I thought of Jolie right away, then momentarily mixed up Jon Voight and Martin Sheen before going with Voight.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.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Jeopardy! Fan
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:07 am
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:04 am
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
Decent win for Justin, who is starting to build quite a bankroll. Apropo of nothing, Justin reminds me a lot of Jon Cryer...
- 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
I had the same thought when I saw him last night. Funny that hadn't occurred to me before.cool_hand wrote:...Justin reminds me a lot of Jon Cryer...
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."
- 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
I keep thinking. "He must get proofed in bars all the time".
- 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
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?
Don’t believe everything Alex says; that comment about the fourth e was just a brain fart on his part.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)
Precisely. The reason Justin’s response was unacceptable was that it merely repeated a word already used in the clue itself: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.
Clearly “teenage years” can’t be an acceptable response to “what do you call the transitional teenage years?”The transitional teenage years between puberty & adulthood
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
andClue: “Free” these aren’t out to overthrow your government; they accelerate age-related diseases, so avoid them
Response: What are free radicals?
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.Clue: This sensory word follows “soft” to mean someone easy to take advantage of
Response: What is a soft touch?
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.dhkendall wrote:Would "adolescence" (without the "years" following) be acceptable? It does have three Es
Sorry, thumbs down on this one. By definition, the preteen years are not “transitional teenage years.” Leeway only extends so far.John Boy wrote:I for one answered "preteen." Judges?
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.
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
-
- 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
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.
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.
- 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
Shhh! Bob Shore might hear you!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.
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.
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
- 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
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.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.
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
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
- 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
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).seaborgium wrote:Considering that's the answer Alex gave, yes!dhkendall wrote: "E3" $800 (to refresh your memory, that's the infamous clusterbumble in that round): Would "adolescence" (without the "years" following) be acceptable?
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
"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
-
- Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:59 pm
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
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?
- econgator
- Let's Go Mets!
- Posts: 10671
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
It was in the clue, so no.dhkendall wrote:So, I'll ask the judges again: "teenage" for that clue?
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8937
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
It wasn't that many 4-timers last year; just enough to balance out the 5+-timers. Six and six, and three college champs.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.
- mam418
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:55 am
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
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.
-
- 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
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).econgator wrote:That's one word for it.Roadgeek Adam wrote:It worked out, but that was a ballsy wager.
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.
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12895
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
I guess you paid as much attention to Mr. Price as Peter Brady did. (I got it from that episode).MarkBarrett wrote: How many wise guys joined me and said moths instead of butterflies for the lepidopterist?
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.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:09 pm
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
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.Bamaman wrote:I guess you paid as much attention to Mr. Price as Peter Brady did. (I got it from that episode).MarkBarrett wrote: How many wise guys joined me and said moths instead of butterflies for the lepidopterist?
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.
- 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
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?alietr wrote:I keep thinking. "He must get proofed in bars all the time".
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:09 pm
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
Definitely a regionalism. Northeastern, for the most part.debramc wrote: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?alietr wrote:I keep thinking. "He must get proofed in bars all the time".
-
- Auditioning Since 1985
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:05 pm
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
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.
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.
- whoisalexjacob
- 2015 TOC'er
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:19 am
Re: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Game Recap & Disc (SPOILER
Great post, slam. Honorable mention to seaborgium. (Bumped this because of the final jeopardy wagering theory thread).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.