Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, dhkendall, trainman, econgator

User avatar
nklotz
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:06 pm

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by nklotz » Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:49 pm

davey wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:45 pm
nklotz wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:40 pm
Judges - would "Guernsey & Jersey" have been accepted for FJ?
Already well covered in the thread-
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4578&start=40#p274936
sorry for asking

User avatar
This Is Kirk!
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 4182
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by This Is Kirk! » Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:54 pm

IronNeck wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:26 pm
How would this supposed "alliance" even work?

"Oh hey random stranger, in the very unlikely event that we happen to find ourselves on the exact same show, and one of us is in 1st with a crush and the other is 2nd, the leader should bet to tie, okay"

Basically, there is no point whatsoever to your proposed alliance. The leader will simply bet to tie if he wants to. He doesn't need to agree with anyone to do this.
It doesn't seem real plausible to me, either. Besides, if someone proposed this to me I'd be convinced their real motivation would be to know what I'd bet so they could beat me by $1.

Peter the accountant
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:13 am

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Peter the accountant » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:05 pm

Sarah has commented about her final wager over on Reddit, so there's no more need to guess at what went on.
--Peter

squarekara
LEGO my Ego
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:49 am
Location: Land o' Lincoln

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by squarekara » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:05 pm

This Is Kirk! wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:54 pm
IronNeck wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:26 pm
How would this supposed "alliance" even work?

"Oh hey random stranger, in the very unlikely event that we happen to find ourselves on the exact same show, and one of us is in 1st with a crush and the other is 2nd, the leader should bet to tie, okay"

Basically, there is no point whatsoever to your proposed alliance. The leader will simply bet to tie if he wants to. He doesn't need to agree with anyone to do this.
It doesn't seem real plausible to me, either. Besides, if someone proposed this to me I'd be convinced their real motivation would be to know what I'd bet so they could beat me by $1.
I'll be wearing a black orchid wrist corsage. If the plan's a go, say "The sheep fly at midnight" when I comment about the weather.

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 5686
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by seaborgium » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:31 pm

It's certainly not common, but this isn't the first time I've seen second place bet such that tying with a "covering by $1 and getting FJ wrong" leader was possible. I remember posting about it on the Sony board the last time (?) it happened, saying second place (who in the case in question had done it from a crush) could have had their heart broken in two possible ways if they got it right and the leader had offered a tie: either they lose by a dollar they could have added, or they lose for not going all in. I vaguely recall it happening early in season 27, but have no way of finding it, short of going game by game through J! Archive (which could be a wild goose chase if I wrongly recall when it occurred).

Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 9045
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Bamaman » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:56 pm

Laura discussed this game on the LL message board.

User avatar
cheezguyty
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 970
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by cheezguyty » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:08 pm

seaborgium wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:31 pm
It's certainly not common, but this isn't the first time I've seen second place bet such that tying with a "covering by $1 and getting FJ wrong" leader was possible. I remember posting about it on the Sony board the last time (?) it happened, saying second place (who in the case in question had done it from a crush) could have had their heart broken in two possible ways if they got it right and the leader had offered a tie: either they lose by a dollar they could have added, or they lose for not going all in. I vaguely recall it happening early in season 27, but have no way of finding it, short of going game by game through J! Archive (which could be a wild goose chase if I wrongly recall when it occurred).
The episode you're thinking of was from January 10, 2011. The same scenario also happened on January 20, 2006.

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 5686
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by seaborgium » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:01 pm

cheezguyty wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:08 pm
seaborgium wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:31 pm
It's certainly not common, but this isn't the first time I've seen second place bet such that tying with a "covering by $1 and getting FJ wrong" leader was possible. I remember posting about it on the Sony board the last time (?) it happened, saying second place (who in the case in question had done it from a crush) could have had their heart broken in two possible ways if they got it right and the leader had offered a tie: either they lose by a dollar they could have added, or they lose for not going all in. I vaguely recall it happening early in season 27, but have no way of finding it, short of going game by game through J! Archive (which could be a wild goose chase if I wrongly recall when it occurred).
The episode you're thinking of was from January 10, 2011. The same scenario also happened on January 20, 2006.
Thanks! So, not quite "early" in season 27, but at least it was still the first half of the season. I tried Googling various multiples of $400, minus $1, in the mid-$10,000s range before posting, but I included "intitle:2010" in my search.

User avatar
xxaaaxx
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:29 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by xxaaaxx » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:41 pm

Sarah Norris on reddit wrote: You can also do a wager to guard against the third place double up, but I didn’t do that on purpose.
...I could understand tunnel-visioning onto staying ahead of first and forgetting about third, but I really don't understand ignoring third deliberately.

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 5686
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by seaborgium » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:16 pm

xxaaaxx wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:41 pm
Sarah Norris on reddit wrote: You can also do a wager to guard against the third place double up, but I didn’t do that on purpose.
...I could understand tunnel-visioning onto staying ahead of first and forgetting about third, but I really don't understand ignoring third deliberately.
If Laura's bet reflected an assumption that Sarah would keep Scott locked out, Sarah would win on a triple get with the wager she made.

User avatar
xxaaaxx
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:29 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by xxaaaxx » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:29 pm

seaborgium wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:16 pm
xxaaaxx wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:41 pm
Sarah Norris on reddit wrote: You can also do a wager to guard against the third place double up, but I didn’t do that on purpose.
...I could understand tunnel-visioning onto staying ahead of first and forgetting about third, but I really don't understand ignoring third deliberately.
If Laura's bet reflected an assumption that Sarah would keep Scott locked out, Sarah would win on a triple get with the wager she made.
So she left herself open to being passed by Scott, on the million billion "meeting Jesus in the flesh"-to-1 chance of Laura betting Shoretegically? Oy. Well...at least that's a reason.

Peter the accountant
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:13 am

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Peter the accountant » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:58 pm

Forgot the round timings in my daily post.

J!: 3:02 + 3:07 = 6:09
DJ: 6:55
FJ: 2:15

With FJ rounds typically running about 1:30, the tie breaker added about 45 seconds of air time. I'd have to go back and see if that came out of the pre-FJ banter. Alex usually rambles on a bit there.
--Peter

User avatar
This Is Kirk!
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 4182
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by This Is Kirk! » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:50 pm

squarekara wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:05 pm
This Is Kirk! wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:54 pm
IronNeck wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:26 pm
How would this supposed "alliance" even work?

"Oh hey random stranger, in the very unlikely event that we happen to find ourselves on the exact same show, and one of us is in 1st with a crush and the other is 2nd, the leader should bet to tie, okay"

Basically, there is no point whatsoever to your proposed alliance. The leader will simply bet to tie if he wants to. He doesn't need to agree with anyone to do this.
It doesn't seem real plausible to me, either. Besides, if someone proposed this to me I'd be convinced their real motivation would be to know what I'd bet so they could beat me by $1.
I'll be wearing a black orchid wrist corsage. If the plan's a go, say "The sheep fly at midnight" when I comment about the weather.
OK, let's synchronize our watches.

bearcats2004
Just Starting Out on JBoard
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:14 pm

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by bearcats2004 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:24 pm

seaborgium wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:46 pm
nklotz wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:40 pm
Judges - would "Guernsey & Jersey" have been accepted for FJ?
I answered this earlier in the thread. To put it briefly, two islands individually named does not constitute a group, which is what the clue asked for.
Yeah, but consider the $800 ISLANDS clue from this episode: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=10. Seems like those two names could comprehend the whole group.

User avatar
earendel
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:22 pm
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by earendel » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:35 am

Interestsingly, "Channel Islands" was an answer to a question on the online test last night (Tuesday).
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3049
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by davey » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:50 am

bearcats2004 wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:24 pm
seaborgium wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:46 pm
nklotz wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:40 pm
Judges - would "Guernsey & Jersey" have been accepted for FJ?
I answered this earlier in the thread. To put it briefly, two islands individually named does not constitute a group, which is what the clue asked for.
Yeah, but consider the $800 ISLANDS clue from this episode: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=10. Seems like those two names could comprehend the whole group.
That' would be like -

Island off the coast of NY where the Hamptons are located

and accepting What is Nassau County and Suffolk County?

User avatar
cinemaniax7
Humble Pi
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:04 pm
Location: Old Hickory, TN

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by cinemaniax7 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:31 pm

dhkendall wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:13 pm
SEEING THINGS DIFFERENTLY $1200 wrote:St. Paul wrote "For now we see through" this "darkly; but then face to face"
"Glass" was given as a correct answer. I said "mirror". Judges? Maybe it's because I"m more of a NIV person than a KJV person (although the rest of the quote doesn't match up in NIV), but I"m thinking of the title of one of my favourite Star Trek episodes (surprisingly, from the Enterprise series) "Through A Mirror, Darkly". I'm guessing the Enterprise writers were doing an actual quote, maybe not from the KJV, but is there a translation that does the quote but just with "mirror" for "glass"? (EDIT: The New King James version comes close: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face") And, if there was, would I be credited? (For the sleuths, the verse is One Corinthians 13:12).
Most modern translations of 1 Corinthians 13:12 refer to a "mirror" rather than a "glass," although I don't recall that any of them reads "through a mirror, darkly." They usually read "in a mirror." Through a Glass Darkly is also the title of a 1961 film by Ingmar Bergman that won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 6123
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by opusthepenguin » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:49 pm

xxaaaxx wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:38 pm
THEY'RE REAL!!! TIEBREAKERS REALLY EXIST!!!

...and now that I've seen one, it kinda sucked, and I wish they'd go back to co-champs :(
Yes! Finally saw this game, though I already knew it had happened some time during Lent. The tiebreaker is a damp squib. It's abrupt, anticlimactic, and arbitrary. It's as stupid as the World Cup "shootouts". But at least football (aka soccer) only does shootouts when there has to be a winner. This used to be the policy on Jeopardy! with regard to tiebreakers. They only happened during tournaments. They should return to that policy. Occasional ties are fun. Returning co-champs are fun. TPTB got needlessly spooked by Arthur Chu. Now they've had a chance to see how miserably a tiebreaker plays out. I hope to hear reports soon indicating they've returned to the old policy.

This moment must have been particularly WTFish for viewers who didn't know the rules had changed. Alex gave no explanation, not even a statement that this was a first for regular play.

Wow. After all the times where a tiebreaker seemed possible with rational wagers, our first and so far only one occurred due to an overwager that cost a player the game.

Post Reply