Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Turd Ferguson
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 862
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:47 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Turd Ferguson »

alietr wrote:I like to think of it as a distribution. The likelihood of each person winning follows a normal distribution. That curve is defined by their knowledge base, the categories they get, how they feel, etc., etc. Those curves slide back and forth depending on conditions and overlap with their competitors'. Luck plays a part in what part of the curve they find themselves in.
Indeed, I think the old sports cliche that "you create your own luck" is appropriate here. By having a large, diverse knowledge base, by being better on the buzzer, and/or by having a sense of how smart wagering can help, J! players can "create their own luck" by putting themselves in better positions to "get lucky" by having clues they know come up (especially DD+FJ! ones), or by winning key buzzer races (if one considers luck to be a factor in those).

But, even if things should be in a strong player's favour, they still may have to be "lucky" enough to have things go their way. An extremely Jeopardy!-knowledgable, buzzer-strong player like Ken or Brad is just in a position where he has more "margin for error", and it's unlikely that "bad luck" (e.g. having a FJ! that he doesn't know come up) is going to result in a loss.
Last edited by Turd Ferguson on Fri May 09, 2014 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by dhkendall »

boson wrote:DHKendall quotes that Jeopardy is several parts luck in his signature. I disagree. There is enough differentiation between players that chance isn't a big factor in these tournaments. Be smart, fast, aggressive and canny with wagers and you are likely to win.
All bets are off in pretty much everything for tournaments like this, they are a different case all together. But on the whole, for regular games with the vast majority of players, my .sig stands (imho, ymmv).
"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
evanakm
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:07 am

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by evanakm »

alietr wrote:That's not the proper conclusion to draw from what I wrote. I think most people would agree that Nancy Zerg would have been unlikely to win a re-match against Ken, or 10 or even 20 re-matches. That's where the luck component comes in. If she had gone on to win a few more, I think we would also agree that it was much less a matter of luck (see: Kevin Marshall).
I said it somewhat tongue in cheek. I just find it funny that Nancy Zerg accomplished something that many others could not, and for that achievement we remember her (probably correctly, but somewhat backhandedly) as someone who got lucky. If she had joined KJ's long hit list, we would not know her name at all.
User avatar
boson
Trivial
Posts: 1719
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by boson »

alietr wrote:
evanakm wrote:
alietr wrote:Clearly Ken's abilities place his curve way over towards a higher likelihood of winning, but then it somehow overlaps with Nancy Zerg's, and he ends up losing. There's the luck component.
The Jeopardy paradox. If you get on the show and you're unfortunate enough to draw a superchamp, you either lose and fade back into anonymity, or else you win and you're enshrined forever as someone of lesser intelligence.
That's not the proper conclusion to draw from what I wrote. I think most people would agree that Nancy Zerg would have been unlikely to win a re-match against Ken, or 10 or even 20 re-matches. That's where the luck component comes in. If she had gone on to win a few more, I think we would also agree that it was much less a matter of luck (see: Kevin Marshall).
Of course there is some luck involved. But it is remarkable to me how small a factor it plays. Consider pro sports leagues: even the very best teams lose about 1/4 of their matches, and sometimes to the worst teams in the league. A better analogy might be individual sports associations like golf and tennis: even at his best, Tiger Woods still lost more tournaments in a year than he won, and random PGA golfers still won tournaments. But here in the BotD, most of the quarter finalists could have been predicted in advance, and the semifinalists are similarly the favourites. Upsets, at least among the lofty ones invited to the tournaments, are relatively rare.

If the questions were too easy or too hard, then you would expect a lot more upsets (since fewer questions would decide the match). The fact that few upsets occur means that the editors have done a consistent job in setting the questions, even while increasing the difficulty for the tournament.
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12895
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Bamaman »

It was a matter of Ken losing more than Nancy winning. He has a lock if he gets either of the DDs he missed in DJ. She also made a bad bet in FJ and loses if she gets it wrong when the game was not a crush.
Turd Ferguson
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 862
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:47 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Turd Ferguson »

boson wrote: Of course there is some luck involved. But it is remarkable to me how small a factor it plays. Consider pro sports leagues: even the very best teams lose about 1/4 of their matches, and sometimes to the worst teams in the league. A better analogy might be individual sports associations like golf and tennis: even at his best, Tiger Woods still lost more tournaments in a year than he won, and random PGA golfers still won tournaments.
The difference in talent level between teams and elite athletes in most sports is really, really small.

I think what you're seeing is that the difference between someone like Ken and Brad and the "typical" J! player (even a tournament-level player) is really significant, enough to overcome "luck" most of the time. If peak-level Tiger Woods were to join a local Golf Club, I suspect he'd win almost every tournament he entered, as opposing to having to beat the 100 best golfers in the world every weekend.

If we play a game where I roll a 100-sided die and you roll a 4-sided one and whoever rolls a higher number wins, I'm probably going to win most of the time... me winning that often wouldn't mean that luck plays a small factor (indeed, it is entirely luck), just that I have a huge advantage in the "game", just as Ken does in J!. It doesn't mean that I'll win all the time, of course, as I can still get especially "unlucky", as one can say Ken did against Nancy Zerg.

I think the proper conclusion is "hey, Brad and Ken are really really good", enough to make luck irrelevant most of the time, not "luck plays a smaller factor in J! than people seem to think".
User avatar
periwinkle
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:45 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by periwinkle »

boson wrote:

If the questions were too easy or too hard, then you would expect a lot more upsets (since fewer questions would decide the match). The fact that few upsets occur means that the editors have done a consistent job in setting the questions, even while increasing the difficulty for the tournament.
That's why I wonder if Thursday's question was too easy (a triple get after Wednesday's TS and Tuesday's single get), which would be too bad for the wild card hopefuls from earlier games with harder FJs. I didn't get it, but judging by the number of gets, it seems somewhat earlier than the FJs from earlier in the week. We'll see when the poll goes up!
User avatar
boson
Trivial
Posts: 1719
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by boson »

Turd Ferguson wrote: I think the proper conclusion is "hey, Brad and Ken are really really good", enough to make luck irrelevant most of the time, not "luck plays a smaller factor in J! than people seem to think".
I draw the same initial conclusion ("Brad and Ken (and Roger?) are really really good"), but also conclude that players like Pam and Dan are really really good, but maybe notch down, players like Rachael and Mark Lowenthal may be a notch or two lower (really good?). If I can make these predictions, and be right with the outcome much of the time, then "luck is irrelevant" for more than just the top two or three. Hence the conclusion "luck plays a smaller factor". I think we are saying the same thing initially, but I'd argue it goes beyond the two top players. The differentiation between players is large, even among the top 45 in the game invited to this tournament, so a really good player still doesn't have much chance against a really really good player.
User avatar
Woof
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Woof »

flemmingfan wrote:I am surprised no one has alluded to this clip on YouTube, "We don't need no stinking badges!"
Which clip is that? The movie referred to never actually used that line:
Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"
Last edited by Woof on Fri May 09, 2014 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sherm
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 906
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:39 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Sherm »

alietr wrote:
evanakm wrote:
alietr wrote:Clearly Ken's abilities place his curve way over towards a higher likelihood of winning, but then it somehow overlaps with Nancy Zerg's, and he ends up losing. There's the luck component.
The Jeopardy paradox. If you get on the show and you're unfortunate enough to draw a superchamp, you either lose and fade back into anonymity, or else you win and you're enshrined forever as someone of lesser intelligence.
That's not the proper conclusion to draw from what I wrote. I think most people would agree that Nancy Zerg would have been unlikely to win a re-match against Ken, or 10 or even 20 re-matches. That's where the luck component comes in. If she had gone on to win a few more, I think we would also agree that it was much less a matter of luck (see: Kevin Marshall).
There is little doubt that if Jennings or Rutter miss two daily doubles and get final jeopardy wrong, that neither one is going to win a game in this thing. Interesting thing to me is that both of these guys are going Roger Craig in these games, and it will put them behind the eight ball if they miss a daily double at this level. So far these guys have really taken big risks on the first daily double that they have gotten in each game of this tourny, when they have had a lot of money to bet, and they have gotten it right each time.

It could easily bite either Rutter or Jennings in the backside if it happens in the semi's. Are they better than everyone else? Yes, I believe so, but I don't know that they are a lot better than people like Roger, Leszek, Pam and Colby. Those are the people they are seeing in the next round, and if they get behind mid way through the double jeopardy round because of a big bet. No way are they getting into a lock position in FJ!. They would possibly be in a position where the triple stumper, makes for a loss even if they get the lead back.

Further if Jennings or Rutter has a 22000 to 13000 lead over Roger Craig late in a semi, and Craig gets a daily double. Everyone on this board knows it going to be thier lead by 22k or they are going to be down by 4k. In just raw knowledge, I don't know the Craig isn't better than these two guys anyway. He just doesn't seem to be quite as dominate on the buzzer.

The best thing about this tourny. I've only really followed jeopardy for about 4 years. The first time I saw Roger Craig followed by his ToC win. I thought guys like Rutter and Jennings can't be much better than this. Well, it looks like we are going to find out.
Sherm
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 906
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:39 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Sherm »

Deleted double post
Last edited by Sherm on Sat May 10, 2014 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2981
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by John Boy »

esrever wrote:Ken was superb, as usual. He was super-fast in converting those Roman-numeral initials to numbers.
After seeing what the category was about, it would probably just be a buzzer race, which Ken would win 9/10 in this game. That gives a few seconds in which you would be able to identify the person, presumably be able to reduce that to initials and from there to Roman numerals. No biggy. Once you win the buzzer race, take a few leisurely seconds to derive the answer.
John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2981
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by John Boy »

Tygor wrote:Ken is also the reason I fell in love with Jeopardy again after high school. Watching him play is must-see TV, and Brad is right there as well. I assume Ken watched Brad play and wanted to go above his score. I'm REALLY hoping to see the favorites make it to the final.
It's really a shame Ken and Brad played their regular season games under such vastly different circumstances. Being limited to five wins, and limited again by the pre-doubled-scores, their regular-game successes were night and day, and only partly because of Ken's uber-dominance. I think after Brad's dominance in EVERYTHING (ToC, M$M, and UToC), it seems almost like minimizing him to say he is "right there" with anyone. I know Ken's performance made him a legend, but he still has one thing to prove. Brad owned him in the UToC finals, and IMHO remains the greatest of all time unless Ken returns the favor this time. I am also eagerly looking forward to a rematch next week.
John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2981
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by John Boy »

opusthepenguin wrote:
BigDaddyJ wrote:Precalled "Inconceivable!" coming up in One-Word Movie Quotes.
Lucky. I precalled "Plastics."
Me too.
John Boy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2981
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by John Boy »

dnbguy wrote:I had the right idea for Sixtus, but said Sextus instead. No comment.

Got FJ quickly, early 20th century British economist = Keynes. This one seemed easier than the other BOTD FJs.
Pretty sure that's only a venial sin, but a good laugh.

I figured this would be a FJ category I would have to stretch for, and I was surprised to come up with Keynes and go 4/4 FJ for the week. Can...he...do...it...tonight???
User avatar
OrangeSAM
(Unranked)
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by OrangeSAM »

Woof wrote:
flemmingfan wrote:I am surprised no one has alluded to this clip on YouTube, "We don't need no stinking badges!"
Which clip is that? The movie referred to never actually used that line:
Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"
In another well-known film it was ""Badges? We don't need no stinking badges." I was hoping someone would answer Blazing Saddles.
OCSam
User avatar
OrangeSAM
(Unranked)
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by OrangeSAM »

dnbguy wrote:I had the right idea for Sixtus, but said Sextus instead. No comment.
...
My, aren't you the rake!
OCSam
User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3079
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Magna »

OrangeSAM wrote:
dnbguy wrote:I had the right idea for Sixtus, but said Sextus instead. No comment.
...
My, aren't you the rake!
Ho ho.
User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 10319
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by opusthepenguin »

jkbrat wrote:Yes -- after the fourth clue, I couldn't help but notice that Rachel's dress was a fetching shade of negative-territory red. :lol:

(Sorry, don't have the skillage to post a screen shot.)
Image
User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 8977
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Thursday, May 8, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by alietr »

Had Ken ever been in the red before?
Post Reply