Page 1 of 4

James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:49 am
by FS7
It's a testament to James that the fundamental transformation of the game he brought about ultimately helped do him in.

James had a relatively low Coryat, but only because the others were relatively high. Even so, he still led Emma by almost 5000. It was her true DD that made the difference, and I highly, highly doubt she makes that bet in a pre-James game. My memory is a bit hazy on the details of Ken's run but I wonder if there were opportunities for challengers to capitalize on a bit of luck that they didn't take. We all remember Game 18 (Michael and Adam) where the big bets were made to catch up, but not to take a commanding lead.

The comparisons are inevitable, but I think the two questions to answer are whether Ken, playing with equivalent signaling speed and knowledge, could do something similar in today's game and whether James could do the same in Ken's era.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am
by AndyTheQuizzer
Emma came in cold. She made that bet without having seen James play once.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:17 am
by Austin Powers
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am Emma came in cold. She made that bet without having seen James play once.
Sure. But she certainly is capable of dividing $2 million+ by 30+games

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:24 am
by shambolic
Emma clearly knows her stuff, and has apparently spent a fair amount of time studying the mechanics of the game. She didn't miss a single question, and bet big when the situation demanded it. It's not impossible that, like Adam Levin, she played more aggressively because she knew she was up against a juggernaut (since she heard his money total announced, even if she didn't see him play), but although James is a pretty revolutionary player, it's not like he invented the True Daily Double either. I'm not sure what percentage of matches James would win against Emma given a larger sample size, but sometimes you just get outplayed. I do think it would be interesting to see the two of them face off again in the ToC this fall though.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:25 am
by AndyTheQuizzer
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:17 am
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am Emma came in cold. She made that bet without having seen James play once.
Sure. But she certainly is capable of dividing $2 million+/30+games
Still, though. Emma has literally studied the game more than maybe three or four people here on JBoard. She knew what she was doing, James or no James.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:39 am
by JayK33
Shouldn't this thread be considered a spoiler since the mentioned game happened not long ago?

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:50 am
by Austin Powers
JayK33 wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:39 am Shouldn't this thread be considered a spoiler since the mentioned game happened not long ago?
The game made the cover of major newspapers. It was on ESPN’s Bottom Line scroll. It was the highest rated episode in ten years.

Also Jon kills Dany.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:55 am
by yclept
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:17 am
OntarioQuizzer wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am Emma came in cold. She made that bet without having seen James play once.
Sure. But she certainly is capable of dividing $2 million+ by 30+games
Yeah, there is no way to hear that total and not quickly understand how he must be doing it. You aren’t averaging $75K per game or so without hunting for DDs and betting big once you find them.

May she have done that against a random champion with a much more modest per game total? We will never quite know the answer to that. We will know more about her DD strategies and aggressiveness if she hits any today.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:15 am
by Caboom
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:50 am
Spoiler
Also Jon kills Dany.
Wow, what an asshole. I hope you're happy you ruined the ending for me. But then knowing how arrogant and condescending you regularly are, I'm 100 % sure you couldn't care less.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:33 am
by MarkBarrett
Does anyone know the timing of calls vs. taping? Emma came in cold knowing nothing about James and his run, but what did the powers know? Emma got "The Call" prior to any of James's games being taped? Or did the CCs have an idea of just what James was capable of doing and there was the possibility for them to adjust their contestant selections?

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:33 am
by Vintsanity
FS7 wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:49 am It's a testament to James that the fundamental transformation of the game he brought about ultimately helped do him in.
That's what the great ones do in nearly any competition. They raise the level of play of everyone around them and then fall victim to the increased competition if they slip up just a little.

Tiger Woods 2010-2018 probably wins 5-10 majors if he was playing in the '90s or earlier.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:55 am
by CharlieD
Emma is one of the few opponents of James who recognized how she had to play to beat him. In last Thursday's game, Faizan Kothari didn't go all in, despite needing everything he could get in a game that was slipping away from him. He didn't recognize the situation at all. He, like most of James' victims, was still playing the game he expected to play when he walked into the studio. Nate Scheffey and Satish Chandrasekhar didn't bet everything when they had the chance either. Adam Levin was perhaps the only other player with the skill and DD strategy to take James down, and he just missed.
Emma bet it all when she had to. She hesitated saying 'true daily double', which tells me she didn't come in expecting to have to bet everything to overcome a strong player, but she did it because it was the obvious right move in a game that was slipping away from her, as James' knowledge had become apparent, and his lead was growing.
She walked into the studio in the the 'pre-James' era, as she only found out about his streak that morning, having never seen him play. She must have thought, 'oh boy, this is another Ken Jennings. I better be aggressive.' She responded perfectly by playing a perfect game.
I hope Emma wins 5 games and makes the TOC, to have a rematch with James. That would swell the ratings again.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:56 am
by Austin Powers
Caboom wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:15 am
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:50 am
Spoiler
Also Jon kills Dany.
Wow, what an asshole. I hope you're happy you ruined the ending for me. But then knowing how arrogant and condescending you regularly are, I'm 100 % sure you couldn't care less.
I think the ending was ruined even for folks who watched it live :-(

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:59 am
by RJRouge
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:50 am [quote=JayK33 post_id=309749 time=1559659199
Spoiler
Also Jon kills Dany.
You son of a bitch.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:01 pm
by MarkBarrett
Lots of hopeful leapfrogging dreams to go from Emma winning one game to having her not only win at least four games to make the TOC, but then make the finals of the ToC, while James would have to make the finals as well since they would not have the rematch in the QF or SF round since they met in regular play.

[Dang, what a sentence, sorry.]

Time will tell.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:09 pm
by Austin Powers
RJRouge wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:59 am
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:50 am [quote=JayK33 post_id=309749 time=1559659199
Spoiler
Also Jon kills Dany.
You son of a bitch.
I take it you don’t want to know what happens to Bran?

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:11 pm
by CharlieD
MarkBarrett wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:01 pm Lots of hopeful leapfrogging dreams to go from Emma winning one game to having her not only win at least four games to make the TOC, but then make the finals of the ToC, while James would have to make the finals as well since they would not have the rematch in the QF or SF round since they met in regular play.

[Dang, what a sentence, sorry.]

Time will tell.
A second meeting is unlikely, but I'm rooting for it.

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:44 pm
by Roland
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:09 pm
RJRouge wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:59 am
Austin Powers wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:50 am [quote=JayK33 post_id=309749 time=1559659199
Spoiler
Also Jon kills Dany.
You son of a bitch.
I take it you don’t want to know what happens to Bran?
OK, OK. I'll say it. You're a really cool guy. Nobody here doubts your real life popularity.

You're welcome. This is what you're after yeah? Whatever you need me to say I'll be the one to say it for you!

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:45 pm
by Bamaman
Spoiler
Kristen shot J.R..

Re: James wouldn't have lost pre-James

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:54 pm
by Woof
Bamaman wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:45 pm
Spoiler
Kristen shot J.R..
Spoiler
Oswald shot JFK