I don't think you understand. The TDD was the comeback. If it wasn't going to happen then, it wasn't going to happen.floridagator wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 1:01 amI don't think you understand. Usually when James goes TDD, his opponents are barely in contention (e.g., at 2400 and 1800). And he can easily recover from going to 0 then. But at his TDD tonight, he would not have been able to come back.econgator wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 12:01 amAnd even if you take out the 16400 he got from that DD, he still would have kept it from being a lock game.jeff6286 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 11:54 pmYeah, a pretty stunning display of hubris. What does he think he is, 57/61 on daily doubles or something? What a rube!floridagator wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 11:02 pm I thought James was terribly bold on his DD. If he'd missed it, he would have been finished right there. No deposit, no refill.
Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8941
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
- jeff6286
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
- Location: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I would say it is pretty clearly you that doesn't understand. James isn't here to "stay alive" or "have a chance in Final Jeopardy". He's here to win. You can pretty clearly see based on the way the game ended, and it was pretty clear at the time. If he missed that DD, he wasn't going to have the lead going to FJ, and with the very gettable FInals as of late that would mean he was going to lose. As it turned out he did well enough on the final clues that a bet of $2000 or so (and a get)would have been enough but he can't know that at the time. He has little to lose by betting it all and everything to gain.floridagator wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 1:01 amI don't think you understand. Usually when James goes TDD, his opponents are barely in contention (e.g., at 2400 and 1800). And he can easily recover from going to 0 then. But at his TDD tonight, he would not have been able to come back.econgator wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 12:01 amAnd even if you take out the 16400 he got from that DD, he still would have kept it from being a lock game.jeff6286 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 11:54 pmYeah, a pretty stunning display of hubris. What does he think he is, 57/61 on daily doubles or something? What a rube!floridagator wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 11:02 pm I thought James was terribly bold on his DD. If he'd missed it, he would have been finished right there. No deposit, no refill.
- CasketRomance
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 2:40 pm
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
i agree....he thought he would be able to keep out buzzing him since he had been doing it for the most part through most of the match up to that point...don't fault him too much at all for ittwelvefootboy wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 1:18 am I'll go on record as saying Nate's DD bet was just about right. He was dominating on the buzzer and a nice built up lead from SJ. A potentially hard (it was very hard IMHO) 2K question. If he misses it, he still has a pathway to reach FJ with a lead. 50/50 odds that someone else finds the DD3, and his gameplay was good for additional house edge. James plays for the edge, it just looks like he's a cowboy.
All this hindsight talk about money on the table and what-if's does not describe the real time gameplay optimization. I think two pathways is better than none. It was like watching a Chiefs game to see Nate giving up big chunks of yardage but at least it wasn't because he was resting. Somehow James found his buzzer mojo, and there was a wheelhouse geography category for the picking. Speaking of the buzzer, the CCs must be giving the fresh meat some serious practice help because they are coming out strong. Then, they fade or James' revives.
If the player's roles were reversed at DD2, I don't see James pushing the stack on that one. He might have gone for his cute 9812, but I think he'd keep the lead within $4K on a miss. He doesn't gamble, he manages risk and reward.
I got FJ, and thought it might be a weak category that isn't that easy to study up on. I happen to be a big band era fan - I fled the disco revolution for nursing home music back in the '80's. Andrews Sisters, Glenn Miller, and Bing - bring it on and begin the beguine!
Thank you Nate, for the hope. Another picture to project onto the dome .
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:43 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
This was a fascinating game and I am not sure if there is a right or wrong answer when it comes to Nate’s DD wager. One possible thought process: “If I wager $6K and miss, I am going to instantly hunt for the other DD and will have enough money to double up and be in a strong position with no DDs left”
That said, the other side of the argument is also valid. Whether you have seen him play or not, the guy is averaging over $77K+ per game. You HAVE to know he is accumulating money quickly and betting big on DDs. There is no way to get at these insane totals unless you are playing the game this way. Even if Nate is feeling great on the buzzer, he has to have it in the back of his mind that James is likely to get on a roll. He was beating him - he wasn’t destroying him. The tide had high probability to change. This is your one chance to make the tide changing mostly irrelevant.
In the end, this is not normal Jeopardy and I think Naye has to go for broke there. If he was going up against even a typical 5-day champ, sure - $6K is a big wager. James? It feels like a missed opportunity.
Nate played extremely well in the end. It just wasn’t perfect. And you need to either play perfectly or hope James makes a rare mistake to win.
That said, the other side of the argument is also valid. Whether you have seen him play or not, the guy is averaging over $77K+ per game. You HAVE to know he is accumulating money quickly and betting big on DDs. There is no way to get at these insane totals unless you are playing the game this way. Even if Nate is feeling great on the buzzer, he has to have it in the back of his mind that James is likely to get on a roll. He was beating him - he wasn’t destroying him. The tide had high probability to change. This is your one chance to make the tide changing mostly irrelevant.
In the end, this is not normal Jeopardy and I think Naye has to go for broke there. If he was going up against even a typical 5-day champ, sure - $6K is a big wager. James? It feels like a missed opportunity.
Nate played extremely well in the end. It just wasn’t perfect. And you need to either play perfectly or hope James makes a rare mistake to win.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:30 pm
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Yes, I agree with you. I imagine Nate was feeling pretty confident that he would be able to handle James for the remainder of the game, given that he already had double his total.twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 1:18 am I'll go on record as saying Nate's DD bet was just about right. He was dominating on the buzzer and a nice built up lead from SJ. A potentially hard (it was very hard IMHO) 2K question. If he misses it, he still has a pathway to reach FJ with a lead. 50/50 odds that someone else finds the DD3, and his gameplay was good for additional house edge.
Also, let's not forget that while we here at home have had the advantage of analyzing 25 games by James and thoroughly understand his play technique, Nate had only three games to draw conclusions from, and all taped on one day. Pre-game, I imagine most contestants are more focused on their own gameplay and reviewing material in their head instead of dissecting the play style of the current champ. At best, I think his conclusions would be "I better look for daily doubles" and "I better bet 'big'". Against a normal opponent going all in on the DD would have been a foolish wager and questionable against an above-average player. I don't think Nate had enough information to elevate James to the "one of the best ever" category.
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10319
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
This is where we disagree. I feel that Nate would have had enough information even if he had never seen James play. 25 games won. $1.9+ MILLION!!! (Holy crap!). Nate learned everything he needed to know right there. This man may be the best who ever played the game. He's clearly in the top three. And then Alex does the math so we know that James' total means that his per-game AVERAGE exceeds a one-day RECORD that had stood for years. There is no question whatsoever that it's time to break out the nuclear "what if I end up playing against the next Ken Jennings?" strategy that every player should have spent a few minutes thinking about.
- econgator
- Let's Go Mets!
- Posts: 10673
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am
-
- Second Banana
- Posts: 2044
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:21 pm
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Laura and Nate have both posted on Reddit about their experiences. Suffice it to say they were well aware they were facing a kraken.
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Now THAT is the proper definition of hubris.heppm01 wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 9:36 amYes, I agree with you. I imagine Nate was feeling pretty confident that he would be able to handle James for the remainder of the game, given that he already had double his total.twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 1:18 am I'll go on record as saying Nate's DD bet was just about right. He was dominating on the buzzer and a nice built up lead from SJ. A potentially hard (it was very hard IMHO) 2K question. If he misses it, he still has a pathway to reach FJ with a lead. 50/50 odds that someone else finds the DD3, and his gameplay was good for additional house edge.
(Note: I don't know what Nate was thinking. I think it's more likely he just hadn't fully thought through what the right strategy against James was. But IF he thought the way you described here, THEN that would be unjustified overconfidence vis-à-vis a formidable opponent, i.e., hubris.)
Last edited by gnash on Fri May 24, 2019 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Please stop. Just. Stop.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I know it's easy to say for us armchair QBs to say. And how it's "understandable" to hold something back, in almost ANY normal J! situation. As long as James is in the game, no "normal" or "understandable" strategy has much chance. I was so proud of Nate for playing an absolute monster of a game that would have won against pretty much anyone else. But yeah, for that one moment he acted like someone who has never seen James play. He left that one tiny opening and James did what James does.
I was so excited to see---finally---a competitive game after five weeks of blowouts. Thanks to both James and Adam for a great one.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I also would never have heard of it, save for the one misspent year of my life I lived in Tennessee. Yeah, James knows stuff.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:03 pm
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:30 pm
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
There is a continuum that ranges from confidence to over confidence to hubris. With over half the game played (by clue count, I'm not sure about board value), Nate had double what James did. Nate may have been overconfident but I don't think it was hubris to bet big instead of nuclear. If he goes all-in and misses his game is over. A miss with the bet he made, given his success up to that point, could conceivably be recovered from. I'm not saying he made the best bet, but it is defensible.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 10:07 amThere is no question whatsoever that it's time to break out the nuclear "what if I end up playing against the next Ken Jennings?" strategy that every player should have spent a few minutes thinking about.
- econgator
- Let's Go Mets!
- Posts: 10673
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Yeah, just like it was on Christmas Eve when you had never heard of it ...
- floridagator
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:39 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Laura said jazz standards wasn't her bailiwick, but her name is one of the greatest jazz standards.
I'd rather cuddle then have sex. If you're into grammar, you'll understand.
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
The sentence I emphasized is the obvious mistake, contradicting everything else in the argument.heppm01 wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:11 amThere is a continuum that ranges from confidence to over confidence to hubris. With over half the game played (by clue count, I'm not sure about board value), Nate had double what James did. Nate may have been overconfident but I don't think it was hubris to bet big instead of nuclear. If he goes all-in and misses his game is over. A miss with the bet he made, given his success up to that point, could conceivably be recovered from. I'm not saying he made the best bet, but it is defensible.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 10:07 amThere is no question whatsoever that it's time to break out the nuclear "what if I end up playing against the next Ken Jennings?" strategy that every player should have spent a few minutes thinking about.
There's most of DJ round, including one DD, to go. You cannot at the same time be confident you can keep the lead being plus 12,800 and think it's hopeless being down 6,600.
- squarekara
- J! Reactionary
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:49 am
- Location: USDA Zone 5
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
She's only a dream.floridagator wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:41 am Laura said jazz standards wasn't her bailiwick, but her name is one of the greatest jazz standards.
- Woof
- Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
- Posts: 5125
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:53 pm
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I think you all need to give Nate a break. We here have the advantage of hindsight, both knowing James's history and knowing the outcome of the game. Nate, OTOH, wouldn't have realized what he was up against until he was already atop the podium (unless, of course, he'd seen an earlier game, in which case ignore everything I just said). To expect him to instantly arrive at an optimal strategy for what anyone would have to consider a 1-in-a-million chance (facing a superchamp mid-run) is a bit much IMO. At least he didn't have the typical deer in the headlights reaction. Anyway, fun game to watch. How long has it been since James last was in a non-lock game?
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10319
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I think we all feel for Nate. I know I do. And I think most of us understand that, even knowing that a true DD2 was the smart move there, it's really really hard to pull that trigger. I don't know that I would pull that trigger. I only know that it's the right thing to do. And it helps to reinforce that knowledge by writing it down. If I'm ever in Nate's position, I want to know that I'm on record stating what the right strategy is. Hopefully that will goad me into pursuing it.
I reject the notion that Nate didn't have enough information to know the right strategy. I agree he might not have thought about this scenario sufficiently to make use of that information. Or he may have known the right strategy but just found himself unable to pursue it. I can sympathize. But I didn't want to be here on Friday morning sympathizing with Nate. I wanted to be congratulating him. And I know he would have preferred that as well.
Here's a question I can't easily answer. How often have we had this discussion? How often have we been here at the post-game water cooler talking about a contestant up against a buzz saw, saying, "if only so-and-so had understood what (s)he was up against and bet more on that DD. (S)he'd be the champ now. (Or, at least, (s)he would have prevented a runaway and had a shot going into FJ.)"? This conversation seems very familiar. We've had it before. More than once.
How many times have we had the opposite conversation (again, specifically when talking about a contestant up against a buzz saw)? "If only so-and-so had been more cautious on those DDs. (S)he'd have won." Once that I recall. Roger Craig up against Brad and Ken. (Edit: Oh, an in the recent All-Star games there may have been a similar moment with Alex Jacob. But if I recall, even if he'd exercised "caution" it probably wouldn't have made a difference? In any event, maybe the strategy is different when it's superchamp vs superchamp. That would be interesting to know but it doesn't address any scenarios that I PERSONALLY might face.)
If any of you boardies get on the show and find yourself up against a superchamp, remember this.
I reject the notion that Nate didn't have enough information to know the right strategy. I agree he might not have thought about this scenario sufficiently to make use of that information. Or he may have known the right strategy but just found himself unable to pursue it. I can sympathize. But I didn't want to be here on Friday morning sympathizing with Nate. I wanted to be congratulating him. And I know he would have preferred that as well.
Here's a question I can't easily answer. How often have we had this discussion? How often have we been here at the post-game water cooler talking about a contestant up against a buzz saw, saying, "if only so-and-so had understood what (s)he was up against and bet more on that DD. (S)he'd be the champ now. (Or, at least, (s)he would have prevented a runaway and had a shot going into FJ.)"? This conversation seems very familiar. We've had it before. More than once.
How many times have we had the opposite conversation (again, specifically when talking about a contestant up against a buzz saw)? "If only so-and-so had been more cautious on those DDs. (S)he'd have won." Once that I recall. Roger Craig up against Brad and Ken. (Edit: Oh, an in the recent All-Star games there may have been a similar moment with Alex Jacob. But if I recall, even if he'd exercised "caution" it probably wouldn't have made a difference? In any event, maybe the strategy is different when it's superchamp vs superchamp. That would be interesting to know but it doesn't address any scenarios that I PERSONALLY might face.)
If any of you boardies get on the show and find yourself up against a superchamp, remember this.