Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
This Is Kirk!
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by This Is Kirk! »

LucarioSnooperVixey wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:49 pm
My bad, I meant to say Uniform.
It's OK to be wrong once in a blue moon you know.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by gnash »

seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:27 pm
To be fair, both references to Scholl in the clue were possessive ("This doctor's original sandals" and "his molefoam padding").
I don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.

Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*

* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by gnash »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:12 pm
floridagator wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:10 am
I got x-ray right away. I'm a licensed radio operator but I use the LAPD phonetic alphabet, not NATO, because I refuse to say whiskey. Kilo is also problematic because of its association with drugs,
Definitely! I also don't like saying Mike for M because of Mike's hard lemonade. And Romeo and Juliett? What were they thinking? Two underage kids having sex and committing suicide? Charlie's another obvious problem. I'm not saying that's anyone's fault. They couldn't have known how poor an example Charlie Sheen would set when they created the alphabet. I'm just saying maybe it's time for a change. How about Cosby?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

polaris
Contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:09 pm

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by polaris »

mechamind wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:14 pm
polaris wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:58 am
I'll say this for Emma's FJ strategy; it is marginally better than James'. Betting any more than enough to get to one dollar more than twice second place is unwise, no matter how important certain dates are to you.
Venusian or Martian. I think it's okay to bet more in a crush as long as you protect against a $0 wager by the 2nd place player, and a doubled score (if applicable) by 3rd place.
It's okay, but it's sub-optimal.

Example, James game 26, http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=6292.

He wagered $20,908, which is a strictly worse wager than $20,401. If he was wrong, and Nate wagered $15,400, and was also wrong, James would be pissed at himself for the rest of his life. I don't think the fact that this is extremely unlikely makes it less optimal or justifiable.

mechamind
Contributor
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:23 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by mechamind »

Keep in mind, I did say a crush. Even if you wager more and get it wrong, the 2nd place contestant still has to be right.

Nate wasn't crushed. He had the 3/4 or more advantage.

silverpie
Contributor
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:22 pm

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by silverpie »

I'm not certain that they adequately pinned the Timberland $400. Oregon is well within the range of the Western white pine (and even the more common Ponderosa pine is sometimes called a"Western white pine" in the wood biz). No stats that I can find on how much they produced in 1900, though. Adding the word "Eastern" to specify the variety of white pine would be a proper pin.

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 6816
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

gnash wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pm
seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:27 pm
To be fair, both references to Scholl in the clue were possessive ("This doctor's original sandals" and "his molefoam padding").
I don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.

Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*

* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
They accept any question containing correct information regardless of how it's phrased.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by gnash »

seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:18 pm
gnash wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pm
seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:27 pm
To be fair, both references to Scholl in the clue were possessive ("This doctor's original sandals" and "his molefoam padding").
I don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.

Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*

* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
They accept any question containing correct information regardless of how it's phrased.
But not if it has extra phonems, especially consonants. Would they accept Mathers for Mather or Parks for Park?

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 6816
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

gnash wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:21 pm
seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:18 pm
gnash wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pm
seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:27 pm
To be fair, both references to Scholl in the clue were possessive ("This doctor's original sandals" and "his molefoam padding").
I don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.

Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*

* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
They accept any question containing correct information regardless of how it's phrased.
But not if it has extra phonems, especially consonants. Would they accept Mathers for Mather or Parks for Park?
Ooh, good point. It seems like they offer more leeway if the person in question has an associated possessive brand name (I found an example of "Jack Daniel[']s" being accepted in response to a clue about the person—although again, the clue had "this Tennessee man's career" in it). I honestly can't imagine either "pluralized" name you mentioned being accepted (and I sometimes inwardly cringe when I know a correct response is susceptible to the same treatment, expecting someone to do it and get negged), even if the clue referred to them in the genitive case.

User avatar
MinnesotaMyron
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:53 pm

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by MinnesotaMyron »

seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:32 pm
gnash wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:21 pm
seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:18 pm
gnash wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pm
seaborgium wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:27 pm
To be fair, both references to Scholl in the clue were possessive ("This doctor's original sandals" and "his molefoam padding").
I don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.

Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*

* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
They accept any question containing correct information regardless of how it's phrased.
But not if it has extra phonems, especially consonants. Would they accept Mathers for Mather or Parks for Park?
Ooh, good point. It seems like they offer more leeway if the person in question has an associated possessive brand name (I found an example of "Jack Daniel[']s" being accepted in response to a clue about the person—although again, the clue had "this Tennessee man's career" in it). I honestly can't imagine either "pluralized" name you mentioned being accepted (and I sometimes inwardly cringe when I know a correct response is susceptible to the same treatment, expecting someone to do it and get negged), even if the clue referred to them in the genitive case.
Sally "Fields" appears twice in the Archive as a contestant response, both times negged.

User avatar
twelvefootboy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:18 pm
Location: Tornado Alley / Southwest Missouri

Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by twelvefootboy »

jeff6286 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:15 pm
slam wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:06 pm

I've been looking for ANY contestant to make a comment like that for a long, long time. My favorite would be if a contestant had $200 from getting the first clue of the game, hit the DD on the next clue and said, "I'd like to make this a daily sextuple, Alex".

The most extreme case (and there isn't a name for it, is if a contestant had $1 (because of hitting an earlier DD and wagering an unusual amount) and hit a DD. They could then increase their total by a factor of 200,000 (of course, there really isn't a word for that). I'm purposely ignoring if a contestant has $0 or a negative amount.
I’m thinking increasing one’s score from $1 to $2001 is only a factor of...2,001. Wouldn’t the score have to be one penny to actually multiple by 200,000? Someone please check my math to make sure I’m not off base.
Just reading old threads - you are correct that it is a "FACTOR" of 2000 (or 2001?). It also can be described as 200,000 PER CENT but that is just stupid nonsense like when they mention the weight of a building in pounds. The phrasing also must be parsed like the odds of a Roulette Table where a 6:1 payout is actually 5:1 (they count your original chip) (sorry if I've described this in error, it's not important to the point - phrasing counts).
Disclaimer - repeated exposure to author's musings may cause befuddlement.

Post Reply