Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by dhkendall »

davey wrote:I was gonna sheepishly admit I've never seen The Blues Brothers, despite its '80s iconic status - and I saw a lot of movies then - but then read so many others hadn't either. So no apologies. (But I am sorry I only saw Ferris Bueller a couple of years ago.) However it's just confirmation that seeing movies and TV shows is not as important as...reading about them and everything else. It's in my bones that the movie is set in Chicago every bit as much as the fact that baseball is the national pastime and that the Cubbies are the great underdog team. So Wrigley Field was a sure thing! If Sports wasn't named in the category...might have been more of a problem.
Nor have I, as I've said here before, not much of a fan of movies, and less so of sports. But, I know Blues Brothers is set in Chicago, I know Wrigley field is an iconic Chicago stadium, so I was confident with my answer (while marvelling at how the clue was perfect for those who only know movies and those who only know sports, there aren't many clues like that. Great job, writers!)

As we often tell TPH, you don't need to have partaken of something to know it.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by bpmod »

dhkendall wrote:As we often tell TPH, you don't need to have partaken of something to know it.
And as my nearly doubting myself attests: Partaking of something does not necessarily mean you'll know it.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
TenPoundHammer

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by TenPoundHammer »

bpmod wrote:
dhkendall wrote:As we often tell TPH, you don't need to have partaken of something to know it.
And as my nearly doubting myself attests: Partaking of something does not necessarily mean you'll know it.

Brian
As does my a.) having actually watched Blues Brothers at least twice and b.) having READ THAT EXACT FREAKING QUOTE on TV Tropes only 3 days prior.
User avatar
whoisalexjacob
2015 TOC'er
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:19 am

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by whoisalexjacob »

Is everyone ignoring the value of not bringing back a player with 3 games experience? Combined with the fact that she might not bet it all (she didn't), I'm not sure the $1 bet is so bad. I'm not saying I wouldn't have bet $0 myself, but IMO we see worse wagers all the time.
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Vanya »

omgwheelhouse wrote:Is everyone ignoring the value of not bringing back a player with 3 games experience? Combined with the fact that she might not bet it all (she didn't), I'm not sure the $1 bet is so bad. I'm not saying I wouldn't have bet $0 myself, but IMO we see worse wagers all the time.
Not me. We've had this discussion before and you and I are definitely in the minority.
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by dhkendall »

omgwheelhouse wrote:Is everyone ignoring the value of not bringing back a player with 3 games experience? Combined with the fact that she might not bet it all (she didn't), I'm not sure the $1 bet is so bad. I'm not saying I wouldn't have bet $0 myself, but IMO we see worse wagers all the time.
True, but, even if the player was faced with either tying Ken Jennings (and there was a guarantee they'd lose their next game) they'd still probably come away with more money in their first game than if they bet for the win and lost and got $2K for second.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
User avatar
Miss Mellie
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Miss Mellie »

reddpen wrote:
debramc wrote:I said Joliet. I've seen the movie, but it's been a long time, and I remembered they (or maybe just Elwood?) had just gotten out of Joliet, and they mention it somewhere.
It was "Joliet Jake" who had just gotten out of prison.
Coincidentally, much of Prison Break was filmed at the Joliet Correctional Facility. (I liked the first season of that show even if Lincoln was too stupid to live and definitely not worth all the trouble Michael went through to break him out.)
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12897
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Bamaman »

I've seen the movie once or twice, the music was better to me than the movie itself. Belushi just never did much for me. Anyway, I knew the movie was in Chicago and had vaguely heard of Wrigley being on Addison Street. Even without knowing the street name, the Cubs' home seemed a likely spot for the Blues brothers than the Bears or White Sox stadiums. I think Ackroyd is a big Cubs fan.

The FJ wagers were unusual. I'd have definitely bet it all in third place. I'd likely have bet zero in second place, though I can see the logic of betting a dollar to avoid tying an experienced champ.

I watched the first season of Prison Break. I did not continue because it had gotten so stupid and was tired of them expecting me to ignore logic and common sense for the sake of a TV show. And this is from someone who saw every episode of 24 and all of its plot loopholes.

I watched the first two or three episodes of The Event and stopped there. I did remember Underwood in the show, got him and the 24 brothers, but none of the others.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by bpmod »

Bamaman wrote:I think Ackroyd is a big Cubs fan.
I have a favourite movie scene involving Dan Ackroyd where the Cubs are mentioned. 20 points to the first person that can guess the movie and the line.
Bamaman wrote:... though I can see the logic of betting a dollar to avoid tying an experienced champ.
As was pointed out already, even if the "experienced champ" were Ken Jennings, and even if you were guaranteed not to win the next game (which, of course, you're not), wouldn't going home today with $10,000+ be better than going home with $1000, or even $2000? Do you REALLY (not you, specifically, LLJF) believe that losing in that scenario would be better than tying?

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12897
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Bamaman »

I would have bet zero, but if I was staring at Jennings in my rear view mirror..........

No, tying is always better than losing.

And while movies are far from my wheelhouse, sports movies was a fairly safe category for me.

I don't know the other Acroyd Cubs quote you mean. Trading Places was in NYC, was he in Caddyshack? Ghostbusters maybe?

I thought Comiskey was a bad response. Wrigley is a much more iconic park, if you know it is in Chicago (the hardest part of the clue), why not go with the Cubs?
User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 16471
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by MarkBarrett »

Bamaman wrote:
I watched the first season of Prison Break. I did not continue because it had gotten so stupid and was tired of them expecting me to ignore logic and common sense for the sake of a TV show. And this is from someone who saw every episode of 24 and all of its plot loopholes.
Oh, season 1 is nothing. What they did in seasons 2-4 would drive anyone nuts who didn't check his logic/common sense at the door. The one consistent thing was Wentworth Miller's solid work.

Things are looking good for filming to begin this spring on the 24 movie for a 2013 release.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by bpmod »

Bamaman wrote:I would have bet zero, but if I was staring at Jennings in my rear view mirror..........
Actually, that's probably a better reason to bet for the tie.
Bamaman wrote:I don't know the other Acroyd Cubs quote you mean. Trading Places was in NYC, was he in Caddyshack? Ghostbusters maybe?
This one also involved a correctional facility (I don't recall offhand which one). The movie, though, is nowhere near as big as those you mentioned.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 5228
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by jeff6286 »

Bamaman wrote:I would have bet zero, but if I was staring at Jennings in my rear view mirror..........

No, tying is always better than losing.

And while movies are far from my wheelhouse, sports movies was a fairly safe category for me.

I don't know the other Acroyd Cubs quote you mean. Trading Places was in NYC, was he in Caddyshack? Ghostbusters maybe?

I thought Comiskey was a bad response. Wrigley is a much more iconic park, if you know it is in Chicago (the hardest part of the clue), why not go with the Cubs?
At least he didn't say U.S. Cellular Field. That would have been a really bad response, for a number of reasons.

As for the $1 wager. I don't care if Ken Jennings, Brad Rutter, or Watson himself is sitting there with half your score, I see no rational reason for any reasonable person to ever bet $1 in that situation. The only reason that one might bet $1 is because they assume the player in 3rd place is going to double up in order to tie them, so in that case why on earth would you only bet a dollar, other than because you really, really want to lose by a dollar? If you're operating on the assumption that you don't want to be a co-champion, and you have no problem running the risk of losing by a dollar, then why in the heck would you only want to win by a dollar? In this situation you almost know for sure that the leader is going to drop down to no more than $4,000 on a miss, so you could bet as much as $5,599 and still likely be guaranteed to win if both other players miss FJ, even if you miss it as well. So why not bet $5,599, so that if you manage to get FJ right, you would get to take home an extra $5,598?
User avatar
codehappy
Contributor
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:18 pm
Location: The Great Northwest
Contact:

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by codehappy »

bpmod wrote:
Bamaman wrote:I don't know the other Acroyd Cubs quote you mean. Trading Places was in NYC, was he in Caddyshack? Ghostbusters maybe?
This one also involved a correctional facility (I don't recall offhand which one). The movie, though, is nowhere near as big as those you mentioned.

Brian
The Couch Trip, then: the scene at the beginning where Aykroyd's character is trying to talk the kid off the ledge. ("No way, man, even in a dream the Cubs can't win the World Series.") Also one of my favorite tangentially baseball-releated scenes in film.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by bpmod »

codehappy wrote:The Couch Trip, then: the scene at the beginning where Aykroyd's character is trying to talk the kid off the ledge. ("No way, man, even in a dream the Cubs can't win the World Series.") Also one of my favorite tangentially baseball-releated scenes in film.
BINGO! codehappy is the lucky winner of 20 points.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
reddpen
Thrice Unplucked from the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:51 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by reddpen »

bpmod wrote:
codehappy wrote:The Couch Trip, then: the scene at the beginning where Aykroyd's character is trying to talk the kid off the ledge. ("No way, man, even in a dream the Cubs can't win the World Series.") Also one of my favorite tangentially baseball-releated scenes in film.
BINGO! codehappy is the lucky winner of 20 points.
Plus a five-point bonus for correctly spelling Aykroyd.
In and out of the pool four times
User avatar
whoisalexjacob
2015 TOC'er
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:19 am

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by whoisalexjacob »

jeff6286 wrote:So why not bet $5,599, so that if you manage to get FJ right, you would get to take home an extra $5,598?
Well, because a triple stumper might be your most likely way to win.


"do you REALLY think losing is better than tying?" --Really weird post, of course no one is saying losing is better than tying. The question is, is it worth risking a small chance of losing (leader misses+you miss+3rd place gets+3rd place bets it all) in order to possibly increase your chances of winning more games. Probably not, I agree, but I don't think it's something to ridicule the guy over. If you're up against a 70-game champion, I don't know, it might be worth not tying that guy.
User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

boson wrote:
reddpen wrote: Curious what Robert K S's all-time favorite 1980 movie might be. Guessing Empire, but other good choices abound: Airplane, Raging Bull, Caddyshack... Blue Lagoon.
I just did a spit take all over my screen with that last one.
It's not one of the greatest movies of all time, but The Blue Lagoon is not unrecommendable. I laugh to think of John Belushi and Carrie Fisher in the lead roles. According to IMDb's trivia section, they were both considered!

For anyone who liked Blue Lagoon and wants to know how good of a film it could have been had it been made properly, rent Walkabout (1971) or catch it the next time it airs on television.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Thursday, January 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by bpmod »

omgwheelhouse wrote:Well, because a triple stumper might be your most likely way to win.


"do you REALLY think losing is better than tying?" --Really weird post, of course no one is saying losing is better than tying. The question is, is it worth risking a small chance of losing (leader misses+you miss+3rd place gets+3rd place bets it all) in order to possibly increase your chances of winning more games. Probably not, I agree, but I don't think it's something to ridicule the guy over. If you're up against a 70-game champion, I don't know, it might be worth not tying that guy.
But what we are talking about is the risk of allowing the third place player to catch you on a sole get. We are not talking about a triple stumper. If you cannot win any way but on a triple stumper, then you wager for a triple stumper. If you can win on a miss by the leader, regardless of what third place does, but you play for the triple stumper in case you might have to play the third place player again, that is not playing to win. The specific case we are discussing, in case you might think it germane to the discussion, is where, if the leader misses, the second place contestant has a guaranteed win by standing pat. We are discussing the merits of risking that guarantee to prevent a tie should the third place player get the correct response.

I don't know what is "really weird" about that.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
Post Reply