Monday, November 21, 2022 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

[Category 13]

J15 I was expecting there would be a BMS on Amy for "gloves". Thought sure they were going for 'Black Gloves'. Evidently, the writers were only concluding a toss up between gloves and mittens.

[seaborgium]

At least we can be glad that the very deserving Amy got her 3 wins with no reliance on the Paul/Hebrews clue debacle. But we will never know whether Sam was deflated/demoralized by that unfair loss and might have had a chance to do better. With a different ruling on that clue, Sam would at least have won another $50K for a $100K second-place finish, so I hope the Jeopardy! producers will find room in their budget to honor the second-place position he (at least) deserves, without depriving Andrew of the extra $50K he won because of the producers' foul-up.

If Sam had won that game, I think the tournament would have ended 3-1-1 on Friday in Amy's favor*, with Andrew taking second by virtue of his $29,201 Monday win being higher than the $26,401 Sam would have finished with if ruled correct on Wednesday.

*I believe Amy's thinking on Friday was "if Sam wins we play again, but if Andrew wins, he wins the whole thing, so better to risk Sam winning to keep Andrew locked out"; without Andrew at two wins, I think Amy covers Sam and puts it away right there. (The only real question I have in the "Romans is accepted" hypothetical is how Amy and Sam wager on Thursday's triple stumper if the standings are 1-1-1. I think Amy bets more but I'm not sure if Sam bets less.)

[Robert K S]

I sincerely loved how flawlessly rehearsed and recited all of Sam's interview stories were, but the thank-you one in this game the most.

Sam's "I'm right here" in the credits chat--perfect comic timing.

[RetiredDoc]

J15 I was expecting there would be a BMS on Amy for "gloves". Thought sure they were going for 'Black Gloves'. Evidently, the writers were only concluding a toss up between gloves and mittens.

I expected a BMS on this, too! Not much else they could (logically) be wearing on their hands.

Knew Amy had won as soon as I saw the FJ clue.

I'm not one for newfangled ways of doing things, but I must say I very much enjoyed these TOC games

[MarkBarrett]

For next time how about guaranteeing a 7-day final and using varying formats?

In any order:

Three separate games for one point each
A 2-day total point affair for a point
Quick open, no chit chat, and Triple J! included in half-hour show for a point

And for heresy:
Left to right, straight down each category and no DDs for best on buzzer/knowledge over 60 clues

Four points for the title and any remaining games for extra funds $25K-10-5... whatever

[goongas]

J15 I was expecting there would be a BMS on Amy for "gloves". Thought sure they were going for 'Black Gloves'. Evidently, the writers were only concluding a toss up between gloves and mittens.

I expected a BMS on this, too! Not much else they could (logically) be wearing on their hands.

Knew Amy had won as soon as I saw the FJ clue.

I'm not one for newfangled ways of doing things, but I must say I very much enjoyed these TOC games

As much as I enjoyed watching the finals, I think it went on way too long...I would be more ok with the first person who wins two games.

[idearat]

As much as I enjoyed watching the finals, I think it went on way too long...I would be more ok with the first person who wins two games.

I agree. I felt that way about the whole TOC. Part of Jeopardy is, well, jeopardy. The sudden death aspect of this is part of the game and if you lose, you're out. I can see stretching the finals to two games with the totals adding up so at least game one is linked to game two. (Did someone who cares more than me look at total points for the last 6 games?) While I watch more for the questions than the players, six games in a row with the same people got to be a drag. (Jeopardy!: Groundhog Day Edition) The SCT added to what seemed like a very long time where the outcome of any one game didn't matter.
I'm very much looking forward to the return of regular play.

[Robert K S]

What if this finals used the original total-point-affair setup? A lot depends on the first-day wagering, but I'm hard-pressed to find a scenario where Andrew doesn't win if the games chosen are games 1 and 2 and the DD wagering remains the same. Just testing out the several extreme scenarios:

Games 1 & 2, both days wagers as actual:
Amy: $4,600 + $21,100 = $25,700
Andrew: $29,201 + $1,999 = $31,200
Sam: $12,000 + $9,400 = $21,400
(Andrew wins.)

Games 1 & 2, 1st day wagers as actual, 2nd day all players wagering zero:
Amy: $4,600 + ($22,200 - $0) = $25,700
Andrew: $29,201 + ($23,200 - $0) = $52,401
Sam: $12,000 + ($9,400 - $0) = $21,400
(Andrew wins with a lock tournament, because Amy can only potentially get to $49,000 with a correct response on day 2, whereas Andrew has $52,401 without risking any money on day 2.)

Games 1 & 2, all players wagering zero both days:
Amy: ($14,600 - $0) + ($22,200 - $0) = $36,800
Andrew: ($18,800 + $0) + ($23,200 - $0) = $42,400
Sam: ($12,000 + $0) + ($9,400 - $0) = $21,400
(Andrew wins.)

Games 1 & 2, all players wagering the maximum both days:
Amy: ($14,600 - $14,600) + ($22,200 - $22,200) = $0
Andrew: ($18,800 + $18,800) + ($23,200 - $23,200) = $37,600
Sam: ($12,000 + $12,000) + ($9,400 - $9,400) = $24,000
(Andrew wins.)

Games 1 & 2, all players wagering the maximum the first day and nothing the second day:
Amy: ($14,600 - $14,600) + ($22,200 - $0) = $22,200
Andrew: ($18,800 + $18,800) + ($23,200 - $0) = $60,800
Sam: ($12,000 + $12,000) + ($9,400 - $0) = $33,400
(Andrew wins exercising the lock.)

Games 1 & 2, 1st day wagers as actual, 2nd day all players going all-in:
Amy: $4,600 + ($22,200 - $22,200) = $4,600
Andrew: $29,201 + ($22,200 - $22,200) = $29,201
Sam: $12,000 + ($9,400 - $9,400) = $12,000
(Andrew wins even while attempting to throw away the lock.)

Games 1 & 2, Andrew's opponents have all the wagering luck and Andrew has none:
Amy: ($14,600 - $0) + ($22,200 - $0) = $36,800
Andrew: ($18,800 + $0) + ($22,200 - $22,200) = $18,800
Sam: ($12,000 + $12,000) + ($9,400 - $0) = $33,400
(Amy wins.)

My sense is that Andrew is even more assured the win in a 2-day match (where the boards are the games from days 1 and 2) because he likely treats the first-day Final as a DD and goes all-in on it.

[da Doctah]

...six games in a row with the same people got to be a drag.

It occurred to me quite some time ago that in earlier tournaments, it would be possible for the same three contestants to play three games against one another, first in the quarter-finals, then in the finals, with the semi-finals separating them because the show wouldn't put the champion into a match in that round with two wild-card players who happened to be in the same QF game.

Also that it's possible to win a traditional style tournament by (1) being a high-scoring non-winner in QF, (2) winning the semifinal round as a wild card, and (3) scoring second best in each of the two finals but with a two-day total higher than either of your opponents' two-day totals. Thus winning a tournament while being top scorer in only one of the four games you played.

[Shaquebanisa]

Coryat: $32,800

42 R (2 DDs), 1 W (Wasn't gonna get CODA)

FJ:

LT: Philip Johnson, poetic justice, Platoon

Categories Swept: NUMERICAL TERMS

[CailinGaoilge]

:shrug: This household absolutely loved the GOAT-style TOC and hopes to see it again next year.

[nserven]

I had my doubts about the GOAT format, but it gave us a chance to see these three very talented and unique players go against each other for six games instead of two. There was a new wrinkle of strategy introduced, as we saw with Amy's wager in Game 5. I was glad that each player won at least one game, and perhaps a less balanced final wouldn't have been as fun.

[This Is Kirk!]

I liked the expanded format.

[Woof]

I am reminded of the criticisms I heard various trivia luminaries hurling at the MLB divisional playoffs for the arbitrary nature of a short series. I liked the GOAT format because it allowed the best player to win. In the old format, one blown all-in wager could ruin someone’s TOC. In retrospect, I’d have loved to see a few previous TOCs employ this format.

[yclept]

Personally, I love the format. I love that they were able to find a spot for all the 4-time winners. The second chance tournament was also a nice little addition and gave us a player who looked like a legit contender. The finals format is something I liked going back to the GOAT.

The three finalists being evenly matched up helped, of course. Would it be as exciting if it was a dominant performance from someone like a James? I dunno - but one could make the argument that Emma could have pulled off a win or two in this format. Plus, a dominant player being dominant against the best of the best from their season has its own appeal.

So, kudos to all involved. It was a fun several weeks and the field for the next “big” tournament is shaping up nicely, whenever they decide to do another.

[Bamaman]

Sam should have been negged for the hockey clue. Las is not part of the team's name.

Instaget FJ. Conference, Amy.

[MattKnowles]

Sam should have been negged for the hockey clue. Las is not part of the team's name.

Instaget FJ. Conference, Amy.

Contestants aren't penalized for superfluous articles unless the clue is asking for "Invisible Man"/"The Invisible Man".

[trainman]

Sam should have been negged for the hockey clue. Las is not part of the team's name.

She gave "Golden Knights" and the name of the city in which the team is located, which included no incorrect information.

[Bamaman]

Sam should have been negged for the hockey clue. Las is not part of the team's name.

She gave "Golden Knights" and the name of the city in which the team is located, which included no incorrect information.

So would East Rutherford Giants be acceptable if asked who Eli Manning played for?

[davey]

Sam should have been negged for the hockey clue. Las is not part of the team's name.

She gave "Golden Knights" and the name of the city in which the team is located, which included no incorrect information.

So would East Rutherford Giants be acceptable if asked who Eli Manning played for?

Unlike East Rutherford and New York (or ER and New Jersey for that matter) Las Vegas and Vegas are synonymous...

Not everyone is onboard with the policy..
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100056826947866