Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

bleezy
Valued Contributor
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:36 am

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by bleezy » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:19 pm

Wow. That was a hard FJ.

As soon the category was revealed I said out loud "I bet it's Radioshack going out of business", because I thought it would be something non-controversial and I knew it was taped several months ago.

When the clue appeared on the screen I recognized that it was submarine related because of the date and the word "torpedo". But even though I miraculously pre-called the answer, I still didn't recognize that my guess was correct because the wording was so convoluted. Is it Subway, I wondered? I actually had to go back to the frame where the whole clue is displayed on the screen to figure out what they were asking. I still got it though.

The worst part? I actually spent 4+ years on a Los Angeles-class submarine and we still to this very day refer to the radio room as the "radio shack", and it still wasn't immediately apparent.

User avatar
Volante
JBOARDIE OF THE MONTH!
Posts: 6601
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Volante » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:35 pm

Category 13 wrote:
billy pilgrim wrote:I thought the steamer in question was the Lusitania - torpedoed in 1917 - so I figured the call to the bridge was reporting that, which info would come by radio from the radio shack.
The Germans torpedoed shipwrecks for practice?
Nothing in the clue itself implied it was a practice exercise. Proper train of thought, just wrong event.

User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Robert K S » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:55 pm

The only problem with the clue's syntax, from my perspective, is that it asked for both the company name and the 2-word term, but those two are not the same thing. For 20 years at least the company has branded its name as being a single word.

User avatar
El Jefe
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by El Jefe » Fri May 01, 2015 1:11 am

Volante wrote:
Category 13 wrote:
billy pilgrim wrote:I thought the steamer in question was the Lusitania - torpedoed in 1917 - so I figured the call to the bridge was reporting that, which info would come by radio from the radio shack.
The Germans torpedoed shipwrecks for practice?
Nothing in the clue itself implied it was a practice exercise. Proper train of thought, just wrong event.
Cat13's joke just hit the altitude hard deck over your head, Volante...

VoluptuousLoser
Valued Contributor
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:23 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by VoluptuousLoser » Fri May 01, 2015 4:12 pm

opusthepenguin wrote:
VoluptuousLoser wrote:The syntax of the clue was tortured. And the inclusion of the quotation with ellipsis further confused things. I thought, "Am I supposed to know this quote? Because I have no idea what event is being referenced." As I said, even Alex thought the clue was too difficult as written. Instead of changing the category name, they should have rewritten the clue.
I think the only remedy now is to bring back contestants who missed that FJ and let them play another game. Who's with me?!!??
I am! I am!

VoluptuousLoser
Valued Contributor
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:23 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by VoluptuousLoser » Fri May 01, 2015 4:14 pm

By the way, why is the Standard & Poor's question considered a Triple Stumper? Sarah and I did not get the chance to ring in and answer because Alex credited Greg's wrong answer as correct. I was prepared to give the correct answer if given the chance.

User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Robert K S » Fri May 01, 2015 4:29 pm

VoluptuousLoser wrote:By the way, why is the Standard & Poor's question considered a Triple Stumper? Sarah and I did not get the chance to ring in and answer because Alex credited Greg's wrong answer as correct. I was prepared to give the correct answer if given the chance.
I assume you're referring to the recap at the top of the thread, which is auto-generated. It's just an artifact of the way the Archive handles these situations. The system is only so sophisticated as to recognize whether each player's score was credited, dinged, or left alone when the dust settled. The system defines Triple Stumper as a clue that no one was credited for. Redfining it in the system would complicate things beyond what I am willing to code for, given the infrequency of ruling reversals and the extra complexity they engender. Even if I were to recode the Archive and add extra fields to the database, Archivists would never be able to judge whether or not a correct-to-incorrect reversed ruling would have been, or would not have been, a Triple Stumper--they would be forced to speculate. Whether or not the other players would have had the chance to answer,* or would have gotten it right, is indeterminable and therefore immaterial under the circumstances. The judges' ruling was final,** and as it was, the clue was a Triple Stumper as that term is defined.

*Sometimes Alex will not permit for rebounds. This happens in a variety of circumstances, the most common of which is when a long time has elapsed before the first ring-in. Another time this happens is when a player gives an almost-right response and, in ruling on it, Alex makes the correct response obvious.
**In some cases the judges stop tape and make an instantaneous ruling, allowing for a rebound, the ultimate effect of which is transparent from an outcome perspective.

User avatar
Vermonter
2003 College Champion
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Vermonter » Fri May 01, 2015 4:52 pm

seaborgium wrote:
BigDaddyMatty wrote:
seaborgium wrote:Yes. In fact, given it was $12,000 to $28,400 with $2,000 left on the board, Brian needed to get the DD right to have any chance in FJ. (That's barring any ill-advised, lock-breaking neg from Greg on the $2,000 clue.) My instincts say $8,300 is a good wager there; it would have gotten Brian to $20,300 on a correct response, just over Greg's 2/3 threshold if he got the $2,000 clue and finished with $30,400. Plus, with an incorrect response, he'd be over Sara's 2/3 threshold and probably finish in second after FJ.
Given the bolded, the correct wager is a TDD.
Given there is a better payout for second place than for third, and he had a range of wagers that would have gotten the job done he needed on the upside while maintaining a good chance of holding on to second place, anything from that range, i.e. $7,000 (2/3 of Greg if he doesn't get the remaining clue if right, tie with Sara if wrong) to $8,666 (2/3 of Greg even if he gets the remaining clue if right, 2/3 of Sara if wrong), is perfectly viable.
Getting above the 4/5 break point gives the trailer even more ways to win.

And for those calculating expected value, don't forget there's some additional value $X for winnings from one or more future games – which, for a strong player like Brian, might have been quite high, and should eliminate any discussion of second vs. third.
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.

VoluptuousLoser
Valued Contributor
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:23 pm

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by VoluptuousLoser » Fri May 01, 2015 11:48 pm

Vermonter wrote:Getting above the 4/5 break point gives the trailer even more ways to win.

And for those calculating expected value, don't forget there's some additional value $X for winnings from one or more future games – which, for a strong player like Brian, might have been quite high, and should eliminate any discussion of second vs. third.
Thanks for the compliment, Keith. You have been kind both here and on your blog, perhaps kinder than I deserve since I now have three game-show appearances, all of which I bungled in one way or another. I should have won $22,000 here, instead of $2,000. On my second "Millionaire" appearance, I should have won $32,000 (and, in all likelihood, $64,000) instead of $16,000.* And on my first "Millionaire" appearance, I should have won... well, something instead of nothing.

While I completely understand the logic and math of the expected-value calculations described in this thread, this was not anything I was capable of processing in the limited time I had in the moment. What I was capable of processing, and what I should have been aware of, was the effect of my wager on FJ beyond simply ensuring that he would not have a runaway. I should have recognized, especially since it was the end of the round, that I needed to get myself in position to be able to bet zero, since no matter what I couldn't catch him and I could only win in FJ if he got the FJ question wrong. If there's a lesson, it might be that studying to prepare for the questions is of limited utility-- nothing came up on the show that I learned or reinforced via studying-- but working through all the wagering permutations for DDs and FJ is extremely valuable. I spent far too little time on that, and most of the time I spent was focused on FJ rather than DDs. That was a mistake, and it meant that I did not internalize the various scenarios the way I needed to.

*After my first "Millionaire" experience, I was so hesitant the second time around that I burned the audience lifeline unnecessarily on the $500 question. If I had had it on the $16,000 question, I would have used it instead of my other two lifelines. Then, I would have used the phone-a-friend for $32,000 (it was a question one of my phone-a-friends would have been all over). Then, I would have had, at worst, a 50/50 guess at the $64,000 with no risk. If the $64,000 was something I knew, I would have had a 50/50 guess at the $125,000 question (with risk of dropping back to $32,000).

flemmingfan
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by flemmingfan » Sat May 02, 2015 11:59 am

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas.

User avatar
TomKBaltimoreBoy
Lucky to be Here
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:30 am

Re: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by TomKBaltimoreBoy » Sun May 03, 2015 9:48 am

Not all contributions are of equal value....
Life IS pain, Princess. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.

Post Reply