puzzle he may go ahead of you. If there was no bonus round the correct play would probably be to spin most of the time, but there is so a lot of the strategy is dependent on being the days big winner so you can go for the bigger prizes(25,000 cash,40,000 dollar vehicles etc..Card sharks betting depends on how early it is in the game, card being played, can card or future cards be changed,what cards have been used. Most people think in terms of edge and betting max but this isnt the case when the outcome of that bet has an effect on bankroll and future bets.An example 3 cards to go and 2000 dollars. and you have a 7 should you bet all higher?.What if mostly high cards hace been played and all the twos and threes remain. I would bet modestly and hope a 2 or 3 would show and then i would bet all of it.You have to think not just in terms of the current wager but how this wager could effect subsequent wagers.I think card sharks optimum wagering is probably more difficult to define than blackjack.
Card Sharks is much easier than blackjack. I will refine my argument. If you have seen fewer than 7 cards, and you want to maximize expected value, then you always bet it all on a 7 or 9.
If you are lucky enough to get cards in this order:
2(changed from an 8), 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,
then you should bet the min on final bet.
I think your EV is highest if you go for the maximum payout (with a small probability), rather than playing more conservatively for a guaranteed payout. Any other thoughts?
If I am right, then the same is true for blackjack. To *maximize EV*, always bet the most you can (allowing room to split and double). The problem here is that the probability of ruin (for blackjack)is 99+%, even though your EV is maximized. After playing a few hours, you would either lose all your money, or be very, very rich. You would probably lose all your money, but your EV would be maximized.
assuming you have the funds your max bet in positive situations in blackjack is controlled by the table limit and in card sharks your potential max bet is constantly changing DEPENDENT on what happened on previous wagers. A marginal max wager may be responsible for not allowing a much larger max wager on extremely positive or even no lose wagers(Ace or two) later in the game.
Also coinciding with DD's advice for Bill Gates, you bet the max in each round to maximize EV. (I'm talking about the end of the show, when they have the pyramid of cards.)
However, if you want to kelly bet, then it's not such an easy problem, and Steve is correct; you need to consider that your current outcome affects what you will be able to wager in the next round.
Lefty
.. it's almost embarassing watching these. Some of these are more subtle, but I am convinced on thenm, and will someday run sims to test them ;)
WHEEL OF FORTUNE:
You need a gigantic amount of money on the line to warrant not spinning in general once you know the solution. About the only time this should change is in the last puzzle before the "final spin thing", where being safe and taking money to give you a secure lead increases your chances greatly of winning the bonus prize.
On the last puzzle, if you have a sizable lead, and the dollar amount is suitably low, on your turns, ONLY pick vowels. You want the puzzle to be solved as quickly as possible. If the guy in third scoops a couple grand that the guy in second doesn't get, you still go to the bonus round. They added $1000 to the last spin value to stop the guy in the lead from cruising in - the parable of the modern game show is "Only the last round should matter" and it's pretty revolting, quite frankly..
In the early puzzles, if there is at least X letters in the puzzle (with X to be determined exactly ;), then I'm convinced that if you are to go first, it's a high +EV play to throw away your turn without revealing anything - odds are very high you will get a second chance at it. So pick a Z, a Q, a Theta, whatever you want. In other words, at a certain point, I'm convinced the guy who goes third has the best shot at winning, so if you have to go first.. then you toss your turn away to go third.
Finally, if I were on there, I would ask for every letter with the standard ".. as in .." commentary, but all the words I would use would sound like other letters:
"I'd like a 'C', as in 'cue'" (pron. "Q")
"I'd like an 'E', as in 'eye'" (pron. "I")
"I'd like an 'A', as in 'are'" (pron. "R")
and so forth. Or, go with all silent letters, preferably in big words no one will understand:
"I'd like a 'C' as in 'ctenoid'" (pron. "ten-oid" or "teen-oid")
"I'd like a 'P' as in 'pterodactyl'"
JEOPARDY:
Like you pointed out, a late Daily Double is a huge find. If you are slightly in the lead, I'm convinced it's correct to wager it all unless you are certain you know nothing about the category. The reasoning is simple: Get this one question right, you win the game. Or, bet nothing and go to Final Jeopardy, where not only do you STILL have to get one question right, now the other guys have to also answer it wrong. Like in Wong's tourney strategy: Two guys to beat, bet big. One guy to beat, bet small.
.. and when I'm on Jeopardy, I'm going to give every response in the form of a rhetorical question. Hey, they're still questions, right?
"How about potassium?"
"Would you believe, Aldous Huxley?"
"It wouldn't be Switzerland, would it?"
or simple vocal inflection at the end ("Xerography?")
HOLLYWOOD SQUARES:
The first player has an enormous advantage: they get to go first. However, most people look at it as tic-tac-toe. Really, it's a race to see who gets 5 "points" (You get a point for getting a question right or your opponent getting them wrong) with the "tic-tac-toe" as a special victory condition that either player has an equal chance of achieving - the EV of tic-tac-toe with optimum play is 0.
Which is why, the player who goes first, should *NEVER*, *EVER*, *EVER*, play for the center square first. If they get it wrong, and their opponent gets the next one right, they will have a double threat on their third turn, giving them a strong advantage. If you play the center square and get it right, you CANNOT force through a double threat.
However, if you play on the side edge first, you can still force a tie if you get it right, and if you get it wrong and your opponent gets the next one right, they CANNOT force through a double threat. Therefore, playing in the center for your first play has dire consequences if you get it wrong but does not significantly improve your chances if you get it right. The first player should be happy to take all the "tic tac toe" out of the game and be content to enjoy their enormous advantage in the "race for 5" way of winning.
Stick THAT up Whoopie Goldberg's pipe and smoke it.
M.
does anyone know the strategy for card changing in the final pyramid round. A comment on poor play about 2 weeks ago i saw someone wager half of it on an ACE since the way the show is now another ACE would be a push i think it qualifies himm as one of the stupidest game show contestants ever.
The current game show which weighs the final round so heavily and doesnt require reaching 300 pts. creates an unusual but possible situatin. Team A wins first 3 rounds and has a total of say (290 pts- the number has to be close to 300 or this scenario doesnt work.)Final round has 4 answers on this day. Team A rings first gets # 1 answer for a total of 210 pts. Correct strategy in my opinion is to play and intentionally answer wrong dont build bank. You can only lose if the other team answers right and has enough pts to overtake your 290. This a specific scenario however similiar rare scenarios would also make the play and strike out strategy the optimum play.Family Feud the game is flawed in one major way- how things are grouped in terms of the survey. The people who total the surveys and group answers(ie is banana worth 5 and apple 2 cherry 1-or is that fruits=8). The judging is very subjective. I think Family Feud is the weakest game show in terms of fairness and legitamcacy; however im addicted to watching the surveys and playing along at home . I just wish they made some improvements.
I have witnessed this on one occasion, so unless my eyes deceive me, or I remember it wrong, then that strategy just won't work because the winner of the last round just wins.
But with only one strike in the last round (WTF?!), if you win the toss up, for the love of god, pass. In a little over a dozen times I've seen it, not once has the team that wins the tossup ran the gauntlet, and the other team stole almost all the time.
You're right, of course, the present day Family Feud is a grave offense to it's predecessors. Plus, Louie Anderson is just too repugnant to be cozying up to those girlies. From what my parents told me, Richard Dawson was fairly studly looking for his time (I'll never understand 70s fashion, so I take their word for it) and at least Ray Combs had the "cute midget" factor working in his favor. But if I were a woman and ol' Louie kootchied up to me, I'd lay him out like a cement foundation.
But really, and I'm dead serious, the modern game show does NOT want the person in the lead to have anything more than a trivial edge going into the turning point. Back when hosts would say "It's anyone's game", they said it because it wasn't "anyone's game" each and every frickin' time.
Please see my "Here's my other beef with game shows:" post which I am now adding.
M.
Do you guys remember the first celebrity "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" They used standard caliber questions, and those ingrates at the Red Cross wrote angry letters of complaint to ABC saying that the questions were too hard? Not like you're getting a free bag of money out of this, pardon me for not making it an even bigger bag.
Maybe you see where this is going:
The modern "Celebrity Edition" of game shows are so insulting to the intelligence, I cannot watch them. I accidentally watched an issue of Celebrity Jeopardy after the above fiasco, and the questions were so ridiculously easy compared to the regular dosage, there was none of the drama or excitement to make it worth while.
Do you guys remember when celebrities that appeared on game shows had to be SMART, particularily on shows where the celebrity functioned as the player's partner, as in $25k Pyramid, Password etc. Now, god forbid, let's not hunt down smart celebrities, let's get dumb ones and water down the game to their level. That way, charities won't write us angry letter because we're only donating a large amount of money, instead of a giant amount.
M.
I saw a player make a dumb wager(dont remember if he won however)about 2 months back. Dont remember the exact numbers but ill create the same situation with similiar numbers. Player A- 500 player B 7000 Player C 10,000. The player with 7000 dollars gets double jeopardy on the final category(last question).He bets 4000 dollars i believe to go ahead this is obviously the wrong wager. Discounting the notion of some crazy hedge scheme to ensure not finishing last while still going for the win(even then 4000 is the wrong wager). There are only 2 wager choices here. Choice 1- 0 dollars and wait for the final round because the category is too tough or the whole thing because if you go for the tie or a small lead and are wrong you will lose in final jeapardy anyway so you should bet it all.
Ive witnessed families win final round and not have enough pts. Im a FEUD junkie i know.
I don't think the guy appreciates that he will be mathematically eliminated if he gets it wrong. Maybe the 3rd prize is complete ass but he really likes the 2nd prize?
A bet between $0 and $1999 is acceptable, depending on his certainty in the category. As far as effecting his chances of winning at this point, it makes no difference, and it would only serve to buffer his prize should he win.
A crazy hedge scheme is not that crazy, but you're right, the wager should be $4,999 - giving him a lock for second if he loses and putting him in the lead if he wins, maximizing his $ return.
If he bets $7,000 and wins, he's just as likely to win in Final Jeopardy as if he bets $4,999 and wins. I would imagine the 2nd place prize is a fair bit better, but discounting that, a choice between betting $4,999 or $7,000 should depend strictly on his confidence in the subject material - is it worth adding $2,001 to his victory prize in return for locking up 3rd place.
Or, wager $6,499, putting him at $501 and still giving him the necessary leverage over the 3rd place guy in FJ should he lose..
Not quite as cut and dried, but yeah, how often do contestants make any kind of optimal wager? Never.
M.
If A-A was a loss, you would still bet your Kelly factor, it would just be a little less than 100% (you would have 48-3 odds [16-1] so you bet 16/17 of your bankroll)
Question about higher order strategies in Card Sharks (I believe the proper term is "meta-game strategies"...):
Your card is a 5. Would it ever be correct to select "under"
If you were to select "over", with a slight advantage, and be wrong, your opponent would then have a sizable advantage (the card would be between 2-4) whereas if you were right, you would have the sizable edge. If you are wrong, your opponent may or may not have a sizable edge (The average card that would result from your choice being incorrect in this case would be almost 8 and a half).
Obviously, if there's only one more square to go, you take "over" 5 and cross your fingers.
If there's two squares, the odds of you winning by running the last 2 have got to be high enough that you would give it a shot.
However, if there's all 6 other cards, then if you were wrong, it almost certainly wouldn't cost you, and you would almost certainly get the play back if they got any kind of average "over" card.
Curious...
M.
If you are Kelly betting, it's complicated. You need to figure out how you'd bet each card before knowing whether you should switch it. It's actually related to the idea of risk averse indices in a way.
To max ev, you would, roughly, switch any card that's in the "middle half" of the deck. Assuming Ace counts as a "1", you should switch 5,6,7,8,9. The 4 and 10 are close calls. That is where counting could help: if you have already had a lot of "good" cards appear (ace, 2, Q, K), then don't switch. Otherwise, switch. I didn't do a close analysis of this case.
Lefty
One other problem isn't that the players see it as tic-tac-toe, but that their tic-tac-toe strategy is wrong! The proper first play is a corner spot in tic-tac-toe, not the center square.
Cheers,
sargon
