JBoard.tv

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:24 pm**

hbomb1947 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:22 am
morbeedo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:26 am
twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:10 am
I'm not too invested in who is the GOAT, etc.., but James definitely has introduced a paradigm shift. We will never be in awe at $30K averages when the next shiny object comes along .
C'mon! You'll be in awe when I get on the show, even if I don't make it to Final!
I will legitimately be in awe if you wear your clown nose on the show.

hbomb,

the moderators must be asleep at the switch, but it's not polite to make fun of contestants for their appearance or physical attributes. el morbeedo shouldn't have to photoshop his avatar just because of a hideous physical deformity

.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:30 pm**

BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:55 pm Speaking of records, has there ever been a combined Coryat higher than $49,000 (since today's $50,000 double-counts a $1,000 clue) in regular play?

www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2641
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=439
www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2484
www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3258
www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3786
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=4052
www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=5248
www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=5259

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:05 pm**

seaborgium wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:37 am
BRD-98 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:35 am
seaborgium wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:15 am Are you reading the same stats I am? He's only beating Ken by large margins in things that are wagers or directly caused by wagers.
There's nothing "only" (which is to suggest negligible or irrelevant) about outscoring Ken Jennings by a magnitude of 1.8, nearly double over the course of seven games ($415,035 to $231,000). Or setting six identifiable records.

The majority of useful stats you can analyze are directly affected by wagering.

In terms of things not directly caused by wagers (of which most of the stats are):
-- Less incorrect responses by a factor of 1.44 (9 v 13) -- indicates more assuredness
-- More daily doubles played by a factor of 1.36 (15 v 11) -- indicates better DD hunting
-- More games locked (6/7 v 5/7) (including bc not directly due to wagering, also due to how much money accrued by others)

In terms of coryats, he is $26,657 to Ken's $28,229. However, James' opponents have been significantly stronger than Ken's, as indicated by: less triple stumpers (3.43 to 4.29); opposite player coryat of $9,043 to Ken's $6,814; AND higher combined coryat for James' games. When you consider James' coryats are slightly lower than Ken's yet his combined game coryats are ~$3k higher, all of this adds up to indicate harder competitors.

Statistically, he is performing better than Ken Jennings after 7 games, indisputably.
How convenient you should ignore total correct responses.

That has a direct relation with coryat that I already addressed. To be clear, I am not claiming he is doing better on coryat than Ken, because that is untrue. But I think there are extenuating factors that explain the (small) margin. On a purely knowledge basis I think they are probable equals. On the basis of finding daily doubles, errors, knowing what you know, and being able to run up the score by absurd amounts, James is blowing Ken out of the water. Most game factors to be analyzed have directly to do with wagering, as you well know. And there is much more to the game than TCR, of which the difference is very minimal and can be entirely explained by strength of the competitors. My point still holds.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:09 pm**

twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:24 pm hbomb,

the moderators must be asleep at the switch, but it's not polite to make fun of contestants for their appearance or physical attributes. el morbeedo shouldn't have to photoshop his avatar just because of a hideous physical deformity .

Haha. Silly. You saw me on Millionaire. I’m blandly attractive, only deformed on the inside. And I’m big on clowns and horror, but there’s no intersection there :O)

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:19 pm**

BRD-98 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:05 pm
That has a direct relation with coryat that I already addressed. To be clear, I am not claiming he is doing better on coryat than Ken, because that is untrue. But I think there are extenuating factors that explain the (small) margin. On a purely knowledge basis I think they are probable equals. On the basis of finding daily doubles, errors, knowing what you know, and being able to run up the score by absurd amounts, James is blowing Ken out of the water. Most game factors to be analyzed have directly to do with wagering, as you well know. And there is much more to the game than TCR, of which the difference is very minimal and can be entirely explained by strength of the competitors. My point still holds.

I'm just curious, how much of this do you think is due to a change in the meta? DD hunting and wagering has become a much bigger deal in recent years. It kind of reminds me of the three-point shot in the NBA (or launch angle in baseball). Guys like Bird, Jordan, Bryant, Iverson--focusing just on scoring in this analogy--how much more efficient could they have gotten with a 2019-level emphasis on long range? How much more could Jennings or a Roger Craig in his 77K game have won with a 2019 DD approach? Perhaps Holzhauer is the Harden to Jennings' Jordan. Just a thought, curious what you and others think.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:36 pm**

hscer wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:19 pm I'm just curious, how much of this do you think is due to a change in the meta? DD hunting and wagering has become a much bigger deal in recent years. It kind of reminds me of the three-point shot in the NBA (or launch angle in baseball). Guys like Bird, Jordan, Bryant, Iverson--focusing just on scoring in this analogy--how much more efficient could they have gotten with a 2019-level emphasis on long range? How much more could Jennings or a Roger Craig in his 77K game have won with a 2019 DD approach? Perhaps Holzhauer is the Harden to Jennings' Jordan. Just a thought, curious what you and others think.

I think there's a lot of merit to what you're suggesting. An additional factor I haven't seen anyone mention is that the game has apparently gotten much easier this season. I have a backlog of eight weeks of shows from the middle of this season, so these numbers are likely off by a bit, but here's what I have for the adjusted* combined Coryat for regular games over the past four seasons:

S32: 34,481
S33: 33,955
S34: 33,836
S35: 37,673

That's a very significant jump. It could be due to a quantum leap in player quality, but both the eye test and the fact that my own Coryat has seen a similar boost this season suggest that that isn't the case.

The numbers for DDs are similar:

S32: 65.2% conversion rate
S33: 62.4%
S34: 62.8%
S35: 70.8%

If elite players know that there are many fewer legitimately difficult/obscure clues, they might be able to really "let it go" without worrying about negging a bunch or getting stymied by a rough DD.

* - I adjust each game's combined Coryat by a) eliminating any amounts that are double-counted due to reversals and b) accounting for unrevealed clues according to the formula (combined Coryat/(54,000 - total value of unrevealed clues)) * 54,000.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:04 pm**

hbomb1947 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:49 pm An interesting note about James unrelated to his game play: periodically there's been discussion here about how the stated 18-month duration for how long applicants are in the pool post-audition isn't completely rigid. On his FB fan page, James reported that he got The Call 22 months after his audition. I keep forgetting how long the interval was for Seaborgium; was it even longer?

18.5 months

BRD-98 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:05 pm
seaborgium wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:37 am
BRD-98 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:35 am
seaborgium wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:15 am Are you reading the same stats I am? He's only beating Ken by large margins in things that are wagers or directly caused by wagers.
There's nothing "only" (which is to suggest negligible or irrelevant) about outscoring Ken Jennings by a magnitude of 1.8, nearly double over the course of seven games ($415,035 to $231,000). Or setting six identifiable records.

The majority of useful stats you can analyze are directly affected by wagering.

In terms of things not directly caused by wagers (of which most of the stats are):
-- Less incorrect responses by a factor of 1.44 (9 v 13) -- indicates more assuredness
-- More daily doubles played by a factor of 1.36 (15 v 11) -- indicates better DD hunting
-- More games locked (6/7 v 5/7) (including bc not directly due to wagering, also due to how much money accrued by others)

In terms of coryats, he is $26,657 to Ken's $28,229. However, James' opponents have been significantly stronger than Ken's, as indicated by: less triple stumpers (3.43 to 4.29); opposite player coryat of $9,043 to Ken's $6,814; AND higher combined coryat for James' games. When you consider James' coryats are slightly lower than Ken's yet his combined game coryats are ~$3k higher, all of this adds up to indicate harder competitors.

Statistically, he is performing better than Ken Jennings after 7 games, indisputably.
How convenient you should ignore total correct responses.
That has a direct relation with coryat that I already addressed. To be clear, I am not claiming he is doing better on coryat than Ken, because that is untrue. But I think there are extenuating factors that explain the (small) margin. On a purely knowledge basis I think they are probable equals. On the basis of finding daily doubles, errors, knowing what you know, and being able to run up the score by absurd amounts, James is blowing Ken out of the water. Most game factors to be analyzed have directly to do with wagering, as you well know. And there is much more to the game than TCR, of which the difference is very minimal and can be entirely explained by strength of the competitors. My point still holds.

I just don't think you can directly compare them, statistics notwithstanding, because their playing styles are vastly different. Like, if Ken had actively hunted Daily Doubles, maybe he'd be better at finding them than James. Or if he had regularly wagered five-digit amounts on them (and FJs), maybe he'd have earned more over seven games than James did. I just don't think finding DDs and betting big are sufficient to make one better than someone else (particularly if that someone else gets more right per game).

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:00 pm**

TheSunWillComeOut wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:24 pm
The rest of the time, they were at my side, in a belt sheath my mom had made out of leftover scraps from my dad’s recently-retired leather recliner. I had great fun carrying my lunch tray through the Sony commissary wearing that - envisioned myself as an extra in a 1950s sword-and-sandal epic.

Aw, man, not the recliner! (Been watching too much Frasier lately.) I hope you didn't try to take on Kirk Douglas with those.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:27 pm**

OntarioQuizzer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:39 pm
Lefty wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:32 pm
MarkBarrett wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:12 pm
How often does AOC come up on J! anyway?
I'm somewhat surprised she hasn't yet, though more so that she has not yet in LL.
This aged terribly.

Yes, it looks like I walked into a trap there.

Btw, it might be fun one of these weeks to write five FJ clues each asking for Fahrenheit 451. Or maybe ask instead for "Pygmalion" or "Lord of the Flies" on the Thursday or Friday, to be extra tricky.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:29 pm**

John Boy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:23 am
JayK33 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:37 pm Not gonna say I'm 100% positive about this, but I am fairly sure that James set another record today -- highest score after the first round. I don't remember anyone ever making it to $20K in SJ alone. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
Don't know if it's ever happened, but when I saw that at the commercial break my comment was "That's insane!"

The "honors" page on the fan site says he does now have the highest SJ score, beating Matt Jackson's $16,800 in this game: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=5062

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:33 pm**

Matt had broken the $10k mark before the first break--and a clue earlier than usual at that!

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:37 pm**

Linear Gnome wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:32 pm The writers misspelled "minuscule" in the "Moolah" category. I have a feeling that "miniscule" is eventually going to be considered an alternate spelling because it appears so frequently. I don't think that's happened yet, though.

We've had this discussion before...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1826&hilit=miniscul ... 60#p100850

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:12 pm**

I thought "Book of Mormon" was absolutely enormous negbait on "more recent sacred text compared to the Bible".

NHO "City of lights" or "dynamic duo" referring specifically to Batman & Robin. I thought the latter was just a generic term.

My best get was going with French + water + vowel = eau/O. Converting Carthage to Cartagena was also good by my standards.

Also NHO "penny ante" outside the TPIR game.

Had a blank on Venezuela. There's always one South American country that eludes me when I need it.

Didn't know who wrote "Sugar Plum Fairy" and NHO "bursar" for 4/5 in those category.

Didn't know there was a 2018 TV version of "Fahrenheit 451", so I immediately dismissed it and figured it had to be another Liederkranz. Why even guess when I'm absolutely positively unmistakably certain that I am wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong?

Lach Trash: proof

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:59 am**

TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:12 pmDidn't know there was a 2018 TV version of "Fahrenheit 451", so I immediately dismissed it and figured it had to be another Liederkranz. Why even guess when I'm absolutely positively unmistakably certain that I am wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong?

Doesn't being so frequently wrong mean that sometimes you can expect to be wrong about being wrong?

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:00 pm**

seaborgium wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:59 am
TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:12 pmDidn't know there was a 2018 TV version of "Fahrenheit 451", so I immediately dismissed it and figured it had to be another Liederkranz. Why even guess when I'm absolutely positively unmistakably certain that I am wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong?
Doesn't being so frequently wrong mean that sometimes you can expect to be wrong about being wrong?

No, because "I'm wrong" is one of the few things that I actually have a track record of being RIGHT about. So if I have even the slightest grain of doubt, I just go with the odds and assume myself to be wrong.

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:08 pm**

TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:00 pm
seaborgium wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:59 am
TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:12 pmDidn't know there was a 2018 TV version of "Fahrenheit 451", so I immediately dismissed it and figured it had to be another Liederkranz. Why even guess when I'm absolutely positively unmistakably certain that I am wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong?
Doesn't being so frequently wrong mean that sometimes you can expect to be wrong about being wrong?
No, because "I'm wrong" is one of the few things that I actually have a track record of being RIGHT about. So if I have even the slightest grain of doubt, I just go with the odds and assume myself to be wrong.

Sounds more like Illusory Correlation to me

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:38 pm**

Volante wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:08 pm
TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:00 pm
seaborgium wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:59 am
TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:12 pmDidn't know there was a 2018 TV version of "Fahrenheit 451", so I immediately dismissed it and figured it had to be another Liederkranz. Why even guess when I'm absolutely positively unmistakably certain that I am wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong?
Doesn't being so frequently wrong mean that sometimes you can expect to be wrong about being wrong?
No, because "I'm wrong" is one of the few things that I actually have a track record of being RIGHT about. So if I have even the slightest grain of doubt, I just go with the odds and assume myself to be wrong.
Sounds more like Illusory Correlation to me

I always assume that I will be wrong. ALWAYS.

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:13 pm**

TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:38 pm
Volante wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:08 pm
TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:00 pm
seaborgium wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:59 am
TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:12 pmDidn't know there was a 2018 TV version of "Fahrenheit 451", so I immediately dismissed it and figured it had to be another Liederkranz. Why even guess when I'm absolutely positively unmistakably certain that I am wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong?
Doesn't being so frequently wrong mean that sometimes you can expect to be wrong about being wrong?
No, because "I'm wrong" is one of the few things that I actually have a track record of being RIGHT about. So if I have even the slightest grain of doubt, I just go with the odds and assume myself to be wrong.
Sounds more like Illusory Correlation to me
I always assume that I will be wrong. ALWAYS.

We always get into these discussions on the occasions where you would have been right if you hadn't assumed you were wrong and given up.

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:54 pm**

seaborgium wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:13 pm We always get into these discussions on the occasions where you would have been right if you hadn't assumed you were wrong and given up.

I think "discussion" is kinda strong ...

Posted: **Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:31 pm**

davey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:37 pm
Linear Gnome wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:32 pm The writers misspelled "minuscule" in the "Moolah" category. I have a feeling that "miniscule" is eventually going to be considered an alternate spelling because it appears so frequently. I don't think that's happened yet, though.
We've had this discussion before...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1826&hilit=miniscul ... 60#p100850

Well, at least I'm consistent.

I'm really glad you pointed that out. Time to find some other horse to flog.

JBoard.tv

Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Re: Friday, April 12, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)