<p><a href=“Ken Jennings on Jeopardy champion Arthur Chu and Daily Double hunting.”>http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/ken_jennings_on_jeopardy_champion_arthur_chu_and_daily_double_hunting.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I understand the “Chu-mosity”. Maybe someone can explain?</p>
<p>He’s very serious, with almost no inflection. He knows the answers immediately – no hesitation. And, it has been suggested, his Asian heritage has made him a target.</p>
<p>He is a awesome contestant. Absolutely amazing.</p>
<p>I don’t get the anger and criticism either. When I watched Chu, he simply appeared very focused. He usually went for higher value questions first, which is a good strategy if you’re confident in your ability to answer. He seems to be playing to win, which is the point isn’t it? There’s a lot of money at stake. I don’t recall any rudeness or inappropriate behavior. He might have answered a bit too quickly a time or two, but lots of other contestants have done that and it may just be a sign of nerves/stress.</p>
<p>I read some negative comments about him last week and they mostly sounded like whining rather than any justifiable complaints. Unfortunately, his ethnicity may indeed be one reason for the negativity.</p>
<p>I blame it on the haircut and glasses. I have this tremendous urge to kidnap him and have him restyled.</p>
<p>I think on the second day he wagered in final jeopardy so that he would tie with another. I thought that was odd, but I don’t remember if he bet just enough so that if they all missed the question he’d be tied with her also.</p>
<p>I think people forget that other champions also did the board in certain orders, but many were in the days when the champ could only stay 5 days. The blind guy, Eddie, jumped all over the place yet also remembered which clues were left, never calling one that had been used.</p>
<p>He was in my daughter’s class at Swarthmore. Absolutely brilliant guy, Oddest duck on campus. Definitely marched to his own drummer.</p>
<p>Chu is mostly getting talked about for applying game theory to Jeopardy and always betting to tie if both players get the final question right. The reason is simple. The best you can do is advance to another day and you advance with either a win or tie. So there is zero advantage from a game standpoint to betting more than necessary to advance to the next day and by, risking less, there are some scenarios where your odds improve even if you get the question wrong. </p>
<p>Also, when he doesn’t know an answer, he immediately says he doesn’t know, loses the money, and moves on. There’s an advantage to a quick pace, hunting for daily doubles, I guess.</p>
<p>while I didn’t see it, I heard that he would hunt for the daily doubles and then bet $1 if he wasn’t comfortable with the topic, preventing his opponents for playing the daily doubles</p>
<p>I don’t get why this is getting attention. Many players hunt out the Daily Doubles. And it’s well known they appear with more frequency in the 4th row and in 2 columns - I forget which. There are websites devoted to this stuff.</p>
<p>And oddly, this guy is nicer than nearly all champions because he’s not only created one tie in Final Jeopardy but tried to create another. He gave $26,800 to another player by betting only so much that if she bet everything and got it right - and of course he got it right - they’d tie. He tried to do the same another time but the other player got the clue wrong. He understands he loses nothing by tying and he takes the opportunity to give people thousands of dollars with no cost to himself.</p>
<p>Maybe that’s the real problem: he’s nicer than other players. </p>
<p>As a former Jeopardy contestant, I don’t agree with his going for the tie. Part of a returning champion’s advantage is familiarity and comfort with the buzzer. By choosing to play against someone who also has familiarity and comfort with the buzzer, he’s negating that advantage.</p>
<p>In player orientation, we’re encouraged to take categories from top to bottom for several reasons. Often times there’s a theme or pattern in the category that makes itself known by going in order; players are more likely to be successful with the harder questions (or answers) that way. It’s also the goal of the show that each board be cleared. That’s easier to do when players aren’t jumping all over the board. </p>
<p>His game strategy is nothing new, though. There have been lots of contestants who went hunting for Daily Doubles.</p>
<p>S1, a Swarthmore alum, can’t wait for his games to resume so he can see how he did.</p>
<p>We all seem to agree that he’s doing absolutely nothing wrong. I think he’s doing everything right and is likely to be a long-term player who wins big bucks. Nothing wrong with that!!</p>
<p>I think people don’t like the defensive strategy - in particular betting token amounts on daily doubles in categories he doesn’t like. I thought it was funny and clever, but I do get why it annoys people. I’ve only seen a short youtube clip -so it might annoy me more if I watched several nights in a row. </p>
<p>I think the producers recommend moving down the categories one at a time and from top to bottom because it makes it easier on the camera operator. I don’t buy the idea that the theme becomes clearer that way–these contestants are too smart to be befuddled by the theming–and as for clearing the board, well, that’s not necessarily in the players’ interest either. If Ken Jennings, whom I adore, says Chu okay, I say he’s okay. BTW, Jennings has an entertaining blog and his Twitter feed is utterly hilarious–he’s a very clever man.</p>
<p>I also think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Chu is doing. It is completely within the rules.</p>
<p>Having said that, I think that the defensive strategy of hunting down the Daily Doubles in unfamiliar categories and then betting $1 or so makes the game less exciting. I enjoy seeing players who take risks, and would be inclined to root a little extra for them.</p>
<p>Jumping categories does give the player with control of the board a little extra advantage, because he/she knows what’s coming next just slightly before the other players do. That’s legit, though.</p>
<p>Another Swarthmore parent here and my S1 was on campus and in the same dorm one year as Arthur Chu. I asked if he knew Chu and he said that “Everybody knew Chu. He wore shorts even in cold weather.” More Swat grads looking froward to the resumption of play on the 24th. People may be peeved because he jumps around categories making it more difficult for other players and is actively searching out the DD’s so that others can’t benefit from them. Sounds like good game strategy.</p>
<p><a href=“Jeopardy ‘Mad Genius’ Arthur Chu speaks out: ‘I have nothing to apologize for’”>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeopardy-champ-arthur-chu---i-have-nothing-to-apolgoize-for--145855030.html</a>
Trebek is a great host, but if that is an issue, maybe they need to automate it somehow.</p>
<p>Regarding the low wager on a Daily Double: apparently he bet $5 in the category of sports. Clearly he was not confident about the topic, so made a low bet. If that is within the rules, I see nothing wrong with that; in fact, that is a good strategy. Not only did he not lose a lot of money, but the fact that he found the DD took the opportunity away from his opponents.</p>
<p>Another criticism that I am reading is that he interrupts Trebek when he is reading an answer. I agree that interrupting is rude in most venues, but does that apply to a game show where you are on the clock and trying to buzz in before your opponents?</p>
<p>I have not watched Jeopardy in a long time, but will be tuning in for his next appearance. I’d wager $1000 that all this buzz is helping their ratings.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>As a former Jeopardy champion I agree with this. I was willing to intentionally bet to tie in FJ only in my fifth and final game, when I wouldn’t be coming back anyway. I did not want to give up the champion’s normal advantage of being the only player out there who has played a real game before.</p>
<p>As for Mr. Chu, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. He’s not doing anything that’s against the rules, or sneaky, or that hasn’t been done before. He just plays that strategy better than most. The way for the others to defeat his defensive, bounce-around-the-board strategy is simple: they have to play better. They have to ring in first, get clues right, and take away control of the board. If they do that his strategy will be stopped on its tracks. Of course that’s much easier to say than it is to do, especially against a very talented player. </p>
<p>I was waiting for coureur to respond!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do too, and for the life of me, I don’t understand contestants who could catch up to or exceed the first place contestant but who only bet some puny amount (except as Chu has been doing in categories he doesn’t feel confident in). It makes no sense when someone could take first place with a $5,000 bet but instead they only bet $1,000. The DD gives them the chance to catch up or exceed. By betting too little, they never will. They are ensuring that they will end in second or third place.</p>
<p>He can’t interrupt Alex to answer questions because a judge presses a button when Alex is done speaking and that unlocks the buzzers. </p>
<p>There are risks with any strategy. For example, some categories have a trick to the way they’re answered and that trick is easier to get with the top, simpler clues. If you jump in near the bottom, you may know an answer but not the trick for the right answer.</p>
<p>Amazing that shellfell and coureur were contestants. Very impressive!! </p>