Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- alietr
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8978
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
- Location: Bethesda, MD
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Here is the article I was talking about earlier:
We Can't Have a Scandal Without the -Gate
When I brought up what I thought the origin of Watergate was (which I still think makes more sense), Ms. Hesse replied:
I had seen that theory put forth, but more historians seemed to discount it. I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure.
We Can't Have a Scandal Without the -Gate
When I brought up what I thought the origin of Watergate was (which I still think makes more sense), Ms. Hesse replied:
I had seen that theory put forth, but more historians seemed to discount it. I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure.
-
- The support is non-zero
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Then there was the MP who was caught with his pants down while wearing a waistcoat.
Spoiler
They called it Investigate.
- morbeedo
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 pm
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
AC came up with INFIGHTING so quickly I didn't have a chance. I usually kill on the wordplay questions, but lately I've been blanking, especially on that "M" in the middle category earlier in the week. AC rules these categories.El Jefe wrote:So we all had our howlers- over the Funt, Ruth, and LBJ clues right?
But what about the bright stunners?
3 I's: QUARRELING AMONG PEOPLE WHO SHOULD WORK TOGETHER, AS A FAMILY
INFIGHTING was sleek.
4 E's: LONG AFTER ADOLESCENCE, IT'S OLD AGE
SENESCENCE was a beaut- never seen the word before but I guess if you had, ADOL- might give it to you.
For me, SENESCENCE was an easy one, just one of those terms I remember from high school biology, like PERISTALSIS, which I was surprised to see come up on Jeopardy! awhile ago. They really stumped me with EPIGLOTTIS and THYMUS, too, during 80s week. Back to the books, I guess!
On Russia, totally came up with Karl Marx instead of Lenin. LBJ was a surprise TS.
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:34 am
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I certainly agree there ... and why is he smiling when he clearly bets chump change for that DD and then doesn't go all in for FJ for some strange reason?? ... maybe he just realized his mistake, idk.Golf wrote:If you have to ask, then no, you don't know all the game theory.jpr281 wrote:I know all the game theory and everything, but why not wager $401 knowing how well of a player Semret was? Before Arthur's $8,000 DD, it was a close game.
Semret had every opportunity to win >$20k but did his best to throw it away twice. Wagering next to nothing on a 2nd row DD against a superchamp? Laughable. Leaving $800 on the table for no reason whatsoever in FJ? Laughable. Any strategic sense whatsoever and he has lotsa cash. So no, I don't feel sorry for him in the least.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Seriously, dude, have you never seen ANYTHING? The whole point of this picture (which is so famous as to be described as "iconic") is that Babe Ruth was so famous by the time of his last appearance at Yankee Stadium that everyone would recognize him even from behind, even years after his retirement, even much lighter because of his terminal illness, just because he was freakin' BABE RUTH.TenPoundHammer wrote:You mean the guy whose back was to the camera, and who was wearing a number literally hundreds of other players have worn?econgator wrote:Babe Ruth?TenPoundHammer wrote:What was supposed to lead to Yankee Stadium on Photos for $400? Lots of teams had a "3" back then, didn't they? And I see no other visual clues of any kind in the clue.
Please do us and yourself a favor. Read more. Get out more. Learn more. And if you are so astonished that other people know things that you don't, even after your 10,000th post to that effect, please keep it to yourself once in a while.
Sorry I had to get this off my chest. Your "how-could-anyone-possibly-know-X?" routine has really worn thin.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Between the solid challenge by Semret and what must be an incredibly draining five-games-taped-in-one-day marathon, Arthur showed some vulnerability. Still he showed his chops even more. Well done, sir. With a few days off to recharge his batteries, we may see more incredible stuff in a week.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 906
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:39 pm
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Anyone questioning Arthur's FJ! really doesn't understand the game theory. Two simple questions.
1.) If Semret bets it all, Does Arthur still play tommorrow?
2.) With what Semret bet, if Arthur got it wrong does he still play tommorrow?
It's really that simple, if Arthur bets to win outright the answer to both of those questions is no longer the same.
1.) If Semret bets it all, Does Arthur still play tommorrow?
2.) With what Semret bet, if Arthur got it wrong does he still play tommorrow?
It's really that simple, if Arthur bets to win outright the answer to both of those questions is no longer the same.
-
- Rank
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
- Location: Hamilton Ontario
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I believe, although I could easily be wrong, that this week was taped on a Tuesday. If that's the case, Arthur only had overnight to "recharge" before starting another potentially gruelling Day at 7am or so.John Boy wrote:Between the solid challenge by Semret and what must be an incredibly draining five-games-taped-in-one-day marathon, Arthur showed some vulnerability. Still he showed his chops even more. Well done, sir. With a few days off to recharge his batteries, we may see more incredible stuff in a week.
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.
If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
- georgespelvin
- The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I suspect that TPH really does not exist. It's really Schiemann pulling our leg with the assistance of alietr.John Boy wrote:Seriously, dude, have you never seen ANYTHING? The whole point of this picture (which is so famous as to be described as "iconic") is that Babe Ruth was so famous by the time of his last appearance at Yankee Stadium that everyone would recognize him even from behind, even years after his retirement, even much lighter because of his terminal illness, just because he was freakin' BABE RUTH.TenPoundHammer wrote:You mean the guy whose back was to the camera, and who was wearing a number literally hundreds of other players have worn?econgator wrote:Babe Ruth?TenPoundHammer wrote:What was supposed to lead to Yankee Stadium on Photos for $400? Lots of teams had a "3" back then, didn't they? And I see no other visual clues of any kind in the clue.
Please do us and yourself a favor. Read more. Get out more. Learn more. And if you are so astonished that other people know things that you don't, even after your 10,000th post to that effect, please keep it to yourself once in a while.
Sorry I had to get this off my chest. Your "how-could-anyone-possibly-know-X?" routine has really worn thin.
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
- georgespelvin
- The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Why couldn't Monica Hesse have written the Arthur Chu article in the Post yesterday? She would have done a much better job (then again, most anyone could).alietr wrote:Here is the article I was talking about earlier:
We Can't Have a Scandal Without the -Gate
When I brought up what I thought the origin of Watergate was (which I still think makes more sense), Ms. Hesse replied:
I had seen that theory put forth, but more historians seemed to discount it. I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure.
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
- This Is Kirk!
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Yeah, OK, we've heard enough about the Babe Ruth clue, but when I read TPH's post I thought to myself "it's an iconic photo of the most iconic stadium and the most iconic athlete in American sports history." That is what made it a $400 clue. If you saw a photo of a tall man from behind, standing in front of the White House, and wearing a stovepipe hat you would presume it was Abraham Lincoln. Same thing applies to the Ruth photo.
Nice game by Semret. Even though I like Arthur, I was pulling for him to pull a "giant killer" last night. Arthur seemed off his game at first, but as usual he pulled things together and took the big risks when he needed to. He must have ice in his veins!
Nice game by Semret. Even though I like Arthur, I was pulling for him to pull a "giant killer" last night. Arthur seemed off his game at first, but as usual he pulled things together and took the big risks when he needed to. He must have ice in his veins!
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Same here.morbeedo wrote:I usually kill on the wordplay questions, but lately I've been blanking, especially on that "M" in the middle category earlier in the week.
- alietr
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8978
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
- Location: Bethesda, MD
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Not even my ex would accuse me of being that cruel.georgespelvin wrote:I suspect that TPH really does not exist. It's really Schiemann pulling our leg with the assistance of alietr.
-
- Voyeur
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:00 pm
- Location: Princeton, NJ
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
This game was action proof that Arthur's strategy increases his winning possibilities.Sherm wrote:Anyone questioning Arthur's FJ! really doesn't understand the game theory. Two simple questions.
1.) If Semret bets it all, Does Arthur still play tommorrow?
2.) With what Semret bet, if Arthur got it wrong does he still play tommorrow?
It's really that simple, if Arthur bets to win outright the answer to both of those questions is no longer the same.
- lieph82
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1053
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I wonder how many people would understand the strategy more clearly if Arthur had gotten FJ wrong.harrumph wrote:This game was action proof that Arthur's strategy increases his winning possibilities.Sherm wrote:Anyone questioning Arthur's FJ! really doesn't understand the game theory. Two simple questions.
1.) If Semret bets it all, Does Arthur still play tommorrow?
2.) With what Semret bet, if Arthur got it wrong does he still play tommorrow?
It's really that simple, if Arthur bets to win outright the answer to both of those questions is no longer the same.
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12895
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Keith has said there are two good reasons to offer the tie. First, as we see in this game It guards against doing exactly what Semret did, betting to finish a dollar above his MSBIW. The other is to goad future players into betting it all from second-place. That could help him if he had a narrow lead and FJ is a TS.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 6030
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
It took a second to grasp that it would be unreasonable to expect contestants to come up with the company name, so then I knew that "cable" was all that was needed. I think "utility" would have been more confusing - because cable companies aren't often referred to that way, in my experience...I assume they had research naming the company, because surely Dawn's response could have been correct.Onairb wrote:
'Cable company': Surprise, a poorly-written clue. The word 'provider' would imply that they're asking for a specific cable company, and using a specific TV show title also negbaits for the specific channel. They could have said 'this utility', but either the writers thought it would have confused the contestants(like it did as written, anyway), or the writers don't know that a cable company is also a utility company.
- TomKBaltimoreBoy
- Lucky to be Here
- Posts: 580
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:30 am
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Mine would; well, she would accuse YOU of it, anyway....alietr wrote:Not even my ex would accuse me of being that cruel.georgespelvin wrote:I suspect that TPH really does not exist. It's really Schiemann pulling our leg with the assistance of alietr.
Life IS pain, Princess. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.
- El Jefe
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Understatement (or if you want to get all fancy, LITOTES) = the literary device of saying something is 'not all that bad' when it's really awesomeseaborgium wrote:.. where's the understatement?El Jefe wrote:The understatement was actually "...so I get to go to a tropical island in the middle of winter and play with some cute orphans! It's not all that bad..."seaborgium wrote:On another subject, I thought "cute little orphans" was a poor choice of words.
- Volante
- Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
But only one Yankee (well...they -may- have reissued it between Ruth's retirement and the number's retirement...but I'm not doing that much research)TenPoundHammer wrote:You mean the guy whose back was to the camera, and who was wearing a number literally hundreds of other players have worn?econgator wrote:Babe Ruth?TenPoundHammer wrote:What was supposed to lead to Yankee Stadium on Photos for $400? Lots of teams had a "3" back then, didn't they? And I see no other visual clues of any kind in the clue.
(And yes, the obvious retort is 'but how do you know he's a Yankee?!' ... well, I think that's been handled already)
Final, instant. Ok, yes, it was easy, but they have to come up with 230 of these. They can't all be perfect; at least even the easy ones tend to be interesting.
The best thing that Neil Armstrong ever did, was to let us all imagine we were him.
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)
Latest movies (1-10): Everything Everywhere All at Once (10), Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken (6), Black Sunday /1960/ (6), Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (7)