Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

bomtr
Just a Man Like Any Other
Posts: 793
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:45 pm

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by bomtr » Fri May 11, 2012 9:38 pm

Vanya, your point is about as valid as Clarence Thomas'--as usual. I will say, however, you are not one of those who clutter the threads with responses to TPH. Gloria's post makes valid points; it IS the responders who are responsible for the volume of clutter. We are already missing several excellent posters from the past, which of course cannot be completely due to this problem. However, some of it no doubt is, and alietr deserves better than to have this forum diluted by incessant professions of ignorance and incessant tripled passages of advice on how to cure that ignorance. Shown beyond doubt to be in vain.

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 6300
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium » Fri May 11, 2012 9:51 pm

CyrusChan wrote:
seaborgium wrote:
jeff6286 wrote: Elyse Mancuso: $13,200+10,000=$23,200
Rose Schaefer: $9,400+$3,000=$12,400
Catherine Briley: $7,400+$2,600=$10,000
Crunching numbers here: entering FJ tomorrow, Elyse can enter FJ in third and still be in a position to win on a triple get. All she has to is be within $5,400 of Rose and within $6,600 of Catherine. For Rose to be able to win on a triple get, she needs to lead Elyse by more than $5,400 and be within $1,200 of Catherine. And Catherine must lead Elyse by more than $6,600 and Rose by more than $1,200 to have the highest potential total.

To achieve a lock tomorrow, Elyse must get within $10,800 of Rose's doubled score and within $13,200 of Catherine's. (For example, R: $10,000 C: $11,200 E: $9,400 is a slim lock for Elyse.) If Rose enters tomorrow's FJ with less than $5,400 and Catherine has less than $6,600, Elyse will have a superlock (a lock tournament that it is impossible to Clavin your way out of).
I don't think of it the way you do. I think of it relative so if:
You're E, it's +13,200 on C and + 10,800 on R
You're R, it's -10,800 on E and +2,400 on C
You're C, it's -13,200 on E and -2,400 on C.

I think if you consider yourself on that level rather than those huge values, it'll be easier.

Say you're E, you just do the max of ( 2*R or 2*C) - 13,200 and you'll know what you need to do with your score on day 2.
If you're R, your day 2 score does not need to be high if C's score is a threat or leading. You're alive as long as you can keep that "<5,400 distance" on E.
If you're C, pretty much with that deficit, you should tell yourself you have to reach a floor of about 12,000 and about a 3k lead over E. That way E will still need to cover your 2x score and from that, you can make a small but methodical wager to shut out R or hope to win on a triple-stumper or sole-get.


As long as C goes for a 3k lead on E, she is still in the running and R's goal is to go for a similar floor but about a 2k lead on E. If R has 12k and E has 10k today, R can still win it. Add C into the equation at say 13k, all three are running. All that said and in likelihood, should E get the Final, she'll probably win.

ENough of my rambling now... haha
Might have confused many (including me) with this...
You say you don't deal with "those huge values," but I didn't use any numbers bigger than what you used. I don't like your use of absolutes; assuming R enters an overall third place tonight, a $3,000 lead won't do C any good if E scores less than $7,200. To prevent a lock, C has to have half E's score plus $6,600, and/or R has to have half E's score plus $5,400. A two-thirds game for R would see R at two thirds of E's score plus $7,200; C's two-thirds is her at two thirds of E plus $8,800. Three-quarters for R is (3/4)E + $8,100; for C it's (3/4)E + $9,900. (How nice of them to create a scenario in Day 1 where all leads and deficits are divisible by 3 and 4!) By the way, those two-thirds formulas assume E scores more than $5,400 or $6,600 (for R and C respectively) and the three-quarters ones assume E scores more than $10,800 or $13,200 (see previous parenthesis), otherwise they're straight-up leads over E rather than three-quarters or two-thirds positions. You see why I stuck with locks, leads, and superlocks in my first post?

edit: fixed the numbers near the end
gloriaclemente wrote:I have never felt the need to respond, and I don't think he's even looking for that.
I'd agree with you except I've seen it repeatedly happen where he says "I've never heard of x" in his first post-game posting, no one responds to that particular remark, and then he posts on the next page, "Am I seriously the only one here who's never heard of x?"
Last edited by seaborgium on Sat May 12, 2012 4:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 8148
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by econgator » Fri May 11, 2012 10:08 pm

xxaaaxx wrote:Do people avoid using their ignore lists on principle?
Yep. Same reason I refuse to use spam filters on email accounts -- I'll decide for myself what I want to see and what I want to ignore.

User avatar
TenPoundHammer
Otters are meant to swim
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by TenPoundHammer » Fri May 11, 2012 10:45 pm

bomtr wrote:Vanya, your point is about as valid as Clarence Thomas'--as usual. I will say, however, you are not one of those who clutter the threads with responses to TPH.
Or in this case, the thread's getting cluttered with responses to responses of me.
Ten Pound Hammer

This space for rent

reddpen
Thrice Unplucked from the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:51 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by reddpen » Sat May 12, 2012 2:43 am

Vanya wrote: Paraphrase: "Clarence Thomas works up some fake outrage."
There ought to be some corollary to Godwin's Law for invoking Justice Thomas -- who purportedly never asks questions from the bench -- in any rational discussion. My god, the man used the word "lynching" twice, effectively ending the debate.

Worst. Justice. Ever.
Back in the pool

Johnblue
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1379
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:55 am

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Johnblue » Sat May 12, 2012 10:25 am

Well, he's no wise Latina but I'm sure there are and have been worse Justices. Didn't Abe Fortas get forced off the court?

User avatar
Paucle
Trekardy! Writer
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: near Albany NY
Contact:

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Paucle » Sat May 12, 2012 11:02 am

reddpen wrote:Justice Thomas -- who purportedly never asks questions from the bench
He does ask a few, it's just that they all come from Justice Scalia's mouth.

User avatar
whoisalexjacob
2015 TOC'er
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:19 am

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by whoisalexjacob » Sat May 12, 2012 1:18 pm

I kinda think of a forum as a free market though. The market has shown that (to some degree) people like responding to TPH's posts. Whether it's to humor him, to make conversation with somebody, to feel superior by correcting him, whatever, it doesn't matter. It happens because people choose to do it. So I don't know, I just feel weird with this whole condescending attitude, like there's an implied premise that those who aren't responding to TPH are "better posters" than those who are, or something. I understand the sentiment, as I don't usually feel the need to respond to him in particular either. But on the other hand I will respond to people from time to time and even argue with them, and I basically feel like that's part of what a forum should be. I personally don't want to read 50 mini-blogs about each episode, but that could be just me.

If we're saying alietr doesn't deserve to have his board cluttered and blah blah high-and-mighty BS, all these posts that have nothing at all to do with Jeopardy! are kinda cluttering (as TPH pointed out). I don't think it's that hard to skim and skip posts; honestly, I do it all the time here.

Edit to add: speaking of clutter, raise your hand if you're guilty of this: you make a post to slam TPH because you're so clever, and he of course responds to you. Now, do you consider that clutter, or is that okay because you're so funny?

bomtr
Just a Man Like Any Other
Posts: 793
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:45 pm

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by bomtr » Sat May 12, 2012 2:31 pm

ok
Last edited by bomtr on Sat May 12, 2012 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
StevenH
Not J! Contestant Material
Posts: 2262
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by StevenH » Sat May 12, 2012 3:16 pm

Ok, too
Last edited by StevenH on Sat May 12, 2012 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Vanya » Sat May 12, 2012 3:35 pm

StevenH wrote:
And as far as I can tell Vanya was making a joke with the Clarence Thomas thing, not a "statement." We really should keep the political talk off of this board. With DHicton gone (thank God) the political talk had gone down like 95% from the old Sony board. Let's please keep it that way.
Not entirely a joke. I was going to post the Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street," but I thought the Thomas clip was more succinct (that I admire most of his rulings is irrelevant). I'm not surprised bomtr and Joon want to ostracize someone who is different. Liberals pretend to be tolerant, but they often turn out to be the least tolerant. Those two would have made good Bolsheviks.

Bomtr says TPH is scaring people away, but he has not offered any proof. Another principle he has forgotten: innocent until proven guilty.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 6639
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by alietr » Sat May 12, 2012 7:01 pm

I have revived the "The TPH Situation" thread. If any of you wish to make any further comments, please do so there, not here. Further discussion of TPH in this thread may lead to your post being deleted or moved.

TreehugginCowgirl
Best Self-Destruct Button
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:55 am

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by TreehugginCowgirl » Tue May 15, 2012 3:31 am

Vanya wrote:
TenPoundHammer wrote: Any way I'd know those attractions would be in Phoenix and not Santa Fe? Both seemed to make equal sense to me.
Phoenix is in the desert. Santa Fe is in the mountains (over 7,000 feet).
Santa Fe may be in the mountains, but it's still desert. I live just outside of Santa Fe, and the bigger tip off to me was Chicano. Chicano refers to people of recent Mexican descent, and the Hispanic native New Mexicans (some here since around 1600) get a little perturbed if someone assumes they're Mexican. I live in a Hispanic dominated area, and I've never heard anyone use Chicano except as a mild insult to Mexican immigrants.

MDCSWildcats86
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:57 am

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by MDCSWildcats86 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:20 pm

CyrusChan wrote:
What was the answer to the "Tony" winner question?


Where are Australia and Antarctica? (although, I could not name an Asian or African-set Tony winner if my life dpeended on it).

User avatar
TenPoundHammer
Otters are meant to swim
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Thursday, May 10, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by TenPoundHammer » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:57 am

TenPoundHammer wrote:Kid in the middle is lucky. My US history teachers all sucked pond scum, and I never had world history. I think I've been forever spoiled on US history beause I keep flashing back to the boring drones of HS history, the tl;dr tomes of Civil War and Michigan History, and my uncanny ability to take notes on EVERYthing in the chapter except what we were tested on, leaving me with about five "where the hell was THAT? I don't remember reading THAT in the chapter!" moments.
Going through some old threads out of boredom. Just wanted to bump this belatedly to say that my college US History teacher was wonderful. A bit disorganized and off-the-cuff at times, but she was great at finding ways to keep the material engaging, even beyond the fact that the textbook wasn't boring. She really made me want to participate, and near the end of the semester, she even said she really enjoyed having me in class because I contributed so much.
Ten Pound Hammer

This space for rent

Post Reply