I really don't know how you can say that without a huge dose of irony, especially in the context of discussing Brad Rutter, who won $3 million largely due to wagering mistakes by his opponents.Kingrat47 wrote:I appreciate the response. A subsidiary point of mine, buried in my overlong initial post, is that wagering, particularly of the Final Jeopardy variety that seems to preoccupy most of the wagering analysis, is an awful lot less important than it's being treated.lieph82 wrote:I think that if, in every single one of his appearances on the show, Brad screwed up a basic "this is the state capital of ___" clue, you would hear no end of comments about it on this board. It's frustrating when someone has a weakness that is very easily correctable and it seems as though he does nothing about it.
That being said, everyone has weaknesses in their game, and when Brad's weaknesses have been exposed, he has won due to weaknesses in the wagering strategies of other players. There's really no doubt as to Brad's greatness. And you're right that posters sometimes get a little too frustrated and start moralizing and whatnot. But I think the consternation is warranted, if not to the degree of some of those posts.
(I am by no means diminishing his phenomenal Jeopardy! game playing ability. Clearly, no one has dominated so many opponents of the highest caliber as Brad. But it is a simple fact that he was about to lose the MMM semifinal and the UTOC 3rd round game, but for the wagering mistakes by his opponents.)