Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


Five Studies

game-show-set

(Photo: mycteria/Shutterstock)

Game Theories: How to Win at ‘Jeopardy!’—and Other Important Lessons From Social Science

• April 28, 2014 • 4:00 AM

(Photo: mycteria/Shutterstock)

You can be the next Arthur Chu.

In this age of TED talks and Gladwellisms, would-be social science sages are always on the lookout for ways to make their big, counter-intuitive ideas feel relevant to everyday life. And the holy grail on this front is, apparently, being able to show how your special insight about statistics, psychology, or economics can help people win game shows. The first chapter of James Surowiecki’s 2004 bestseller The Wisdom of Crowds boils down the book’s central thesis to a strategy for winning Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Charles Wheelan’s 2013 book Naked Statistics explains how an understanding of probability unlocks a key secret to the old show Let’s Make a Deal. And a spate of recent articles online, including in Slate, have obsessively outlined how game theory can help contestants win The Price Is Right and Jeopardy!

In fact, this year’s most ballyhooed Jeopardy! contestant, Arthur Chu, became famous for using game theory to crack the show’s code. It turns out there has been quite a bit of research on game shows. Here’s some of it. You can thank us when you collect your winnings.

five-1DON’T GO FOR BROKE

The foolish bettor is often motivated by disappointment. You were so close to winning a million dollars on Deal or No Deal, but now the maximum you can win is only $50,000, and the bank is offering you even less, only $20,000, as a buyout. So you keep playing in the unlikely hope of that $50,000 “consolation.” It’s a money-losing psychological pitfall, and according to a 2008 study by economists at Erasmus University Rotterdam, game show participants are especially vulnerable to it. “In the context of a game that commences with an average prize of hundreds of thousands … amounts of thousands or tens of thousands may seem small and are probably relatively easily put at risk in an attempt to escape from the uneasy feelings of experiencing a loss,” write the authors. Those “uneasy feelings” are leading you astray. Don’t get so thrown off by setbacks that you get desperate or fatalistic. You’re better than that. Respect yourself.

—Guido Baltussen, Thierry Post, and Martijn J. van den Assem, “Risky Choice and the Relative Size of Stakes,” New Insights Into Behavioral Finance, Rozenberg Publishers, 2008

five-2IGNORE YOUR GUT—AND POSSIBLY YOUR HEAD

For an example of the power of ignoring your gut, look no further than the phenomenon known as the Monty Hall problem, alluded to in our introduction. It’s a brainteaser named after the original host of Let’s Make a Deal. Here is the scenario: You have three doors in front of you. Behind one door is a car. Behind each of the other two is a goat. You pick one door, but before it is opened, Monty Hall opens one of the two remaining doors to reveal a goat. Should you switch your choice of door? Intuition says it makes no difference. But, as University of California-Berkeley biostatistics guru Steve Selvin established in a letter to the editor in The American Statistician in 1975, your gut is wrong. You will double your odds of winning the car if you change your choice of door. The reasons this is true—and simulations bear out the theory—are hard enough to understand that we shall not attempt to explain them in 200 words. Countless papers touching on the Monty Hall problem have been written, and bitter mathematical debates started, in the years since Selvin got the ball rolling. But as upset as the Monty Hall problem seems to make people, no goats have, to our knowledge, sustained any related injuries.

—“A Problem in Probability,” by Steve Selvin, in Letters to the Editor, The American Statistician, Vol. 29, No. 1, February 1975

five-3WHEN GIVEN THE CHANCE, TRUST THE MASSES

If you want to feel optimistic about democracy, consider this: Even know-nothings, collectively, seem to know something. This became the thrust of James Surowiecki’s argument in The Wisdom of Crowds. One example he uses is that of the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, on which contestants faced multiple-choice questions for ever-higher stakes. If a contestant got floored by a question and needed help, he or she had the choice of placing a call to an expert acquaintance or polling the studio audience. So who was the wiser counselor? “The ‘experts’ did OK, offering the right answer—under pressure—almost 65 percent of the time,” Surowiecki reported. “But they paled in comparison to the audiences. Those random crowds of people with nothing better to do on a weekday afternoon than sit in a TV studio picked the right answer 91 percent of the time.” Some caveats apply. The biggest is that no one, Surowiecki included, considers the results of this back-of-the-envelope study to be scientific. Still, even seeming ignoramuses in a TV studio often know more, collectively, than your brainy Uncle Finley. So stop being a snob. Consider joining the people.

—James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, Doubleday, 2004

five-4ASSUME YOUR FELLOW CONTESTANTS WILL BE FOOLISH AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY

In a land of dumb contestants, the slightly less dumb contestant is king. So if, for example, you participate in the show The Price Is Right, do not do as your fellow contestants do. (This might seem to contradict our praise of crowds above—but a handful of adversarial contestants under pressure does not a wise crowd make.) Economists like to assume, for modeling purposes, that people make rational decisions. In reality, many of our decisions exemplify what the late economist Herbert A. Simon called “bounded rationality,” a nice way of saying that real-life people are at the mercy of limited information and brainpower. And this apparently applies all too directly to game show participants. As a group of researchers wrote in a 1996 study in The American Economic Review, “Our results indicate that rational decision theory cannot explain contestant behavior on The Price Is Right,” on which contestants consistently make choices that are “transparently suboptimal.” Therefore, contestants with “superior computational resources” are wise to keep suboptimal behavior in mind “when forming their strategies.” Look, we didn’t say our advice would be polite. But are you playing to make friends or make money?

—Jonathan B. Berk, Eric Hughson, and Kirk Vandezande, “The Price Is Right, But Are the Bids? An Investigation of Rational Decision Theory,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 86, No. 4, September 1996

five-5DON’T TRY TO BE LOVED

Among many aficionados of Jeopardy!, the trivia quiz show, Arthur Chu, a 30-year-old insurance analyst, became an object of contempt and loathing earlier this year. Resolutely money-focused and impervious to public opinion, Chu stolidly employed game theory to win match after match in early 2014, taking questions out of the customary order (making the viewing experience disorienting), knocking Daily Doubles out of play, and regularly interrupting the show’s host (in order to keep the money coming faster). The result? $297,200 in total winnings. But do not credit Chu with genius. His inspiration came from searching online for winning strategies and finding people like 2003 Jeopardy! College Championship victor Keith Williams, who maintains a website called The Final Wager—created to “make game theory accessible to people who are scared of math.” Visitors can find a detailed guide to wagering their money in the final round of Jeopardy! And do not get mad at Chu. “I would just say we are playing for really very high stakes,” Chu told Brooke Gladstone of public radio’s On the Media. “I can’t justify to myself or my wife leaving money like that on the table out of some aesthetic sense.” Spoken like a true game show careerist. Now you can be one, too.

—Keith Williams, thefinalwager.co


This post originally appeared in the May/June 2014 issue of Pacific Standard as “Game Theories.” For more, subscribe to our print magazine.

Pacific Standard Staff
Pacific Standard grapples with the nation’s biggest issues—with a focus on economics, society and justice, education, and the environment—by paying particular interest to what shapes human behavior.

More From Pacific Standard Staff

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

November 26 • 4:00 PM

Turmoil at JPMorgan

Examiners are reportedly blocked from doing their job as “London Whale” trades blow up.


November 26 • 2:00 PM

Rich Kids Are More Likely to Be Working for Dad

Nepotism is alive and well, especially for the well-off.


November 26 • 12:00 PM

How Do You Make a Living, Taxidermist?

Taxidermist Katie Innamorato talks to Noah Davis about learning her craft, seeing it become trendy, and the going-rate for a “Moss Fox.”


November 26 • 10:28 AM

Attitudes About Race Affect Actions, Even When They Don’t

Tiny effects of attitudes on individuals’ actions pile up quickly.


November 26 • 10:13 AM

Honeybees Touring America


November 26 • 10:00 AM

Understanding Money

In How to Speak Money, John Lanchester explains how the monied people talk about their mountains of cash.


November 26 • 8:00 AM

The Exponential Benefits of Eating Less

Eating less food—whole food and junk food, meat and plants, organic and conventional, GMO and non-GMO—would do a lot more than just better our personal health.


November 26 • 6:00 AM

The Incorruptible Bodies of Saints

Their figures were helped along by embalming, but, somehow, everyone forgot that part.


November 26 • 4:00 AM

The Geography of Real Estate Markets Is Shifting Under Our Feet

Policies aimed at unleashing supply in order to make housing more affordable are relying on outdated models.



November 25 • 4:00 PM

Is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Doing Enough to Monitor Wall Street?

Bank President William Dudley says supervision is stronger than ever, but Democratic senators are unconvinced: “You need to fix it, Mr. Dudley, or we need to get someone who will.”


November 25 • 3:30 PM

Cultural Activities Help Seniors Retain Health Literacy

New research finds a link between the ability to process health-related information and regular attendance at movies, plays, and concerts.


November 25 • 12:00 PM

Why Did Doctors Stop Giving Women Orgasms?

You can thank the rise of the vibrator for that, according to technology historian Rachel Maines.


November 25 • 10:08 AM

Geography, Race, and LOLs

The online lexicon spreads through racial and ethnic groups as much as it does through geography and other traditional linguistic measures.


November 25 • 10:00 AM

If It’s Yellow, Seriously, Let It Mellow

If you actually care about water and the future of the species, you’ll think twice about flushing.


November 25 • 8:00 AM

Sometimes You Should Just Say No to Surgery

The introduction of national thyroid cancer screening in South Korea led to a 15-fold increase in diagnoses and a corresponding explosion of operations—but no difference in mortality rates. This is a prime example of over-diagnosis that’s contributing to bloated health care costs.



November 25 • 6:00 AM

The Long War Between Highbrow and Lowbrow

Despise The Avengers? Loathe the snobs who despise The Avengers? You’re not the first.


November 25 • 4:00 AM

Are Women More Open to Sex Than They Admit?

New research questions the conventional wisdom that men overestimate women’s level of sexual interest in them.


November 25 • 2:00 AM

The Geography of Innovation, or, Why Almost All Japanese People Hate Root Beer

Innovation is not a product of population density, but of something else entirely.


November 24 • 4:00 PM

Federal Reserve Announces Sweeping Review of Its Big Bank Oversight

The Federal Reserve Board wants to look at whether the views of examiners are being heard by higher-ups.



November 24 • 2:00 PM

That Catcalling Video Is a Reminder of Why Research Methods Are So Important

If your methods aren’t sound then neither are your findings.


November 24 • 12:00 PM

Yes, Republicans Can Still Win the White House

If the economy in 2016 is where it was in 2012 or better, Democrats will likely retain the White House. If not, well….


November 24 • 11:36 AM

Feeling—Not Being—Wealthy Cuts Support for Economic Redistribution

A new study suggests it’s relative wealth that leads people to oppose taxing the rich and giving to the poor.


Follow us


Attitudes About Race Affect Actions, Even When They Don’t

Tiny effects of attitudes on individuals' actions pile up quickly.

Geography, Race, and LOLs

The online lexicon spreads through racial and ethnic groups as much as it does through geography and other traditional linguistic measures.

Feeling—Not Being—Wealthy Cuts Support for Economic Redistribution

A new study suggests it's relative wealth that leads people to oppose taxing the rich and giving to the poor.

Sufferers of Social Anxiety Disorder, Your Friends Like You

The first study of friends' perceptions suggest they know something's off with their pals but like them just the same.

Standing Up for My Group by Kicking Yours

Members of a minority ethnic group are less likely to express support for gay equality if they believe their own group suffers from discrimination.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.