It's OK to be wrong once in a blue moon you know.
Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- This Is Kirk!
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 6578
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.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").
Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*
* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:12 pmDefinitely! 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?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,
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:09 pm
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
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.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:23 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
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.
Nate wasn't crushed. He had the 3/4 or more advantage.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:22 pm
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
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.
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8965
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
They accept any question containing correct information regardless of how it's phrased.gnash wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pmI don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.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").
Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*
* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
But not if it has extra phonems, especially consonants. Would they accept Mathers for Mather or Parks for Park?seaborgium wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:18 pmThey accept any question containing correct information regardless of how it's phrased.gnash wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pmI don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.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").
Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*
* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8965
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
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.gnash wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:21 pmBut not if it has extra phonems, especially consonants. Would they accept Mathers for Mather or Parks for Park?seaborgium wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:18 pmThey accept any question containing correct information regardless of how it's phrased.gnash wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pmI don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.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").
Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*
* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
- MinnesotaMyron
- JBOARDIE OF THE MONTH!
- Posts: 3461
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Sally "Fields" appears twice in the Archive as a contestant response, both times negged.seaborgium wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:32 pmOoh, 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.gnash wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:21 pmBut not if it has extra phonems, especially consonants. Would they accept Mathers for Mather or Parks for Park?seaborgium wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:18 pmThey accept any question containing correct information regardless of how it's phrased.gnash wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pmI don't see how that matters. The response starts "Who is..." and there's no way to fit a possessive there.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").
Dr. Scholes is a pretty famous person too. Got a Nobel.*
* Yeah, I know, it's "not really a Nobel". Whatever.
- twelvefootboy
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:18 pm
- Location: Tornado Alley / Southwest Missouri
Re: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
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).jeff6286 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:15 pmI’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.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.
Disclaimer - repeated exposure to author's musings may cause befuddlement.