Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8941
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by seaborgium »

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.
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.
davey
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]

Post by davey »

Bamaman wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:31 am
BigDaddyMatty wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:15 pm
morbeedo wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:13 amNHO CREEP or GOAT in those contexts
CREEP: Committee to Re-Elect the President
GOAT: Greatest of All Time
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
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.
Did CREEP actually call themselves that or did it arise as a pejorative term during the Watergate scandal?
I think it was like Obamacare, a mocking nickname that became widely used.
User avatar
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]

Post by AFRET CMS »

This Is Kirk! wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:14 pm
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.
It sounds like an organization that should be in a James Bond movie.
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.
I'm not the defending Jeopardy! champion. But I have played one on TV.
User avatar
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]

Post by econgator »

Bamaman wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:31 am
BigDaddyMatty wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:15 pm
morbeedo wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:13 amNHO CREEP or GOAT in those contexts
CREEP: Committee to Re-Elect the President
GOAT: Greatest of All Time
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
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.
Did CREEP actually call themselves that or did it arise as a pejorative term during the Watergate scandal?
Pejorative. Officially, it was CRP, but it's hard to believe that someone didn't see what was coming.
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12897
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Bamaman »

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.
User avatar
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]

Post by jeff6286 »

opusthepenguin wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:26 am
Volante wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:00 am
jeff6286 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:23 am Is this like we’re pretending it’s day 1 of jboard again and no one knows anything about what happens in the studio?
I remember reading that tourney players are sequestered. If I remembered reading that regular players aren't, I wouldn't have asked!
You're supposed to do your due diligence by re-reading every post ever made to make sure your question hasn't been answered.
It wasn’t an admonishment, it was an expression of surprise that these questions were being raised by such longtime posters.
User avatar
morbeedo
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 3065
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: Thursday, December 21, 2017 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by morbeedo »

MattKnowles 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.
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.
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.
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 down
Post Reply