DDs: (blank)
trash: Michener, Gouda, Saturn, Mariner, Callisto (6400)
FJ: What is Django Unchained? don't know where I pulled that from.
Dan is never gonna live down that bet...
Took a couple years, but it came up!
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
Took a couple years, but it came up!
I agree. I was kinda hoping Kelly would maximize his wager to 7595. That would have stung ten times as bad for Dan.MarkBarrett wrote:I understand why $1 is the favored play and why some others might go with the zero wager. In Kelly's place I would have gone 7500 since I liked the category and let chips fall where they may.
I don't know, but I do remember one game where every DD was in the 2nd row.WhatAreDogs wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:57 pm When's the last game with a top row DD in DJ, and no DDs below row 2?
Never saw either one and know nothing about the plots. I got Django from the “title character” bit.Robert K S wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:16 pm FJ! was basically "have you seen the movie or not". I suppose one could have gotten it without seeing the movie if one was paying attention during awards season and allowed oneself to connect "German" with "Christoph Waltz", who swept the big three supporting actor awards that year with the role, just as he had done three years before for another Tarantino film.
I'm pretty sure she just slurs the s in is into the D in Dan. Far more likely than that she thinks his name begins with a Z...
I've not seen them either, but I know that "twelve" isn't a surname - it is a first name! Why did the players and a few boardies even consider Twelve Years a Slave - is there something I don't understand about "Title" characters? I started with Wyatt Earp as a period movie thinking maybe he had a name change (who would pick "Urp"?). Once I thought about the likelihood it is only a first name in the title I came to the Django movie which seemed to slot into the TOM's nicely.Bamaman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:19 pmNever saw either one and know nothing about the plots. I got Django from the “title character” bit.Robert K S wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:16 pm FJ! was basically "have you seen the movie or not". I suppose one could have gotten it without seeing the movie if one was paying attention during awards season and allowed oneself to connect "German" with "Christoph Waltz", who swept the big three supporting actor awards that year with the role, just as he had done three years before for another Tarantino film.
"If Dan had had that extra $7600 that he left on the table"--Make that $3800.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pm Wow. EVERYTHING went right for Dan to win from his position. He needed Kelly to miss FJ AND to bet at least a dollar. Both things happened. He needed to get FJ right himself. That happened. All Dan needed to do was make a wager that would take advantage of that somewhat unlikely concatenation of events. Instead he made a wager that reduced his odds of winning from long-ish to essentially zero. Did he miscalculate and think Kelly had a runaway?
Kelly lucked out here. He shouldn't have bet that dollar, leaving Dan a clear path to victory with no tiebreaker necessary. But Dan's fortunate/unfortunate decision saved him from the consequences of that choice. Earlier, of course, Kelly made his own luck with that true DD, showing Dan what he should've done 7 clues earlier with his own DD. If Dan had had that extra $7600 that he left on the table, would he have made a better wager on FJ? I suspect he would have, but who knows? Poor guy. I bet he's been over this a thousand times in his mind. Maybe I'm wrong. But he seems like a guy who figured out what was up after it was too late to change his decisions. The game turned out to have been his to lose.
FJ was close to instaget for me but it seems not to have too much of a way in for those who don't pretty much know it. I happened to have seen the first 10 minutes or so a few years back and recalled the German dentist. 12 Years a Slave was the other obvious guess, given some but not enough knowledge, and the contestants did well to write something down on a clue where it could be difficult to come up with anything plausible. I guess that movie does have a title character, Solomon Northup, the slave in question. But it seems kind of generic.
Try reviewing some more IN THIS 2012 FILMdavey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:32 pm When I saw Dan's FJ response, my heart sank because I had only written the name. Then I reviewed the category and clue and saw that was what was required. (Maybe we can feel a little less bad for Dan's bad wager knowing that he didn't follow the clue strictly either?) It took me most of the :30 to remember the name and I forgot that there was more to the title...
This is a pretty massive overstatement. Knowing the movie exists from around this time period and it's about a slave, even if you don't know about the Christoph Waltz-played German character it's still quite gettable.Robert K S wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:16 pm FJ! was basically "have you seen the movie or not". I suppose one could have gotten it without seeing the movie if one was paying attention during awards season and allowed oneself to connect "German" with "Christoph Waltz", who swept the big three supporting actor awards that year with the role, just as he had done three years before for another Tarantino film.
I think it comes down to the category. For me? I'm putting a dollar down on that one. Statistically, if my opponent's getting a movie clue right, I am too, so I want to win out right rather than gamble on the tiebreaker.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pm...
Kelly lucked out here. He shouldn't have bet that dollar, leaving Dan a clear path to victory with no tiebreaker necessary.
...
$1 is a rational wager here. He is about 55% to win outright (leaders are favorites to get FJ correct).opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pm
Kelly lucked out here. He shouldn't have bet that dollar, leaving Dan a clear path to victory with no tiebreaker necessary.
Thanks, I guess... Always look for the this...Seems I wanted to read it another way...jeff6286 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:31 pmTry reviewing some more IN THIS 2012 FILMdavey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:32 pm When I saw Dan's FJ response, my heart sank because I had only written the name. Then I reviewed the category and clue and saw that was what was required. (Maybe we can feel a little less bad for Dan's bad wager knowing that he didn't follow the clue strictly either?) It took me most of the :30 to remember the name and I forgot that there was more to the title...
You're right, but also it should depend on your get rate for FJs. If you get 99% of FJs correct then you should bet $1.
Plug to a post I made: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5295&p=313084&hilit=rr#p313084danspartan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:46 pm$1 is a rational wager here. He is about 55% to win outright (leaders are favorites to get FJ correct).opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pm
Kelly lucked out here. He shouldn't have bet that dollar, leaving Dan a clear path to victory with no tiebreaker necessary.
Of the four 1st/2nd combinations
R=right W=wrong
If leader bets $1
RR wins
WW wins
RW wins
WR loses
If leader bets $0
RR ties- 50% buzzer race
WW wins
RW wins
WR ties- 50% buzzer race
So if all possibilities were equal it’s a tie. 3/4 net wins.
However RR happens more frequently than WR.
So he is giving up half of ~33% (-16.5) and gaining half of about 18% (+10) for a net of -6.5% for wagering $0 vs $1.
Now if our leader thinks that 2nd is more likely to get FJ correct, then the math flips. But on average, leaders get more correct than trailing players.
Spoiler
(I am using leader is 55% to be correct and 2nd is 60/40 to correlate with 1st.)
RR=.55 x .6=33%
RW=.55 x .4=22%
WW=.45 x .6=27%
WR= .45 x .4 =18%
I feel like the person who has exactly double the other player's score going in to Final has a slightly better than 50% chance to win a buzzer race, almost by definition.danspartan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:46 pm$1 is a rational wager here. He is about 55% to win outright (leaders are favorites to get FJ correct).opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pm
Kelly lucked out here. He shouldn't have bet that dollar, leaving Dan a clear path to victory with no tiebreaker necessary.
Of the four 1st/2nd combinations
R=right W=wrong
If leader bets $1
RR wins
WW wins
RW wins
WR loses
If leader bets $0
RR ties- 50% buzzer race
WW wins
RW wins
WR ties- 50% buzzer race
So if all possibilities were equal it’s a tie. 3/4 net wins.
However RR happens more frequently than WR.
So he is giving up half of ~33% (-16.5) and gaining half of about 18% (+10) for a net of -6.5% for wagering $0 vs $1.
Now if our leader thinks that 2nd is more likely to get FJ correct, then the math flips. But on average, leaders get more correct than trailing players.
Spoiler
(I am using leader is 55% to be correct and 2nd is 60/40 to correlate with 1st.)
RR=.55 x .6=33%
RW=.55 x .4=22%
WW=.45 x .6=27%
WR= .45 x .4 =18%
Another complicating factor. Depends on if the lead was built due to big DD wager. Would need a pretty strong feel about relative buzzer speed to factor this in, but on average I agree it’s a factor that should negate some of the advantage if we win say 55% of ties.
Absolutely. Anything to do with Movies is a weak category for me, so I would've bet the 0 and taken my chances with the tiebreaker. As it was, they served up one that even I could get.jeff6286 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:31 pm
This is a pretty massive overstatement. Knowing the movie exists from around this time period and it's about a slave, even if you don't know about the Christoph Waltz-played German character it's still quite gettable.Robert K S wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:16 pm FJ! was basically "have you seen the movie or not". I suppose one could have gotten it without seeing the movie if one was paying attention during awards season and allowed oneself to connect "German" with "Christoph Waltz", who swept the big three supporting actor awards that year with the role, just as he had done three years before for another Tarantino film.