Elijah Baley wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:03 pm
A great role and performance but I would have guessed Ralph Fiennes had won for Schindler's List.
For supporting actor?
Fiennes was nominated for supporting actor for his role as Amon Goeth, losing to Jones. Neeson was nominated for leading actor as Oskar Schindler, but lost to Hanks for his role in Philadelphia.
This was the second FJ this week I've gotten before I even finished reading the clue (had to play off of jboard every night so far).
Also, welcome back from your hiatus, opus! I hope your Eastertide was excellent and restful. Good to see the penguin avatar again.
Elijah Baley wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:03 pm
A great role and performance but I would have guessed Ralph Fiennes had won for Schindler's List.
For supporting actor?
Fiennes was nominated for supporting actor for his role as Amon Goeth, losing to Jones. Neeson was nominated for leading actor as Oskar Schindler, but lost to Hanks for his role in Philadelphia.
Oops. That does say Fiennes, doesn't it? I read it that way too, but my mind somehow pictured Neeson as I did so. All better now.
I don't think it's possible to come up with a good final jeopardy bet in this situation unless you have more info about what your competitor is going to do.
If the obvious answer is "wager everything" that quickly falls apart because a person wagering 0 has better odds than a person wagering everything. The typical Jeopardy! contestant gets FJ correct 50% of the time. If you bet 0 and your opponent bets everything you have a 50% chance to win. Alternatively if you and your opponent bet everything then you have a 37.5% chance to win. There is a 25% chance that both players will miss and third place will win and the remaining 75% chance to win is split between the two leaders.
Of course the answer could still be "wager everything" because there is definitely a chance your opponent will not wager everything which also gives you a 50% chance to win.
If you wager $0 and your opponent also wagers $0 your odds of winning are 50%.
Your ideal wager changes drastically depending on whether or not your competitor will wager everything. I'm going to say that the ideal wager is $0 but if you have some way of knowing your opponent will not bet everything then your ideal wager is to bet everything.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.
MattKnowles wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:45 pm
I don't think it's possible to come up with a good final jeopardy bet in this situation unless you have more info about what your competitor is going to do.
If the obvious answer is "wager everything" that quickly falls apart because a person wagering 0 has better odds than a person wagering everything. The typical Jeopardy! contestant gets FJ correct 50% of the time. If you bet 0 and your opponent bets everything you have a 50% chance to win. Alternatively if you and your opponent bet everything then you have a 37.5% chance to win. There is a 25% chance that both players will miss and third place will win and the remaining 75% chance to win is split between the two leaders.
Of course the answer could still be "wager everything" because there is definitely a chance your opponent will not wager everything which also gives you a 50% chance to win.
If you wager $0 and your opponent also wagers $0 your odds of winning are 50%.
Your ideal wager changes drastically depending on whether or not your competitor will wager everything. I'm going to say that the ideal wager is $0 but if you have some way of knowing your opponent will not bet everything then your ideal wager is to bet everything.
Nothing about category confidence?
Does your wagering strategy change depending on the gender of your opponent?
Ironhorse wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:20 pm
When I saw the word "Dahomey", I immediately began trying to remember whether it was Benin or Togo. As it turns out, matters were much simpler.
MarkBarrett wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:56 pm
The author Arielle mentioned during chat time has two hits in the Archive:
#7720, aired 2018-03-16 AFRICAN-AMERICAN LITERATURE $2000: This author of "Kindred" & "Xenogenesis" combined African-American culture with science fiction themes
#3281, aired 1998-12-07 AFRICAN-AMERICAN WRITERS $800: Octavia Butler writes novels like "Clay's Ark" & "Patternmaster" in this genre
Both clues were TS, so look for her again in 2038.
It's been announced that Ava DuVernay will make Dawn as a TV series, so Arielle may have reason to be happy and we may get another clue in sooner than 20 years.
Maybe not if it’s not as disastrous as A Wrinkle In Time. Easy FJ again. Dahomey was a major African empire and as noted above, Benin was initially called Dahomey upon independence. I was glad to see big bets on FJ.
I don't think it's possible to come up with a good final jeopardy bet in this situation unless you have more info about what your competitor is going to do.
If the obvious answer is "wager everything" that quickly falls apart because a person wagering 0 has better odds than a person wagering everything. The typical Jeopardy! contestant gets FJ correct 50% of the time. If you bet 0 and your opponent bets everything you have a 50% chance to win. Alternatively if you and your opponent bet everything then you have a 37.5% chance to win. There is a 25% chance that both players will miss and third place will win and the remaining 75% chance to win is split between the two leaders.
Of course the answer could still be "wager everything" because there is definitely a chance your opponent will not wager everything which also gives you a 50% chance to win.
If you wager $0 and your opponent also wagers $0 your odds of winning are 50%.
Your ideal wager changes drastically depending on whether or not your competitor will wager everything. I'm going to say that the ideal wager is $0 but if you have some way of knowing your opponent will not bet everything then your ideal wager is to bet everything.
Nothing about category confidence?
Does your wagering strategy change depending on the gender of your opponent?
The typical Jeopardy contestant gets FJ right about 50% of the time. If that 50% number is not valid then neither is the wagering strategy I mentioned. Some people on this forum seem to get FJ right 80% of the time or more and they would want to wager everything.
I would bring up category confidence for DD wagering because I think you can have pretty good confidence in the category. In FJ I don't know if category confidence is helpful. I can't speak for others but for me the FJ clues can be tricky and they seem to make things harder for some standard categories. My success on FJ doesn't seem to have much correlation with category and I wouldn't adjust my wager for FJ based on the category.
I'm not sure why you brought up gender. If one gender is statistically unlikely to wager all-in then it would make sense to adjust your wagering strategy to account for that. I have not looked at Jeopardy! statistics by gender and I wouldn't change my strategy based on that with the incomplete information I have.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.
Out of curiosity, was anyone at taping for this episode? The first clue in Comic Strips felt really incongruous to the rest of the category -- it was a word origin clue when all the rest of the clues dealt with actual comic strip characters in some way. So I wonder if maybe the top box was a half assed replacement?
On a different note, when one says a FJ is "pop culture", is that the case for all movie-related questions, or just sufficiently recent ones?
As for FJ betting, one should probably only bet $0 if their confidence is well below 50% for the category. Which is possible, but certainly unlikely, given that it's a conventional category almost everyone has watched a lot of, and is reasonably easy to get good at.
At 50%, $0 not only makes one vulnerable to a co-leader who is even decent at movies (likely), shifting the odds of victory between the two scenarios. (If your chances of getting the FJ is 50%, but the other person's is 70%, betting $0 against their all-in bet has a 30% chance of victory, while betting everything against their all-in bet has a 32.5% chance of victory)
However, this ignores the massive difference between winning $18,000 and $36,000, with the latter figure being an extra day's worth of winnings.
Since the mode of Jeopardy days won is 1, the median is between 1 and 1.5, and even the mean is less than 2, unless a player is supremely confident he/she will be a superchampion, the difference in payouts has to be considered very heavily.
BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:15 pm
Coryat: 40,800
50 R/1 W
DD: 3/3
FJ:
LT: knock, mopeds, Mario Puzo (DD), epistemology, Africa
Jack saved Kristin from a lifetime of heartbreak and regret. Leaving that dollar on the table should have sent her home, but Jack couldn't find the correct response in any gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, hen house, outhouse, or doghouse in his brain.
I had the solution as soon as I saw "Tommy Lee Jones".
Thought a tiebreaker was coming for sure until I saw Kristen's wager.
bigblue999 wrote:
I don’t understand why in a tie after DJ! contestants bet all but $1 to avoid the tiebreaker clue. Kristen was lucky that Jack got it wrong.
Worse yet, she risked a tiebreaker with Arielle if it stumped all three.
Ironhorse wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:20 pm
When I saw the word "Dahomey", I immediately began trying to remember whether it was Benin or Togo. As it turns out, matters were much simpler.
When i see the word "Dahomey" i sing "Namibia", then finish the Animaniacs Nations of the World song.
Shortly after The Fugitive came out, I had business in Chicago and was staying at the Chicago Hilton. When I checked in, they gave me a coupon for a free PPV movie. So I said what the hell, and ordered up The Fugitive (being the best of the options). I was quite surprised when the movie got to the end and the climactic scene took place in the hotel I was in. Besides it being a great movie, this will always keep it indelibly in my mind.