[Cecil Terwilliger]

I don’t see how trivia being binary matters. If anything it supports my point. She’s more likely than not to know the answer so betting as if she’ll get it makes sense.

The scenarios aren’t the issue here. I’m aware of what happened by betting small and what her strategy was.

I’m saying giving up potential wins to avoid a loss and force another game isn’t as beneficial as you’re making it out to be. She’s right more often than not, she shouldn’t be playing not to lose.

It also doesn’t factor in her ability to win next game. Andrew won’t likely blow a daily double like he did yesterday. I think the risk of betting big yesterday was a better chance than going into another game on Monday. She’s not likely, imo, to have another large lead over Andrew like that with such a clear chance to end it.

I think she should’ve bet to cover them both, not just Andrew. But who knows, maybe she likes her chances on any given day against Andrew/Sam and thought it was a good risk to take. She also may not have liked the category.

If Andrew wins Monday, this bet will be why she didn’t win.

She’s 31/48 lifetime in final jeopardy. She’s only 2/5 against her current competition (2/4 at the time she made the bet).

Unless she didn’t like the category or was counting on Sam getting it wrong (which is a bad read imo), getting on herself getting final right, is a better bet than playing again.