Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 2576
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

GoodStrategy wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:22 pm
This (scroll down to the "Williams-Chu rule") explains the collusion concern.
I love Matt's page (he's even kind enough to mention me a few times) but I do not buy that a rule allowing ties poses a substantial illegal collusion concern that other aspects of the game do not also pose (or that the possibility of tying does not pose even absent pre-taping contact). This has been hashed out enough on this board and elsewhere and I don't think it needs re-hashing. The rule is in place and arguing about it isn't going to matter. My 96-year-old great aunt hates it and wants to write in to complain. I told her not to bother.

Sherm
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:39 pm

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Sherm »

yclept wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:43 pm
If the category is “Baseball” in Final Jeopardy, I’d play for the win and not the potential for a buzzer race tiebreaker.
If the category is “The History of Opera,” I am betting $0 and praying that the person in second either misses or wagers poorly.
For me, we have a winner. It depends on the comfort level of the category, and I would take it a step further, if I feel comfortable with the category, I'm risking the most that I can, not a dollar. In this case, I'm covering Kimberly. I get it wrong she can't win.

Back in the days of a tie, you'd be crazy not to play for the tie. With the new rules. Put the onus on the other guy if you don't like the category, and try and maximize the winnings if you do.

Also, I understand game theory, which is saying bet a buck. It does give you the absolute best chance of winning especially if the 2nd place player doesn't bet properly. That happened today. In my book, I'll reduce my chances of winning by a couple of percent in efforts to win the extra money. In this case about $6,500 dollars in a category I like.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 8463
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin »

Sherm wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:22 pm
Also, I understand game theory, which is saying bet a buck. It does give you the absolute best chance of winning especially if the 2nd place player doesn't bet properly. That happened today. In my book, I'll reduce my chances of winning by a couple of percent in efforts to win the extra money. In this case about $6,500 dollars in a category I like.
Would it make a difference if this happened during your 4th or 5th game when the possibility of a TOC berth has come into play?

mjhunt
Valued Contributor
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by mjhunt »

GoodStrategy wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:22 pm
Robert K S wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:06 pm
I hate the "no ties" rule too but I'm much more cool with the rationale that "we want as many people as possible to be able to be on Jeopardy!" than the whole "ties are unethical" angle which I never understood.
This (scroll down to the "Williams-Chu rule") explains the collusion concern.
Robert K S wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:53 pm
GoodStrategy wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:22 pm
This (scroll down to the "Williams-Chu rule") explains the collusion concern.
I love Matt's page (he's even kind enough to mention me a few times) but I do not buy that a rule allowing ties poses a substantial illegal collusion concern that other aspects of the game do not also pose (or that the possibility of tying does not pose even absent pre-taping contact). This has been hashed out enough on this board and elsewhere and I don't think it needs re-hashing. The rule is in place and arguing about it isn't going to matter. My 96-year-old great aunt hates it and wants to write in to complain. I told her not to bother.
Yes, the rule is unlikely to change, but it is important to call people out when they claim ties are unethical, since it basically accuses the show of promoting criminality, even if unintentionally, for thirty years. That is a pretty serious allegation against Merv Griffin and others involved in the show before the tiebreaker.

One reason is this: Matt Carberry and others seem to claim that allowing ties was legal before social media, but illegal because of social media enabling pre-taping contact. NO such distinction can be made. It is NOT true that pre-internet contestants had necessarily not had contact before taping . Read this page in the archive and the article it links to:
https://www.j-archive.com/showplayer.php?player_id=6767
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html

"After years of watching “Jeopardy!” with her parents, Cloyd took the show’s online tryout test in early 2009. She did well enough to be one of 30 would-be contestants invited to a follow-up audition in Washington that May. When the organizers asked who had traveled the farthest, she heard Braverman announce that she’d come in from law school at the University of Michigan — Cloyd’s alma mater — and that she’d soon be moving to the District to work for Bread for the City, Cloyd’s favorite charity.

“I was like, ‘Whoa, I want to be friends with this girl,’ ” recalls Cloyd, a 31-year-old outreach coordinator at the U.S. Global Change Research Program. At the end of the session, she followed Braverman into the elevator, gave her a card and suggested she touch base once she was settled in the city."

WHAT!? They met at audition and exchanged contact information! It makes no difference whether it was email addresses, phone numbers, or social media profiles. Yes, they were not married at the time, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that they had contact long before taping.

Now, did they tie? Well, not quite. But, if they had tied, would it have been an S&P scandal according to Mr. Carberry? Consistency would force him to answer yes.

And then look at the link below, which describes Ben Nuckols speaking with Lisa Osterman in the hotel bar before he competed against her
https://www.heraldextra.com/entertainme ... 82c82.html
https://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=388

And, what this means is that there are likely countless other similar cases in the archive.

To me, I reject the whole thing. Whatever law cited there does not require the removal of all collusion incentives. If it is illegal for Jeopardy! to have co-champions, it is unclear how the Scripps Howard national spelling Bee could allow co-champions or even whether Wheel of Fortune and Pyramid could allow non-winners to keep their winnings.

Whatsever S&P might have thought, there is no actual legal issue. Shows are not required to remove any collusion incentive. And, really, it is not a credible concern anyway. It requires too much trust and is against the core tendency of human nature to win as much as possible for one's self. Somebody would have gone to jail for it at some point if allowing ties were a huge collusion hazard.

Again, I am not expecting ties to be brought back. But, I think it's necessary to defend Jeopardy's reputation.

And, I just don't like intellectual dishonesty or the sake of sensationalism. Did he really think I wouldn't find the article I linked to and see the inconsistency?
Last edited by mjhunt on Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

mjhunt
Valued Contributor
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by mjhunt »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:42 pm
Sherm wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:22 pm
Also, I understand game theory, which is saying bet a buck. It does give you the absolute best chance of winning especially if the 2nd place player doesn't bet properly. That happened today. In my book, I'll reduce my chances of winning by a couple of percent in efforts to win the extra money. In this case about $6,500 dollars in a category I like.
Would it make a difference if this happened during your 4th or 5th game when the possibility of a TOC berth has come into play?
Sherm wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:22 pm
yclept wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:43 pm
If the category is “Baseball” in Final Jeopardy, I’d play for the win and not the potential for a buzzer race tiebreaker.
If the category is “The History of Opera,” I am betting $0 and praying that the person in second either misses or wagers poorly.
For me, we have a winner. It depends on the comfort level of the category, and I would take it a step further, if I feel comfortable with the category, I'm risking the most that I can, not a dollar. In this case, I'm covering Kimberly. I get it wrong she can't win.

Back in the days of a tie, you'd be crazy not to play for the tie. With the new rules. Put the onus on the other guy if you don't like the category, and try and maximize the winnings if you do.

Also, I understand game theory, which is saying bet a buck. It does give you the absolute best chance of winning especially if the 2nd place player doesn't bet properly. That happened today. In my book, I'll reduce my chances of winning by a couple of percent in efforts to win the extra money. In this case about $6,500 dollars in a category I like.
I would suggest betting $7,598 or slightly less rather than $7,599. A common miswager by second in "lock-tie" and crush games is to cover third by a dollar. Thus staying above a third place double-up by two or more dollars would noticeably reduce the extra risk, but cost you very little.

I think Category 13 may have been alluding to that here:
viewtopic.php?t=5604&start=20

I actually have conflicting feelings about the no-tie rule in this scenario, since while I feel bad for Megan, Roey, and others, I would actually enjoy it if a leader took advantage of the it and greatly increased his/her winnings.

Mostly, I just have a problem with saying that allowing ties is a criminal issue.

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 7473
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

mjhunt wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:57 am
I would suggest betting $7,598 or slightly less rather than $7,599. A common miswager by second in "lock-tie" and crush games is to cover third by a dollar. Thus staying above a third place double-up by two or more dollars would noticeably reduce the extra risk, but cost you very little.
I actually considered a $7,598 wager for Kelly before FJ ran. Although it would have worked here, the problem is that the third-place cover wager is only a floor, so it can be unpredictable how far above it a player in second place might end up. Some who like keeping the zeroes at the end of their scores cover by $100, for example. (In Donna Vogel's fourth game she was in a close lead over second place and opted to cover third place by $300, winning after she got it right alongside second place, who covered third by $100.)

Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 10753
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Bamaman »

I would bet $1 from the lead unless I absolutely hated the category. Movies aren’t my strong suit but I would have risked the buck here.

I would never consider betting down to where I was a dollar ahead of third’s doubled score if I got it wrong. Even if I loved the category. In this game, Kelly is forced into a tiebreaker if he does it. And what if Dan had just bet $4000? Yes, second should be betting it all but I’m not taking unnecessary risks just for a chance of winning a few extra dollars. I understand $7,598 is a lot of money, but you could be losing the opportunity to win much more.

Betting more than the MSB from the lead just reduces your chances of winning. Don’t assume what a trailing player “should” do.

mjhunt
Valued Contributor
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by mjhunt »

seaborgium wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:08 am
mjhunt wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:57 am
I would suggest betting $7,598 or slightly less rather than $7,599. A common miswager by second in "lock-tie" and crush games is to cover third by a dollar. Thus staying above a third place double-up by two or more dollars would noticeably reduce the extra risk, but cost you very little.
I actually considered a $7,598 wager for Kelly before FJ ran. Although it would have worked here, the problem is that the third-place cover wager is only a floor, so it can be unpredictable how far above it a player in second place might end up. Some who like keeping the zeroes at the end of their scores cover by $100, for example. (In Donna Vogel's fourth game she was in a close lead over second place and opted to cover third place by $300, winning after she got it right alongside second place, who covered third by $100.)
Bamaman wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 7:45 am
I would bet $1 from the lead unless I absolutely hated the category. Movies aren’t my strong suit but I would have risked the buck here.

I would never consider betting down to where I was a dollar ahead of third’s doubled score if I got it wrong. Even if I loved the category. In this game, Kelly is forced into a tiebreaker if he does it. And what if Dan had just bet $4000? Yes, second should be betting it all but I’m not taking unnecessary risks just for a chance of winning a few extra dollars. I understand $7,598 is a lot of money, but you could be losing the opportunity to win much more.

Betting more than the MSB from the lead just reduces your chances of winning. Don’t assume what a trailing player “should” do.
I understand what both of you are saying. From a strictly rational/percentage point of view, betting only $1 is the best play. I'm not saying $7,598 (or $7,500, $7,000, or some other amount) totally eliminates the extra risk. I am just saying it decreases the risk, which I think is clear.

And, I have to admit that some of the reason for my post is that I enjoy watching big wagers and would think of a large money gain as something good coming from a rule I don't generally like.

I don't have any problem with players making the rational/percentage play. It is just that given the average player has an approximately 50% of answering FJ correct, and it can be higher depending on the individual and the category, I don't think betting more than $1 here is the worst gamble to take in life. Many people take much worse gambles in many areas of life all the time.

That said, I appreciate Seaborgium's examples, since while I support players who bet more than the MSB, it is good to be aware that there is always some risk involved.
Last edited by mjhunt on Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 2576
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

mjhunt wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:15 am
[Claiming] ties are unethical ... accuses the show of promoting criminality, even if unintentionally, for thirty years. That is a pretty serious allegation against Merv Griffin and others involved in the show before the tiebreaker.
I'll say this much: I don't think Merv Griffin, or anyone involved with the show prior to the sky's-the-limit rule, could have anticipated the possibility of an indefinite string of co-championships. But I just don't see this possibility as likely enough to warrant addressing with a rule change. At some point, the trailer is going to miss Final.

I'm much more sympathetic with the idea that "hey, here are a group of people that spent a lot of money and effort to fly out here, and it's kind of a bummer to not let them all play the game". But I still think ties were rare enough that it wasn't worth the rule change, which has its own unfairness.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7602
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by alietr »

Robert K S wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:56 pm
I'm much more sympathetic with the idea that "hey, here are a group of people that spent a lot of money and effort to fly out here, and it's kind of a bummer to not let them all play the game". But I still think ties were rare enough that it wasn't worth the rule change, which has its own unfairness.
Unless you get more than one tie per airing-week, this isn't the case since there's always a local there to be an alternate.

User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 2576
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

Not sure what you mean there... the local alternate is a spare 12th so doesn't change things one way or another.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7602
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by alietr »

Robert K S wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:35 pm
Not sure what you mean there... the local alternate is a spare 12th so doesn't change things one way or another.
If there's a tie, the person who traveled there will still get to play.

User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 2576
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

alietr wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:38 pm
Robert K S wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:35 pm
Not sure what you mean there... the local alternate is a spare 12th so doesn't change things one way or another.
If there's a tie, the person who traveled there will still get to play.
Absent ties or triple-losses, there are ordinarily 11 player slots per week (i.e., per one tape day).

Suppose in a tape day you have 1 returning champion (automatically gets to play), 10 out-of-towners, and 1 local alternate.

If there is one tie in the week, the number of player slots reduces, by one, to 10, meaning that one out-of-towner doesn't get to play that day.

Two ties, two out-of-towners don't get to play.

And so on.

Of course, during pandemic times, a lot of players are local, so the concerned is lessened substantially.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 8463
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin »

I seem to recall from the last time we had this conversation that post-Chu there was a marked uptick in ties being offered but only a slight uptick in games ending in a tie. A lot has to come together for a tie to happen, and the offer is only one component. I don't feel like checking the stats again, but I remember thinking that the slight uptick was no big deal. It might have extrapolated out to 3 extra ties per season, but that's just a number I made up based on a fuzzy memory. HOWEVER, it's possible that tie games would have gone up from there if the no-tie rule hadn't been implemented. As contestants began to realize that ties were being offered more frequently, they might have adjusted their wagers to take advantage of the potential offer. Personally, I find implausible any theory that suggests many second place contestants give that amount of thought to their wagers and actually study previous games to that degree. My feeling is that the number of contestants offering ties would have died down as the memory of Arthur Chu dimmed and we would have ended up with ties being no more frequent or only very slightly more frequent than in the pre-Chu era.

I think they have an opportunity to make a few changes to the game when the new season with the new host starts. I would recommend these two:

1. Reveal. Every. Clue. Games with unused clues are a drag, especially when they're in your wheelhouse category. They've proven in TOC quarterfinals that they have the technology to let the contestants play every clue and still trim the game to the required length. Why should the number of clues in a game be determined by whether a contestant was slow to call for the next clue or the host cracked one too many jokes? That's just arbitrary.

2. Bring back the tie. If I could only have one of these wishes, I guess I'd go with the first one. But it's a really really close call. There are two reasons to bring back ties. First, they're fun and surprising. They make the viewer feel happy and they're good viral moments--better, in my opinion than the viral moment where it took an extra clue to determine who the one and only one winner of the game was. Second, the tiebreaker round is bad TV and it makes people feel bad too. The tiebreaker round plays about as well as that stupid shootout in futbol/soccer tournaments. The pacing is all wrong to make for good suspense. The suspense was already on during the FJ reveal and then you realize that you still don't know who the winner is and you have to re-invest yourself in the game but there isn't time to re-build the suspense before there's a quick blip and someone rings in and the game's over and one of them turns out to be the winner. You just end up feeling rotten for the contestant who got all the way to the end and lost the game on a buzzer race to respond to a dead easy clue. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of all good-hearted people.

mjhunt
Valued Contributor
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by mjhunt »

Robert K S wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:48 pm
alietr wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:38 pm
Robert K S wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:35 pm
Not sure what you mean there... the local alternate is a spare 12th so doesn't change things one way or another.
If there's a tie, the person who traveled there will still get to play.
Absent ties or triple-losses, there are ordinarily 11 player slots per week (i.e., per one tape day).

Suppose in a tape day you have 1 returning champion (automatically gets to play), 10 out-of-towners, and 1 local alternate.

If there is one tie in the week, the number of player slots reduces, by one, to 10, meaning that one out-of-towner doesn't get to play that day.

Two ties, two out-of-towners don't get to play.

And so on.

Of course, during pandemic times, a lot of players are local, so the concerned is lessened substantially.
I thought it was that 2/11 would be local and that absent any ties, one player at the end of a taping week would automatically be local.

That would mean if there were one tie, the local would not get to play that week, but all the players who traveled there would get to play that week. Though, if the tie happened on the first taping day, one non-local would have to play the second taping day rather than the first.

That is an inconvenience, but much less than having to fly back later.

Of course, if too many were to use the Chu-Williams strategy, two ties in one week might be common and I can see why that would motivate a rule change. But, that is very different from saying it is a criminal issue.

User avatar
Picked Off
Jeopardy! Contestant
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Picked Off »

Mystified by the bet from second and will be forever.

FJ was easy if you've seen the movie and Christoph Waltz's performance. If you haven't, 12 Years A Slave from right around then is a fine guess, although Solomon Northup is well known around here, hailing from Saratoga Springs, ruling out the last name possibility.
Season 27 player and lifelong fan

Sherm
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:39 pm

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Sherm »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:42 pm
Sherm wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:22 pm
Also, I understand game theory, which is saying bet a buck. It does give you the absolute best chance of winning especially if the 2nd place player doesn't bet properly. That happened today. In my book, I'll reduce my chances of winning by a couple of percent in efforts to win the extra money. In this case about $6,500 dollars in a category I like.
Would it make a difference if this happened during your 4th or 5th game when the possibility of a TOC berth has come into play?
Most likely yes. If I got that far I'd be thinking TOC, but I've followed jeopardy long enough to know two things.

1,) My trivia skills are good enough to get on the show. I break 35 on the test most every year, usually right around 40.

2.) My skills are not good enough to endure a long run on the show. I'd be lucky to win more than one or two if I did get on. That is why maximizing the winning amount comes into play with me. It becomes more like poker in that regard. Risk versus reward.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 8463
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin »

Sherm wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:17 pm
opusthepenguin wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:42 pm
Sherm wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:22 pm
Also, I understand game theory, which is saying bet a buck. It does give you the absolute best chance of winning especially if the 2nd place player doesn't bet properly. That happened today. In my book, I'll reduce my chances of winning by a couple of percent in efforts to win the extra money. In this case about $6,500 dollars in a category I like.
Would it make a difference if this happened during your 4th or 5th game when the possibility of a TOC berth has come into play?
Most likely yes. If I got that far I'd be thinking TOC, but I've followed jeopardy long enough to know two things.

1,) My trivia skills are good enough to get on the show. I break 35 on the test most every year, usually right around 40.

2.) My skills are not good enough to endure a long run on the show. I'd be lucky to win more than one or two if I did get on. That is why maximizing the winning amount comes into play with me. It becomes more like poker in that regard. Risk versus reward.
Interesting. I'd put myself at about that level as well--not TOC material but capable of winning a game or two given the breaks. Where we differ is that I'd be much more interested in maximizing my number of games played than the amount of money won. I'd totally sacrifice a potential $6500 for a 2 percentage point bump in my odds of playing another round. I mean, when am I going to be there again?

User avatar
Lefty
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Lefty »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:14 pm

1. Reveal. Every. Clue. Games with unused clues are a drag, especially when they're in your wheelhouse category. They've proven in TOC quarterfinals that they have the technology to let the contestants play every clue and still trim the game to the required length. Why should the number of clues in a game be determined by whether a contestant was slow to call for the next clue or the host cracked one too many jokes? That's just arbitrary.
To me, "oops, we're out of time!" clearly raises more Standards & Practices issues than allowing co-winners would. I was quite surprised when a survey on this site went 3 to 2 against REC.
I'm smart and I want respect.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 8463
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Friday, April 23, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin »

Lefty wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:55 am
opusthepenguin wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:14 pm

1. Reveal. Every. Clue. Games with unused clues are a drag, especially when they're in your wheelhouse category. They've proven in TOC quarterfinals that they have the technology to let the contestants play every clue and still trim the game to the required length. Why should the number of clues in a game be determined by whether a contestant was slow to call for the next clue or the host cracked one too many jokes? That's just arbitrary.
To me, "oops, we're out of time!" clearly raises more Standards & Practices issues than allowing co-winners would. I was quite surprised when a survey on this site went 3 to 2 against REC.
I hadn't thought about the S&P angle. What's the worry there? That the host might slow down or speed up to aid a favored contestant? My automatic thought is "Alex would never do that", so it's hard for me to evaluate whether it's hypothetically more of a danger than contestant collusion. You may be right. Especially since Standards & Practices exist precisely because once upon a time a game show host DID collude with others to throw the game to favored contestants.

I know contestants sometimes appear to deliberately drag things out to preserve a lead. But that's not an ethical or legal violation, I don't think. It's just irritating and another argument for ReadEveryClue. Hem and haw all you want, slappy. We'll fix it in post.

Post Reply