Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

DWS
Jeopardy! Fan
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:07 am

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by DWS »

earendel wrote:As for FJ I'm surprised that I got it right in one - Voight and Jolie were the first names that popped into my head.
I thought of Jolie right away, then momentarily mixed up Jon Voight and Martin Sheen before going with Voight.
cool_hand
Valued Contributor
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by cool_hand »

Decent win for Justin, who is starting to build quite a bankroll. Apropo of nothing, Justin reminds me a lot of Jon Cryer...
User avatar
earendel
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:22 pm
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by earendel »

cool_hand wrote:...Justin reminds me a lot of Jon Cryer...
I had the same thought when I saw him last night. Funny that hadn't occurred to me before.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."
User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 8978
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by alietr »

I keep thinking. "He must get proofed in bars all the time".
User avatar
OldSchoolChamp
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:25 pm

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by OldSchoolChamp »

Roadgeek Adam wrote:Teenage has 3 Es, but I understand why Justin was negged, since he added Years.
John Boy wrote:I also don't know why "teenage years" would be negged. It does contain "3 Es" so it fits the category. I know we've had this discussion before. It didn't say "exactly 3 Es" so why would the 4th one make it incorrect?
dhkendall wrote:Alex's comment of "we were looking for three Es, not four" hopefully will clarify things for those who insist that a four E response is acceptable because it does have three Es (as well as another one)
Don’t believe everything Alex says; that comment about the fourth e was just a brain fart on his part.
John Boy wrote:Perhaps I don't remember the exact wording of the clue, so it was appropriate for this answer to be negged on some other grounds.
Precisely. The reason Justin’s response was unacceptable was that it merely repeated a word already used in the clue itself:
The transitional teenage years between puberty & adulthood
Clearly “teenage years” can’t be an acceptable response to “what do you call the transitional teenage years?”

If, on the other hand, the clue had been worded “transitional adolescent years,” I would think a response of “teenage years” would have been accepted. Contestants are always repeating extraneous words from the clue without penalty; consider the previous day’s game, where
Clue: “Free” these aren’t out to overthrow your government; they accelerate age-related diseases, so avoid them

Response: What are free radicals?
and
Clue: This sensory word follows “soft” to mean someone easy to take advantage of

Response: What is a soft touch?
were both accepted. Arguing that “teenage years” is wrong because it contains four e’s is like saying that “soft touch” is wrong because the clue calls for a “sensory word” and “soft touch” is not a word. Contestants have always been given a certain amount of leeway for this type of harmless repetition, so long as they include the intended word or phrase in their response. The word “teenage” has three e’s and thus satisfies the category; if that word hadn’t already appeared in the clue itself, I can’t imagine that a response of “What are the teenage years” would have been rejected.
dhkendall wrote:Would "adolescence" (without the "years" following) be acceptable? It does have three Es
This was the intended response they were looking for, so, uh, yes, I think it would have been acceptable. In fact (to carry through on the point above), I’m pretty sure “What are the adolescent years” would have been rejected—even though it does contain three e’s—because the word “years” would not have been construed as part of the substantive response.
John Boy wrote:I for one answered "preteen." Judges?
Sorry, thumbs down on this one. By definition, the preteen years are not “transitional teenage years.” Leeway only extends so far.
 
We shall not cease from exploration,
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
NJCondon
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:25 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Area

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by NJCondon »

Congrats to Justin; this wasn't his best game, but a win's a win. I'll be waiting to enter him into my calculation as soon as he loses. Interestingly, he's a former student of the woman who lives two houses down from me. She said she's not surprised at all that he's done well on the show.

Belated condolences to Paul on getting bumped off the bubble; the standards for admission to the ToC this year have become brutal.

As for the FJ! wager, I guess it makes some sense if you're pretty sure you're dead meat in the category, but I'd always rather bet on knowing the answer and going down on my mistake rather than betting on not knowing the answer and hoping your opponent screws up.
User avatar
OldSchoolChamp
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:25 pm

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by OldSchoolChamp »

NJCondon wrote:I'd always rather bet on knowing the answer and going down on my mistake rather than betting on not knowing the answer and hoping your opponent screws up.
Shhh! Bob Shore might hear you!
 
We shall not cease from exploration,
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
User avatar
Roadgeek Adam
TOC Geek
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:20 pm
Location: East Amherst, New York
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by Roadgeek Adam »

NJCondon wrote:Congrats to Justin; this wasn't his best game, but a win's a win. I'll be waiting to enter him into my calculation as soon as he loses. Interestingly, he's a former student of the woman who lives two houses down from me. She said she's not surprised at all that he's done well on the show.

Belated condolences to Paul on getting bumped off the bubble; the standards for admission to the ToC this year have become brutal.

As for the FJ! wager, I guess it makes some sense if you're pretty sure you're dead meat in the category, but I'd always rather bet on knowing the answer and going down on my mistake rather than betting on not knowing the answer and hoping your opponent screws up.
Actually I have a friend who played on quiz bowls and knows him well enough. Interestingly enough, this other dude has faced the now famed RCraig. ;)

Paul Wampler: I'm sure it hurts to be eliminated. You were a great contestant to have around. However, maybe if something happens we'll still see you. However, I agree with Nick, this has been one brutal ToC field. I mean Season 26 we had a 7 time champ, a 6 time champ, four 5-time champs, and a boatload of 4 time champs. So far we're at 1 8 time champ, 2 6-time champs, 5 5-time champs, and 5 4-time champs. This is getting interesting.
Adam Seth Moss
DoorDasher (since May 7, 2020)
M.A. History, Western Illinois Univ, 2017
B.A. History (minors in PoliSci & PubAdm), Montclair State Univ, 2015
A.A. History & Education, Middlesex County Coll., 2013
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by dhkendall »

seaborgium wrote:
dhkendall wrote: "E3" $800 (to refresh your memory, that's the infamous clusterbumble in that round): Would "adolescence" (without the "years" following) be acceptable?
Considering that's the answer Alex gave, yes!
D'oh! I meant "teenage" (minus the "years") as a correct answer (when I want judges' clarification, I write down both the correct answer and my own on my sheet, mixed up which was which).

So, I'll ask the judges again: "teenage" for that clue?
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
ayeembored
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:59 pm

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by ayeembored »

This game was just brutal for me. I bit on three (!) clues in collections. After I goofed once I should have just clammed for the rest of the category, but nooo..... I went for lighters, inexplicably guessed "paper airplanes" for aerophilatelist and without thinking said "corks" for helixophile, just because my wife has saved corks from important bottles of wine. And I was stupid. My only sweeps were rabbits and dressings... *shakes head* But Harvey was $1600? Really?
User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 10671
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by econgator »

dhkendall wrote:So, I'll ask the judges again: "teenage" for that clue?
It was in the clue, so no.
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8937
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by seaborgium »

Roadgeek Adam wrote: Paul Wampler: I'm sure it hurts to be eliminated. You were a great contestant to have around. However, maybe if something happens we'll still see you. However, I agree with Nick, this has been one brutal ToC field. I mean Season 26 we had a 7 time champ, a 6 time champ, four 5-time champs, and a boatload of 4 time champs. So far we're at 1 8 time champ, 2 6-time champs, 5 5-time champs, and 5 4-time champs. This is getting interesting.
It wasn't that many 4-timers last year; just enough to balance out the 5+-timers. Six and six, and three college champs.
User avatar
mam418
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by mam418 »

I thought of Angelina Jolie and Jon Voight quickly, but wasn't at all sure of them. I couldn't remember if either had one (though I was pretty sure AJ was at least nominated). Never came up with anything better, so I stuck with them, luckily.
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by Vanya »

econgator wrote:
Roadgeek Adam wrote:It worked out, but that was a ballsy wager.
That's one word for it.

To be fair, though, it's probably what I would have wagered in the same position. As soon as I saw the category, I knew I would be getting my first miss of the new season. Given an infinite amount of guesses, I probably wouldn't have gotten it, mostly due to not knowing that Jon Voigt was Angelina Jolie's father. :)
Voigt and Jolie are known for not getting along (on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I don't know if that's the source of the friction).
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12895
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by Bamaman »

MarkBarrett wrote: How many wise guys joined me and said moths instead of butterflies for the lepidopterist?
I guess you paid as much attention to Mr. Price as Peter Brady did. (I got it from that episode).


I thought I was dead when I saw the FJ category. My first thought was Henry and Jane. But his only win was for playing an old man in On Golden Pond. Perhaps that character had served 9I've never seen it), but it certainly wasn't the focus of the story.

I remembered the Voigt/Jolie relationship and went with them. I was pretty sure he had won for some Vietnam movie but had no idea about her. I was helped by notseeing this episode until just now. My Sports Illustrated arrived today and her husband is on the cover.
alamble
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by alamble »

Bamaman wrote:
MarkBarrett wrote: How many wise guys joined me and said moths instead of butterflies for the lepidopterist?
I guess you paid as much attention to Mr. Price as Peter Brady did. (I got it from that episode).


I thought I was dead when I saw the FJ category. My first thought was Henry and Jane. But his only win was for playing an old man in On Golden Pond. Perhaps that character had served 9I've never seen it), but it certainly wasn't the focus of the story.

I remembered the Voigt/Jolie relationship and went with them. I was pretty sure he had won for some Vietnam movie but had no idea about her. I was helped by notseeing this episode until just now. My Sports Illustrated arrived today and her husband is on the cover.
Voigt won for Coming Home. Also, Brad and Angie aren't actually married - they might be common-law spouses depending on which state they happen to be residing in at any given time, but they've never gotten formally hitched.
User avatar
debramc
Iced Mare Grub
Posts: 726
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:24 am
Location: Princeton, TX

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by debramc »

alietr wrote:I keep thinking. "He must get proofed in bars all the time".
Totally off topic, but I've never seen this expression before. I'm assuming proofed means carded, that is, having one's ID checked. Is this a regionalism? Or my cluelessness?
alamble
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by alamble »

debramc wrote:
alietr wrote:I keep thinking. "He must get proofed in bars all the time".
Totally off topic, but I've never seen this expression before. I'm assuming proofed means carded, that is, having one's ID checked. Is this a regionalism? Or my cluelessness?
Definitely a regionalism. Northeastern, for the most part.
slam
Auditioning Since 1985
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by slam »

Coming to this discussion late since, as usual, I'm a few weeks behind in my viewing. I did get caught up over the summer hiatus, but then promptly fell behind a bit. Some of that is on purpose, because watching J! episodes on my laptop is a good use of time on airplane flights. So, I try to leave some episodes unseen for that purpose.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on Justin's wager. For me, the main question is did he make it because he was scared of the category or because he was being strategic. My gut hunch is that he wasn't scared of the category given his play so far. But I still don't like the wager, but not for the reason that people might think.

I think the basic idea is sound. It's not Shoretegy, but it derives from some of the similar reasoning - that the 2nd place player will not risk his lockout position over 3rd place. The difference from Shoretegy, though, is the 2nd place cannot overtake the leader's pre-FJ total without risking the lockout over 3rd place. I view there as being three likely wagers that 2nd place makes in this situation in practice. The first is the all-in (or nearly all-in) wager like happened is this game. The 2nd is the careful wager of at most $2,999. The third wager that we often see is to overtake the leader's pre-FJ score by $1, in this case $4,201. The reason that I don't like Justin's wager is that he catered to the 2nd strategy but not the 3rd, even though he essentiall risklessly coulld have done so by wagering $1,199. That way he guards agains 2nd place wagers like $4,201 or $5,000 or other wagers of that type. Although it's still an open question as to whether Justin should wager for the lockout or the lower wager (depends on several factors including his own FJ chances and estimate of the type of wagerer that 2nd place is), it seems clear to me that a wager of $1,199 dominates the wager of $0.
User avatar
whoisalexjacob
2015 TOC'er
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:19 am

Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER

Post by whoisalexjacob »

slam wrote:Coming to this discussion late since, as usual, I'm a few weeks behind in my viewing. I did get caught up over the summer hiatus, but then promptly fell behind a bit. Some of that is on purpose, because watching J! episodes on my laptop is a good use of time on airplane flights. So, I try to leave some episodes unseen for that purpose.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on Justin's wager. For me, the main question is did he make it because he was scared of the category or because he was being strategic. My gut hunch is that he wasn't scared of the category given his play so far. But I still don't like the wager, but not for the reason that people might think.

I think the basic idea is sound. It's not Shoretegy, but it derives from some of the similar reasoning - that the 2nd place player will not risk his lockout position over 3rd place. The difference from Shoretegy, though, is the 2nd place cannot overtake the leader's pre-FJ total without risking the lockout over 3rd place. I view there as being three likely wagers that 2nd place makes in this situation in practice. The first is the all-in (or nearly all-in) wager like happened is this game. The 2nd is the careful wager of at most $2,999. The third wager that we often see is to overtake the leader's pre-FJ score by $1, in this case $4,201. The reason that I don't like Justin's wager is that he catered to the 2nd strategy but not the 3rd, even though he essentiall risklessly coulld have done so by wagering $1,199. That way he guards agains 2nd place wagers like $4,201 or $5,000 or other wagers of that type. Although it's still an open question as to whether Justin should wager for the lockout or the lower wager (depends on several factors including his own FJ chances and estimate of the type of wagerer that 2nd place is), it seems clear to me that a wager of $1,199 dominates the wager of $0.
Great post, slam. Honorable mention to seaborgium. (Bumped this because of the final jeopardy wagering theory thread).
Post Reply