Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

legendneverdies
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by legendneverdies » Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:00 pm

I believe that if players tied for second at the end of FJ! are tied at the end of FJ!, second goes to the player leading at the end of the first round. Alex said this a few times in the early years of the show, it's probably still true.

User avatar
TheyCallMeMrKid
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:35 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by TheyCallMeMrKid » Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:29 pm

goatman wrote:Toyed with TR then recall he was Gov NY not Congressman...Thomas More: Utopia.
Your posts are really long.
Sheepin' it real.

danspartan
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:20 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by danspartan » Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:12 pm

Kind of an all or nothing wager from the tied 2nd/3rd. Going back to frequency analysis

About 53% of time historically, 1st gets it right. We can assume 1st is going to bet to cover. So basically we lose.

About 19% of the time its a triple stumper
About 20% of the time its a single get by either 2nd or 3rd, so lets assume 10% its us and 10% its the other player.

So if we bet 0, we win triple stumpers (19%) and when we are a single get (10%), which is 29% out of about 47% of the time we even have a chance. So>60% we can win by betting 0 and 1st misses.

Seems like betting 0 is superior to shoving from the 2nd/3rd tie with the scores so close.

Caboom
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:49 am

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Caboom » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:54 am

danspartan wrote:Kind of an all or nothing wager from the tied 2nd/3rd. Going back to frequency analysis

About 53% of time historically, 1st gets it right. We can assume 1st is going to bet to cover. So basically we lose.

About 19% of the time its a triple stumper
About 20% of the time its a single get by either 2nd or 3rd, so lets assume 10% its us and 10% its the other player.

So if we bet 0, we win triple stumpers (19%) and when we are a single get (10%), which is 29% out of about 47% of the time we even have a chance. So>60% we can win by betting 0 and 1st misses.

Seems like betting 0 is superior to shoving from the 2nd/3rd tie with the scores so close.
Don't forget, with a zero bet we also have a chance on a single get by the other tied player, if s/he also went with zero.

I analyzed the situation based on the fact that triple stumpers are much more common than double gets with the leader/champ missing, and in addition to what I noted above, those two situations are the only ones where our bet makes a difference (provided the leader bets to cover, and ignoring the tie rule). So a zero bet is more likely to win. Perhaps the category influenced the decisions of the players.

Travis might have some extra incentive to go all in, as he was losing the tiebreaker for 2nd. Let's assume the leader gets it right. There are 16 combinations of the two trailing players betting either everything or zero and either getting it right or wrong. In 8 of those he bets it all. Of those 8, he gets 2nd place three times (RW for him, with Mindy betting zero and Mindy betting everything, and RR when Mindy bets zero). Of the 8 combinations where he bets zero, he only gets 2nd place twice (Mindy going all in and getting it wrong, so RW and WW). Still, doesn't seem nearly enough to overcome the -EV noted earlier.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 6716
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by alietr » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:31 am

TheyCallMeMrKid wrote:
goatman wrote:Toyed with TR then recall he was Gov NY not Congressman...Thomas More: Utopia.
Your posts are really long.
Brevity is the soul of wit.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 6716
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by alietr » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:32 am

Technically, a senator is a congressman. They are very, very rarely referred to that way around here, though. "Congressman" almost always refers to a member of the House.

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3536
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by davey » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:27 am

alietr wrote:Technically, a senator is a congressman. They are very, very rarely referred to that way around here, though. "Congressman" almost always refers to a member of the House.
This technical point would be worth noting if anyone could point to a source of any authority that refers to a Congressman McConnell or Congressman Feinstein. You can't, because senators are of course part of Congress, but the term "Congressman" is reserved for members of the House of Representatives.

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 6660
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Volante » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:54 pm

davey wrote:
alietr wrote:Technically, a senator is a congressman. They are very, very rarely referred to that way around here, though. "Congressman" almost always refers to a member of the House.
This technical point would be worth noting if anyone could point to a source of any authority that refers to a Congressman McConnell or Congressman Feinstein. You can't, because senators are of course part of Congress, but the term "Congressman" is reserved for members of the House of Representatives.
A Senator is a congressman, but not a Congressman.

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Vanya » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:05 pm

davey wrote: Congressman Feinstein.
I doubt she would take kindly to that anyway.

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3536
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by davey » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:23 pm

Volante wrote:
davey wrote:
alietr wrote:Technically, a senator is a congressman. They are very, very rarely referred to that way around here, though. "Congressman" almost always refers to a member of the House.
This technical point would be worth noting if anyone could point to a source of any authority that refers to a Congressman McConnell or Congressman Feinstein. You can't, because senators are of course part of Congress, but the term "Congressman" is reserved for members of the House of Representatives.
A Senator is a congressman, but not a Congressman.
I'm not even sure I would go that far, unless someone showed that good sources make that distinction. There's often a marked lack of evidence in these discussions.
The expression "senators and congressmen" is common, as Google shows.

Fighting Words
Contributor
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:30 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Fighting Words » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:32 pm

I will always, always get "Endymion" and "Keats" wrong for the sole reason that my childhood neighborhood was Longfellow, with all of the street names coming from Longfellow's writings, including "Endymion Way."

User avatar
Winchell Factor
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:07 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Winchell Factor » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:48 pm

So, FW, you grew up in these parts then?

Fighting Words
Contributor
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:30 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Fighting Words » Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:27 pm

Winchell Factor wrote:So, FW, you grew up in these parts then?
Indeed. I'm actually in D.C. these days, but that's why I had my billing as being from ye ol' hometown.

User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1613
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Robert K S » Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:20 pm

legendneverdies wrote:I believe that if players tied for second at the end of FJ! are tied at the end of FJ!, second goes to the player leading at the end of the first round. Alex said this a few times in the early years of the show, it's probably still true.
Y'all check out my post here on this problem.

User avatar
Silverfox
Don't Step on My Tail!
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: Deptford, New Jersey

Re: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Silverfox » Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:50 pm

I didn't get FJ. Not enough time for me to tease it out. I put down FDR just to have an answer, any answer.
Overall, I liked the Energy category best.
Be alert. Stupid never takes a day off!

Post Reply