Just once I want to see someone haul off and smack the person who bids $1 more than them in contestants row.

"What was interesting after the end is they put up the consolation prize for the losers. 2nd and 3rd on Jeopardy get $2000 and $1000 instead of their actual winnings. (This is to encourage people to bet to win instead of sitting on their purse.) For this show they're all considered losers, but the other two got $2000…

It's a prisoner's dilemma situation. The Jeopardy archive actually uses this game theory concept to describe this very scenario. Perhaps if players could confer with each other prior to betting, the two leaders could have decided to make a 0 bet and ensure that they would each finish with a win. (I believe they have…

When two contestants are tied, the only realistic option for both is to either bet everything or bet nothing. Neither one has anything to gain, logically, from making a soft bet of some random number in the middle, and it's not logical to assume that they would do that either. Lady on the right had to assume that they…

You are correct.

Yep. That particular strategy is actually listed on the J! Archive website's glossary of terms. (Yes, there is such a website and such a page for such things.) It follows the prisoner's dilemma brand of logic and states exactly what you just said: If two contestants are tied for the lead going into FJ and the third…

Mind. Blown.