Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[MFalk]

I would have gotten "chifforobe" if you clued it as "This was the piece of furniture Mayella Ewell allegedly asked Tom Robinson to bust up in exchange for a nickel."

Ditto -- that's where I first heard the term.

[slam]

I figured that Pam had turned her brain off for FJ after she decided to wager $0, so I'm not going to make fun of her response. I'm sure that no one thinks less of her for it. FWIW, count me in the group of folks that think that in a Master's Tournament like this there will be no gimme FJs (unlike last week in regular play) and that the category is a legitimate consideration under the circumstances here.

Golf does have a good point about what happens if you wager $0 from the lead and lose. You will regret it for the rest of your life--if for no other reason that mbclev will post about it periodically here asserting that. I hope for Arthur's sake that if he eventually loses in an unconventional way that mbclev doesn't work or li e anywhere near him (as they are both from Cleveland at the moment I believe).

Reading the blog in which Pam, Fritz and Dan discuss the FJ wager makes it clear that Pam at least half turned off her brain in formulating her FJ response. A good suggestion for anyone who chooses to make a $0 wager like Pam did in the future is to get FJ wrong even if you do know the correct response (I'm not the first person, by far, to make this suggestion). Although you'll still know if you knew the correct response, it will save you a lifetime of having to answer questions about your wager if you do end up losing. It will be much easier to explain that you simply didn't expect to know the right response (because of the category, expecting a tough clue or just a "feeling") than to explain how you could bet $0 when you were going to get FJ right anyway.

In any event, I can only applaud Pam's wager. She made an excellent wager for well thought out reasons. I also agree with what others have have said above that in a regular game such a wager would have been much less attractive (though could still have been right). The analysis is fairly simply. Pam bet for either Fritz to miss FJ or to make what should be a standard wager. Betting big wins only if she gets FJ or both Fritz and Dan miss FJ and bet totally irrationally (highly unlikely from Dan in this situation). For this specific tournament with seemingly lower FJ get rates and a higher likelihood of the Fritz making the "low" wager, Pam's wager has more support.

[naurae29]

I would have gotten "chifforobe" if you clued it as "This was the piece of furniture Mayella Ewell allegedly asked Tom Robinson to bust up in exchange for a nickel."

I thought of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" - Everett's wife thought her wedding ring might be in the chifforobe.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I don't remember that line at all.

I didn't remember it from that, or 'Mockingbird'. There are some lines that are just forgettable unless you're reading/hearing them at that moment.

In the movie, Atticus cross-examines her on what the piece of furniture was. She repeats it, somewhat indignantly. I found that actress (Collin Wilcox) to be very memorable in her delivery.

[periwinkle]

Twice as long as Hadrian's wall, Offa's Dyke was the traditional border between these 2 lands.

Would Wales and Mercia have been acceptable? (Not that I would have said that, but looking up Offa's Dyke I see several places saying it was the traditional border between Wales and Mercia, and the clue didn't say anything about it being modern countries.)

Was excited to see Pam mow down the musicals category -- go DC community theater folks! Curious, Pam, if you've worked on any of the shows from that category.

[georgespelvin]

Pam co-led the pub quiz at O'Brien's that night after her taping in a back room completely crammed with people (including a number of BoD players that had just taped the 1990s and 2000s games). Pam did a great job keeping order out of that chaos (btw, a team that included Colby Burnett, Dr. J, seaborgium and thejeopardyfan won). Fortunately, I didn't know the results of the game tonight ahead of time because I certainly enjoyed watching it develop.

Yes, Pam did a great job with a lively crowd. Even with her hosting obligations she was kind enough to take a second to be pleasant when I introduced myself when she came by the table in between rounds.

No spoiler from Pam, but unfortunately for me I did not manage to avoid hearing what happened in this game. I knew Pam led and bet zero to win, so at least I could play all of the clues unspoiled.

Rex overheard the result there too and earlier offered in a PM to tell me. I strongly refused his offer--a fact which I was even more pleased with when the matchups were announced. I credit my good fortune to the fact that my wife, cousin and I were eating dinner in the adjacent restaurant section until very shortly before the quiz started.

[Volante]

Twice as long as Hadrian's wall, Offa's Dyke was the traditional border between these 2 lands.

Would Wales and Mercia have been acceptable? (Not that I would have said that, but looking up Offa's Dyke I see several places saying it was the traditional border between Wales and Mercia, and the clue didn't say anything about it being modern countries.)

Only if you carve it onto a coconut for final.

[Coelacanth]

Also, I wish they'd posted Brian's interview clips along with the rest of ours, because they were pretty hilarious.

I was hoping they would do a collection of out-takes and just share that privately with the players. On the other hand, some of that footage, for example me offering to take off my shirt, is better left unseen.

[opusthepenguin]

Watching the game, I realized that Alex's comments at the beginning of the game (unintentionally, I'm sure) were basically reinforcing the idea that the leader should really think about betting small. Other than that, I think the rest of what I'd say here is probably in Fritz's link. Well, maybe one more thing -- I definitely think there were things we all would have gotten in a regular game (Van Gogh, Lake Superior), but it seemed like in the first game, they were so clearly going for the non-obvious answer in several places that we (or at least I) was overthinking it.

And what a lovely link from Fritz that was. Thanks for checking in here, and thanks for taking part in that exchange. I think I fell in love with you a little bit when you explained the thought that went into your wager. You clearly thought through exactly the things we've been discussing here—both the probabilities, and the emotional ramifications of a loss due to betting "against yourself". This makes your wager all the more gutsy—far gutsier than a big bet "on yourself" to win, in my opinion.

I also love that you didn't give a weak in-game performance and sneak into your win with a canny wager. You won the game on points. Your wager just helped you hang on to that win. Congratulations and best of retro good luck! You are currently my favorite to win the tournament. I don't say that necessarily as an oddsmaker. In that capacity, I might have to go with Leszek (considering only those whose games have already aired). But you'd be a very close second. As much as I like Leszek and will be happy for him if he wins, I remain, my dear,

Your obedient and affectionate cheerleader,

Opus T. Penguin


P.S. I might be tempted to spare a bit of cheerleading for Bob Harris if he advances. But mostly I'm cheering for him to make it to the finals. Once there, he'll be equally entertaining whether he wins or loses, so why cheer for a win?

[opusthepenguin]

Also, I wish they'd posted Brian's interview clips along with the rest of ours, because they were pretty hilarious.

I was hoping they would do a collection of out-takes and just share that privately with the players. On the other hand, some of that footage, for example me offering to take off my shirt, is better left unseen.

I'm not too worried about footage of you OFFERING to take off your shirt.

[lieph82]

Watching the game, I realized that Alex's comments at the beginning of the game (unintentionally, I'm sure) were basically reinforcing the idea that the leader should really think about betting small. Other than that, I think the rest of what I'd say here is probably in Fritz's link. Well, maybe one more thing -- I definitely think there were things we all would have gotten in a regular game (Van Gogh, Lake Superior), but it seemed like in the first game, they were so clearly going for the non-obvious answer in several places that we (or at least I) was overthinking it.

And what a lovely link from Fritz that was. Thanks for checking in here, and thanks for taking part in that exchange. I think I fell in love with you a little bit when you explained the thought that went into your wager. You clearly thought through exactly the things we've been discussing here—both the probabilities, and the emotional ramifications of a loss due to betting "against yourself". This makes your wager all the more gutsy—far gutsier than a big bet "on yourself" to win, in my opinion.

I also love that you didn't give a weak in-game performance and sneak into your win with a canny wager. You won the game on points. Your wager just helped you hang on to that win. Congratulations and best of retro good luck! You are currently my favorite to win the tournament. I don't say that necessarily as an oddsmaker. In that capacity, I might have to go with Leszek (considering only those whose games have already aired). But you'd be a very close second. As much as I like Leszek and will be happy for him if he wins, I remain, my dear,

Your obedient and affectionate cheerleader,

Opus T. Penguin


P.S. I might be tempted to spare a bit of cheerleading for Bob Harris if he advances. But mostly I'm cheering for him to make it to the finals. Once there, he'll be equally entertaining whether he wins or loses, so why cheer for a win?

It is a huge win for Jeopardy! whenever Pam Mueller advances in a tournament, for obvious reasons. I hope the creeps stay away this time though, Pam.

Bob Harris tweeted a few times that he was really hitting the books for this tournament, much like for his previous appearances. I have a feeling this will show--so many of the other players have looked (justifiably) rusty.

One more point about FJ in this game--I think Fritz's wager to stay ahead of Dan no matter what makes even more sense given the category. Considering the difficulty of FJs in the tournament and Dan Melia's background, a single get for Melia in the Borders category had pretty good odds of happening. Of course, that's easy to say after the fact.

[georgespelvin]

Amplifying on the last point, one advantage that the folks in this tournament have is that they can actually study the prior games of their opponents to look for strengths, weaknesses and tendencies. I know of some people who have done that in other big tournaments (cough, Rex, cough) and while people do change in terms of weaknesses, they aren't likely to change in strengths and probably not in tendencies (at least not in any cases that we've seen this far).

[Magna]

Would Wales and Mercia have been acceptable? (Not that I would have said that, but looking up Offa's Dyke I see several places saying it was the traditional border between Wales and Mercia, and the clue didn't say anything about it being modern countries.)

I bet it would, for the reason you point out. Or, Mercia and Powys - now that would be one impressive response!

I did really well on this board, and picked up a lot of lach trash and a missed DD or two. Yesterday's wasn't impossible, but I wouldn't have rung in as much.

[jkbrat]

I suspect I might have missed this FJ! but for one of those fortuitous Jeopardy! coincidences....

In another thread a few days ago, I responded to a request for J! study material by suggesting The Rex Factor ("reviewing all the kings and queens of England from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth II") podcast.

Making that suggestion reminded me that it's been awhile since I myself have listened to it, so decided it was time to start again.

Have only gotten to Episode 1 ("Backgroundy Stuff") so far, but by golly that was good enough as there, about 1/2 hour in, was a discussion of Offa ("Oooo, a man with a dyke!").

I had heard it before, obviously, but certainly hadn't put it into long-term memory, so I doubt it would have been retrievable without that very timely refresher.

[OKlibrarian]

I suspect I might have missed this FJ! but for one of those fortuitous Jeopardy! coincidences....

In another thread a few days ago, I responded to a request for J! study material by suggesting The Rex Factor ("reviewing all the kings and queens of England from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth II") podcast.

Making that suggestion reminded me that it's been awhile since I myself have listened to it, so decided it was time to start again.

Have only gotten to Episode 1 ("Backgroundy Stuff") so far, but by golly that was good enough as there, about 1/2 hour in, was a discussion of Offa ("Oooo, a man with a dyke!").

I had heard it before, obviously, but certainly hadn't put it into long-term memory, so I doubt it would have been retrievable without that very timely refresher.

I instagot Offa for pretty much the same reason--though it my case it was that I'd happened to catch a documentary on the monarchy a month or so ago, and Offa stuck in my head. That podcast actually sounds really cool though--think I'll add it to my itunes.

[harrumph]

It seems that Offa's Dyke was not constructed as a water engineering project but rather as a defensive fortification. And the "ff" in his name does not indicate Welshness as Mr Offa came from the English side of the ledger... they had some great names back then, his father was Thingfrith.

[harrumph]

The huge variable in this FJ betting scenario is the expected get rate on FJ. If we assume the get rate to be 30%, then the leader Pam has at least a 70% chance of winning with a bet of zero, plus the percentage goes up by the chances that Fritz keeps third place Dan locked out... if we call those chances 50% then Pam has an 85% chance of winning.

[mikeday]

Hi all! At the risk of being one of "those guys" who only posts when he's just been on the show... I'm posting because I was just on the show.

Regarding the final wagers, Pam and Dan and I did an email chat after the game, and we cover some of that territory. Here's the link: http://www.who2.com/blog/2014/03/inside ... contestant

I think y'all covered the strategic wagering possibilities here very well. I'd like to add one point I don't see mentioned much: the category. This time around, thanks to J! Archive and Internet technology in general, I was able to get a much better feel for my strongest and weakest categories, and so that played a bigger role in wagering (for me, anyway). I used to completely ignore the category when wagering in FJ, but in this situation I'd learned enough to know that geography isn't always a strong suit for me. That helped me make the wager. It sounds like Pam made a similar calculation, for which I can only salute her. A great wager.

And thanks for the palindrome betting love! I've always had fun with that.

Now back to my regular role as a now-and-then lurker.

Fritz, thanks for posting and including the link to your chat. Very informative.

Pam, congratulations on winning. Well-played. I was definitely pulling for you, although I'm still haunted by my miss of "thoroughbreds" in our UTOC game 9 years ago (next clue up was the decisive DD). My 4 year old daughter was also pulling for you. She repeatedly said "I want the girl to win" and asked "When I'm 10, can I be on Jeopardy, daddy?" Fun stuff -- and I will be her biggest fan if she ever makes it on the show. Oh and big law firms ^&*)(, don't they (I say that as a Skadden alumni).

For the rest of you, re Pam's bet, it makes a lot of sense (although I think there is a better bet for her strategy). If she goes old-school and bets $8869, she will win if she is right but not if she is wrong. If she misses, she will end up with $8131, which won't be enough to win, because Fritz is unlikely to bet more than $4067 (the amount needed to cover Pam if he's right). If Fritz misses, he'll still have $8867. On the other hand, if Pam makes a small bet, she will win UNLESS Fritz is right and bets to cover her.

So it seems to be which is the better possibility: (A) Pam gets it right OR (B) EITHER (i) Fritz misses or (ii) Fritz bets less than $4067. In a normal J game, I would say clearly (A) is the better shot. Most good players are going to get 80%+ on FJ. But in the Decades tournament, a lot of the FJ questions have been very tough. I think, on the whole, they've been tougher than the UTOC FJs (which actually weren't all that bad; the boards in the UTOC were very tough, but the FJs were reasonable). So that decreases (A) and increases (B)(i). In addition, Fritz has two likely bets -- $0-$1533 (stay ahead of Dan) and $4067 (cover Pam while still winning a Triple Stumper if Pam goes old school). It's very likely Fritz will choose the $0-$1533 option if he thinks Pam will go old school. If he best $4067, then he lets Dan win if Dan gets it right and the others miss (and since Dan is very well traveled, that's a possibility). So that pushes (B)(ii) up. I think Pam's choice is quite reasonable.

That being said, there probably is a better bet than zero. If Fritz chooses the "cover Pam" option, he will wager between $4067 (the amount to cover Pam if he's right) and $4802 (the highest amount that will leave him ahead of Pam if she goes old school and misses). There's very little chance Fritz is ever going to wager more than $4802 (yes, he might go big, but it's doubtful). So probably the most he'll wind up with is $17,736. Thus, I think Pam's best wager would be something along the lines of $1,000 or so. She still wins in all of the cases she does with a $0 wager, but now she ALSO wins if Fritz uses the "cover Pam" approach and both get it right.

And if anyone can figure all of that out in the 30 seconds you get to make your bet, then they should immediately go to LA and try out for the show!

Take care,
Mike

[lieph82]

Mike,
Good analysis- Pam's optimal wager for her strategy here would have been $737. However, the players do not only have 30 seconds to come up with their wagers. Audience members and the contestants in this particular game noted that Pam took much longer than the usual amount of time to make her wager. I'm not sure there's even a time limit- the contestant coordinators might try to hurry you along a little bit, but I don't think it's a situation where you're struggling to do your analysis in a very limited amount of time.

[Magna]

And the "ff" in his name does not indicate Welshness as Mr Offa came from the English side of the ledger... they had some great names back then, his father was Thingfrith.

"Hey, you, get Offa dyke loud!"
(A mondegreen for the very educated. )

[Mathew5000]

The huge variable in this FJ betting scenario is the expected get rate on FJ. If we assume the get rate to be 30%, then the leader Pam has at least a 70% chance of winning with a bet of zero, plus the percentage goes up by the chances that Fritz keeps third place Dan locked out... if we call those chances 50% then Pam has an 85% chance of winning.

Surely the estimated get rate is much higher than 30%. In the 80s BoTD week, eight of fifteen got FJ correct.