Wagering practice – “You might as well wager everything”

This scenario is courtesy of a fellow Keith: Whitener, who won seven games and finished second in his TOC. (He’ll also be in The Battle of the Decades.)

How do you feel about these three wagers?

My gut instinct: good thing Keith got it right, or John-Clark would have to suffer the embarrassment of having won a game with $102!

My second instinct: a win is a win, even if, after taxes, you’re left with double digits. (You will be guaranteed $1,000 at some point for finishing third.)

Click here for the answer!

(Thanks to the J! Archive)

Answers to Wednesday’s scenario:

(1/8) I suggested this wagering might be improper. What’s better for each player?

(2/8) Let’s start from scratch.

(3/8) Rule #1, first vs. second: Michael needs to wager at least 7,600 to cover a double-up by Rory …

(4/8) Rule #1, second vs. third: … and Rory needs to wager at least 6,400 to cover Suzan.

(5/8) Rule #2: Suzan needs to stay above Michael and Rory if they both get it wrong. She’ll need to have at least 4,000 – which means she can wager at most 4,000.

(6/8) Rule #3: Suzan should also wager at least 3,600 to cover a zero wager by both players.

(7/8) In the actual game, Michael was the only one who made a reasonable wager (although he tacked on the extra dollar).

(8/8) Notice that Rory, since he decided to play conservatively, should have wagered at least 2,400 – covering Suzan’s maximum rational wager. (He put himself at an unnecessary risk here.)

Return to top