Are you saying that because of "REElect"? I ask because it's not a rule that acronyms consist entirely of initials. "Radar" for "radio detecting and ranging" is probably the best known example of one that doesn't.TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:49 am I had heard of CREEP because it was one of those "we're going to break the rules of acronyms" things that always bothered me.
Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8941
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 6030
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm
Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]
I think it was like Obamacare, a mocking nickname that became widely used.Bamaman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:31 amDid CREEP actually call themselves that or did it arise as a pejorative term during the Watergate scandal?BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:15 pmCREEP: Committee to Re-Elect the President
GOAT: Greatest of All Time
It's a fairly common term in barbecue circles, particularly with respect to brisket. I'm not sure I had heard it before I moved to Texas, though.TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:42 pm Has anyone ever heard of "bark" on barbecued meat before? That one was a real head scratcher
- AFRET CMS
- JBOARDIE OF THE MONTH!
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:48 pm
- Location: Colorado
Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]
If you're interested in politics of the Nixon era, you may want to read "Before the Fall" by William Safire. It's one of my favorite political books of all time. He was one of Nixon's speechwriters during the campaign and the first term. He left for the private sector after Watergate (later becoming a NY Times columnist), but before the coverup was exposed. Excellent book about the inner workings of the White House and the Nixon staff. He devotes about a third of a chapter to the discussions regarding the naming of the re-election committee. It was one of those "group think" things where everybody was opposed to it, but thought everyone else was in favor, so everyone went along with an idea no one liked.This Is Kirk! wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:14 pmIt sounds like an organization that should be in a James Bond movie.TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:49 am I had heard of CREEP because it was one of those "we're going to break the rules of acronyms" things that always bothered me.
I'm not the defending Jeopardy! champion. But I have played one on TV.
- econgator
- Let's Go Mets!
- Posts: 10673
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am
Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]
Pejorative. Officially, it was CRP, but it's hard to believe that someone didn't see what was coming.Bamaman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:31 amDid CREEP actually call themselves that or did it arise as a pejorative term during the Watergate scandal?BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:15 pmCREEP: Committee to Re-Elect the President
GOAT: Greatest of All Time
It's a fairly common term in barbecue circles, particularly with respect to brisket. I'm not sure I had heard it before I moved to Texas, though.TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:42 pm Has anyone ever heard of "bark" on barbecued meat before? That one was a real head scratcher
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12897
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]
I recall the Mad Magazine version of All the President’s Men called it Committee to Re-Elect the American President. (CRAP).
Last edited by Bamaman on Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- jeff6286
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
- Location: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]
It wasn’t an admonishment, it was an expression of surprise that these questions were being raised by such longtime posters.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:26 amYou're supposed to do your due diligence by re-reading every post ever made to make sure your question hasn't been answered.
- morbeedo
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 pm
Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]
Thanks for the analysis! I don't know how well I'd be able to crunch all those numbers in my head under the lights with Trebek staring me downMattKnowles wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:22 pm Johnny had 10800 and the other two contestants had 13200 and 11000. There were 2800 dollars of clues left on the board but there was no time left and effectively there were 0 dollars of clues left on the board. I'm using 0 for the analysis.
I made a DD calculator a while back. It doesn't seem to be working correctly so I'll just go through the scenarios without it.
Also: None of the above analysis matters at all because Kate had established a pattern of betting everything regardless of the scenario. If you assume Kate is going to bet everything you should bet between 2400 and 8600 to try to take the lead but leave yourself with a win off of a triple stumper if you miss the DD.Spoiler
If I plug the numbers into the calculator it gives me these chances of winning based on certain bets.
0-199 = 29% chance of winning
200-2399 = 23%
2400-4200 = 43%
4201-5300 = 36%
5301-8999 = 33%
9000-10800 = 46%
These numbers aren't correct and I don't feel like debugging it right now. It looks like there is a problem with not giving him a chance to win on an incorrect response with a moderate bet. I tried to fix it and reran the numbers but I have little confidence that I'm doing this correctly right now.
He can't put himself into a lock game scenario. If he bets 9000 or more he can put himself into a crush scenario which gives him the best chance of winning. He is out of the game if he gets it wrong though.
With first and second place at 13200 and 11000 there is a crush scenario and second place can bet 0 dollars to win the game on a miss if third place is not a factor.
If he bets 5300 or more he drops to 5500 and he can no longer cover second place. He can bet between 2400 and 5300 to take the lead without dropping him out of contention.
If he bets less than 2400 he doesn't take the lead and he is still trailing in a close game going into final jeopardy.
If he bets between 2400 and 5300 he can take the lead and if he misses he is still in a position to win by luck.
If he bets between 5300 and 9000 he can take the lead but he is out of the game if he misses.
If he bets more than 9000 he takes the lead and has a crush game.
His best wager is to bet more than 9000. A close second bet is to wager between 2400 and 5300.
His chances of winning are pretty uniform regardless of what he bets. His bet isn't really that important in this scenario.