Wednesday, December 28, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[BigDaddyJ]

What's wrong with me?

I think we beat that topic to death on the old board. Since the discussion seems to have been fruitless, I don't think we really need to have it again.

[sherder]

P.S. While I'm at it- every time I see a mention of the NFL FJ!, it seems like there is still an idea out there that the woman was doomed anyway because she had to have a cursory knowledge of sports. As a female who enjoyed the question, and will study sports along with every other basic knowledge category if/when I'm back in the pool, I hope I'm wrong and that we've moved past this stereotyping.

I went the sports category on one of my shows, right after the science one. I would have loved more sports categories.

[CGeditor]

In the question about Samantha Bond, I thought I heard Jason say "Who is Moneyhoney?" instead of "Who is Moneypenny?"
Did anyone else?

[Tehshigelisok]

What's wrong with me?

I think we beat that topic to death on the old board. Since the discussion seems to have been fruitless, I don't think we really need to have it again.

Ooh, sorry. The correct response: "what is a rhetorical question?" Pick again.

[lisa0012]

I wouldn't call the NFL FJ a lucky win. If she doesn't know about the NFL, that's her problem. Leaders miss FJ all the time. It had nothing to do with bad wagering, like in the second game. That was truly a game he did not deserve to win.

On the other hand, while she did mis-wager, she at least seemed to have a clue about strategy. What would everyone have been saying if she had done the all-in bet from second, as so many people do, and his error had made no difference?

I don't get why everyone is so into Jason-bashing (or criticizing, or whatever you want to call it).

I have not seen any posts that I would characterize that way. We have all been at pains to point out that Jason is a good, strong player. It's a little frustrating to see how our comments get characterized. Jason is, I repeat, a good, strong player. But he has also had what seems to be an unusually strong element of luck at crucial moments in his run.

I've just never seen a superchamp (or any TOC-eligible contestant) with such mediocre comments. For every "he's a strong player" there's a "he's been really lucky" and "he has no chance to win the TOC". It's interesting analysis, but it seems to not give Jason enough credit for what he's accomplished.

[Austin Powers]

I've just never seen a superchamp (or any TOC-eligible contestant) with such mediocre comments. For every "he's a strong player" there's a "he's been really lucky" and "he has no chance to win the TOC". It's interesting analysis, but it seems to not give Jason enough credit for what he's accomplished.

Indeed. People should go check out Tom the Kickball Captain's record before they discuss a champ who probably won about five games more than he should have. The biggest knock I have on Jason is that he doesn't play very strategically, which I personally find aggravating because I'd prefer $400 clues be left unrevealed over $2000 clues.

Best of all, Jason seems like a genuinely nice guy, and the money is making is probably 5x what he makes in a year. He is very easy to root for.

[OrangeSAM]

I'll put in my $.02 on Jason with a quote from Capablanca: "A good player is always lucky."

[StevenH]

I've just never seen a superchamp (or any TOC-eligible contestant) with such mediocre comments.

[/quote]

I am not sure if you were around the old Sony board during Roger Craig's original run, but he got a lot of the same kinds of comments: "he benefited from his buzzer speed" (even though his only good games on the buzzer were his first two games) and "he benefited from easy boards" (even though the boards go in phases and easy boards were nothing new, but even with easy boards it was still very rare that you saw anyone get close to the amount of money that Jerome Vered and Frank Spangenberg won in their 5 regular games). Roger proved the people who were not sold on him wrong (though it was more through other media than in his ToC), and I hope that Jason gets the same opportunity.

[HugoZ]

Count me in as another who went down the rocket launch path on FJ. I instantly had a picture thought of the failed Vanguard launch, which did occur in 1957, and definitely qualifies as "short-lived" (2 seconds).

In lieu of there being a "Martin Vanguard Space Race Variety Hour" (cue Frank and Bing singing "Fly Me To The Moon"), I jumped back to the grocery store and got stuck trying to think of another short-lived product.

FWIW, I would have scrawled "Geritol" on the board for comic relief (Toronto is sooooo 2011 TOC). MIght have gotten a chuckle out al Alex, but would be completely lost on almost anyone under 50.

[Volante]

And I wish I was playing this game, firstly to just have the pleasure of saying "I'd like a Double Double for $200, Alex" and it be my own little in-joke (well, Canadians would get it too), and for the opportunity to say, for one of the DJ clues, "WHAT ... IS ... SPARTA!!!!"

Or those familiar with In-N-Out! (Course, for $200, we're probably talking a 150x150 or so...)

I wouldn't call the NFL FJ a lucky win. If she doesn't know about the NFL, that's her problem. Leaders miss FJ all the time. It had nothing to do with bad wagering, like in the second game. That was truly a game he did not deserve to win.

On the other hand, while she did mis-wager, she at least seemed to have a clue about strategy. What would everyone have been saying if she had done the all-in bet from second, as so many people do, and his error had made no difference?

I don't get why everyone is so into Jason-bashing (or criticizing, or whatever you want to call it).

I have not seen any posts that I would characterize that way. We have all been at pains to point out that Jason is a good, strong player. It's a little frustrating to see how our comments get characterized. Jason is, I repeat, a good, strong player. But he has also had what seems to be an unusually strong element of luck at crucial moments in his run.

I think, what I find the most curious about all this, is how people are consistently shocked nine days in to Jason's streak, while on the flip side, we've seen a sizable number of 1 and 2 day winners who were proclaimed TOC material after only their first win.

I didn't get Edsel. "Short-lived" threw me off horrifically: I went with "sea monkeys" unable to come up with a more logical fad pet with a short life span.

[Miss Mellie]

HA! I would have loved to hear Alex's reaction to "sea monkeys!!"

Lesley's speed-demon clue selection made me very uncomfortable. The little-old-lady part of me wants the rhythm of "my program" to be steady and predictable. I don't know if it was nerves, a deliberate strategy, or just a habit she picked up playing along at home, but it made me anxious. (Is it mean to say that I'm glad she didn't ring in much?)

[opusthepenguin]

I've just never seen a superchamp (or any TOC-eligible contestant) with such mediocre comments.

Would you mind editing that to fix the attributions for posterity? Lisa0012 said that, not me.

[opusthepenguin]

I think, what I find the most curious about all this, is how people are consistently shocked nine days in to Jason's streak, while on the flip side, we've seen a sizable number of 1 and 2 day winners who were proclaimed TOC material after only their first win.

But who are you talking about? Who is "shocked"?

I think what I find the most curious is how any observation about the luck that went into Jason's streak is taken as an overall criticism of him as a player. I've documented the luck upthread. I'm comfortable saying that it represents a greater amount of luck than we have tended to see. I'm also happy to repeat that Jason is a strong player and a weaker player would not have been in a position to benefit from those lucky breaks. Maybe if I and others who take this position say that often enough, we'll some day read a paraphrase of our position that we recognize as our own.

[Onairb]

What's wrong with me?

I think we beat that topic to death on the old board. Since the discussion seems to have been fruitless, I don't think we really need to have it again.

Ooh, sorry. The correct response: "what is a rhetorical question?" Pick again.

No, the correct response is 'What is thanks for stopping by, now get lost?'

[Paucle]

What's wrong with me?

I think we beat that topic to death on the old board. Since the discussion seems to have been fruitless, I don't think we really need to have it again.

What's the most options that can be listed in a poll?

[MDCSWildcats86]

The Chris Harrison TS (2002 - present) had me do a quick check. The Bachelorette debuted in 2003, so that would have been wrong as a response. You're welcome, anyone who had that counted as correct.

Knew BACHELOR cold, as Chris Harrison used to do sports on J!'s original Oklahoma City station, KWTV-9 (had J! from 1984-1999).

[barandall800]

In the question about Samantha Bond, I thought I heard Jason say "Who is Moneyhoney?" instead of "Who is Moneypenny?"
Did anyone else?

I didn't, but that reminds me...I've seen all four Bond movies she was in, was quite a fan, and even knew her name, but I NEVER realized the Bond/Bond connection until that clue. Can I get a "whoosh"?

[alietr]

What's the most options that can be listed in a poll?

It is currently set at 12.

[whoisalexjacob]

What's wrong with me?

Ooh, sorry. The correct response: "what is a rhetorical question?" Pick again.

I agree. I think they are coming down a little hard on you, (and I do know of you from the old board even if I didn't post then.) Just start reading through archive games and taking notes on the things you don't know if you want to get better. Start watching Top Chef on Bravo (or a gazillion other shows) if you want to learn about fancy food without eating at fancy restaurants. Etc.

And, I think whoever took your screen name is lame; the admin should just delete that name and let you take it back if you want it.

[bpmod]

I agree. I think they are coming down a little hard on you, (and I do know of you from the old board even if I didn't post then.) Just start reading through archive games and taking notes on the things you don't know if you want to get better. Start watching Top Chef on Bravo (or a gazillion other shows) if you want to learn about fancy food without eating at fancy restaurants. Etc.

And, I think whoever took your screen name is lame; the admin should just delete that name and let you take it back if you want it.

This.

All of it. ETA: (except the part about not posting on the old board )

Brian