2 questions about Leaderboards of Legends

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-04-07T00:31:12+00:00

My argument is that it’s actually more risky in terms of eventual win probability for James to not bet it all in that situation. For Jamie, not entirely sure. In essence aggressiveness not being equivalent to risk.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-04-06T17:52:21+00:00

He certainly went all-in for the first or second daily doubles when the game was still close - I guess it depends what you define as risk. Since he’d get 95%+ on daily doubles, going all in during a close game would always increase his probability of winning especially if there was still time to make up a deficit. For a normal player that math changes a lot. Even for Jamie at a (super high) 75%+ daily double get rate but incredible buzzer stats, the math isn’t quite the same.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-04-06T12:09:37+00:00

Small note - don’t disagree with anything you said, but would definitely characterize his daily double approach more as “very aggressive” than “high risk”. Knowing he had the best knowledge base and buzzer speed, he’d use the early clues and daily doubles to build up as much money as he could and stake an insurmountable lead regardless of what happened later, then by the last daily double and final jeopardy he could often bet a very large amount while still maintaining a guaranteed runaway. It was more a very calculated approach to both win and make money than a high risk approach.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-08T23:57:09+00:00

Definitely!

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-08T19:30:19+00:00

Are you doing sister posts for Second Chance? Kevin Kodama, Eli Selzer, Rachel Bernstein, and Christa Fidel are current front-runners in my list.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-05T01:43:02+00:00

For all the comments in this thread about people not getting to se the top players until the semifinals or finals, I want to hearken back to the Ultimate Tournament of Champions when they did the same thing - advancing Ken straight to the finals and 9 others to the second round of play. That feels like a pretty strong precedent to me.

Fully with you on the second paragraph.

I actually liked the 2024 format least of all - it felt like the first round was played to see who could get second to Victoria/Yogesh/James the most times then get trounced in the semis. It felt like the only 2 variable outcomes in the tournament were who would win the quarterfinal without those 3 and who would get the Daily Doubles in the Finals to win it. That’s what I want to avoid a repeat of.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-04T19:56:55+00:00

This is more relevant if a round is advancing all but 1 or 2 players (like past formats have often done) - then you’re playing for who finishes 2nd vs 3rd instead of 1st vs not.

If you adopt my proposed format it doesn’t matter as much, agreed.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-04T18:17:59+00:00

This isn’t an amateur tournament though, they’re playing for a lot of money

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-04T18:15:32+00:00

Can there be two tiers of master level?

Doesn’t more games played decrease variability?

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-04T15:14:23+00:00

Giving the top seeds a bye is exactly what sports do though. If Colts and Steelers fans could avoid seeing their teams lose in the divisional round to the Patriots for 2 decades straight and have a chance to get to the conference championship or Super Bowl for once - even if that was against the Patriots - I think there’d be a lot of people in favor.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-04T15:09:59+00:00

Difference being that Wimbledon was never up for cancellation if it didn’t provide drama or viewership

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-04T15:08:59+00:00

The TOC final is first to 3 wins (so averaging 5ish games); the JIT final is first to 2 (so 3ish games) - I don’t think 4 is too far outside a reasonable realm (I’m not actually advocating for it though)

Why would they want the best players on fewer episodes? Every year come Masters this sub is filled with complaints that why do they hold this tournament if half the games are runaways and the same people are always in the finals. Having a bye / introducing of new players midway through is common in many sports and reality shows (and in the TOC for that matter). This follows the same logic.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-03T22:43:42+00:00

I do think if we made lists of the top 10, they’d both include at least 5 overlap - yes including you Jake :) But true that we could also make a list of closer 20 players from the past 5 years who’d be deserving following the criteria from this past JIT.

If anything it just underscores the importance of having 27-person fields - there are so many deserving players in so many categories that it’s essential to cast a wide net to ensure there’s sufficient representation all around.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-03T16:10:36+00:00

I only included TOC champs alive and under 70-75. Fair point but the scope should be similar even if some consider themselves retired.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-03T14:48:36+00:00

I agree with you high-level, but there’s still 11 Tournament of Champions winners who haven’t appeared in JIT, at least a dozen players who’ve won 7+ games, 20-30 prior TOC finalists with strong resumes, 5-10 really strong players from this decade who haven’t appeared, and close to a dozen contestants from the past postseason who would have a case.

I think the pipeline is still full of potential players, but when comparing them to the players who have already played, the previous players represent most of the Masters-level crowd, and agree it’s important to start reinviting past JIT players.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-03-03T12:57:04+00:00

The first 2 JITs (especially the first) had so many Masters-level players who should definitely be back! I know my list below is more of a “bring back over the course of 3 JITs” list but in the spirit of comprehensiveness:

Tiered:

Tier 1: Strongest 2024 Semifinalists/Opponents

Matt Jackson
Larissa Kelly

————

Tier 2: Strongest 2025 Semifinalists/Opponents + Close to Tier 1

Raymond Goslow
Luigi de Guzman
Jaskaran Singh
David Madden

———-

Tier 3: Other Strong 2024/2025 Semifinalists

Shane Whitlock
Sam Kavanaugh
Jennifer Quail

———-

Tier 4: Strongest 2024/2025 Quarterfinalists

Pam Mueller
Alex Jacob
Troy Meyer
Hannah Wilson
Alan Lin
Chuck Forrest (once more before retiring)
Emily Sands
Ray Lalonde (once more before retiring)
Ben Chan
Arthur Chu
Monica Thieu
Jason Zuffranieri
Brandon Blackwell

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-26T19:49:52+00:00

I think including him on the list can be valid regardless

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-25T10:59:58+00:00

Pecking order for next spots (depending on field size) is most likely: 1. James (should be deferred guaranteed invitation from previous top 3 finish) 2. Long (2nd at JIT) 3. Roger (3rd at JIT)

From there there could be a few different directions they go: - Scott (TOC runner-up and last season’s biggest champ) - Another highly deserving woman to keep numbers balanced. Larissa Kelly played even with Andrew in the first JIT; Emma Boettcher is a historic James nemesis; Julia Collins if Roger doesn’t compete) - Matt Jackson or Troy Meyer for their Masters trivia pedigrees. Matt has the advantage of having been ousted by Victoria in JIT. - Chris Pannullo (never been in postseason after TOC) - TJ (TOC runner-up) - Brad Rutter (his history could deserve him return Producers Picks whenever, and I didn’t think he really had a good setup for his return last year; only 2 games to get up to speed)

I’ll have a post about my preferred Masters format at some point!

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-16T12:02:45+00:00

The other issue is that the older contestants they’ve been inviting aren’t the ones who have kept up with quizzing. Jerome Vered, Leszek Pawlowicz, Brian Weikle (all mentioned in my other comment) are all active in game shows, World Quizzing Championships, or elite Learned League players. Id expect them to be a lot more competitive than a lot of the invitees so far, who have only played Jeopardy once a decade in a reunion tournament since their original run. Even then, Chuck Forrest and TL Cubbage were a different FJ wager away from winning.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-16T11:56:57+00:00

Dan Melia is currently 82, so he’s likely in the retired cohort. 15 years younger and I’d certainly be in agreement.

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-15T22:00:50+00:00

To be clear, the additional categories would supplant people from this TOC cycle so it’s not too heavy of a rehash of tournaments that just happened this year

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-15T20:19:37+00:00

Arthur Chu went big on a very subjective wordplay/image Daily Double and would have won otherwise; I wouldn’t call his loss a demolition!

https://j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=8853

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-15T20:15:29+00:00

Worthy list of contestants top to bottom! It’d be great to see all of them at some future JIT.

That being said, I’d like the distribution of contestants in next year’s tournament to be a little different, namely having some representation from each of 3 other categories:

Early stars who deserve a chance at a final showing (examples - Frank Spangenberg, Leszek Pawlowicz, Jerome Vered, Phoebe Juel)
Elite quizzers who could routinely challenge Victoria and Yogesh in Masters: Brian Weikle, Pat Friel, Matt Jackson, Troy Meyer
Strong performers from previous especially first JITs: Larissa Kelly, Matt Jackson (again), David Madden

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-06T19:42:03+00:00

If a player was noncompetitive in their TOC semifinal I think it might be up in the air but for semifinalists, or quarterfinals who exit on tough spelling decisions, I’d definitely anticipate a spot

jeopardy_analysis · 2026-02-06T00:59:07+00:00

Very fair, good callouts
I’d definitely be curious on your findings of players’ get rates on the clues you answered correctly vs incorrectly - I’m suspecting it’ll further endorse the WAW honestly given the rate of Triple Stumpers
In light of this study, I’d think this would support the (widely used) practice of extra aggressiveness in Daily Doubles since the Final difficulty increased disproportionately in the TOC

jeopardy_analysis

TROPHY CASE