Thursday, January 22, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[seaborgium]

I posted before you did, but mine had to be moderated since I'm a noob here. (Howdy, all.)

Where a post appears in the thread is determined by when the post was submitted, not when it was approved.

[ÕώÕ]

This game was just frightening.

Glad Will got out of the red, or we would have no winner like in 1998 (Both of the co-leaders missed)

[seaborgium]

Has there ever previously been a game that went into FJ with a tie for the lead where the trailer had a solo win on a sole get?

In this one, only the trailer got FJ correct, doubling up, but one leader bet it all, and the other leader fell to a tie with the trailer (by accident, it was reported).

In this one, only the trailer got FJ correct, but neither leader bet it all, and one of them bet to keep the trailer locked out.

[BigDaddyMatty]

I posted before you did, but mine had to be moderated since I'm a noob here. (Howdy, all.)

Where a post appears in the thread is determined by when the post was submitted, not when it was approved.

I stand corrected. Please pardon the redundancy. Also kindly forgive the repetition.

[bpmod]

Please pardon the redundancy. Also kindly forgive the repetition.

You win the thread forum internet.

Brian

[Vanya]

If those are the data, then I'm surprised by them, but I won't argue the over the premise.

And all of those percentages are completely irrelevant in a single game. When are you guys going to realize this?

I have no idea what you are getting at here. Let me recast this argument:

"The roulette wheel lands on red 47.4% of the time, and black 47.4% of the time."

"And all of those percentages are completely irrelevant in a single spin. When are you guys going to realize this?"

If you only get to spin the wheel once, yes, they are irrelevant.

Even so, it's not a good analogy. Every Jeopardy game is different. Different opponents, different FJs. Every spin of the roulette wheel is the same.

[ÕώÕ]

Has there ever previously been a game that went into FJ with a tie for the lead where the trailer had a solo win on a sole get?

In this one, only the trailer got FJ correct, doubling up, but one leader bet it all, and the other leader fell to a tie with the trailer (by accident, it was reported).

In this one, only the trailer got FJ correct, but neither leader bet it all, and one of them bet to keep the trailer locked out.

There was a game in the 1990's. All 3 missed. The lady who was returning champion bet $0. The 2 co-leaders bet everything.

[Vermonter]

Even so, it's not a good analogy. Every Jeopardy game is different. Different opponents, different FJs. Every spin of the roulette wheel is the same.

I think a better comparison is the 4th Down Bot, which gives expected values for 4th and [distance] situation at X position on the field (with >10 minutes remaining in the game).

There might be other factors – offensive strength, defensive strength, weather – that affect the numbers, but on the whole they're a good starting point for estimating the potential payoffs of certain decisions, as is the 50% FJ get rate with 20% correlation. JMO.

[Vermonter]

Has there ever previously been a game that went into FJ with a tie for the lead where the trailer had a solo win on a sole get?

In this one, only the trailer got FJ correct, doubling up, but one leader bet it all, and the other leader fell to a tie with the trailer (by accident, it was reported).

In this one, only the trailer got FJ correct, but neither leader bet it all, and one of them bet to keep the trailer locked out.

There was a game in the 1990's. All 3 missed. The lady who was returning champion bet $0. The 2 co-leaders bet everything.

That's this game, I believe: 12/12/97

One game matches your criteria, Stefan: 3/11/98

Other games in which the trailer won:
3/18/99 (TS)
6/6/00 (TS, bad wagers all around)
11/19/08 (TT SF; double-get, co-leader underbet, trailer went all-in)

[seaborgium]

I also had "trailer at less than half of the leaders" in mind, but I'm not going to move the goalposts after your work. Thanks!

Edit: Steve Fried made it into the 2000 ToC finals on a TS after Michael Rooney led him by $100. Had Michael held back a hundred instead of going TDD earlier, Carolyn Cracraft probably would have been a finalist.

[buckeyebrain]

Some days I think Alex should have a nuclear option. At his discretion, he can say, "Ok, you clowns, that's it. Get off my stage. Johnny, tell everybody the names of the three contestants who are coming out to replace them." Or maybe he could select three random audience members. Or maybe each audience member could have a device that enables them to downvote contestants. If 75 percent of the audience votes you off, you're gone.

As long as we don't start taking pointers from The Meanest Weakest Link and start having Alex hurl vitriolic insults at them for no freaking reason before telling them that they have to stab each other in the back for the sake of pure greed vote each other off.

(In case you can't guess, The Weakest Link is one of my least favorite game shows ever.)

I think The Weakest Link could have been great with a single tweak (The Tweakest Link?): give immunity to the strongest link in each round. It's unacceptable to have a quiz show in which you can answer every question correctly and still lose.

Especially in the cases of "Celebrity Editions" where it would be down to three people, and two of them were married to each other so they certainly weren't voting each other off. I was an old wrestling fan, with HHH and Stephanie McMahon pulling that stunt. I think there was also an L.A. Law Reunion episode where Jill Eikenberry and Michael Tucker were in the final three.

[buckeyebrain]

Forgive me, because I haven't been on the board much (mostly because I stopped tracking my Coryats after the TOC out of frustration), but... I never saw an announcement of a "no ties" rule?

[dhkendall]

Forgive me, because I haven't been on the board much (mostly because I stopped tracking my Coryats after the TOC out of frustration), but... I never saw an announcement of a "no ties" rule?

Hasn't been announced on air yet, but contestants have confirmed it's been said in the green room briefings for the past while.

[kristinsausville]

Forgive me, because I haven't been on the board much (mostly because I stopped tracking my Coryats after the TOC out of frustration), but... I never saw an announcement of a "no ties" rule?

Hasn't been announced on air yet, but contestants have confirmed it's been said in the green room briefings for the past while.

Yup -- was in the green room briefing. Word seems to be getting around; about half the room wasn't surprised. The half that were, though . . .

[Robert K S]

Revolt! Tie-loving contestants unite! They can't force a rule on us! Strike!

[TenPoundHammer]

Just think. If they'd enacted a "no ties" rule sooner, then Jeff Kirby never would've been caught.

[opusthepenguin]

Just think. If they'd enacted a "no ties" rule sooner, then Jeff Kirby never would've been caught.

[Volante]

Just think. If they'd enacted a "no ties" rule sooner, then Jeff Kirby never would've been caught.

Criminy. You must've been wearing oven mitts to safely type out that scorcher.