Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- LucarioSnooperVixey
- Carrying Letters and Lemons
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:41 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
58 R (Missed Disastrous Teams $600 and Bruce Willis Movie Quotes $1600.)
DD: 3/3
FJ:
TB:
LT: John Quincy Adams, Conchologist, Pillars of the Earth, U-2, Spoiler Alert, 12 Monkeys
DD: 3/3
FJ:
TB:
LT: John Quincy Adams, Conchologist, Pillars of the Earth, U-2, Spoiler Alert, 12 Monkeys
Douglas Squasoni
- floridagator
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:39 am
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
That handle doesn't have anything to do with Jeopardy. There's a Czech jazz musician named Forthetie.
I'd rather cuddle then have sex. If you're into grammar, you'll understand.
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10319
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
What explosion? Who are these "too many" who offered ties? I don't think contestant behavior changed at all after Arthur Chu. If it did, the change was very slight.mjhunt wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:34 am Though, of course, that is precisely why the original rule worked for thirty years. It did not diminish the competitiveness of games or cause logistics problems as long as people generally did not aim for ties. And when too many did, well, everything changed.
Again, I don’t want every game to end in a tie. I just wish tie explosion of 2014 had not happened and that Jeopardy! could work the way it did for thirty years, with co-champions an occasional natural thing.
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8941
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
We've been over this before—I recall having a "sense" that it was happening more often leading up to the rule change in 2014, but not being willing to do the tedious data work (for me; the best I could do was go one game at a time through J! Archive) to determine whether that sense was anything more than confirmation bias. But Vermonter (Keith Williams himself) did the work in another thread (at least for the post-Jennings era):opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:55 amWhat explosion? Who are these "too many" who offered ties? I don't think contestant behavior changed at all after Arthur Chu. If it did, the change was very slight.mjhunt wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:34 am Though, of course, that is precisely why the original rule worked for thirty years. It did not diminish the competitiveness of games or cause logistics problems as long as people generally did not aim for ties. And when too many did, well, everything changed.
Again, I don’t want every game to end in a tie. I just wish tie explosion of 2014 had not happened and that Jeopardy! could work the way it did for thirty years, with co-champions an occasional natural thing.
("∆ games" is the number of regular games since the last tie offer. This includes games with a tie for the lead where one or both players bet everything, and lock-tie games where the leader bet nothing.)Vermonter wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:27 am Here you go – Game AKJ #1 is Nancy Zerg's first win
Code: Select all
Game AKJ Date ∆ games Player B all-in? Tie? 40 1/24/05 Ted Stratton 47 6/2/05 7 tie one 125 11/29/05 78 tie one 144 12/26/05 19 Peter Rubin 168 1/27/06 24 Paul Canty 286 9/20/06 118 tie both yes 332 12/14/06 46 Cory Hartman 388 3/16/07 56 Scott Weiss yes 3-way 405 4/10/07 17 David Haglund 486 10/17/07 81 Linda Zell Randall yes yes 528 12/28/07 42 tie both yes 529 12/31/07 1 Dan Pawson 536 1/9/08 7 Dan Pawson yes 543 1/18/08 7 Susan Forman 562 2/28/08 19 Gwynne Ash yes yes 598 4/18/08 36 Gabriel Schechter yes 609 5/19/08 11 Mary Kay Schmidt 619 6/2/08 10 Chris Vestuto 647 7/10/08 28 tie both yes 661 9/10/08 14 Laura Novak yes 665 9/23/08 4 Elza Reeves yes 730 1/6/09 65 Ranjan Ramchandani yes yes 745 1/27/09 15 Andy Walvoord 764 2/23/09 19 Kenneth Burns 834 6/30/09 70 Nina Ginocchio 849 9/15/09 15 Enrique Machado 887 11/25/09 38 Robert Bethune 907 12/24/09 20 Stephen Weingarten 938 2/23/10 31 Tom Toce 939 2/24/10 1 Tom Toce 953 3/16/10 14 Amanda Baber 1059 10/25/10 106 Pam Jones-Pigott 1063 10/29/10 4 Marie Braden 1079 12/6/10 16 Christina Barley 1122 2/3/11 43 Fred Cofone yes 1153 4/6/11 31 Christopher Short 1243 10/19/11 90 Liz Greenwood 1249 10/27/11 6 Sunny Stalter 1274 12/15/11 25 tie both 1287 1/3/12 13 Nicholas Campiz yes yes 1325 3/23/12 38 Dennis Wright 1365 6/8/12 40 Aaron Cappocchi 1369 6/14/12 4 Kathy Wright 1385 7/6/12 16 tie one 1436 11/5/12 51 Paul Nelson 1437 11/6/12 1 Paul Nelson 1476 1/14/13 39 Kristin Morgan yes yes 1492 3/5/13 16 Dylan Wint 1502 3/19/13 10 Lauren Girard 1523 4/17/13 21 Michelle Martin 1540 5/24/13 17 Mike Lewis 1549 6/6/13 9 Greg Draves 1568 7/3/13 19 Hunter Sandison yes 1612 10/22/13 44 Bill Tolany 1672 1/28/14 60 Arthur Chu 1673 1/29/14 1 Arthur Chu yes yes 1675 1/31/14 2 Arthur Chu 1680 2/28/14 5 Arthur Chu 1705 4/18/14 25 E.A. Srere 1741 6/23/14 36 James Friscia yes 1752 7/8/14 11 Campbell Warner 1753 7/9/14 1 Campbell Warner yes 1754 7/10/14 1 Campbell Warner 1755 7/11/14 1 Andrew Harris yes 1757 7/15/14 2 Ed Patterson 1761 9/15/14 4 Elizabeth Williams 1770 9/26/14 9 Alan Lange yes yes 1774 10/2/14 4 Shawn Choe yes 1775 10/3/14 1 Shawn Choe 1781 10/13/14 6 Dan Tran yes 1783 10/15/14 2 John Campbell yes 1790 10/24/14 7 Matthew LaMagna 1792 10/28/14 2 Bill Albertini yes yes 1801 11/24/14 8 ties eliminated
From late 2004 to the middle of 2014, the longest run of tie offers coming less than two weeks after the last (i.e., having single-digit "∆ games" numbers, as 10 games is exactly two weeks) is 3: after Dan Pawson and Heather Doyle tied (each betting everything from a tied lead), Dan offered her a tie the next game, and then offered a tie in his losing game, and two Fridays later Susan Forman offered a tie in her losing game; then Arthur Chu offered four ties during his run. Then, starting in July at the end of season 30 with Campbell Warner's run, and going to the end when the tiebreaker rule was instituted, there were 13 similarly spaced tie offers.
Or another way of putting it: in the last 50 games that ties were possible, there were 13 tie offers, and in the 1,750 games before that, 60.
Last edited by seaborgium on Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10319
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
He's missing the tie game on 10/30/14.seaborgium wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 amSpoiler
Vermonter wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:27 am Here you go – Game AKJ #1 is Nancy Zerg's first win
Code: Select all
Game AKJ Date ∆ games Player B all-in? Tie? 40 1/24/05 Ted Stratton 47 6/2/05 7 tie one 125 11/29/05 78 tie one 144 12/26/05 19 Peter Rubin 168 1/27/06 24 Paul Canty 286 9/20/06 118 tie both yes 332 12/14/06 46 Cory Hartman 388 3/16/07 56 Scott Weiss yes 3-way 405 4/10/07 17 David Haglund 486 10/17/07 81 Linda Zell Randall yes yes 528 12/28/07 42 tie both yes 529 12/31/07 1 Dan Pawson 536 1/9/08 7 Dan Pawson yes 543 1/18/08 7 Susan Forman 562 2/28/08 19 Gwynne Ash yes yes 598 4/18/08 36 Gabriel Schechter yes 609 5/19/08 11 Mary Kay Schmidt 619 6/2/08 10 Chris Vestuto 647 7/10/08 28 tie both yes 661 9/10/08 14 Laura Novak yes 665 9/23/08 4 Elza Reeves yes 730 1/6/09 65 Ranjan Ramchandani yes yes 745 1/27/09 15 Andy Walvoord 764 2/23/09 19 Kenneth Burns 834 6/30/09 70 Nina Ginocchio 849 9/15/09 15 Enrique Machado 887 11/25/09 38 Robert Bethune 907 12/24/09 20 Stephen Weingarten 938 2/23/10 31 Tom Toce 939 2/24/10 1 Tom Toce 953 3/16/10 14 Amanda Baber 1059 10/25/10 106 Pam Jones-Pigott 1063 10/29/10 4 Marie Braden 1079 12/6/10 16 Christina Barley 1122 2/3/11 43 Fred Cofone yes 1153 4/6/11 31 Christopher Short 1243 10/19/11 90 Liz Greenwood 1249 10/27/11 6 Sunny Stalter 1274 12/15/11 25 tie both 1287 1/3/12 13 Nicholas Campiz yes yes 1325 3/23/12 38 Dennis Wright 1365 6/8/12 40 Aaron Cappocchi 1369 6/14/12 4 Kathy Wright 1385 7/6/12 16 tie one 1436 11/5/12 51 Paul Nelson 1437 11/6/12 1 Paul Nelson 1476 1/14/13 39 Kristin Morgan yes yes 1492 3/5/13 16 Dylan Wint 1502 3/19/13 10 Lauren Girard 1523 4/17/13 21 Michelle Martin 1540 5/24/13 17 Mike Lewis 1549 6/6/13 9 Greg Draves 1568 7/3/13 19 Hunter Sandison yes 1612 10/22/13 44 Bill Tolany 1672 1/28/14 60 Arthur Chu 1673 1/29/14 1 Arthur Chu yes yes 1675 1/31/14 2 Arthur Chu 1680 2/28/14 5 Arthur Chu 1705 4/18/14 25 E.A. Srere 1741 6/23/14 36 James Friscia yes 1752 7/8/14 11 Campbell Warner 1753 7/9/14 1 Campbell Warner yes 1754 7/10/14 1 Campbell Warner 1755 7/11/14 1 Andrew Harris yes 1757 7/15/14 2 Ed Patterson 1761 9/15/14 4 Elizabeth Williams 1770 9/26/14 9 Alan Lange yes yes 1774 10/2/14 4 Shawn Choe yes 1775 10/3/14 1 Shawn Choe 1781 10/13/14 6 Dan Tran yes 1783 10/15/14 2 John Campbell yes 1790 10/24/14 7 Matthew LaMagna 1792 10/28/14 2 Bill Albertini yes yes 1801 11/24/14 8 ties eliminated
Thanks for that. Those offers resulted in 4 tie games in 117 games in the post-Chu pre-tiebreaker era. Seems like an acceptable level to me. Of course, it's possible that this trend would have continued upward if left unchecked. But my feeling is they stepped in too soon rather than waiting to see if the "problem" ramped up or died down. On the other hand, maybe they felt the level of 4 in 117 was already too high.seaborgium wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 am Or another way of putting it: in the last 50 games that ties were possible, there were 13 tie offers, and in the 1,750 games before that, 60.
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8941
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
That didn't involve a tie offer from the leader; she oddly bet $200 less than the tie offer, and Ryan bet $10,000 of his $10,200. (I'd say "oddly" about that wager too, but I've watched enough J! to know that second place rounding their score down to a nearby thousand for their FJ wager, while arbitrary, is not an odd occurrence!)
It's a little funny to me that although J! canceled ties during a spate of tie offers, the last tie game before that didn't involve one.
- jeff6286
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
- Location: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I'm confused about why games would be included where the leaders are tied, as that's really a totally different thing than what we're talking about. And also I can't see any indication in that list of how many of those games might be cases of tied leaders.
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8941
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
The "Player" column says who had the lead; ties are indicated by "tie." My guess is Keith just did an automated search for games where a player's score plus FJ wager equaled the score of another player who wasn't in last place.
- jeff6286
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
- Location: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Oh yeah I guess I glanced through the info too quickly, was looking for perhaps two lines for the same game and totally overlooked the "tie" entries. So only 3 times in 10 years were two players tied, both bet it all, got it right and remained tied, I would have thought it was a lot more common than that!seaborgium wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:19 amThe "Player" column says who had the lead; ties are indicated by "tie." My guess is Keith just did an automated search for games where a player's score plus FJ wager equaled the score of another player who wasn't in last place.
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:49 pm
- Location: Omaha, NE
- Contact:
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
As is the case with most things these days, watching this match made me irrationally angry — both with the tiebreaker’s existence and with it being as much of a giveaway as it was. They really should have a harder clue than something that could conceivably be a $600 J! round clue IMO.
Went 3/3 on the DDs for the first time in a while though, which was nice
Went 3/3 on the DDs for the first time in a while though, which was nice
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Well, I am very sure it never would have been the case that everybody offered a tie. After all, if nothing else, there’s Christina McTighe, Jonathan Marcus, Kelly Griffin, Dan Feitel, Mary Ann Borer, etc.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:57 amHe's missing the tie game on 10/30/14.seaborgium wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 amSpoiler
Vermonter wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:27 am Here you go – Game AKJ #1 is Nancy Zerg's first win
Code: Select all
Game AKJ Date ∆ games Player B all-in? Tie? 40 1/24/05 Ted Stratton 47 6/2/05 7 tie one 125 11/29/05 78 tie one 144 12/26/05 19 Peter Rubin 168 1/27/06 24 Paul Canty 286 9/20/06 118 tie both yes 332 12/14/06 46 Cory Hartman 388 3/16/07 56 Scott Weiss yes 3-way 405 4/10/07 17 David Haglund 486 10/17/07 81 Linda Zell Randall yes yes 528 12/28/07 42 tie both yes 529 12/31/07 1 Dan Pawson 536 1/9/08 7 Dan Pawson yes 543 1/18/08 7 Susan Forman 562 2/28/08 19 Gwynne Ash yes yes 598 4/18/08 36 Gabriel Schechter yes 609 5/19/08 11 Mary Kay Schmidt 619 6/2/08 10 Chris Vestuto 647 7/10/08 28 tie both yes 661 9/10/08 14 Laura Novak yes 665 9/23/08 4 Elza Reeves yes 730 1/6/09 65 Ranjan Ramchandani yes yes 745 1/27/09 15 Andy Walvoord 764 2/23/09 19 Kenneth Burns 834 6/30/09 70 Nina Ginocchio 849 9/15/09 15 Enrique Machado 887 11/25/09 38 Robert Bethune 907 12/24/09 20 Stephen Weingarten 938 2/23/10 31 Tom Toce 939 2/24/10 1 Tom Toce 953 3/16/10 14 Amanda Baber 1059 10/25/10 106 Pam Jones-Pigott 1063 10/29/10 4 Marie Braden 1079 12/6/10 16 Christina Barley 1122 2/3/11 43 Fred Cofone yes 1153 4/6/11 31 Christopher Short 1243 10/19/11 90 Liz Greenwood 1249 10/27/11 6 Sunny Stalter 1274 12/15/11 25 tie both 1287 1/3/12 13 Nicholas Campiz yes yes 1325 3/23/12 38 Dennis Wright 1365 6/8/12 40 Aaron Cappocchi 1369 6/14/12 4 Kathy Wright 1385 7/6/12 16 tie one 1436 11/5/12 51 Paul Nelson 1437 11/6/12 1 Paul Nelson 1476 1/14/13 39 Kristin Morgan yes yes 1492 3/5/13 16 Dylan Wint 1502 3/19/13 10 Lauren Girard 1523 4/17/13 21 Michelle Martin 1540 5/24/13 17 Mike Lewis 1549 6/6/13 9 Greg Draves 1568 7/3/13 19 Hunter Sandison yes 1612 10/22/13 44 Bill Tolany 1672 1/28/14 60 Arthur Chu 1673 1/29/14 1 Arthur Chu yes yes 1675 1/31/14 2 Arthur Chu 1680 2/28/14 5 Arthur Chu 1705 4/18/14 25 E.A. Srere 1741 6/23/14 36 James Friscia yes 1752 7/8/14 11 Campbell Warner 1753 7/9/14 1 Campbell Warner yes 1754 7/10/14 1 Campbell Warner 1755 7/11/14 1 Andrew Harris yes 1757 7/15/14 2 Ed Patterson 1761 9/15/14 4 Elizabeth Williams 1770 9/26/14 9 Alan Lange yes yes 1774 10/2/14 4 Shawn Choe yes 1775 10/3/14 1 Shawn Choe 1781 10/13/14 6 Dan Tran yes 1783 10/15/14 2 John Campbell yes 1790 10/24/14 7 Matthew LaMagna 1792 10/28/14 2 Bill Albertini yes yes 1801 11/24/14 8 ties eliminated
Thanks for that. Those offers resulted in 4 tie games in 117 games in the post-Chu pre-tiebreaker era. Seems like an acceptable level to me. Of course, it's possible that this trend would have continued upward if left unchecked. But my feeling is they stepped in too soon rather than waiting to see if the "problem" ramped up or died down. On the other hand, maybe they felt the level of 4 in 117 was already too high.seaborgium wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 am Or another way of putting it: in the last 50 games that ties were possible, there were 13 tie offers, and in the 1,750 games before that, 60.
And, of course, nobody can forget Molly Rosenbusch, who came well before the tiebreaker.
I have to add a not-so-famous example that I really thought was funny: In the game below, the scores were 11,200-9,000-9,000 and Mary Mitchell took quite the opposite approach from Scott Weiss. Presumably, she assumed her opponents would both bet it all, so she figured the $200 she left (she may have found that less embarrassing than winning with $1), would be enough to win a triple stumper. And, she must have felt pretty confident about the category, so she figured she would win an extra $4,200.
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3627
Well, it didn’t work, but Robin wagered such that Mary’s overwager ended up not costing her anything.
And, there are many others who would bet extra from a crush position (the safest circumstance to do so), as Zach Newkirk did in his second game.
And, there would surely still be plenty who round up to the next thousand, bet the second place amount, etc.
And, I have to believe would those who are facing a very strong champion would realize the specious nature of Chu/Williams arguments compared to the actual reality of needing to dispose of competition they have little hope of leading again.
I don’t know what the acceptable level is. But, what I am trying to show with these diverse examples is that I really think there is a limit to how much higher it could have gone.
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:45 am
Re: Friday, January 22, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Very interesting. I had to read "too much thinking" a few times. I don't know if I understand it all yet.seaborgium wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:12 amI've never been in contact with Emily since our game, so I can only guess, but I've thought about it a lot.too much thinking
First, I think she was just given to low wagering (she hit all three DDs and bet $600, $1,000, and $1,600 on them), but also she may have recognized that I was in a situation for FJ where $0 was a viable wager. My guess is she was inclined, both by nature and by my circumstances, to bet less than her $1,600 lead over me, but she had just seen me bet five figures on FJ in the previous game, so for all she knew, I was a loose cannon. But she also couldn't bring herself to make the $14,801 cover wager (or $14,800, for that matter), and chose to compromise in the middle, indeed with $7,000. A nice $25,000 if she's right, still in five digits if she's wrong.
John, for his part, thought I would go crazy again in FJ (we talked on the walk back to the parking lot, so this is actually confirmed), and specifically bet to stay ahead of Emily if she covered me and they both missed. (He had $8,200 and bet $5,000, falling to $3,200; Emily would have fallen to $3,199 if she had bet $14,801.) Here's an interesting bit: J! Archive's wagering calculator's recommendation in a four-fifths game (and $16,400 is well within four fifths of $18,000) is for second place to bet double their deficit plus $1 (just as wagering your deficit plus $1 covers the leader wagering $0, wagering $1 above double your deficit covers the leader wagering their leading margin), and it just so happens that when third has half of second's score in a four-fifths game (although the WC deviates from its four-fifths recommendation in that case), the "stay ahead of covering leader if both wrong" wager for third place is also a "catch up to double-deficit-wagering second place if he's wrong and I'm right" wager; i.e. if I had wagered $3,200 (no +$1 because of sitting on a break point) expecting Emily not to score more than $19,200, and missed, and John had gotten FJ right, we would have tied at $13,200.
Now, back to the "spare your opponents regret" subject, while $0 was fine and it worked out, I wish I had bet $3,200, not only because the math would have been interesting, but also because if Emily did indeed push past an inclination to bet small, my passing her pre-FJ score would prevent her from regretting that decision. I'd rather she only regret getting FJ wrong than that and her wager.
One more thing: I mentioned she might have been influenced by my big wager in the previous game. Now, if I had bet small in the previous game, she might have bet small and won. And yet, because I lost $20,065 on the previous FJ and won $16,400 in my fifth game, it would have been worth a few thousand dollars more to me if I'd bet small in game 4 and lost game 5. But I decided in reflecting on this that $3,000 or so of winnings is far outweighed by being able to call myself a 5-time champion.
I want to say Emily bet too little of daily doubles. But, then again, she got one wrong and very few players would have bet as much as she would have needed to lock the game anyway.
Of course, if she could managed to get to $24,600, that would have brought an especially interesting three-way tie possibility. But, it seems likely would have bet less than $8,200.
All this shows why the show is so interesting. Wagering is not always just about raw math. Trying to read a stranger is just as much a part of it, and that can never come close to being an exact science.