On my first episode, I finished the DJ! round with $9,400; Megan was in the
lead with $18,800. My correct response in FJ! put us into a tie, and if she
hadn't wagered anything, we would have gone to a tiebreak. I'm forever
grateful we didn't, 'cause she owned me on the button all day.
There's a possible angle to this issue that didn't come up in the article.
Collusion.
I know that the contestants are kept separated from the host, but how about
from each other?
A recent episode of a podcast I listen to had a guest who'd been on Wheel of
Fortune. She mentioned that a lot of
Yes, I was going to say that ties only became a problem when some people
deliberately sought to achieve them.
Somebody proposed a simpler solution: Allow ties, but make the contestants
split the earnings (i.e., half of their winnings). It seems like that would
help kill the appeal of a
And here's why they added the tiebreaker:
https://www.theringer.com/tv/2021/1/23/22245900/jeopardy-tiebreaker-scenario-rules-changes
On Saturday, January 30, 2021 at 9:10:59 AM UTC-5 Mark Jeffries wrote:
> Merv never seemed to worry if there was a tie, since "Jeopardy!" and
> "Wheel" had
Merv never seemed to worry if there was a tie, since "Jeopardy!" and
"Wheel" had co-champions for significant portions of their run. When
"Wheel" started the bonus round, they went to a tiebreaker of the people
tied playing another puzzle similar to the speedup round, with the first to
solve
> Instead of a single tiebreaker clue, there should be a tiebreaker round.
As you know, time is an issue here, and they want to declare a winner as
quickly as possible.
I've always been OK with the idea of ties. Since the producers aren't,
they're looking for something just slightly less
