Tuesday, September 11, 1984 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

[Mario500]

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/battle.html - To quote this tome:

As historians and others involved in measuring time continue to remind us, there was no year 0. In fact, there has never been a system of recording reigns, dynasties, or eras that did not designate its first year as [anything but] the year 1. To complete a century, one must complete 100 years; the first century of our era ran from the beginning of A.D. 1 to the end of A.D. 100; the second century began with the year A.D. 101.

While the period 1900-1999 is of course a century, as is any period of 100 years, it is incorrect to label it the 20th century, which began January 1, 1901, and will end on December 31, 2000. Only then will the third millennium of our era begin.

(disagrees with this "tome" after having had always found the years for a certain calendar system involving dates like "July 22nd, 2020" to had been parts of a certain kind of "number line" often used in mathematics)

[opusthepenguin]

Jeopardy!s social networking sites says what happened on show #2 would require a tie-breaker clue today. This brings me to this: What do you award the person who wins the tie-breaker clue on a triple-zero game? $5000? $2000? $1000?

$0 and the title of returning champion in the following game.

Who's making this claim, though? We've had a triple-zero game in the no-ties era and all three contestants were sent packing.

[talkingaway]

Jeopardy!s social networking sites says what happened on show #2 would require a tie-breaker clue today. This brings me to this: What do you award the person who wins the tie-breaker clue on a triple-zero game? $5000? $2000? $1000?

If this actually were the case, $0 plus whatever they win on the next show, IMO.

Actually, their social sites aren't right - this is from their official site:

https://www.jeopardy.com/jbuzz/behind-s ... -scenarios

2. No Winner?

In regular game play, if all three contestants wager everything in Final Jeopardy! and respond incorrectly, there is no returning champ. The subsequent show begins with three new players, as Alex explains below.

The YouTube video just says "This game's Final Jeopardy! ended in a unique way. Good thing we have a tiebreaker now!". It's not technically a lie, but it is misleading, since a tiebreaker wouldn't change the outcome of this game.

Of course, what DOES change the outcome is the contestants figuring out the game theory behind the wagering. Game 1 was a runaway, and the leader did bet small enough to secure his runaway. Game 2 wasn't a runaway, but the leader obviously made a costly (and, by today's standards, stupid) error. The third episode only had 2 people - and the leader bet $100 more than necessary, which is close enough to optimal wagering, IMO, since nobody had ever been bold enough to bet outside of multiples of 100. Game 4 had an overbet from the leader.

Contestants pretty much caught on in the first week of tapings, though. (Assuming they had the same schedule in 84, which is a big assumption.) On show 10, Claire bets $6050, instead of the minimal lockout bet of $6001.

The first potential $1 win I see in the archive is show 57 - the leader had a lock, and bet the maximum to maintain a full lockout. But he got the clue right, so no audience ooooohs.

In fact, I don't see any shows in the archive from season 1 where a contestant won by a dollar.