Thursday, March 1, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

[John Boy]

And the lack of proper wagering strategy from second place saves another champ.

Really?

Strategy was certainly there. Execution may not have been — Sarah clearly overwatered by $1 — but to say the strategy is lacking is incredibly disingenuous.

Respectfully disagree. Sarah must realize that she cannot win if Laura wagers properly and answers correctly; thus her only chance is for Laura to miss (assuming a knowledgeable champ will almost always make the $1 lockout wager, which Laura did).

If Laura wagers properly and misses, she drops to $6,799, exactly what happened in this game.

Thus Sarah's task is to bet small enough not to drop below $6,800, i.e. no more than $3,599. If she does that, she wins on the TS (or even the DS), AND her wager of $3,599 also covers Laura in the event that Laura wagers $0 and Sarah answers correctly.

Seems to me if Sarah wagers $3,599 she wins this game. Instead she bet $4,801 and lost. She didn't overwager by $1. She overwagered by $1,202.

Doesn't sound like an "execution" error or a math error to me. She just didn't think this through clearly. And paid the penalty.

[John Boy]

This seemed like a TOC FJ! Not much in the way of a TOM. I chose the Faroes over the Shetlands. The Channel Islands never occurred to me. If they had, I think I would have gone with them.

"Norman Isles" immediately suggested to me that they were near, or formerly the property of, Normandy. From there I figured they had to be in the south English Channel and so Channel Islands was my only guess.

Ditto. Seemed like a pretty tough clue, and I feel fortunate my combination of geography/logic/luck came through.

[John Boy]

Explanation about TB process would have been great.

1) What would happen if the first person to ring 'negs' - does that make the other player winner?
2) What if it is a stumper? Will there be no champ?

Didn't like the new TB procedure.

Me either. Much prefer the co-champs method, even if it means one less empty spot for some other future contestant. I'll attend to that when J! puts me in charge of everything.

[AndyTheQuizzer]

Me either. Much prefer the co-champs method, even if it means one less empty spot for some other future contestant. I'll attend to that when J! puts me in charge of everything.

Imagine for a second you get The Call, and in your excitement about it, someone else from your taping cohort says "Me too!"

Under the old system, that's a Big Problem, because co-champions provide quite a collusion incentive, and it's a problem that might have even cost you your shot on the show.

Now, it's not as much of a problem.

[Peter the accountant]

Me either. Much prefer the co-champs method, even if it means one less empty spot for some other future contestant. I'll attend to that when J! puts me in charge of everything.

Imagine for a second you get The Call, and in your excitement about it, someone else from your taping cohort says "Me too!"

Under the old system, that's a Big Problem, because co-champions provide quite a collusion incentive, and it's a problem that might have even cost you your shot on the show.

Now, it's not as much of a problem.

I'd even argue that the main reason we HAVEN'T see a tie in over 3 years is the mere existence of the tie-breaker. Had the rule not changed, we'd be seeing ties on a regular basis, much like before.

How odd is it, then, that the first regular game tie comes about not because of a situation where a tie is a logical possibility, but from what is clearly a wagering mistake.

[This Is Kirk!]

I'd even argue that the main reason we HAVEN'T see a tie in over 3 years is the mere existence of the tie-breaker. Had the rule not changed, we'd be seeing ties on a regular basis, much like before.

Define "regular basis." I don't recall ties ever happening all that frequently. I'll bet the total number of games ending in times is less than 5%. To me the tiebreaker is a solution to a problem that really wasn't a problem to begin with.

[Peter the accountant]

I'd even argue that the main reason we HAVEN'T see a tie in over 3 years is the mere existence of the tie-breaker. Had the rule not changed, we'd be seeing ties on a regular basis, much like before.

Define "regular basis." I don't recall ties ever happening all that frequently. I'll bet the total number of games ending in times is less than 5%. To me the tiebreaker is a solution to a problem that really wasn't a problem to begin with.

I'd accept something along the lines of 1% to 5% of games as "regular basis". Over the course of a year, that would be something like 2 - 10 games a year resulting in ties. Since the rule change in late 2014 there has been none (in regular play) until this game.

I'd say the threat alone of the tie breaker has been enough to tweak FJ wagering so as to eliminate ties almost completely. Assuming that was the goal of the J! producers, it seems they were successful.

[AndyTheQuizzer]

Define "regular basis." I don't recall ties ever happening all that frequently. I'll bet the total number of games ending in times is less than 5%. To me the tiebreaker is a solution to a problem that really wasn't a problem to begin with.

Since we're talking about "what caused this", there was an 11% tie rate over the first seven weeks of Season 31. So, while the historical rate would have been much, much lower, there was a significant increase in ties, such that the show went "We don't want two to three ties a month, how do we stop this?"

[This Is Kirk!]

Define "regular basis." I don't recall ties ever happening all that frequently. I'll bet the total number of games ending in times is less than 5%. To me the tiebreaker is a solution to a problem that really wasn't a problem to begin with.

Since we're talking about "what caused this", there was an 11% tie rate over the first seven weeks of Season 31. So, while the historical rate would have been much, much lower, there was a significant increase in ties, such that the show went "We don't want two to three ties a month, how do we stop this?"

I agree, but I also think an equally valid method would have been "get rid of Arthur Chu as returning champion."

I'm exaggerating, of course, but it does seem like they addressed something that was truly a statistical outlier.

[CasketRomance]

sarah's wager should have been 3599...1 dollar above a correct all in by last place dude...and puts her above a 0 wager by the leader...not to mention the first place woman was most likely wagering enough to cover a double by her

[CasketRomance]

when they revealed the category i mentioned possible anwers of jersey and guernsey...then when i saw the clue i didn't have a clue...never heard of the group called channel islands before...knew of the islands that make up that group, but never heard of the group itself before

[jeff6286]

Me either. Much prefer the co-champs method, even if it means one less empty spot for some other future contestant. I'll attend to that when J! puts me in charge of everything.

Imagine for a second you get The Call, and in your excitement about it, someone else from your taping cohort says "Me too!"

Under the old system, that's a Big Problem, because co-champions provide quite a collusion incentive, and it's a problem that might have even cost you your shot on the show.

Now, it's not as much of a problem.

I don't know what a "taping cohort" is in that context or what you are trying to say with that sentence.

Big Problem with capital letters seems like a massive overstatement. Quite a collusion incentive that would have very little chance of happening realistically without being incredibly obvious. The show worked fine for 30 years with tie games as a possibility and would have continued to work fine, even if the frequency of ties continued to be elevated. It's their show, their rules, if they wanted to eliminate it then fine but there's no real reason to think that they somehow had to make this decision in the interest of fair competition.

[squarekara]

Me either. Much prefer the co-champs method, even if it means one less empty spot for some other future contestant. I'll attend to that when J! puts me in charge of everything.

Imagine for a second you get The Call, and in your excitement about it, someone else from your taping cohort says "Me too!"

Under the old system, that's a Big Problem, because co-champions provide quite a collusion incentive, and it's a problem that might have even cost you your shot on the show.

Now, it's not as much of a problem.

I don't know what a "taping cohort" is in that context or what you are trying to say with that sentence.

Is this perhaps about players who got acquainted in the same audition session? I never thought about a collusion angle, but it would be entirely possible for people to do this in all innocence. At least under the new policy people are less likely to set up "alliances" over doughnuts in the green room.

As a viewer, I like the idea of co-champs, but I can understand why TPTB went to the tiebreaker. An extra champ means extra return travel expenses to cover at the end of a taping session. And the local alternates who are supposed to get a shot at the last random draw of the day are shut out. Chiefly, though, the producers probably felt obligated to crush Arthur Chu's gambit for world domination. He was basically choosing his own opponent, right?

In a tie situation, they're obviously pressed for time, but I'd've preferred a written response over the buzz-in. "Victory or death," indeed!

[ouachiouat]

Was anyone in the audience for the show? I keep wondering if they did any sort of explanation about the procedures to the contestants or if they just jumped straight to what they showed on tv. If the latter, I'd think the leader going into the tiebreaker clue would have an advantage--they (should) have already known what a make or miss would have brought them to. Thus, they'd be aware of the potential for a tie, even if they don't yet know if their answer was correct or not. The person who they tie with would obviously have no idea of the other wager potentially leading to a tie until it.is announced. It seemed like Sarah's response was complete shock, and Laura's face was either a really good poker face or she had already figured out the tie. Those few seconds to get over the shock might play a role in mental preparedness for the tb clue. Granted, if the shown was edited to take out some of the explanations and dead stuff, this wouldn't make a difference.

[MarkBarrett]

Was anyone in the audience for the show? I keep wondering if they did any sort of explanation about the procedures to the contestants or if they just jumped straight to what they showed on tv. If the latter, I'd think the leader going into the tiebreaker clue would have an advantage--they (should) have already known what a make or miss would have brought them to. Thus, they'd be aware of the potential for a tie, even if they don't yet know if their answer was correct or not. The person who they tie with would obviously have no idea of the other wager potentially leading to a tie until it.is announced. It seemed like Sarah's response was complete shock, and Laura's face was either a really good poker face or she had already figured out the tie. Those few seconds to get over the shock might play a role in mental preparedness for the tb clue. Granted, if the shown was edited to take out some of the explanations and dead stuff, this wouldn't make a difference.

From the Thursday Reddit thread:

[–]telleni 18 points 1 day ago
Did it happen as quickly as it appeared on TV?

[–]lauramclean 92 points 1 day ago
No! They were totally unprepared for that eventuality so it took them forever to get something set up. Maggie made us all stand with our backs to the board in case the question accidentally was visible before they began taping again. It seemed like hours but was probably about five minutes.

[IronNeck]

Me either. Much prefer the co-champs method, even if it means one less empty spot for some other future contestant. I'll attend to that when J! puts me in charge of everything.

Imagine for a second you get The Call, and in your excitement about it, someone else from your taping cohort says "Me too!"

Under the old system, that's a Big Problem, because co-champions provide quite a collusion incentive, and it's a problem that might have even cost you your shot on the show.

Now, it's not as much of a problem.

I don't know what a "taping cohort" is in that context or what you are trying to say with that sentence.

Is this perhaps about players who got acquainted in the same audition session? I never thought about a collusion angle, but it would be entirely possible for people to do this in all innocence. At least under the new policy people are less likely to set up "alliances" over doughnuts in the green room.

How would this supposed "alliance" even work?

"Oh hey random stranger, in the very unlikely event that we happen to find ourselves on the exact same show, and one of us is in 1st with a crush and the other is 2nd, the leader should bet to tie, okay"

Basically, there is no point whatsoever to your proposed alliance. The leader will simply bet to tie if he wants to. He doesn't need to agree with anyone to do this.

[nklotz]

Judges - would "Guernsey & Jersey" have been accepted for FJ?

[davey]

Judges - would "Guernsey & Jersey" have been accepted for FJ?

Already well covered in the thread-
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4578&start=40#p274936

[seaborgium]

Judges - would "Guernsey & Jersey" have been accepted for FJ?

I answered this earlier in the thread. To put it briefly, two islands individually named does not constitute a group, which is what the clue asked for.

[squarekara]

Me either. Much prefer the co-champs method, even if it means one less empty spot for some other future contestant. I'll attend to that when J! puts me in charge of everything.

Imagine for a second you get The Call, and in your excitement about it, someone else from your taping cohort says "Me too!"

Under the old system, that's a Big Problem, because co-champions provide quite a collusion incentive, and it's a problem that might have even cost you your shot on the show.

Now, it's not as much of a problem.

I don't know what a "taping cohort" is in that context or what you are trying to say with that sentence.

Is this perhaps about players who got acquainted in the same audition session? I never thought about a collusion angle, but it would be entirely possible for people to do this in all innocence. At least under the new policy people are less likely to set up "alliances" over doughnuts in the green room.

How would this supposed "alliance" even work?

"Oh hey random stranger, in the very unlikely event that we happen to find ourselves on the exact same show, and one of us is in 1st with a crush and the other is 2nd, the leader should bet to tie, okay"

Basically, there is no point whatsoever to your proposed alliance. The leader will simply bet to tie if he wants to. He doesn't need to agree with anyone to do this.

Satire, dude. As I stated, I had never considered the possibility of collusion. However, people do get friendly during audition/ taping. The "point" of it would be for someone and their New Best Friend to stay in contention together.