Thursday, June 19, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[mrsal67]

For everyone that is criticizing the second place wager, where were you last week when Katie bet big and won or on Monday when
Andrea bet big and won? Yes some comments were made but on the whole there was no criticism because they got the correct answer and won.
It seems to me all the wager/game theory experts are playing the result.

So if Angie had gotten the correct response and won, would all the experts come out and make the same comments that appear on this thread?

Thats like arguing hitting on 19 and drawing a deuce in blackjack is a good play.

"Well it was a good play because I won". No its not. If you live in a 3 story building and its faster to jump out the window instead of walking down the stairs and the first time you jump out you don't break your leg, then by all means you should jump every time and see how that works out.

ROT (results oriented thinking).

Actually I am not arguing that at all. I do agree that Angie overbet.
What my complaint is that everyone is so quick to jump on a bad wager when it costs someone the game, but not when it wins them the game. Andrea won on a bad bet by her and what was a rational bet by her (if I remember vermonters video correctly.)

The x-factor missing from the wagering discussion (and your blackjack analogy) is the fact that each contestant controls whether they get the answer right.
For your analogy to be valid it would have to say that I am a card counter and I know that there is a high percentage chance (75-90) that the next card is a deuce. Then my hitting on 19 is a good play since 21 will guarantee me a win or push with the dealer.

The real intent of my original post was that if you are going jump up and criticize someone for a bad wager when it costs them the game, have the guts to be as critical and vocal when a bad bet wins them the game.

[danspartan]

Gotcha. I am equal opportunity wager whiner, if its a bad bet, then its a bad bet win or lose. People just tend to point it out more when it costs the game.

Would anyone defend a Clavin wager even if they get it right? Its bad math, bad wagering but it is the players right to play however they want. If they think they have that huge of an edge in a category (the kid with the civil war category) and they go for it they live or die with the result. Doesnt matter if it works or not, its still a stupid risk.

If Tiger Woods is up 3 on the last hole of the US Open and there is a big water hazard at 300 yards, does he go macho and try and drive it over the water or does he just lay-up and take the easy victory. He can control hitting a great shot ( equal to getting the FJ right) but its still a dumb move.

(OK general rant--when a tiny fraction of the populace is reading illiterate there is an uproar, when the majority of the populace is math illiterate thats OK--partially leading to the mortgage crisis: "I can buy a $750,000 house on my $50,000 salary with no money down", and just generally stupid things like getting snookered in all kinds of financial dealings like negotiating a car purchase on payments instead of price) Heck a lot of people are proud of their math illiteracy.

Card counting edges are in the low single digits more like low to mid 50%s, not 75%+.

[mrsal67]

Gotcha. I am equal opportunity wager whiner, if its a bad bet, then its a bad bet win or lose. People just tend to point it out more when it costs the game.

Would anyone defend a Clavin wager even if they get it right? Its bad math, bad wagering but it is the players right to play however they want. If they think they have that huge of an edge in a category (the kid with the civil war category) and they go for it they live or die with the result. Doesnt matter if it works or not, its still a stupid risk.

If Tiger Woods is up 3 on the last hole of the US Open and there is a big water hazard at 300 yards, does he go macho and try and drive it over the water or does he just lay-up and take the easy victory. He can control hitting a great shot ( equal to getting the FJ right) but its still a dumb move.

(OK general rant--when a tiny fraction of the populace is reading illiterate there is an uproar, when the majority of the populace is math illiterate thats OK--partially leading to the mortgage crisis: "I can buy a $750,000 house on my $50,000 salary with no money down", and just generally stupid things like getting snookered in all kinds of financial dealings like negotiating a car purchase on payments instead of price) Heck a lot of people are proud of their math illiteracy.

Card counting edges are in the low single digits more like low to mid 50%s, not 75%+.

To prove my point about the criticism (SPOILER FOR 6/20/14)

Spoiler

On Friday's board there have been some comments about the second place wager not being the best wager but nothing comparable to what was said on this (Thursday's) board. Why? Because she got the question right and is now the champion.
So who is playing the results here?

[danspartan]

To prove my point about the criticism (SPOILER FOR 6/20/14)

Spoiler

On Friday's board there have been some comments about the second place wager not being the best wager but nothing comparable to what was said on this (Thursday's) board. Why? Because she got the question right and is now the champion.
So who is playing the results here?

Hmm, two very mild comments on the amount bet being not optimal and on a quick view, still in the range to not impact winning or losing. The assertion that betting 1200 less improved her chances to win is mathematically weak at best, essentially a critic of betting any more than necessary to cover 3rds double up in case 1st and 3rd do some really stupid and really rare things.

When a leader (15000 vs 14000) bets 5000 thats stupid 100% of the time as is 2nd betting anything more than 1000, assuming 3rd is out of it.[/spoiler]

[opusthepenguin]

What my complaint is that everyone is so quick to jump on a bad wager when it costs someone the game, but not when it wins them the game.

I haven't observed that to be the case. If you go through past threads, you'll find lots of criticism of bad wagers that ended up winning. (Nitpick: It is only rarely the case that a bad wager "wins them the game." It is far more common to see a bad wager happens not to lose them the game. In most cases, a good wager would also have won them the game and would additionally have won the game in other circumstances that, quite fortunately for the oblivious champ, did not obtain. That's what makes it a "good wager". And quite contrary to your complaint, you will even find in our annals criticism of bad wagers that won when a good wager would have lost.)

There may be a difference in vociferousness when the bad wager actually loses. Not always. I got raked over the coals not too long ago for my perhaps too heated criticism of a wager that did not lose Chuck Forrest the game. But in general I'll grant we respond a little more warmly when someone actually loses $15,000+ than when they almost do. That's human nature. Is that the complaint? I'd be curious to meet someone who doesn't work that way. Would you be just as upset with someone whose carelessness endangered your dog's life regardless of whether, you know, the dog actually died?

[A drop of golden sun]

Final Jeopardy! was a GIMME! There have been a lot of gimmes in Final Jeopardy! recently, and astonishingly, many have been missed (Ambassador to Iran, conspiracy (which everyone got), Canberra/Ankara). A big corporation in the S&P 500, founded in 1908, that declared bankruptcy in 2009 and then came out of bankruptcy. How could anybody miss that?????? It might help to remember that GM celebrated its 100th birthday a few years ago, as I did, but even if you didn't, it was pretty much a piece of cake. That's my opinion.

[opusthepenguin]

(OK general rant--when a tiny fraction of the populace is reading illiterate there is an uproar, when the majority of the populace is math illiterate thats OK--partially leading to the mortgage crisis: "I can buy a $750,000 house on my $50,000 salary with no money down", and just generally stupid things like getting snookered in all kinds of financial dealings like negotiating a car purchase on payments instead of price) Heck a lot of people are proud of their math illiteracy.

I like the term "innumeracy". But most people aren't familiar with it. Which supports your whole rant.

[El Jefe]

After having the seldom-seen cajones to do the TDD and get herself back in contention

Cajones means "boxes."

No, that's CAJAS; true, jeo-ful did (as is common) misspell COJONES. CAJONES are drawers and certain percussive musical instruments.

I would have simply used GONADS (since it sounds sex-mismatched but really isn't, just to annoy certain people). I have also heard EGGS/HUEVOS used succesfully (with both sexes).

Tangential P.S.-chances are if anyone thinks Columbus sailed with 'the Nina'[sic] then they're saying it wrong...

[El Jefe]

I thought "do not go gentle/gently" was monstrous negbait for $200.

"Negbait" is when there are two apparently plausible answers, especially if the wrong one seems more likely.

Saying that this was negbait would be like saying "America the Beautiful/Beauteous" is negbait. If you know the work, you know the right word. If you don't know the work, you don't know either word.

Sorry to cast my lot with TPH (especially against such an esteemed former commanding officer) but words that are one letter off are easily confused with each other, particularly when the meanings are so close. I guess I'm ignorant to the raging dispute- did Dylan Thomas mean anything other than 'don't die tamely/gently'? Is there any doubt for modern ears what makes more sense is an -ly adverb in that circumstance (even though historically adjectives were used far more adverbally than today). It's somewhere between the minor offense of 'next in The Mental Rolodex' and 'mental grammar-check.' But it was properly negged.

Hey plenty of Python fans out there can't pronounce John Cleese's name properly, but I don't somehow massively impugn their sketch recitations or fanhood.

[seaborgium]

After having the seldom-seen cajones to do the TDD and get herself back in contention

Cajones means "boxes."

No, that's CAJAS; true, jeo-ful did (as is common) misspell COJONES. CAJONES are drawers and certain percussive musical instruments.

Yeah, big boxes.

[bomtr]

After having the seldom-seen cajones to do the TDD and get herself back in contention

Cajones means "boxes."

No, that's CAJAS; true, jeo-ful did (as is common) misspell COJONES. CAJONES are drawers and certain percussive musical instruments.

Yeah, big boxes.

Cajon is also used by many for 'post office box.'

[El Jefe]

After having the seldom-seen cajones to do the TDD and get herself back in contention

Cajones means "boxes."

No, that's CAJAS; true, jeo-ful did (as is common) misspell COJONES. CAJONES are drawers and certain percussive musical instruments.

Yeah, big boxes.

Upon further non-babelfish research there are at least ten usages/def's:

http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/cajones

[jkbrat]

After having the seldom-seen cajones to do the TDD and get herself back in contention

Cajones means "boxes."

No, that's CAJAS; true, jeo-ful did (as is common) misspell COJONES. CAJONES are drawers and certain percussive musical instruments.

Yeah, big boxes.

Cajon is also used by many for 'post office box.'

You know, I don't think I'll be able to look at people from El Cajon in quite the same way again after this conversation....

[davey]

I thought "do not go gentle/gently" was monstrous negbait for $200.

"Negbait" is when there are two apparently plausible answers, especially if the wrong one seems more likely.

Saying that this was negbait would be like saying "America the Beautiful/Beauteous" is negbait. If you know the work, you know the right word. If you don't know the work, you don't know either word.

Sorry to cast my lot with TPH (especially against such an esteemed former commanding officer) but words that are one letter off are easily confused with each other, particularly when the meanings are so close. I guess I'm ignorant to the raging dispute- did Dylan Thomas mean anything other than 'don't die tamely/gently'? Is there any doubt for modern ears what makes more sense is an -ly adverb in that circumstance (even though historically adjectives were used far more adverbally than today). It's somewhere between the minor offense of 'next in The Mental Rolodex' and 'mental grammar-check.' But it was properly negged.

Hey plenty of Python fans out there can't pronounce John Cleese's name properly, but I don't somehow massively impugn their sketch recitations or fanhood.

I don't think the proper word there is something one can intuit. If you never heard the quote you could sooner guess "by way of Pasadena" as "gently." This is a know it or don't. If you know it, you should know that it's not quite the adverb grammar tells you to expect. That's one reason people remember it.

[Rex Kramer]

I guess I'm ignorant to the raging dispute- did Dylan Thomas mean anything other than 'don't die tamely/gently'?

I have no idea if there is a raging debate, but my interpretation is that Thomas was intentionally playing off the ambiguity of "gentle" as quasi-adverb (don't die tamely) and "gentle" as adjective (do not become a timid person as you face death). The speaker is begging his father not just to act a certain way, but to *be* that way.

Rex

[Volante]

Cajon is also used by many for 'post office box.'

You know, I don't think I'll be able to look at people from El Cajon in quite the same way again after this conversation....

How did you look at bipedal post office boxes before?

[opusthepenguin]

After having the seldom-seen cajones to do the TDD and get herself back in contention

• Cajones means "boxes."

  • No, that's CAJAS; true, jeo-ful did (as is common) misspell COJONES. CAJONES are drawers and certain percussive musical instruments.

    • Yeah, big boxes.

    Cajon is also used by many for 'post office box.'

You know, I don't think I'll be able to look at people from El Cajon in quite the same way again after this conversation....

To say nothing of big box stores!