I was always curious about how difficulty changed within rounds (e.g. $200 vs $800 question) and between rounds. So I plotted some aggregate stats on correct rates for each of these slices using Trivia Trainer data. Please let me know if you've got any questions!
The full post with lots of other charts is here. Here's one of the main charts:
Posted May 19, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC
Excellent. Just wanted to add that I have used your site a lot in the past few months for fun, and I have really appreciated it.
I’m curious about your numbers. In the Jeopardy Archive, I believe the season stats for daily doubles show a higher success rate than you have indicated here. Am I interpreting the archive Correctly?
Example of stats for one season:
https://j-archive.com/ddstats.php?season=29
if my interpretation of the archive is correct, we are looking at daily double correct rates at about 65-70% on the show. Maybe those on trivia trainer are quite a bit worse because they are training, hence your figures? Let me know what you think.
Awesome, thanks for the kind words!
That's a really interesting point about daily doubles being comparable to the real show. Non-DD (and non-FJ) aren't really comparable because there are three people on the show who can buzz in for any given question so you're really looking at a correct rate that's the max of three people. But DD on the show definitely should be comparable with Trivia Trainer.
The training explanation makes sense to me. There have been a number of Trivia Trainer users who've gone on Jeopardy, but from what I've heard the majority are people practicing for the test. I'd guess that Trivia Trainer correct rates for the users who actually made it onto the show would be much higher on average, although I don't look at individuals' stats.
Gotta wonder if there's much of a difference depending on how far down the Daily Double was found.
Supposedly there is, but my own personal stats don't bear that out as much as you'd expect. Roughly speaking, my success rate on DDs is about the square root of my success rate in that box for non-DDs. So if it's a row where I hit 0.64, I'm probably 0.8 on DDs, for example.
Anyone else with a similar analysis who can confirm or refute?
Wow, I hadn't even considered tracking it to that degree of specificity.
How long have you been tracking your performance and what are you using to track it?
I'm pretty sure the stats/analysis are already out there for % correct by row and DDs, so you should be able to investigate your hypothesis further.
But as someone who's hoping to get on the show, I'm focused on understanding my own performance based on the columns (i.e., the categories) more than the rows. So if I hit a DD, my wager would be informed first by the relative scores and stage of the game, then by the category, and then (if at all) by the row..
+1 to the question of how u/donbot666 is tracking all of that-- I'm super interested.
I agree with the category-first approach. Trivia Trainer is basically entirely built around the idea of identifying areas of strength and weakness at the level of things like Sports, Literature, etc.. For example, here are my (somewhat embarrassing) stats for Geography and Word Play.
Yeah, I wanted to look at that but unfortunately my logic for identifying daily doubles is finding questions with values not in the expected range (e.g. for Jeopardy round $200, $400, ...). If I could actually identify daily doubles I could definitely do this analysis but haven't had time :(
Thats almost incomprehensibly consistent.
Yeah, I was surprised by that too. But I think it makes sense given that I'm averaging over so many questions for each round/value. If I looked at correct rates within a given game as the values increase I'd expect a lot more variance.
[deleted]
I was honestly surprised at the Final Jeopardy stat until I thought about some of the "gimme" questions that they throw at the contestants some times.
Yeah, that was the most surprising part to me too. Especially because on Trivia Trainer I don't think users take especially long on FJ.