Game shows and learning from unconventional strategy

Ready player won

Law student Chuck Forrest had been working on a disruptive new strategy, and now he would finally get to unleash it.

Forrest wasn’t in a typical competition. He was about to appear on the American game show Jeopardy, a now-iconic trivia program in which three players face a grid of clues, arranged by increasing dollar value along six themed categories. The contestant who rings in first and responds correctly gets to choose next. With the right answer and precise timing, anyone can take control and decide where to head on the game board.

The objective is simple: have the most money at the end of the game to win. Victors also get the chance to appear again the next day.1

Convention dictated that players start with the easiest, low-dollar clues at the top of the category and proceed downward to the more difficult ones. Games typically unfolded in predictable ways as contestants worked through clues sequentially. The show’s writers often built in a theme that revealed itself as a category was worked through, further reinforcing this approach. This style of play also made it easier for television viewers to track with the game.

A crucial fact is this pattern was not in any way enforced or required. It wasn’t part of the rules.

Forrest decided to test these limits by bouncing rapidly between categories when he took control. This would throw off competitors who wouldn’t anticipate where he was going next. The theory was that in the split second it took them to regain focus Forrest could stay in front, keeping the others off-balance.

This tactic became known as the “Forrest Bounce”, and its creator was able to ride it to a dominating series of performances in the 1980s, including multiple wins and the championship in Jeopardy’s end-of-season tournament.2

Despite this obvious early success, Forrest’s style was rarely imitated for years afterwards. Most who made it onto the show followed the same clue selection process they would see when watching from home. They moved methodically down the columns even when it allowed others to catch up. With time running out and a big-dollar clue from another category needed to catch the leader, players often continued with a top-down approach that ensured their mathematical elimination.3

In the 2010s the Forrest Bounce saw a resurgence as multiple notable champions adopted the tactic. But the most outrageous Jeopardy performance of all time came from a recent player named James Holzhauer. He perfected it to a level never seen, in the process redefining what was possible on the show. Instead of jumping between clues and dollar amounts randomly, his every move was optimized to maximize his cash hoard and thus his chances of winning. In the process he mowed down the competition, blowing past numerous records that seemed unassailable.4

Brand new car brand

When Tesla was preparing to sell its new electric vehicles in the United States it could have followed the same path taken by every other car brand. Laws that date back to the early years of the industry have banned direct sales of automobiles across the country. Unlike in the rest of the world, manufacturers must contract with a network of independent dealers to complete the sale and delivery of their products.

Tesla recognized that this separate dealer model would insert an unnecessary layer between the company and its prospective customers. Given the novelty of the electric car and the education required to build market share it was important to engage directly with buyers. Instead of haggling with a dealer trying to move unsold inventory from the lot, a Tesla shopper would use stores to interact with the product and order a vehicle directly from the manufacturer.

Despite fierce opposition from the traditional auto dealership lobby Tesla maintained its plan to sell directly, fighting state-by-state to change laws where necessary. The company is America’s first successful new car brand in decades, and the only one with a direct sales model. By eliminating the intermediary Tesla’s factories can be linked more directly with demand. What’s more, the additional markup needed to fund a separate dealer’s operations can also be removed from the price and shared between the company and its customers.5

Two decades previously, General Motors had also partly questioned the traditional model. Sticker prices were merely suggestions, as dealers negotiated the final amount with buyers. This was usually the most unpleasant and anxiety-inducing part of the whole shopping experience. GM created a new division named Saturn that did away with this, listing fixed prices on its cars. Customers could treat prices as a given, just as they are for nearly every other item they purchase.6 This approach helped the Saturn marque regularly come out on top of satisfaction surveys.7

Test the boundaries

It took dozens of episodes before a Jeopardy contestant changed the patterns of playing the game, even though there were no rules limiting how Chuck Forrest and his predecessors could select clues. It was another three decades before James Holzhauer took this to its logical conclusion, using each choice as an optimized path to the biggest possible cash totals.8 This despite the fact that the rules and dynamics of the game had remained identical for 35 years across thousands of players—six categories, five clues in each, arranged in ascending order of money value. Some had tentatively attempted to probe the edges over the years, but the pull of a middle-of-the-road strategy was too great for most to overcome.

The U.S. automotive market has long assumed the necessity of separating manufacturing and distribution and of pricing models that are messy and opaque, despite the complexity and cost generated by the former and the heartburn created by the latter. Sometimes limitations are the self-imposed result of choices made earlier—General Motors cannot easily cut out independent dealers, which have grown up into a powerful countervailing force. It took the arrival of Tesla, an outsider with no vested interest in the current system and plenty of incentive to upend it, to start changing how cars are sold.

Constraints that have been taken for granted can be tested, and the results can reset the mindset of everyone who follows. Athletes who set new performance records may find competitors reaching the new standard quickly once they discover what’s possible. Little time has passed since James Holzhauer’s run on Jeopardy, so it remains to be seen how his paradigm-shifting performance will alter future contestant behavior. At the very least, some money totals are no longer viewed as unreachable.

Following the same patterns others have established beforehand is simpler, and obvious. The likely outcomes are understood, and while upside may be limited the downside is at least known.

But sometimes boundaries that seem immovable are just conventions, designed for another time or different purposes. Sometimes we adhere to them because of inertia or simplicity, not from deliberate choice. Knowing exactly how things have been done before may not be the best starting point for considering how they could be done differently.

What constraints does everyone take as a given that might not be real? What patterns do you follow just because others have?

Bonus content: Getting on Jeopardy was a childhood goal. Go here for a longform, insider’s view on what the experience is like, from tryouts to playing and winning (and losing).

References

The ur-reference for Jeopardy is the obsessively detailed J-Archive, which catalogs the clues and play dynamics of almost every game since the modern incarnation of the show began airing in 1984. Chuck Forrest appeared in several games starting in 1985.