boson wrote:Alex Jacob defeated Learned League champion Scott Blish during his original run... He wasn't winning against just weaker competition then. I'm sure he worked hard to get better in between his runs on the show, but it is a mistake to think he wasn't an amazing champion then.
Matt Jackson had the wins and money going into the TOC, but Alex Jacob was right there on the same level even if his stay in regular play was much shorter. Alex played with his foot not always on the accelerator and his light pen not always on point due to his tremendous skill in his initial 7 games.
For regular play to TOC there can be surprise guests in the finals based on how the player did during the regular run. More common is a player to put together a great QF game above what was expected and then to come back to reality in the semis.
I'm not sure if boson read my initial post, as I repeatedly complimented Jacob for being an incredible champion during his initial run. Just not quite on the same level as Matt Jackson, who might be a top 5 all-time champion during Jeopardy's 32 years.
Luckily, there is a more objective way to determine what I consider to be the one area where Jackson was a bit ahead;
Alex's average Coryat in 7 games: $20,286 (phenomenal)
Matt's average Coryat in in 14 games: $24,514 (jaw-dropping)
Incidentally, in the ToC,
Alex's average Coryat: $19,750
Matt's average Coryat: $18,050
Which tends to support my initial claim.
dhkendall wrote:Re: Alex Jacob: I've always seen him as one who could attribute his success by using tactics from his time as a pro poker player in J! Being a fan of pro poker (but after Alex's time) I could definitely see it, and could almost call what he was going to do in a given situation.
As someone who enjoys playing poker myself I was taking notes for whenever I get The Call, but I also know that I'm nowhere near Alex's level in poker, so their results of my using them in J! will probably not work nearly as well.
You don't necessarily need to be good at poker (let alone on Alex's level) to figure out the relevant points that cross over to Jeopardy;
-In poker, if you can go all-in with a 60% chance of winning, you take it and feel very good about yourself.
-If you go all-in heads-up with a 67% chance, that's superb and you've completely outplayed your opponent.
-If you go all-in with a 80% chance, that's superlative. As good as it gets.
-If you think your chances are less than 50% without pot odds (which Jeopardy doesn't have), you fold.
Now, apply this logic to DD wagering, which are answered correctly 65% of the time (and 75+% for players of Alex's caliber)...