Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Post Reply
User avatar
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]

Post by alietr »

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.
Vanya
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]

Post by Vanya »

Then there was the MP who was caught with his pants down while wearing a waistcoat.
Spoiler
They called it Investigate.
User avatar
morbeedo
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 3065
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by morbeedo »

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.
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.

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.
JeopRDFan
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:34 am

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by JeopRDFan »

Golf wrote:
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.
If you have to ask, then no, you don't know all the game theory.

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.
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.
John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2981
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by John Boy »

TenPoundHammer wrote:
econgator wrote:
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.
Babe Ruth?
You mean the guy whose back was to the camera, and who was wearing a number literally hundreds of other players have worn?
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.

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.
John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2981
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by John Boy »

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.
Sherm
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 906
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:39 pm

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Sherm »

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.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by bpmod »

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.
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.

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.
User avatar
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]

Post by georgespelvin »

John Boy wrote:
TenPoundHammer wrote:
econgator wrote:
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.
Babe Ruth?
You mean the guy whose back was to the camera, and who was wearing a number literally hundreds of other players have worn?
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.

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 suspect that TPH really does not exist. It's really Schiemann pulling our leg with the assistance of alietr. :lol:
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
User avatar
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]

Post by georgespelvin »

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.
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).
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
User avatar
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]

Post by This Is Kirk! »

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!
TenPoundHammer

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by TenPoundHammer »

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.
Same here.
User avatar
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]

Post by alietr »

georgespelvin wrote:I suspect that TPH really does not exist. It's really Schiemann pulling our leg with the assistance of alietr. :lol:
Not even my ex would accuse me of being that cruel.
harrumph
Voyeur
Posts: 1846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:00 pm
Location: Princeton, NJ

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by harrumph »

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.
This game was action proof that Arthur's strategy increases his winning possibilities.
User avatar
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]

Post by lieph82 »

harrumph wrote:
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.
This game was action proof that Arthur's strategy increases his winning possibilities.
I wonder how many people would understand the strategy more clearly if Arthur had gotten FJ wrong.
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12895
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Bamaman »

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.
davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 6030
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by davey »

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.
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.
User avatar
TomKBaltimoreBoy
Lucky to be Here
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:30 am

Re: Friday, February 28, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by TomKBaltimoreBoy »

alietr wrote:
georgespelvin wrote:I suspect that TPH really does not exist. It's really Schiemann pulling our leg with the assistance of alietr. :lol:
Not even my ex would accuse me of being that cruel.
Mine would; well, she would accuse YOU of it, anyway....
Life IS pain, Princess. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.
User avatar
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]

Post by El Jefe »

seaborgium wrote:
El Jefe wrote:
seaborgium wrote:On another subject, I thought "cute little orphans" was a poor choice of words.
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..."
.. where's the understatement?
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 awesome
User avatar
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]

Post by Volante »

TenPoundHammer wrote:
econgator wrote:
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.
Babe Ruth?
You mean the guy whose back was to the camera, and who was wearing a number literally hundreds of other players have worn?
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)
(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)
Post Reply