omgwheelhouse wrote:
OK what if he errs in such a way that you can win or tie with a $0 wager? You're only considering the kind of error that bolsters your argument.
In any case, it's just silly to say that it was horrible to bet $0 there. I'm sure you would grant that even if it is a mistake, it's a very tiny mistake. Your outrage over this is really weird in my opinion (and believe me, I'm not above criticizing wagers).
"Out of curiosity, would a contestant be forced to make a different wager is he/she bet it all on FJ after disregarding Maggie's instructions?"
Out of curiosity... what? Was that a real question?
Yes, it's a tiny tiny mistake, but also very obvious. But again, a contestant should give themselves every winning chance no matter how small. And I'm not outraged, just constantly amazed at various sub-optimal game play decisions. This is a J! discussion board with tons of contestants present, why not bring it up for discussion?
And no, that was not a real question. Simply pointing out the absurdity of blindly following an instruction like that. (although I understood why it was mentioned after the TT fiasco)
Well, one of the reasons for the TT fiasco was that each of the players had exactly one game of J! experience. Each of these players had at least seven games under their belt before this, lowering the probability of anything like that.
I'm confident that Jason, Paul and Keith each understood that the primary goal in the semi-final game is simply to get to the finals. If it can be done with a $0 bet, that's what should be done. You can't take these winnings with you, except perhaps in the form of podium position for the finals, which is worth slightly more than a bucket of warm spit.
Additionally, I would think that each of these players would have seen the others' previous games where they had used proper betting strategy.
In the semi-final game of the ToC while trailing in a lock game, the wagers are completely immaterial. All in, zero, or anything in between has the same effect.
Of course, that assumes that the leader (who, it has already been pointed out, has experience in wagering in many previous games) will not clavin it. There is no reason to suspect that this particular leader would risk his lock in any way shape or form.
Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
To be clear, Maggie doesn't order us to do anything other than talk louder or answer in the form of a question. She usually avoids talking about wagering at all, but this time she did tell us about what happens if there's a $0 3-way tie in a SF game, and encouraged us to think about leaving something on the table if it should happen again.
Keith had a lock win, so his wager was the smartest thing he could have done. By wagering anything at all, he puts his game at risk with a wrong answer (which is always a possibility, no matter what some folks here seem to think!). Why on earth would he do that? The blessed mercy of the lock game is that it renders wagering strategy unnecessary! Good for Keith for getting one, and for knowing what to do with it. (AND to get in his new wife's good graces!). Bravo, Whitener
Mark B wrote:
Boasting alert: avert your eyes! I'm 8/8 on FJ so far. If AP isn't, is anyone else? I feel pretty, oh so pretty... ('course, if you can't boast here, where can you?)
I immodestly mentioned same upthread. Would reckon we're not a population of 2.
Yeah, reckon you're right. Still, isn't it pretty to think so?
Get a room. I won't be in it--need one of the final two FJs to get to .500.
Linear Gnome wrote:Good chess players resign sometimes. I don't think this excludes them from being true competitors.
A good chess player plays the game enough moves ahead that he or she can see that he or she is checkmated long before his or her opponent's pieces have fatally hemmed in his or her king. It's only good form, then, to resign. Jeopardy! has too many variables and imponderables vs-a-vis opponents' knowledge the categories and clues, and wagering strategies (and the occasional overreaching and abject stupidity) to make resigning anything other than premature capitulation.
Linear Gnome wrote:Good chess players resign sometimes. I don't think this excludes them from being true competitors.
A good chess player plays the game enough moves ahead that he or she can see that he or she is checkmated long before his or her opponent's pieces have fatally hemmed in his or her king. It's only good form, then, to resign. Jeopardy! has too many variables and imponderables vs-a-vis opponents' knowledge the categories and clues, and wagering strategies (and the occasional overreaching and abject stupidity) to make resigning anything other than premature capitulation.
In the case of a lock game in a ToC semifinals, I would disagree.
AdamAnt wrote:I'll be rooting for Kristin in the finals. She comes off as an underdog of the sorts and I recently read a very inspiring article written about her in regards to her success on the show.
OrangeSAM wrote:Well, one of the reasons for the TT fiasco was that each of the players had exactly one game of J! experience. Each of these players had at least seven games under their belt before this, lowering the probability of anything like that.
To be fair, a lot of people who make really good wagers have exactly one game under their belt. But they've also been fans of the show for years, watching it and learning about wagering. They might have even found the Archive and practiced there.
I think an article I read recently that another boardie mentioned was an interview with (I'm pretty sure it was) Leonard saying that when he was talking to his fellow contestants, he mentioned the Archive and how he used it to study and learn wagering, and the others were like "The Arch-what?" And look who won the tournament.
Dr. J wrote:To be clear, Maggie doesn't order us to do anything other than talk louder or answer in the form of a question. She usually avoids talking about wagering at all, but this time she did tell us about what happens if there's a $0 3-way tie in a SF game, and encouraged us to think about leaving something on the table if it should happen again.
Keith had a lock win, so his wager was the smartest thing he could have done. By wagering anything at all, he puts his game at risk with a wrong answer (which is always a possibility, no matter what some folks here seem to think!). Why on earth would he do that? The blessed mercy of the lock game is that it renders wagering strategy unnecessary! Good for Keith for getting one, and for knowing what to do with it. (AND to get in his new wife's good graces!). Bravo, Whitener
You mean he used every conceivable chance to win? You'd think Golf wouldn't have a problem with that! (And, if the others knew that Keith would be using every conceivable chance to win (and therefore bet $0) they know that there's nothing they could do ... )
"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
AdamAnt wrote:I'll be rooting for Kristin in the finals. She comes off as an underdog of the sorts and I recently read a very inspiring article written about her in regards to her success on the show.
Thanks for the link! For some reason, on Kristin's first game TPTB decided to edit down her interview segment, where she talked about recovering from cancer and her (then) concern that she might never think clearly again. It's such a triumph for her to be in the finals, and I can't fathom why they wouldn't have left that story in and found other ways to trim the episode. Go, Kristin!
Just watched Friday's game. Congrats to Keith, and way to go with the big DD wager.
I wrote down "Piedmont" for FJ. Anyone else?
I was worried that it was probably too far north, but I knew it was a region of Italy, and nothing better came to me during the 30 seconds. I thought it was plausible that a region named for being at the foot of the mountains might have a nickname relating to shadows. (For some reason, the phrasing of the clue led me to believe that it might be a region where a slangy informal local nickname relates to shadows, but the official name of the region might not.)
Weekend Reflections: Upon whose crown will the trident toting Trebek bestow the coveted Jeopardy prize?
Will it be the gunslinger Teeth or the ebullient Colby or perhaps the sleeper (IMHO) Kristin?
Looking forward to the competition almost as much as next season's D.A.
omgwheelhouse wrote:
OK what if he errs in such a way that you can win or tie with a $0 wager? You're only considering the kind of error that bolsters your argument.
In any case, it's just silly to say that it was horrible to bet $0 there. I'm sure you would grant that even if it is a mistake, it's a very tiny mistake. Your outrage over this is really weird in my opinion (and believe me, I'm not above criticizing wagers).
Yes, it's a tiny tiny mistake, but also very obvious. But again, a contestant should give themselves every winning chance no matter how small. And I'm not outraged, just constantly amazed at various sub-optimal game play decisions. This is a J! discussion board with tons of contestants present, why not bring it up for discussion?
Because it makes you look like a naïve buffoon. Do you honestly think Keith would have risked his lock? In a tournament SF the amount of money you finish with makes no difference, so why would Keith wager anything at all? There's no opportunity for a math error, or strategic error, or any other kind of error. He had already won, so another player going all in in an attempt to grab that mythical .00001% chance at winning is just a show of disrespect and completely lacks grace. That's "why not bring it up for discussion," and certainly not act like a $0 wager was a "horrible decision."
dhkendall wrote:I think an article I read recently that another boardie mentioned was an interview with (I'm pretty sure it was) Leonard saying that when he was talking to his fellow contestants, he mentioned the Archive and how he used it to study and learn wagering, and the others were like "The Arch-what?" And look who won the tournament.
Actually, humorously, it was the exact opposite. Many of Leonard's fellow contestants had been using the J-Archive while he had never heard of it (look under the heading "Did you cram a lot to be on the show?" in this article to which I believe you were referring).
Final, I got to umbra easily (thank you astronomy)...but could not use that to get further. Sure, obvious in retrospect, but I was thinking like, "Umbran Fields" or something.
