Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:55 am
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I was less bothered by her odd bet than by all the TSs & several in revealed clues. Awful game overall.
- Cat Hammarskjold
- Feline Secretary-General
- Posts: 1013
- Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:35 am
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I don't know how many people on this board are in the 30-35 age range, but when the National Geography Bee did lots of outreach in the early to mid-1990's to get more schools to participate, there seemed to be a lot of questions about the Panama Canal, or at least I missed it a few times before it was drilled in my head what the names of the ports on it were. Being from Ohio also helped.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Of course I wasn't in her mind, had I been she would not have made that wager.OntarioQuizzer wrote:Golf wrote:LOL at thinking this was a math error. LOL at thinking there was any rationale behind it. Pure strategic ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
Seriously. Are you in her mind? Do you know what she was thinking?
No.
Then I firmly believe that she made a math error when doubling the trailers' scores. The rest of her game was much, much too strong to make me think it was anything but.
Guess what? People make mistakes.
The hilarious thing is, you're saying that because her game was much, much too strong, that it has to be a math error? That makes about as much sense as her wager. And by the way, her Coryat was 13.8k.
What you're missing is that her game play has absolutely nothing to do with her game strategy. Each and every person on the show has already proven they have the knowledge base, we know that. But we also know that the vast majority of contestants have zero clue how to play the game in such a way that gives them the best winning chances. Two totally different skill sets. There are tons of game theorists and otherwise out there that know exactly how to play the game and can properly evaluate every possible FJ scenario, but hardly any of them can past the Jeopardy test.
Heck, even superstars like Chuck Forrest and Brad Rutter have shown they are not skilled in wagering theory.
And yes, people make mistakes. Maybe she just freaked out under the lights and wrote down a random number. Perhaps we'll learn more tomorrow about whether this was a mistake or ignorance.
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:20 pm
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
In the camp that any wager that risks a lock is a Clavin wager. Results don't matter when analyzing wagers, just whether or not they increase/decrease the chance of winning.
- alietr
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8978
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
- Location: Bethesda, MD
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I thought it was only a Clavin if you got it wrong and therefore lost.
As for Playboy, from what I read, they will still have centerfolds, but they will no longer be nude, just "provocatively posed". Therefore the original answer was wrong.
As for Playboy, from what I read, they will still have centerfolds, but they will no longer be nude, just "provocatively posed". Therefore the original answer was wrong.
- billiej
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:56 pm
- Location: Maine
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
So that WASN'T my imagination?
Wow...
Wow...
- SeanC
- Contributor
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:07 am
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I read in a story about Playboy's changes that the actual centerfold format will remain--the models just won't be nude anymore. If that's the case, "centerfold" would be completely incorrect, as they're not being removed. (My understanding is that their photo spreads are going to shift to more of a lad-mag model, like Maxim, FHM, etc.--lots of swimsuits, lingerie, and strategic posing, but no more 100% exposure.) But I'm many years out of my Playboy-reading phase, so I'm not certain.BigDaddyMatty wrote:I can't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I'm not aware of Playboy ever having had a centerfold that was not at least bare-breasted. If there has been one, it was a very rare event. I think an outright neg would have been unfair.TenPoundHammer wrote:"Centerfold" shouldn't have been BMSed. Not all of the nudes are centerfolds, and not all the centerfolds are nude. I, too, was completely baffled on how to BMS there, and I think it misled the contestant on the "of the month" answer.
**And I see alietr beat me to it.**
- MitchO
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:19 am
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
A) Keith is alive.
B) He retweeted someone this morning, who showed a comment from Reddit (how meta), that indicated she admitted it being a math error:
https://twitter.com/ejmaroun/status/707559316841046019
B) He retweeted someone this morning, who showed a comment from Reddit (how meta), that indicated she admitted it being a math error:
https://twitter.com/ejmaroun/status/707559316841046019
- alietr
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8978
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
- Location: Bethesda, MD
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Andy S. FTW!MitchO wrote:A) Keith is alive.
B) He retweeted someone this morning, who showed a comment from Reddit (how meta), that indicated she admitted it being a math error:
https://twitter.com/ejmaroun/status/707559316841046019
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
OntarioQuizzer wrote:If you mis-double 2nd and 3rd place's scores, you might think you just have a crush game here and bet that large according.
Annie played very well in the first two rounds. Honestly, I think she just messed up that part of the math. Not hubris or anything like that.
I think all y'all's shade is kinda harsh and uncalled for.
Messed up math my ass. You multiply (2nd-place player's score X 2) to give you $7200 X 2 = $14,400. Then you ask yourself, do I have more than that or less? If you have more, don't bet enough to make your score LESS than that if you miss. Unless you think she, uh, miscalculated by $7,500, that ain't the explanation.
I like the category, possibly as much as Annie did. But there's no category in the world in which I can't miss, so there's no category in the world for which I would risk a won game.
This was just sad. And it was the worse for Alex calling her a "force to be reckoned with." More likely the next contestant to end her winning ways with lousy wagering.
And OQ, a lot of the comments you're reading may be harsh, but they aren't uncalled for. When you make a wager that's so horrendous that there's a name for it in the J! vocabulary, you deserve it.
- AndyTheQuizzer
- Lots and Lots of Interviews
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 am
- Location: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Yes.Golf wrote: The hilarious thing is, you're saying that because her game was much, much too strong, that it has to be a math error? That makes about as much sense as her wager. And by the way, her Coryat was 13.8k.
She moved quickly throughout the game.
Holding a lock in the final minute, she went straight to the top row of the board to keep her opponents away from the big ammo.
Those are hallmarks of very strong strategy.
I'm sorry that you assume that she's a terrible player simply because of her Coryat and because she made what you think to be an stupid error.
- AndyTheQuizzer
- Lots and Lots of Interviews
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 am
- Location: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
And you wonder why more champs don't hang out here.John Boy wrote:OntarioQuizzer wrote:If you mis-double 2nd and 3rd place's scores, you might think you just have a crush game here and bet that large according.
Annie played very well in the first two rounds. Honestly, I think she just messed up that part of the math. Not hubris or anything like that.
I think all y'all's shade is kinda harsh and uncalled for.
Messed up math my ass. You multiply (2nd-place player's score X 2) to give you $7200 X 2 = $14,400. Then you ask yourself, do I have more than that or less? If you have more, don't bet enough to make your score LESS than that if you miss. Unless you think she, uh, miscalculated by $7,500, that ain't the explanation.
I like the category, possibly as much as Annie did. But there's no category in the world in which I can't miss, so there's no category in the world for which I would risk a won game.
This was just sad. And it was the worse for Alex calling her a "force to be reckoned with." More likely the next contestant to end her winning ways with lousy wagering.
And OQ, a lot of the comments you're reading may be harsh, but they aren't uncalled for. When you make a wager that's so horrendous that there's a name for it in the J! vocabulary, you deserve it.
- AndyTheQuizzer
- Lots and Lots of Interviews
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 am
- Location: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
If you make the original doubling calculation incorrectly, and you think you have a crush game and not a lock game, Martian wagering strategy dictates that you can bet all the way down to your opponent's pre-Final total. Because they have to get it right and you have to get it wrong for them to win.John Boy wrote:Messed up math my ass. You multiply (2nd-place player's score X 2) to give you $7200 X 2 = $14,400. Then you ask yourself, do I have more than that or less? If you have more, don't bet enough to make your score LESS than that if you miss. Unless you think she, uh, miscalculated by $7,500, that ain't the explanation.
Annie's wager was commensurate with her thought that she did not have a runaway.
- naurae29
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:57 pm
- Location: Miami
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
At the risk of letting the facts get in the way of an impassioned rant, there's now evidence that this wasn't hubris, but a math error.
I guess you could still choose to believe that Annie actually spent ten minutes purposely deciding how much to overwager, or that Annie lied when she explained her wager right after the game, or that the alleged witness is lying either about being a witness or about what happened.
I guess you could still choose to believe that Annie actually spent ten minutes purposely deciding how much to overwager, or that Annie lied when she explained her wager right after the game, or that the alleged witness is lying either about being a witness or about what happened.
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12895
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
That is also a risk. There have been times in a crush where second place made a small bet. So dropping down to a dollar above their pre-FJ score could cause you to lose a game you would have won if you make the normal shutout bet.OntarioQuizzer wrote:If you make the original doubling calculation incorrectly, and you think you have a crush game and not a lock game, Martian wagering strategy dictates that you can bet all the way down to your opponent's pre-Final total. Because they have to get it right and you have to get it wrong for them to win.John Boy wrote:Messed up math my ass. You multiply (2nd-place player's score X 2) to give you $7200 X 2 = $14,400. Then you ask yourself, do I have more than that or less? If you have more, don't bet enough to make your score LESS than that if you miss. Unless you think she, uh, miscalculated by $7,500, that ain't the explanation.
Annie's wager was commensurate with her thought that she did not have a runaway.
- MDaunt
- Weighed in the balance and found wanting
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I don't get it. If you're going to do that, why not go full Clavin?
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:46 pm
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Extremely obvious math error is extremely obvious. I agree.OntarioQuizzer wrote:If you make the original doubling calculation incorrectly, and you think you have a crush game and not a lock game, Martian wagering strategy dictates that you can bet all the way down to your opponent's pre-Final total. Because they have to get it right and you have to get it wrong for them to win.John Boy wrote:Messed up math my ass. You multiply (2nd-place player's score X 2) to give you $7200 X 2 = $14,400. Then you ask yourself, do I have more than that or less? If you have more, don't bet enough to make your score LESS than that if you miss. Unless you think she, uh, miscalculated by $7,500, that ain't the explanation.
Annie's wager was commensurate with her thought that she did not have a runaway.
-
- Rank
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
- Location: Hamilton Ontario
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a Clavin in a crush (or other non-lock) situation. Wagering everything in a non-lock, while foolish, is not "full Clavin".MDaunt wrote:I don't get it. If you're going to do that, why not go full Clavin?
If she believed she had a crush and her intention was to wager down to second's pre-FJ plus $1, it wouldn't fall into the Clavin category, even though it is not wise. (That is, if it were actually a crush. Her simply thinking it was doesn't make the fact a non-fact.) Every dollar extra you put at risk in a crush increases your chances of losing, even though, generally speaking, WR is the only way to lose. As Bama says, a case of WR where second wagers very small might not always win second the game, so first shouldn't let him back in at that stage.
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.
- Vermonter
- 2003 College Champion
- Posts: 1956
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
When the leader wagers enough to let an eliminated third-place player back into the game, I consider that just about as bad. (Here's an analysis I did after the triple-zero game in January.)bpmod wrote:As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a Clavin in a crush (or other non-lock) situation. Wagering everything in a non-lock, while foolish, is not "full Clavin".MDaunt wrote:I don't get it. If you're going to do that, why not go full Clavin?
Hate bad wagering? Me too. Join me at The Final Wager.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Mine is.TenPoundHammer wrote:
Peas are yellowish?!?