Tuesday, March 31, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[silverscreentest]

The correct reference format is by year of production for winners, yes you're right many sources jumble this up and incorrectly post by year of award presentation.
The Oscars for 1971 winners were presented in Feb 1972. Winners for 1972 awarded in Feb 1973, etc. Thus, the most recent winners last month for 2014 were awarded Feb 2015.
I have to admit for a few seconds I was double-taking on this too; "Gosh am I sure? Wasn't Godfather in 1973? DOH it was AWARDED in '73." Good point!

The Best Picture Oscar was presented to The Godfather in March 1973. In 2004, the ceremony was moved from late March/early April to late February/early March. List of Academy Awards ceremonies.

[dhkendall]

Now I need a new story, and you have no idea (maybe you do!) how terrifying it is (for some of us) to contemplate making a complete ass of one's self with those interviews. You've pulled it off, apparently, with no sweat.

Anyone who gets up on that stage, whether he or she get blown out of the water or win 10 games, is a fucking badass and shouldn't care one iota about making an ass out of herself or himself. You know who's going to think you're an ass if you go on Jeopardy? AT LEAST SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE. And boy, do they ever tweet.

[...]

Show the audience a little vulnerability, and they'll meet you more than halfway.

Yes, thank you Michael! (If there was ever a post that made me reconsider my not wanting a like button here it's this one). I don't think there's anything I can add here that you didn't say better. (Although I will add that I always make a point of watching the interview section because I enjoy it, and I think watching it will help you build your own story for when you get on the same as watching the game will help you be a better player.)

[alietr]

Here's a trick to telling a story that will endear you to the audience (both in the studio and the viewing public): tell a very specific story about a time you came out a loser. The ski lift story is one of those, and here's another: I shit my pants on a bus on the 4th of July in San Francisco after eating one of the best dinners of my life at a Burmese restaurant with my friend Azim.

Mental note: Cross Burmese food off my list.

[davey]

And the poet I was thinking of (before removing my head from my ass) was Obama's inaugural poet, Elizabeth Alexander. I got lucky that I couldn't come up with her in time and had to guess Angelou, who was clearly the right answer (she won her Pulitzer for reading at Clinton's inauguration, if I recall correctly).

Poets don't win Pulitzers for readings - they win for books. And Maya Angelou never won a Pulitzer. Elizabeth Alexander has been a finalist.

[opusthepenguin]

I'm surprised the Academy didn't prevent all that 'Duh, what year is it?' confusion by using Roman numerals to designate each Oscar ceremony, years before the NFL thought of it for Super Bowls(another one where you'll hear, 'And by '2015 Super Bowl, we mean the one for the 2014 season...) Roman numerals. Just...Roman numerals.

Somewhat connected is this fun bar bet trivia gotcha: How many games did the Miami Dolphins lose in 1972?

Spoiler

1

[opusthepenguin]

Did anyone else not think Erica's story was very funny..or 'not funny ha ha, more like funny WTF???' I'd already had a 'yell at the TV moment' on the 'Mannix' clue(when in doubt, just shut up!), and, although I've been fast-forwarding the chat segments lately, I listened to Erica's for some reason...and just shook my head some more. This is when I wonder just what 'contestant coordinators' are 'coordinating' when people play that badly, make howlingly bad guesses, and the only point of their story seems to be 'Oh, silly me'.

I thought Erica's story was great. I liked it even more than Michael's, and I liked Michael's story a lot.

Did Erica have a lot of bad guesses? I thought the Rockford Files guess was not unreasonable. And in a game against Michael, you've got to take chances that ordinarily you might not. Plus, you know, the lights.

[BigDaddyMatty]

The implication of calling something high risk/high reward is that there's a tradeoff, in this case trading a lower chance of winning the game for a larger prize when you do win.

The first clause is correct; the second is not. The higher risk comes from the fact that a single mistake on a high-wager DD has a significant likelihood of sinking a player's chances, whereas a single miss (or clam, as that option is open on normal clues but not on DDs) on a normal clue is unlikely to do so. Again, I love Michael's strategy and plan to do the same thing should I ever receive The Call, but it very obviously carries tremendous downside risk.

[teapot37]

I'm surprised the Academy didn't prevent all that 'Duh, what year is it?' confusion by using Roman numerals to designate each Oscar ceremony, years before the NFL thought of it for Super Bowls(another one where you'll hear, 'And by '2015 Super Bowl, we mean the one for the 2014 season...) Roman numerals. Just...Roman numerals.

To their credit, they don't use years, but rather ordinals when referring to what ceremony it is (this year was the 87th Academy Awards).

[TomKBaltimoreBoy]

I'm surprised the Academy didn't prevent all that 'Duh, what year is it?' confusion by using Roman numerals to designate each Oscar ceremony, years before the NFL thought of it for Super Bowls(another one where you'll hear, 'And by '2015 Super Bowl, we mean the one for the 2014 season...) Roman numerals. Just...Roman numerals.

To their credit, they don't use years, but rather ordinals when referring to what ceremony it is (this year was the 87th Academy Awards).

For some reason, the Super Bowl isn't using Roman numerals, at least for this game. At the host's request, the next game is being referenced as '50' instead of 'L'.

[Dudd]

The implication of calling something high risk/high reward is that there's a tradeoff, in this case trading a lower chance of winning the game for a larger prize when you do win.

The first clause is correct; the second is not. The higher risk comes from the fact that a single mistake on a high-wager DD has a significant likelihood of sinking a player's chances, whereas a single miss (or clam, as that option is open on normal clues but not on DDs) on a normal clue is unlikely to do so. Again, I love Michael's strategy and plan to do the same thing should I ever receive The Call, but it very obviously carries tremendous downside risk.

Yes, but there's also risk in missing out on the opportunity cost of a larger wager should you choose to wager small. For example, from Monday's show:

Spoiler

By wagering 6400 and 7k, he locked both players out. Had he wagered less like a normal Jeopardy player, there's a good chance David would have doubled up on his sole get and passed Michael, either because he had less than 20600 to begin with, or having to cover Cynthia potentially doubling up to 26400 forced him below that number on a miss.

So yeah, there's risk in any choice a player makes. Whether that risk manifests itself immediately or potentially lurks until later in the game, it still exists, all you can do is try and maximize your winning percentage at the time you are forced to make your wager. In general, I think the math supports going bigger like Michael has been doing. Is he doing perfectly, no, but unless you're Watson running a Monte Carlo sim on a supercomputer just prior to announcing your wager, no one will.

[Golf]

The first clause is correct; the second is not. The higher risk comes from the fact that a single mistake on a high-wager DD has a significant likelihood of sinking a player's chances, whereas a single miss (or clam, as that option is open on normal clues but not on DDs) on a normal clue is unlikely to do so. Again, I love Michael's strategy and plan to do the same thing should I ever receive The Call, but it very obviously carries tremendous downside risk.

In every DD situation there is a wager that gives the highest percentage of winning based on category, standings, and time left in the game. Most contestants and viewers including yourself focus on what happens if you miss, which is poor strategy.

The wagering vikings are pleased to get to watch a contestant who understands game theory.

[Volante]

The first clause is correct; the second is not. The higher risk comes from the fact that a single mistake on a high-wager DD has a significant likelihood of sinking a player's chances, whereas a single miss (or clam, as that option is open on normal clues but not on DDs) on a normal clue is unlikely to do so. Again, I love Michael's strategy and plan to do the same thing should I ever receive The Call, but it very obviously carries tremendous downside risk.

In every DD situation there is a wager that gives the highest percentage of winning based on category, standings, and time left in the game. Most contestants and viewers including yourself focus on what happens if you miss, which is poor strategy.

The wagering vikings are pleased to get to watch a contestant who understands game theory.

It's better to win with $1 than $10,000 as long as you bet properly?

[bleezy]

What an exciting game! Though I'm surprised a CS grad student J! champion wouldn't know transistor.

[michaelbilow]

What an exciting game! Though I'm surprised a CS grad student J! champion wouldn't know transistor.

Inside I was yelling "Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley," but that had nothing to do with the category.

[Golf]

It's better to win with $1 than $10,000 as long as you bet properly?

You make the wager that gives you the best chance of winning, the end. The result of one trial means nothing. We've all seen asinine wagers work out while perfect wagers do not.

[dharrisf]

For 2016 it's too early to know the cut line. Even if Michael wins tomorrow he has locked up nothing although his position would take a while to surpass. If he loses he cannot be counted out either, but it would be a precarious spot.

I tell my college students there's almost no such thing as a stupid question,* so here's mine: Since the Season 30 TOC aired in the fall after the season ended, why wouldn't this season's TOC be this fall?

*Exceptions include "Are we doing anything important in class today?" and "Sorry I missed three weeks. Did I miss anything?"

[harrumph]

Michael is a fun watch, his games are what Jeopardy ought to be.

[BigDaddyMatty]

The first clause is correct; the second is not. The higher risk comes from the fact that a single mistake on a high-wager DD has a significant likelihood of sinking a player's chances, whereas a single miss (or clam, as that option is open on normal clues but not on DDs) on a normal clue is unlikely to do so. Again, I love Michael's strategy and plan to do the same thing should I ever receive The Call, but it very obviously carries tremendous downside risk.

In every DD situation there is a wager that gives the highest percentage of winning based on category, standings, and time left in the game. Most contestants and viewers including yourself focus on what happens if you miss, which is poor strategy.

The wagering vikings are pleased to get to watch a contestant who understands game theory.

Any strategy that does not focus on both risk and reward is a poor strategy. In fact, it is impossible to know whether a strategy is sound unless one calculates both upside and downside. Otherwise, one should just bet everything all the time always and try to ring in on every clue.

I'll say this one more time, despite the fact that it is quoted above: I love Michael's strategy. Every night I implore the contestants to bet big on DDs. Such a strategy, however, places extreme emphasis on the ability to solve a small number of unseen clues. Eventually, inevitably, this leads to a crash-and-burn scenario (see, e.g., http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=62).

[Bamaman]

And the bad FJ wager prevailed in that game. Ken did not have a crush, so she could have bet zero and win on a miss by Ken. Or did she think he might bet zero in that spot?

[michaelbilow]

The implication of calling something high risk/high reward is that there's a tradeoff, in this case trading a lower chance of winning the game for a larger prize when you do win.

The first clause is correct; the second is not. The higher risk comes from the fact that a single mistake on a high-wager DD has a significant likelihood of sinking a player's chances, whereas a single miss (or clam, as that option is open on normal clues but not on DDs) on a normal clue is unlikely to do so. Again, I love Michael's strategy and plan to do the same thing should I ever receive The Call, but it very obviously carries tremendous downside risk.

The cost of missing on a high wager varies a lot over the course of a game and with the game situation, and it's a bit hard to talk about it because "high" means a lot of different things; sometimes a high dollar-value wager is meaningless on the outcome (e.g. my second $7,000 wager today still kept a lock on the game).

Early on in the game, missing a DD doesn't hurt your chances that much, but it can increase them significantly (it's incredible how fast leads from the J! round can evaporate in DJ!). If I'd missed the TDD on Monday's game, I might have lost, but (semi-correcting for the size of the second DD wager and holding everything else equal) I still would have had something around Cynthia's/David's score going into FJ.

I think players also under-value the money side of the game; except for Jennings, Collins, Rutter, a few others, and potentially me, there's a reasonable chance (at least 10%) that you're going to lose any individual game. Why not take a few shots?