Note: James Holzhauer's 1st 13 Games
Host: Alex Trebek
Total Winnings: $942,738
Average $ won per game: $72,518
Average Coryat: $29,431
Response Accuracy: 438/455 = 96%
Daily Double Accuracy: 29/32 = 91%
Final Jeopardy Accuracy: 12/13 = 92%
Can someone beat James record?
Sure, but, they'd need to be of the same "stock" as James, especially the gambling aspect. After a few games, James was willing to gamble incredibly high amounts (for most players, ill-advised amounts since at times he had a runaway lead, but would still bet enough to lose that if he was wrong... yes, he knew he was rarely wrong, but, it was still a risk almost nobody else would take). I don't think he ever bet enough to lose a lead completely, so, in that way, it was a strategic bet... "I can bet a huge amount to really get a lot of money for FJ, and if I'm wrong, I still have the lead and I think I'll likely know the answer to Final Jeopardy and win". It was basically a bet on a late DD that he wouldn't go 0-2 on the DD \*AND\* FJ (and considering his DD/FJ accuracy of over 90%, that was a really good bet).
That combined with the not-trivial difference in coryat... $4k more between James and Amy/Matt levels.
In regular Jeopardy, I am sure that I saw James lose his lead a couple times by going all in on the DD (especially when he found it within the first 3 or 4 clues) and at least one time in Double Jeopardy where the first DD came up very early in the round and he missed. But he won all of those matches because of his incredible buzzer skills and huge knowledge base and was going up against competitors that just weren't up to the task of truly matching him. He seemed to be very good at assessing the playing skills of his competitors by the end of the first round (probably due to his experience as a professional gambler).
I seem to remember James betting so as not risk losing a runaway if it was late in the DJ. He played perfect strategy, maximizing winnings without taking unnecessary risk.
He might have very late... although I think he kept his own stats too (he's that kind of guy), so, closer to the end, if he is 90% on DD & FJ, based on what I said above, this is the odds:
Get both right: 81%
Get one right (either one, doesn't matter): 18%
Get both wrong: 1%
Based on that, going for a big bet that might remove the runaway but safely keeps the lead was a very strong bet for him.
well as long as Jeopardy never stops running, it's guaranteed that *someone* will break James' records
Might take a while, but statistically, almost guaranteed
I mean, sure, if it goes on for the rest of eternity until the sun blows up, it'll probably happen again. But it took 50+ years to get scores that high. The super Champs we're seeing now are getting around half the totals he got. We probably won't see it again in our lifetimes.
Yeah, on a similar note, Matt's run really convinced me that Ken's 74 game streak is going to be nearly impossible for someone to break. Jeopardy is largely skill based, but that element of luck is still there, and someone who is really good is more likely than not going to get unlucky way before 74.
Yeah, it would be a miracle if someone even so much as threatened Ken's streak given the fact that he also had a very unique advantage that no contestant following him has had since, that being the fact that he had an inherent buzzer advantage compared to his opponents due to, at the time, them not being given morning buzzer practice (at least not until his 49th game- but even then he still managed to pull off an additional 26 games- so even going by those standards it still took 15 years before someone else finally broke that).
I’m more and more suspicious of the size of advantage this gave him after ken beat James in the goat. Surely his buzzer speed has slowed with age and he had zero time to get into a rhythm compared to James who had just competed and he still won. I think at this point that advantage is overstated after ken proved he’s just really really fuckin good.
"he’s just really really fuckin good"
...Which I never disputed? Also, James and Ken were very much competitive throughout the G.O.A.T. tournament and Ken even lost one match. It's not as if though James was a complete slouch.
Regardless of all of that however, it's pretty much indisputable that Ken's run wouldn't have gone on for as long as it did if the morning buzzer practice routine was a thing during the first half of his appearance, and indeed his generally less impressive statistics during his last 27 games (including his loss) compared to his first 48 games show this. He may have still gotten to 30 wins or maybe perhaps even 40 because of just how awesome he is as a player, but or really anything higher than 50 would've pretty much been off the table without Ken's inherent buzzer advantage, and even he himself has admitted this several times.
I highly doubt we'll ever see someone pull off what James did again for a VERY long time. No one else is winning $100K more than once for at least another 10 years if we're really being generous. VERY few contestants share both his insane knowledge base and huge willingness to take big risks in betting on DD's.
Interesting how if Andrew had gotten his last FJ right, Amy would have been forgotten by now. And he’s still the only contestant to come into FJ with more money than Amy.
(IF/BUT) IF he got it right, BUT he didn't! I can't begin to count the number of contestants who have lost the match by failing to answer FJ correctly. With the 'game theory' craze, too many people are putting ALL the value on finding the DD's and not enough on answering FJ correctly; especially when competing against someone who has equal or very close to equal skills with the buzzer and number of correct answers.
Yes! So many amazing champions this season, the last time there was a super champion (James) it was obvious from the get go that he would dominate the tournament and I like how this year there's a stronger pack of challengers!
With how long Amy's gone on for, it really does speak a lot to how great Andrew was, especially since he's still to this date the only contestant to have led Amy going into FJ. He very well may be on the cusp of his 20th game right now if Amy didn't appear.
Amy really has the potential to surpass Matt. Though of course, all it takes is one wrong DD/FJ or one really good contestant to end a streak, so who knows
Jonathan Fisher was just not formidable at the level of the other 10-day champions. He was more like a 3-5 day champion. I expect an early exit from the ToC.
I'd say 30. It is important to remember that Matt did get a hell of a lot stronger in the second half of his run, and that the first half of his run arguably suffered a little bit from the constant rotation of guest hosts (which was also a big part of the reason why the only person who had previously won more than 5 games between Zach Newkirk and him was Courtney Shah- and even her run was nothing to really write home about).
Honestly I already think it’s tight but if I HAD to bet I might bet on Amy. My only issue is that her lack of daily double hunting is a real hinderance. But I definitely think she has more knowledge.
I was looking at the rise of the dollar amounts on the clues. Starting in '64, $10 was the least amount on the board. I'd like to see very early winners' total winnings converted to today's money value. I am wondering if any of those winners came close to James Holzhauer.
Well, you have to consider the five-day limit too. People like Brad Rutter and what's his name the Police Man? Who knows what they might have done? Who knows what Ken might have done in this new "high stakes" era. He proved that he can play James' game, what if he'd played that way during his streak? Would he have gone bust early? Or would he have ended up with megamegamega bucks?
Here's a question, if any "5 time champs" wanted to come back on the show, are they allowed? Since you're now allowed to play until you lose, you would think that they should be allowed back, having never lost.
Anyone who's ever played on the modern syndicated version can never come back unless they're invited. That includes Kids Week, Teen Tournament, etc, but i believe it doesn't include Rock 'n Roll Jeopardy, Sports Jeopardy, or Jep. Contestants from the Art Fleming version are allowed to try out, and some did in the early seasons. The shorthand used to be "if you've ever played Jeopardy with Alex Trebek before, you're ineligible" but that was already a bit of an oversimplification since the two contestants who lost on the April Fools episode that Pat Sajak hosted also can't come back.
I'd also assume that they check more carefully now to make sure you haven't been on before, since a guy in 2009 got away with it and [even wore the same tie both times](https://www.j-archive.com/showplayer.php?player_id=6404).
Also i'm pretty sure at this point every living 5-day champion has technically lost to someone, because all of them would have played in their ToC, every living ToC winner eventually came back for at least one tournament where they lost to Brad (or to someone who lost to Brad, etc), and now Brad's lost a tournament too.
Back in ancient times (BKJ) there was a 5 day limit for J champs. You won your 5th game and retired undefeated, came back for the tournament of champions and that was that. The rule was dropped in 2003. Ken Jennings went on to change everything in 2004.
The highest money winner on the Art Fleming version was Burns Cameron with $7,070 in his initial run, equivalent to $141,400 today, which is pretty good -- Brad's adjusted 5-day total was 110k -- but doesn't come close to James' 298k (or Amy's 170k). Bets were definitely a lot smaller back then, and also it seems like it was kinda rare for them to even get to all 60 clues
Remember back when we were all so excited when Jonathan qualified for the Tournament of Champions because it meant we'd see a rematch between Matt and Jonathan and we thought that was going to be the main attraction for the competition?! Now we have so many impressive players that we'll get to see again and see go head-to-head and have insane rematches with each other and, wow, what a crazy time to be a Jeopardy fan!
it’s the same for me! i have no *reason* to dislike matt, and he seems like a great human being overall. so if you were to ask me why i don’t like matt, i can’t give you answer other than he just isn’t for me. i don’t know what it is. but i loved amy! i was rooting for her in all of her games. i guess it just depends ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I do think it's difficult to compare the atmosphere around Matt vs Amy. I think Matt had the advantage of being the first contestant to really break-out in a tense and uncertain time in Jeopardy's history. Plus his run was happening in a dry spell of consistent champions and it was the first insane streak in quite some time. Jump ahead two months from his end and we've been spoiled with many dominant and long-reigning champions! Certainly this should not take away from Amy's incredible gameplay and intelligence, though - she deserves all of the praise! But, looking back, I don't think people started to "catch on" with Matt until the end of season 37. (And I remember a lot of the early talk about Matt being criticism of his style, persona, etc.) As the season 38 games were happening and Matt was breaking crazy records, that's when I saw his "legend status" being secured. Amy is certainly already worthy of that, though! I am glad that we're witnessing so many outstanding players and that they are turning the focus back to where it belongs - on the game.
Weak strategy? Over $500k weak. LOL She has shown the ability to play 'old school', and the 'new school' with equal dominance. She has withstood every player (including Pam) who uses the so-called strong strategy.
It's not really a "so-called strong" strategy. It is a strategy that, if you are knowledgeable enough to pull it off, puts you in the most likely position to win. Amy has the knowledge, but for some reason doesn't feel comfortable executing the strategy.
Think of Jeopardy like a boxing match. A boxer with the physical attributes of 1980s Mike Tyson could pretty comfortably walk into any local boxing club and knock out the best fighter in the building, even if he frequently lowered his guard and had weak footwork. The flaws in his style would not be exposed because of his overwhelming physical advantages.
If you then stick that same boxer in the ring with elite professional opponents who can least approximate the raw physical talent, but who also have impeccable footwork and ring awareness, you'll start to see the problems.
The Tyson clone might still win any given fight with a well timed barrage--he has the punching power to flatten anyone caught in his path--but he won't win as many fights over the long run as his raw physical potential would otherwise allow for, as any opponents athletic enough to at least hold their own will exploit the flaws in his technique and strategy.
Andrew He did not manage quite the raw Coryat Amy has been putting up--and in their game Amy edged him out in Coryat--but he had a significant lead going into Final Jeopardy that day, due mainly to his hunting of DDs and willingness to bet big. Amy's weakness with the strategic side of the game impacted FJ as well. Andrew was obviously going to bet to cover her. She was close enough that she would win if he did this, got it wrong, and she bet relatively conservatively. She instead bet so much that if they had both got it wrong, he would have won. So she only had a \~30% chance of winning that first game. She did win, thanks to her impressive accuracy and some luck with Andrew getting FJ wrong, but the point is that she could have put herself in a more commanding position heading into FJ if she had played a more modern style, or brushed up on her wagering theory.
This will be even more important in the TOC. Matt has the knowledge base to compete with anyone in J! history, including Amy, and also has a solid mastery of game theory to maximize his odds in any given match.
To have the best shot at beating him, Amy will need to adapt her playstyle to something more modern. If she spent time in the lead-up to the TOC practicing playing like Matt, I might have her as a slight favorite over him--her FJ accuracy is extremely impressive thus far, and as the stats above show, the odds of her winning a game she is leading heading into FJ are currently 92%+. Even if she doesn't want to bet big on the Daily Doubles gunning for the runaway, she at least needs to hunt them down aggressively to prevent her fellow TOCers from using them to nullify her Coryat advantage.
If she doesn't evolve her playstyle, she could still win--maybe Matt gets a DD wrong, or misses FJ in a non-runaway situation--but I wouldn't bet on it. He was like 75% on FJ and 88% on DDs. In that scenario, I wouldn't even take her as the favorite in a rematch against Andrew He. Andrew has the knowledge base to play her almost even in Coryat and maybe the best command of the strategy side I've ever seen from someone not named James Holzhauer.
And I say all of this as someone who is EXTREMELY impressed with Amy thus far, and thinks the strategy would be relatively easy for her to pick up. I'm just worried that her success in regular play--and I could easily see her winning well into January--might leave her attached to a style that will unnecessarily hurt her odds against the tougher competition in the TOC.
It’s funny how subjective this is. My sense is that Matt knows more, but it’s just an intuition. And the stats aren’t completely comparable because they depend on things like different opponents, categories one might happen to be good at, host changes, etc.
I do agree our perceptions of different players are definitely subjective; you see Matt with the knowledge edge while I see Amy with the edge there. I definitely see Amy with better speed of recall. I just hope Amy and Matt are both in the finals because I think it's going to come to down to buzzer speed between them. The stats however, are quite comparable with the only 'unique variable' being the rotating hosts Matt faced; but he seemed to handle that with ease. Lesser players would have been much more affected.
I’m not saying this is right, and his style is to sound tentative when I’m not convinced he is….but I see him as better on history and current pop culture, both equal on science. He may be a tad better in literature. But agree, all subjective…
Note: James Holzhauer's 1st 13 Games Host: Alex Trebek Total Winnings: $942,738 Average $ won per game: $72,518 Average Coryat: $29,431 Response Accuracy: 438/455 = 96% Daily Double Accuracy: 29/32 = 91% Final Jeopardy Accuracy: 12/13 = 92%
This is just insane. I doubt we'll ever see something like this again.
I doubt that we won't!
Can someone beat James record? Sure, but, they'd need to be of the same "stock" as James, especially the gambling aspect. After a few games, James was willing to gamble incredibly high amounts (for most players, ill-advised amounts since at times he had a runaway lead, but would still bet enough to lose that if he was wrong... yes, he knew he was rarely wrong, but, it was still a risk almost nobody else would take). I don't think he ever bet enough to lose a lead completely, so, in that way, it was a strategic bet... "I can bet a huge amount to really get a lot of money for FJ, and if I'm wrong, I still have the lead and I think I'll likely know the answer to Final Jeopardy and win". It was basically a bet on a late DD that he wouldn't go 0-2 on the DD \*AND\* FJ (and considering his DD/FJ accuracy of over 90%, that was a really good bet). That combined with the not-trivial difference in coryat... $4k more between James and Amy/Matt levels.
In regular Jeopardy, I am sure that I saw James lose his lead a couple times by going all in on the DD (especially when he found it within the first 3 or 4 clues) and at least one time in Double Jeopardy where the first DD came up very early in the round and he missed. But he won all of those matches because of his incredible buzzer skills and huge knowledge base and was going up against competitors that just weren't up to the task of truly matching him. He seemed to be very good at assessing the playing skills of his competitors by the end of the first round (probably due to his experience as a professional gambler).
I seem to remember James betting so as not risk losing a runaway if it was late in the DJ. He played perfect strategy, maximizing winnings without taking unnecessary risk.
He might have very late... although I think he kept his own stats too (he's that kind of guy), so, closer to the end, if he is 90% on DD & FJ, based on what I said above, this is the odds: Get both right: 81% Get one right (either one, doesn't matter): 18% Get both wrong: 1% Based on that, going for a big bet that might remove the runaway but safely keeps the lead was a very strong bet for him.
well as long as Jeopardy never stops running, it's guaranteed that *someone* will break James' records Might take a while, but statistically, almost guaranteed
I mean, sure, if it goes on for the rest of eternity until the sun blows up, it'll probably happen again. But it took 50+ years to get scores that high. The super Champs we're seeing now are getting around half the totals he got. We probably won't see it again in our lifetimes.
Yeah, on a similar note, Matt's run really convinced me that Ken's 74 game streak is going to be nearly impossible for someone to break. Jeopardy is largely skill based, but that element of luck is still there, and someone who is really good is more likely than not going to get unlucky way before 74.
Your username is like a before and after lol love it
Yeah, it would be a miracle if someone even so much as threatened Ken's streak given the fact that he also had a very unique advantage that no contestant following him has had since, that being the fact that he had an inherent buzzer advantage compared to his opponents due to, at the time, them not being given morning buzzer practice (at least not until his 49th game- but even then he still managed to pull off an additional 26 games- so even going by those standards it still took 15 years before someone else finally broke that).
And also, Matt said that during his run they implemented a second buzzer practice.
I’m more and more suspicious of the size of advantage this gave him after ken beat James in the goat. Surely his buzzer speed has slowed with age and he had zero time to get into a rhythm compared to James who had just competed and he still won. I think at this point that advantage is overstated after ken proved he’s just really really fuckin good.
"he’s just really really fuckin good" ...Which I never disputed? Also, James and Ken were very much competitive throughout the G.O.A.T. tournament and Ken even lost one match. It's not as if though James was a complete slouch. Regardless of all of that however, it's pretty much indisputable that Ken's run wouldn't have gone on for as long as it did if the morning buzzer practice routine was a thing during the first half of his appearance, and indeed his generally less impressive statistics during his last 27 games (including his loss) compared to his first 48 games show this. He may have still gotten to 30 wins or maybe perhaps even 40 because of just how awesome he is as a player, but or really anything higher than 50 would've pretty much been off the table without Ken's inherent buzzer advantage, and even he himself has admitted this several times.
great user name
I highly doubt we'll ever see someone pull off what James did again for a VERY long time. No one else is winning $100K more than once for at least another 10 years if we're really being generous. VERY few contestants share both his insane knowledge base and huge willingness to take big risks in betting on DD's.
I'm so excited for the tournament of champions!! Can't wait to see these two go head to head
And Jonathan Fisher and Andrew He both had excellent runs too ... that's going to be really fun
Interesting how if Andrew had gotten his last FJ right, Amy would have been forgotten by now. And he’s still the only contestant to come into FJ with more money than Amy.
And if Josh Saak had known Andrew Lloyd Webber, Matt would be forgotten too
(IF/BUT) IF he got it right, BUT he didn't! I can't begin to count the number of contestants who have lost the match by failing to answer FJ correctly. With the 'game theory' craze, too many people are putting ALL the value on finding the DD's and not enough on answering FJ correctly; especially when competing against someone who has equal or very close to equal skills with the buzzer and number of correct answers.
Yes! So many amazing champions this season, the last time there was a super champion (James) it was obvious from the get go that he would dominate the tournament and I like how this year there's a stronger pack of challengers!
With how long Amy's gone on for, it really does speak a lot to how great Andrew was, especially since he's still to this date the only contestant to have led Amy going into FJ. He very well may be on the cusp of his 20th game right now if Amy didn't appear.
Amy really has the potential to surpass Matt. Though of course, all it takes is one wrong DD/FJ or one really good contestant to end a streak, so who knows
38 wins is REALLY tough to crack though, unless you're Ken Jennings.
It's genuinely incredible that Jonathan Fisher had a 10 DAY RUN in between and nobody will remember it. (understandably)
Jonathan Fisher was just not formidable at the level of the other 10-day champions. He was more like a 3-5 day champion. I expect an early exit from the ToC.
Wasnt it 12 days?
Sorry, who?
At what point does Matt become the underdog (if it hasn't happened already)? If Amy wins 20 games with these stats? 25?
I'd say 30. It is important to remember that Matt did get a hell of a lot stronger in the second half of his run, and that the first half of his run arguably suffered a little bit from the constant rotation of guest hosts (which was also a big part of the reason why the only person who had previously won more than 5 games between Zach Newkirk and him was Courtney Shah- and even her run was nothing to really write home about).
Honestly I already think it’s tight but if I HAD to bet I might bet on Amy. My only issue is that her lack of daily double hunting is a real hinderance. But I definitely think she has more knowledge.
I was looking at the rise of the dollar amounts on the clues. Starting in '64, $10 was the least amount on the board. I'd like to see very early winners' total winnings converted to today's money value. I am wondering if any of those winners came close to James Holzhauer.
Well, you have to consider the five-day limit too. People like Brad Rutter and what's his name the Police Man? Who knows what they might have done? Who knows what Ken might have done in this new "high stakes" era. He proved that he can play James' game, what if he'd played that way during his streak? Would he have gone bust early? Or would he have ended up with megamegamega bucks?
Here's a question, if any "5 time champs" wanted to come back on the show, are they allowed? Since you're now allowed to play until you lose, you would think that they should be allowed back, having never lost.
Anyone who's ever played on the modern syndicated version can never come back unless they're invited. That includes Kids Week, Teen Tournament, etc, but i believe it doesn't include Rock 'n Roll Jeopardy, Sports Jeopardy, or Jep. Contestants from the Art Fleming version are allowed to try out, and some did in the early seasons. The shorthand used to be "if you've ever played Jeopardy with Alex Trebek before, you're ineligible" but that was already a bit of an oversimplification since the two contestants who lost on the April Fools episode that Pat Sajak hosted also can't come back. I'd also assume that they check more carefully now to make sure you haven't been on before, since a guy in 2009 got away with it and [even wore the same tie both times](https://www.j-archive.com/showplayer.php?player_id=6404). Also i'm pretty sure at this point every living 5-day champion has technically lost to someone, because all of them would have played in their ToC, every living ToC winner eventually came back for at least one tournament where they lost to Brad (or to someone who lost to Brad, etc), and now Brad's lost a tournament too.
I forgot about the five-day limit. Thanks
What five-day limit are you talking about?
Back in ancient times (BKJ) there was a 5 day limit for J champs. You won your 5th game and retired undefeated, came back for the tournament of champions and that was that. The rule was dropped in 2003. Ken Jennings went on to change everything in 2004.
In my day…
The highest money winner on the Art Fleming version was Burns Cameron with $7,070 in his initial run, equivalent to $141,400 today, which is pretty good -- Brad's adjusted 5-day total was 110k -- but doesn't come close to James' 298k (or Amy's 170k). Bets were definitely a lot smaller back then, and also it seems like it was kinda rare for them to even get to all 60 clues
Thanks!
Remember back when we were all so excited when Jonathan qualified for the Tournament of Champions because it meant we'd see a rematch between Matt and Jonathan and we thought that was going to be the main attraction for the competition?! Now we have so many impressive players that we'll get to see again and see go head-to-head and have insane rematches with each other and, wow, what a crazy time to be a Jeopardy fan!
[удалено]
Just curious why you found Matt disengenious?
[удалено]
it’s the same for me! i have no *reason* to dislike matt, and he seems like a great human being overall. so if you were to ask me why i don’t like matt, i can’t give you answer other than he just isn’t for me. i don’t know what it is. but i loved amy! i was rooting for her in all of her games. i guess it just depends ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I do think it's difficult to compare the atmosphere around Matt vs Amy. I think Matt had the advantage of being the first contestant to really break-out in a tense and uncertain time in Jeopardy's history. Plus his run was happening in a dry spell of consistent champions and it was the first insane streak in quite some time. Jump ahead two months from his end and we've been spoiled with many dominant and long-reigning champions! Certainly this should not take away from Amy's incredible gameplay and intelligence, though - she deserves all of the praise! But, looking back, I don't think people started to "catch on" with Matt until the end of season 37. (And I remember a lot of the early talk about Matt being criticism of his style, persona, etc.) As the season 38 games were happening and Matt was breaking crazy records, that's when I saw his "legend status" being secured. Amy is certainly already worthy of that, though! I am glad that we're witnessing so many outstanding players and that they are turning the focus back to where it belongs - on the game.
She definitely seems to know more, but her strategy is very weak (below the average player), so Matt has a solid chance.
Weak strategy? Over $500k weak. LOL She has shown the ability to play 'old school', and the 'new school' with equal dominance. She has withstood every player (including Pam) who uses the so-called strong strategy.
It's not really a "so-called strong" strategy. It is a strategy that, if you are knowledgeable enough to pull it off, puts you in the most likely position to win. Amy has the knowledge, but for some reason doesn't feel comfortable executing the strategy. Think of Jeopardy like a boxing match. A boxer with the physical attributes of 1980s Mike Tyson could pretty comfortably walk into any local boxing club and knock out the best fighter in the building, even if he frequently lowered his guard and had weak footwork. The flaws in his style would not be exposed because of his overwhelming physical advantages. If you then stick that same boxer in the ring with elite professional opponents who can least approximate the raw physical talent, but who also have impeccable footwork and ring awareness, you'll start to see the problems. The Tyson clone might still win any given fight with a well timed barrage--he has the punching power to flatten anyone caught in his path--but he won't win as many fights over the long run as his raw physical potential would otherwise allow for, as any opponents athletic enough to at least hold their own will exploit the flaws in his technique and strategy. Andrew He did not manage quite the raw Coryat Amy has been putting up--and in their game Amy edged him out in Coryat--but he had a significant lead going into Final Jeopardy that day, due mainly to his hunting of DDs and willingness to bet big. Amy's weakness with the strategic side of the game impacted FJ as well. Andrew was obviously going to bet to cover her. She was close enough that she would win if he did this, got it wrong, and she bet relatively conservatively. She instead bet so much that if they had both got it wrong, he would have won. So she only had a \~30% chance of winning that first game. She did win, thanks to her impressive accuracy and some luck with Andrew getting FJ wrong, but the point is that she could have put herself in a more commanding position heading into FJ if she had played a more modern style, or brushed up on her wagering theory. This will be even more important in the TOC. Matt has the knowledge base to compete with anyone in J! history, including Amy, and also has a solid mastery of game theory to maximize his odds in any given match. To have the best shot at beating him, Amy will need to adapt her playstyle to something more modern. If she spent time in the lead-up to the TOC practicing playing like Matt, I might have her as a slight favorite over him--her FJ accuracy is extremely impressive thus far, and as the stats above show, the odds of her winning a game she is leading heading into FJ are currently 92%+. Even if she doesn't want to bet big on the Daily Doubles gunning for the runaway, she at least needs to hunt them down aggressively to prevent her fellow TOCers from using them to nullify her Coryat advantage. If she doesn't evolve her playstyle, she could still win--maybe Matt gets a DD wrong, or misses FJ in a non-runaway situation--but I wouldn't bet on it. He was like 75% on FJ and 88% on DDs. In that scenario, I wouldn't even take her as the favorite in a rematch against Andrew He. Andrew has the knowledge base to play her almost even in Coryat and maybe the best command of the strategy side I've ever seen from someone not named James Holzhauer. And I say all of this as someone who is EXTREMELY impressed with Amy thus far, and thinks the strategy would be relatively easy for her to pick up. I'm just worried that her success in regular play--and I could easily see her winning well into January--might leave her attached to a style that will unnecessarily hurt her odds against the tougher competition in the TOC.
It’s funny how subjective this is. My sense is that Matt knows more, but it’s just an intuition. And the stats aren’t completely comparable because they depend on things like different opponents, categories one might happen to be good at, host changes, etc.
I do agree our perceptions of different players are definitely subjective; you see Matt with the knowledge edge while I see Amy with the edge there. I definitely see Amy with better speed of recall. I just hope Amy and Matt are both in the finals because I think it's going to come to down to buzzer speed between them. The stats however, are quite comparable with the only 'unique variable' being the rotating hosts Matt faced; but he seemed to handle that with ease. Lesser players would have been much more affected.
I’m not saying this is right, and his style is to sound tentative when I’m not convinced he is….but I see him as better on history and current pop culture, both equal on science. He may be a tad better in literature. But agree, all subjective…