Tuesday, November 16, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, econgator, dhkendall, trainman

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7895
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by alietr »

Michael's response on Facebook to my inquiry (re-posted with permission):

So, they never gave me explanation on that one. To be honest, in the rush of things I had actually forgotten that that was an even a question I had until I watched the show last night. Now I hear you guys saying this, and people on Reddit, and the fan message boards saying this, and I’m thinking about it. I actually didn’t know that someone could be invited back on the show if there was a significant controversy about a response ruled incorrect. I can see both sides of the argument on this one, but I do think the wording of the clue was less than perfect. And if I’ve done the math right, getting that question right would have given me enough money going into Final Jeopardy that I would have at least tied Andrew if not come out on top.
So obviously if I can get invited back…yes I would like that if that’s something that’s plausible. I mean, it’s Jeopardy! I want to go back. Of course I would accept it if they stuck by their ruling too. But I’m curious about how one would go about getting that ruling questioned…
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 7736
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

Bamaman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:47 pm
seaborgium wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:43 am Re life vs. water in habitable zones: given the pre-FJ scores and the FJ results (and also the fact that Andrew has established himself as one to wager $1 from a lock-tie), Michael has cause to be invited back. (And if that happened, and mbclev were still doing his thing, I'd have another counter-example. Feel free to ask for details; it's too much to explain unsolicited.)
Asking for details.
In spoiler tags just because it's off topic:
Spoiler
To begin with, mbclev's usual ranting about people losing money over not phrasing in the form of a question would center around whether or not they lost by a margin less than the cost of their error. If they did, he'd say the mistake cost them the game.

Now, this thinking is flawed, because when players make such mistakes, opponents don't wager on FJ based on what the player's score would be without a particular mistake. For example, one of his go-to citations was a guy who failed to phrase on an $800 clue, and the eventual winner rebounded, and the final score was $20,300 to $20,000. Because he lost by less than $2,400 (the $800 he was penalized plus the $800 he'd have gotten if correct plus the $800 the eventual champ got on the rebound), mbclev thought the phrasing error cost him the game. Never mind that she led $14,800 to $10,000 going into FJ and the scores would have been $14,000 to $11,600 without his mistake, almost certainly leading to her winning with upwards of $23,200 instead.

When called out on this, mbclev's response would either be that we can't say for sure that she would have covered him with those scores, or "I'm just doing what the show does to determine whether a faulty clue or a bad ruling cost a player the game." The latter, I believe, is based on something in The Jeopardy Book that may have been out of date and/or misunderstood by mbclev and/or ambiguously written. Anyway, Michael lost this game by $1,863, but if they decide "life" should have been accepted, the ruling cost him $1,600, so that would be one way to demonstrate that it isn't simply about adding the cost of an error to the final score.
Post Reply