Friday, November 20, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[hbomb1947]

I've been rambling all over Twitter about the last two weeks of games, but let me just say here: The coolest thing about omgwheelhouse's epic performance is knowing how much work it took. He would have been a fearsome player even at his regular level of play, but since then, he's taken it to a stratospheric level of skill. He's clearly used the last few months very, very wisely.

For those who are still trying to get on the show, if you're truly ambitious, if your dream isn't just to get on Jeopardy! but to become a Jeopardy! champ, to potentially become one of the greats, know that your J! talent is something that you have the power within you to improve. Read as much as you can, play as much trivia as you can, write trivia questions to get a feel for what it's like from the writers' side. You can say, "Well, I don't want to get crazy about it," but know that the obsessives who love it, breathe it, live it, will always have the advantage.

To that I would add, think very carefully about the strategic elements of the game long before you get The Call -- including making a detailed study of the tutorials on The Final Wager website (taking into account that wagering for a tie is generally no longer a good strategy, so some of the optimal wagers will be a little different, albeit only by a dollar in many cases). And when you watch the show, each time a contestant has to wager on a DD or FJ, try to think about how much you would wager if you were that player. By the time you get The Call, you should have a game plan that covers scenarios for DD and FJ wagering, and you should know the basic principles cold -- so that when you're standing at that lectern, you'll be prepared when a particular situation comes up and you'll be less likely to make a critical mistake. And get as many lock games as possible so that you won't even have to try to answer the FJ's.

I would also add that writing trivia questions is a great way to increase your knowledge because you not only learn and reinforce the fact you're asking about, but along the way when you research the clues that you're writing you often come across related facts that you also didn't know before.

[periwinkle]

Speaking of which, I didn't get FJ. I was stuck trying to think of English words that were philosophers' last names or vice versa, with Locke as the only answer I could muster.

This is exactly what I was doing (I feel better than seaborgium was as well). The first names that occurred to me were Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, but I assumed it would be an English word so I immediately moved on and stuck with Locke as the closest I could get.

Edited to add:
I was rooting for all 3 contestants for different reasons, but was rooting most for Matt to win (I know his mom, he's local, he loves musical theater, and I enjoy his enthusiasm). They were all terrific contestants, but omgwheelhouse was unreachable due to his combination of astounding buzzer skill, smart DD-seeking, and deep knowledge base. Many congrats to Alex!! I really want to see him go up against Brad and Ken someday.

There was some ridiculous conspiracy theory on Facebook that Matt threw his final regular season game so he could be in this tournament, instead of the next one. Why on early would he want that? Alex was clearly a dangerous opponent to face, based on his regular season games, and because Matt was in this tournament so soon after his regular season, he had no time to up his game and do deep preparation in his weaker areas. Illogical.

[bpmod]

The first names that occurred to me were Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, ...

Those aren't first names; they're last names.

Brian

[brick]

The first names that occurred to me were Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, ...

Those aren't first names; they're last names.

Brian

[karoliner]

Kierkegaard was the first name I thought of. Kierke could mean church so that’s that. I tried to think of other options but Kierkegaard felt so right my brain drew a compete blank on any other philosophers there were.

[bpmod]

Kierkegaard was the first name I thought of.

C'mon! Pay attention!

Brian

[opusthepenguin]

This is true. Last night's DD was only the 3rd one that Matt had gotten wrong in 35 opportunities. It was bad luck that his very rare miss was so ill-timed -- and that the DD he landed on was a little neg-baity (if you take more time to think about it, you realize that the "D" in FDA implies health, which leads to HHS); but under the time pressure, I can see slipping up and going for USDA).

I went with Health (and was prepared to add "and Human Services" in the event of an uncomfortable silence or a BMS). But I also thought of Agriculture and wouldn't have been surprised to find out I backed the wrong horse. I agree that a strict logic might suggest that the "D" in FDA means it should be filed under Health. But I haven't noticed that these departmental assignments adhere to a strict logic.

Just one example would be that the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security works under the Department of Energy. That's not a bad fit by any means, but it doesn't seem quite as good a fit as the Department of Homeland Security. Certainly not at first glance anyway.

[brick]

This is true. Last night's DD was only the 3rd one that Matt had gotten wrong in 35 opportunities. It was bad luck that his very rare miss was so ill-timed -- and that the DD he landed on was a little neg-baity (if you take more time to think about it, you realize that the "D" in FDA implies health, which leads to HHS); but under the time pressure, I can see slipping up and going for USDA).

I went with Health (and was prepared to add "and Human Services" in the event of an uncomfortable silence or a BMS). But I also thought of Agriculture and wouldn't have been surprised to find out I backed the wrong horse. I agree that a strict logic might suggest that the "D" in FDA means it should be filed under Health. But I haven't noticed that these departmental assignments adhere to a strict logic.

Just one example would be that the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security works under the Department of Energy. That's not a bad fit by any means, but it doesn't seem quite as good a fit as the Department of Homeland Security. Certainly not at first glance anyway.

I wonder if he took a little extra ribbing for that miss at home, given that both his parents are somewhat politically connected.

[MollyQMurphy]

Also, looking through the Archive, it appears that Alex Jacob is the first person to win the ToC without getting any FJ clues correct during the tournament.

I know that it ended up not mattering, but I have to wonder how many of the 4 FJs that he faced that Alex did know.

I think it shows both a fair amount of humility and grace that, having each of those locked up by then, he did not answer. If you're betting zero, why rub it in by showing you could have answered it if you had to? But also, it's a poker move, where you provide as little information as possible to your opponents, because there's always another hand to be dealt. Even at the last, it mattered more to OMG to say what he said than to prove whether he knew the answer.

I agree (and mentioned before) with the person above who said Alex upped his game considerably between the time he won his spot, and the TOC. I don't think he's shown his full potential even now (re: the FJ's as an example). I'd love to see him against Rutter and Jennings, and maybe some others not quite as famous (meaning I'm not as knowledgeable on Jeopardy history) but as deserving by how their minds work.

I think we will find that with some of the game theory aspects of his play, Alex has changed the way the game will be played in the future. How many players have done that? (Many of you will know the answer to that better than I do, but Arthur Chu is one who comes to mind.)

I also think Matt could develop into that caliber of player. I have a nephew who was very involved in Quizbowl for many years, and learned a lot of esoteric and arcane facts in order to be a top competitor, but has similar gaps in his knowledge and play. It's a different type of mind IMO that excels at a Jeopardy! format, as correlations and connections are at least as important as learning minutia on a variety of topics (back to Jacob/Jennings/Rutter as good examples of this). A fair amount of the Jeopardy! clues (and an inordinate number of DD's) are word-puzzles and teasers that require a leap or spark of insight rather than a fill-in-the-blank response, so they exercise both halves of your brain to master, with quick cuts between lobes, but the questions count for just as much. That, in fact, is what I like the best about the program.

[hbomb1947]

I think we will find that with some of the game theory aspects of his play, Alex has changed the way the game will be played in the future. How many players have done that? (Many of you will know the answer to that better than I do, but Arthur Chu is one who comes to mind.)

Arthur didn't do anything that hadn't been done by many players before him. Arthur did zero to change the way the game was played, and only lazy internet "journalists" thought otherwise during his run. He was a top-tier player, but he wasn't an innovator. Even many of Alex's techniques that helped him dominate were things like informed DD-hunting and going all-in for large TDD's that people like Roger Craig had done years earlier. (Of course, Alex was better than most people who have employed those techniques at executing on them.) What Alex brought to the table that was novel was the caginess of a champion poker player, as manifested in his not trying to answer FJ's when he didn't have to; one had the sense that every single move he made was part of a synthesized, carefully thought-out strategy. What makes Alex such a great player is a combination of two things: (1) his knowledge base, which is at an elite level if not quite the best of anyone who's been on the show, and (2) as someone posted on these boards the other day, Alex does everything possible to squeeze the maximum return (as manifested in his J! performance) out of the things he knows.

Every time someone comes along who effectively makes use of smart strategic moves (often mislabeled as "game theory," although that's not really what "game theory" means), someone posts that that contestant will change how the game is played. And then before long, we're back to seeing players call out top-of-the-board clues when they're trailing by $5,000 and there are still uncovered DD's on the board.

I would also submit that that the sabermetric-type principles about what techniques are optimal for maximizing the chances of winning at J! are largely well-established by now, and there aren't a plethora of hitherto-unknown strategies waiting to be discovered. The opportunities to change the way the game is played are limited at this point in the evolution of the show.

A question for J! historians: when Chuck Forrest pioneered his eponymous "bounce," was he using it in part to hunt for DD's, or was he principally doing it to throw off his opponents? Who was the first documented contestant who can be credited with DD-hunting?

[MollyQMurphy]

I think we will find that with some of the game theory aspects of his play, Alex has changed the way the game will be played in the future. How many players have done that? (Many of you will know the answer to that better than I do, but Arthur Chu is one who comes to mind.)

Arthur didn't do anything that hadn't been done by many players before him. Arthur did zero to change the way the game was played, and only lazy internet "journalists" thought otherwise during his run. Even many of Alex's techniques that helped him dominate were things like informed DD-hunting and going all-in for large TDD's that people like Roger Craig had done years earlier; and his ability to find DD's was helped by his frequent command of the board that resulted from his remarkable consistency on the signaling device (something that most contestants couldn't emulate no matter how many times they practice with a toilet-paper roll holder). What Alex brought to the table that was novel was the caginess of a champion poker player, as manifested in his not trying to answer FJ's when he didn't have to; one had the sense that every single move he made was part of a synthesized, carefully thought-out strategy. What makes Alex such a great player is a combination of two things: (1) his knowledge base, which is at an elite level if not quite the best of anyone who's been on the show, and (2) as someone posted on these boards the other day, Alex does everything possible to squeeze the maximum return (as manifested in his J! performance) out of the things he knows.

Every time someone comes along who effectively makes use of smart strategic moves (often mislabeled as "game theory," although that's not really what "game theory" means), someone posts that that contestant will change how the game is played. And then before long, we're back to seeing players call out top-of-the-board clues when they're trailing by $5,000 and there are still uncovered DD's on the board.

Seeing a demonstration of how to play in the most advantageous way is different from being able to do it during the game, though the occurrence will increase. The two most-dominant players in this TOC both applied game theory and strategy in capturing DD's while they had control, strategic wagering, disconcerting tactics, etc. One of them was better at it than the other. But both prevailed in part because of these refinements. I think it's fair to credit Arthur Chu at least in part for demonstrating what COULD be done in such a way that anyone paying attention to Jeopardy! could hardly ignore the discussion of it that spilled over into the mainstream at that time. Contestants who ignored those learnable opportunities in the mean time often gave up advantages (or some percentage of them) and hurt themselves in the process. So I think it will be increasingly unlikely that people will simply run categories from top to bottom, given the repeated instances of how useful it is to find and use the DD's quickly. And that's just one particular example, not the entirety of tactics I'm discussing.

[opusthepenguin]

Speaking of which, I didn't get FJ. I was stuck trying to think of English words that were philosophers' last names or vice versa, with Locke as the only answer I could muster.

That would've been hilarious. This would've instantly been dubbed the Locke game.

[seaborgium]

I just realized Alex is the fourth contestant to give four incorrect FJ responses during the course of a ToC. Welcome to the club!

[opusthepenguin]

Arthur didn't do anything that hadn't been done by many players before him. Arthur did zero to change the way the game was played, and only lazy internet "journalists" thought otherwise during his run.

Lazy internet penguins concurred. Apparently, so did the lazy people who changed the rules to eliminate ties shortly after Arthur's run. That's only one of the top 10 major rule changes to the game ever. Might even be one of the top 5, but I can't be bothered to make a list and decide. I'm lazy, you know.

[Golf]

Alex answers correctly on the DD's and then controls the game. Once again, it's not because of luck.

You really should stick to facts if you want anybody to agree with you.

The post you responded to was comparing, specifically, Matt's luck to Alex's. Coming into this tournament, Matt was the one who "answers correctly on the DD's". Alex was, what, 75% or something?

Brian

My above was describing the two game final, not the entire body of work of Matt and Alex.

I was merely pointing out that Alex brought the luck factor to a minimum, Matt did almost as well but leaving money on the table on one DD wager in addition to the first game FJ was a mistake he could not afford. He wasn't unlucky in that regard.

For what it's worth, I really appreciate both players. Matt plays very well and it's nice to see a contestant genuinely happy when good things happen in an endeavor that means so much. Let's face it, the game result means much more to certain players than others. Some are just happy to be there and it shows. Matt is not one of those players, winning is very important.

Alex plays the game perfectly, and IMO, he got a lot better in preparation for the ToC. I definitely thought Matt would have the edge in their matchup going in. Regardless, it was a very enjoyable two weeks. Now back to screaming at players who have zero game sense. But hey, they're just happy to be there.....

[hbomb1947]

Arthur didn't do anything that hadn't been done by many players before him. Arthur did zero to change the way the game was played, and only lazy internet "journalists" thought otherwise during his run.

Lazy internet penguins concurred. Apparently, so did the lazy people who changed the rules to eliminate ties shortly after Arthur's run. That's only one of the top 10 major rule changes to the game ever. Might even be one of the top 5, but I can't be bothered to make a list and decide. I'm lazy, you know.

The unfortunate elimination of tie games happened many months after Arthur ruined the show with his "game theory." It was revealed in a thread on this board in November 2014, and apparently came in response to a small number of tie games that had aired shortly before that time. (Arthur's run occurred from January through March, 2014, and of course would have been taped months before those airdates.)

And the brief fashion for tie games (when not strictly called for by certain situations such as the prisoner's dilemma or the ratio of the players' scores) had nothing to do with the chances of winning of the game for the player who offered the tie, and was initiated by the influential Final Wager website. I never agreed with the idea of betting for the tie, BTW, except when the game situation made it the optimal play.

[opusthepenguin]

The unfortunate elimination of tie games happened many months after Arthur ruined the show with his "game theory."

Ruining the show would be another major change to the game.

We can agree to disagree. I just don't think I'm lazy for thinking you're wrong. There was a tremendous amount of buzz around Arthur Chu. I think it affected the game quite a bit as people tried to figure out why he made the wagers he did. Contestants still don't think about wagering as much as they should. But they seem more likely to be aware that they should and some of them try to bone up on it.

[opusthepenguin]

I never agreed with the idea of betting for the tie, BTW, except when the game situation made it the optimal play.

Have you considered joining Tautology Club? It's the sort of thing you'd like if you like that sort of thing.

[hbomb1947]

I never agreed with the idea of betting for the tie, BTW, except when the game situation made it the optimal play.

Have you considered joining Tautology Club? It's the sort of thing you'd like if you like that sort of thing.

What I wrote wasn't a tautology, as my preceding comments about certain situations where betting for the tie increased the leader's chances of winning (prisoner's dilemma; certain ratios of players' scores) make clear. The Final Wager website advocated offering the tie in a much larger range of situations, in which I felt it was preferable to wager for the outright victory.

[brick]

I never agreed with the idea of betting for the tie, BTW, except when the game situation made it the optimal play.

Have you considered joining Tautology Club? It's the sort of thing you'd like if you like that sort of thing.

I actually barked with laughter.