Tuesday, July 3, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion [SPOILERS]

[opusthepenguin]

Tough neg IMHO for the elf clue. Seems to me with the category that an answer of just "shelf" would have worked.

Interesting edge case here. What if the clue had specified "THE ELF ON THIS". Would "a shelf" have been acceptable because the article has now become a leading word? What if a clue asked for "ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THIS"? I tend toward thinking "a shelf" should be acceptable. But I can't work my way around to accepting "a spotless mind." My own inconsistency I suppose since the cases seem formally identical.

[Elijah Baley]

I thought this was a fairly tough FJ. Peace Palace led me to the Netherlands, but the clue implied that the internment site was also famous - which pointed more to Poland. So, that left me wondering if there was some famous peace palace in Poland that I didn't know about, or a famous internment camp in the Netherlands. Netherlands won the coin toss because I'm assuming that there were internment camps in all occupied countries.

And, not to pick on Jim because I thought this was tough, but I suspect his friends were saying, "Switzerland?!?" to him. Because of all the possible European countries to choose from, the unoccupied ones should have been the first ones eliminated from consideration.

[alietr]

Jim's CMU/Carnegie Tech Tartan bow tie was an inheritance from Dad (Tech class of '49.) Dad was one of those boys who was high school '39; colleg '49. WWII in between! Thanks again, Dad & Jimmy.

Crud. I didn't even notice that. -- Andy (IA (now Tepper) '82)

[jeff6286]

Suzanne Koppelman: 14400-4001=10399 (2x = $34,800)
Jim McGinnis: 18400-10401=7999
Dave Baltmanis: 10200-1993=8207


The suggested J-Archive "rational" wagers:
Suzanne bets 6001-6400 (cover Dave's double-up while beating Jim if he misses)
Jim bets 10401 to cover Suzanne's double-up
Dave bets 2200 and hopes Jim bets rationally and misses

Curious about this, and if anyone wants to point Robert KS at the post, he may want to take a look at it, as the calculator seems clearly wrong in this scenario, recommending 3rd bet 2200 to drop to 8000, staying ahead of first on a cover bet and miss, while 3rd should instead bet no more than 1800, staying ahead of both 1st and 2nd if they bet to cover and miss. Anyone see something obvoius I'm missing here?

[VAdame]

I thought this was a fairly tough FJ. Peace Palace led me to the Netherlands, but the clue implied that the internment site was also famous - which pointed more to Poland. So, that left me wondering if there was some famous peace palace in Poland that I didn't know about, or a famous internment camp in the Netherlands. Netherlands won the coin toss because I'm assuming that there were internment camps in all occupied countries.

Westerbork is the heritage site/camp. It was an internment and transport (deportation) camp.

I was leaning toward Poland and trying to remember what country Theresienstadt/Terezin is in (it's the Czech Republic/former Czechoslovakia.) I wondered if the so-called "Paradise Ghetto" that the Nazis showed off to the Red Cross had been made into a heritage site!

It's been a long time since I read War and Remembrance but I've never forgotten it.

[CasketRomance]

Poland for me.

same

[CasketRomance]

Ugh...the common trend of Season 34 continues. Poor wagering...AND IT HAPPENS NEAR THE END OF THE SEASON!

It seems that most of the women in the 2nd half of season 34 fall prey to poor betting, and this game definitely showed.

Suzanne didn't even bother trying to cover Dave and picked to cover Jim instead. This has been such a pet peeve I get frustrated over, second-guess betting. If Dave did get FJ! right and doubled, Suzanne would have lost! Though, Jim's questionable DD he picked up didn't quite do himself any justice. If he probably bet maybe $4,000 instead of $3,000, then MAYBE he could have won.

But...jeez...every stormtrooper in the Star Wars series would upload a crowd of facepalms in shame for being in part of working with Darth Vader than seeing a Jeopardy! episode where poor wagering on FJ! becomes a big issue.

By the time season 34 ends and season 35 starts, this better not continue to be a hiccup.

It's called Stratton's Dilemma, and what to do in Stratton's Dilemma is not universally agreed upon.

Even so, you need to be significantly more respectful in your comments.

who is stratton? silver spoon's character or crappy san francisco giants pitcher?

[CasketRomance]

Ugh...the common trend of Season 34 continues. Poor wagering...AND IT HAPPENS NEAR THE END OF THE SEASON!
...
This has been such a pet peeve I get frustrated over, second-guess betting. If Dave did get FJ! right and doubled, Suzanne would have lost!
...
every stormtrooper in the Star Wars series would upload a crowd of facepalms in shame for being in part of working with Darth Vader than seeing a Jeopardy! episode where poor wagering on FJ! becomes a big issue

Remind me which episodes you were on? The episode(s) where you had zero trouble with what most agree is BY FAR the most challenging/stressful moment of the entire contestant experience?

Of course I agree that some wagers are upsetting when they turn a favorite contestant into a former contestant, but for this friendly forum I suggest that you're laying it on way too thick. (vent your spleen to your dog, that's what I do!

Not to mention the fact that in this particular game, I think you're overstating how bad the wagering might have been.

Spoiler

Suzanne Koppelman: 14400-4001=10399 (2x = $34,800)
Jim McGinnis: 18400-10401=7999
Dave Baltmanis: 10200-1993=8207

Spoiler

Suzanne bets 6001-6400 (cover Dave's double-up while beating Jim if he misses)
Jim bets 10401 to cover Suzanne's double-up
Dave bets 2200 and hopes Jim bets rationally and misses

I am lucky enough to have been on that stage, and I vividly recall the stress of 5-digit arithmetic plus the pressure to finish (albeit no ticking clock) plus game theory thinking plus is-that-tough-category-name-actually-hiding-a-gimme. In taping seven games, I can tell you that the ONLY time my hands were shaking was while I was holding that Sharpie and quadruple-checking my math/logic!

If I were Suzanne, I'd be extremely happy with that wager. Imperfect but victorious! (and in the what if world where Dave bet it all AND Dave got it right - good on him, he earned it!)

people actually have favourite contestants? has been a long while since i actually gave a crap about any contestants on the show...austin rogers probably the last time

[CasketRomance]

Started with Poland and ended in France.

I went 3/5 in Alabama. I missed Channing Tatum and the Orange Black person.

Suzanne really needs to pay attention to the categories!!!

I liked Jim, sorry to see him lose.

got tatum because last week i learned he was from alabama when pennsyltucky news outlets made a big deal about him signing vodka bottles in a podunk pennsylvania town called hummelstown

[Golf]

Remind me which episodes you were on? The episode(s) where you had zero trouble with what most agree is BY FAR the most challenging/stressful moment of the entire contestant experience?

I am lucky enough to have been on that stage, and I vividly recall the stress of 5-digit arithmetic plus the pressure to finish (albeit no ticking clock) plus game theory thinking plus is-that-tough-category-name-actually-hiding-a-gimme. In taping seven games, I can tell you that the ONLY time my hands were shaking was while I was holding that Sharpie and quadruple-checking my math/logic!

The reason it's challenging or stressful is because most contestants don't have a clue regarding optimal wagering theory. Or course you're nervous when you have no idea what you're doing.

I would hypothesize you were nervous doing the actual arithmetic, not the logic behind it. There is a big difference.

[CasketRomance]

Chalk up another Poland here. I waffled between Austria/Czech a little, kind of forgetting the clue was pinned to WWII so I could cover the Soviet occupations. But, I settled on Poland so I wouldn't make the "don't go with the obvious" mistake. But really, Switzerland? And wtf is a "peace palace"? Sounds like a hippie hash house .

Tough neg IMHO for the elf clue. Seems to me with the category that an answer of just "shelf" would have worked. Trademark or not, giving TMI and missing an article shouldn't cost you unless there is also an "elf on a shelf" product.

believe he also added "the" at the beginning

[CasketRomance]

Remind me which episodes you were on? The episode(s) where you had zero trouble with what most agree is BY FAR the most challenging/stressful moment of the entire contestant experience?

I am lucky enough to have been on that stage, and I vividly recall the stress of 5-digit arithmetic plus the pressure to finish (albeit no ticking clock) plus game theory thinking plus is-that-tough-category-name-actually-hiding-a-gimme. In taping seven games, I can tell you that the ONLY time my hands were shaking was while I was holding that Sharpie and quadruple-checking my math/logic!

The reason it's challenging or stressful is because most contestants don't have a clue regarding optimal wagering theory. Or course you're nervous when you have no idea what you're doing.

I would hypothesize you were nervous doing the actual arithmetic, not the logic behind it. There is a big difference.

yeah you can't chalk it up to nerves with such a large sample size...can't tell me that all of those contestants that used crappy wagering strategies suffered from anxiety to make them come up with such bad wagers

[AndyTheQuizzer]

yeah you can't chalk it up to nerves with such a large sample size...can't tell me that all of those contestants that used crappy wagering strategies suffered from anxiety to make them come up with such bad wagers

http://www.j-archive.com/search.php?sea ... mit=Search

Do we need to add your JBoard username to your Archive profile?'

Also, your posts in this thread have also been decidedly less than respectful. Be better.

[Linear Gnome]

Remind me which episodes you were on? The episode(s) where you had zero trouble with what most agree is BY FAR the most challenging/stressful moment of the entire contestant experience?

I am lucky enough to have been on that stage, and I vividly recall the stress of 5-digit arithmetic plus the pressure to finish (albeit no ticking clock) plus game theory thinking plus is-that-tough-category-name-actually-hiding-a-gimme. In taping seven games, I can tell you that the ONLY time my hands were shaking was while I was holding that Sharpie and quadruple-checking my math/logic!

The reason it's challenging or stressful is because most contestants don't have a clue regarding optimal wagering theory. Or course you're nervous when you have no idea what you're doing.

I would hypothesize you were nervous doing the actual arithmetic, not the logic behind it. There is a big difference.

yeah you can't chalk it up to nerves with such a large sample size...can't tell me that all of those contestants that used crappy wagering strategies suffered from anxiety to make them come up with such bad wagers

I am female and have a Ph.D. in mathematics. I feel as if I need to state my credentials to make my point.

When I studied wagering before my taping, trying to keep all of the scenarios straight just about made my head spin. For wagering from second, I decided that I could do the following "under the lights", and it would cater to a large variety of situations: If I had less than 2/3 of leader's score, might as well bet it all since I need to get it right and leader to get it wrong. If I had 2/3 or more of leader's score, 3 times my score minus 2 times leader's score would be the most I could wager to stay above wherever leader would end up with a bet to cover me and an incorrect response. I would wager that, or a smaller amount if that would keep me over double third's score. (This was when tie winners both came back--the rule change would make me subtract a dollar from the wager.)

So I was second after DJ! (16200, 11800, 8500). I duly wagered 3(11800)-2(16200) = 3000. Unfortunately, leader missed, third and I both were correct, and third bet big. I spent the cab ride to the hotel wondering what the heck I had done to myself. The first thing I did was go the the Wagering Calculator and (re)discover the term Stratton's Dilemma. Interestingly, on 1-21-05 Ted Stratton went "small" and could have lost the same way I did, but third bet small. Wagering from second and third is complicated by the fact that you don't know what your opponents are going to do--even first place players occasionally make funky wagers. In my case, I absolutely could not cater to both a triple stumper and the scenario that happened. This was hashed out in my game thread.

So, it's more than five years later and, if I had it to do over again, the only thing I would do differently is wager $2999 instead of $3000. Are there a bunch of people out there who still think I'm a girl who arbitrarily picked a nice round wager? You betcha. That's OK. I apologize for the length of this. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, and I don't expect anyone to care what opinion I have about them.

[xxaaaxx]

I am female and have a Ph.D. in mathematics. I feel as if I need to state my credentials to make my point.

When I studied wagering before my taping, trying to keep all of the scenarios straight just about made my head spin. For wagering from second, I decided that I could do the following "under the lights", and it would cater to a large variety of situations: If I had less than 2/3 of leader's score, might as well bet it all since I need to get it right and leader to get it wrong. If I had 2/3 or more of leader's score, 3 times my score minus 2 times leader's score would be the most I could wager to stay above wherever leader would end up with a bet to cover me and an incorrect response. I would wager that, or a smaller amount if that would keep me over double third's score. (This was when tie winners both came back--the rule change would make me subtract a dollar from the wager.)

So I was second after DJ! (16200, 11800, 8500). I duly wagered 3(11800)-2(16200) = 3000. Unfortunately, leader missed, third and I both were correct, and third bet big. I spent the cab ride to the hotel wondering what the heck I had done to myself. The first thing I did was go the the Wagering Calculator and (re)discover the term Stratton's Dilemma. Interestingly, on 1-21-05 Ted Stratton went "small" and could have lost the same way I did, but third bet small. Wagering from second and third is complicated by the fact that you don't know what your opponents are going to do--even first place players occasionally make funky wagers. In my case, I absolutely could not cater to both a triple stumper and the scenario that happened. This was hashed out in my game thread.

So, it's more than five years later and, if I had it to do over again, the only thing I would do differently is wager $2999 instead of $3000. Are there a bunch of people out there who still think I'm a girl who arbitrarily picked a nice round wager? You betcha. That's OK. I apologize for the length of this. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, and I don't expect anyone to care what opinion I have about them.

Screw the haters, you have nothing to prove to anyone. Just imagine me hammering an imaginary Like button.

I'll probably never get on the show, but if I did, Stratton's would be my worst nightmare. Are there any stats on how often betting high/low in Stratton's dilemma wins?

[Elijah Baley]

It seems that most of the women in the 2nd half of season 34 fall prey to poor betting, and this game definitely showed.

Holy Chauvinism, Batman!

females generally do suck when it comes to wagering...but all contestants regardless of sex pretty much suck when it comes to strategic wagering...females are slightly worst...but not by much

Clean up on Aisle 5, please.

[CasketRomance]

It seems that most of the women in the 2nd half of season 34 fall prey to poor betting, and this game definitely showed.

Holy Chauvinism, Batman!

females generally do suck when it comes to wagering...but all contestants regardless of sex pretty much suck when it comes to strategic wagering...females are slightly worst...but not by much

Clean up on Aisle 5, please.

only aisle 5? i must be slipping...i figured there was enough to warrant a whole store cleanup

[Linear Gnome]

I'll probably never get on the show, but if I did, Stratton's would be my worst nightmare. Are there any stats on how often betting high/low in Stratton's dilemma wins?

There used to be an actual Stratton's Dilemma page linked from the Archive, but I'm not certain it was programmed correctly.

There are category and psychological considerations, but if you neglect those, it basically comes down to WWW (triple stumper) vs. WRR (singleton miss by leader), since the second place contestant will probably win or lose regardless of wager in the other scenarios. There is a link at the bottom of each season's archive page to FJ! Round Statistics. Every season, WWW is the first or second most frequent outcome and WRR is usually least frequent. For example, so far this season there have been 40 WWW and 13 WRR. Last season there were 43 WWW and 16 WRR. Not all of those have Stratton's Dilemma amounts, but it's some evidence that, all other things being equal, you're more likely to get a difficult question that everyone will miss than a question that only the person who did best in the first two rounds will get wrong. (I didn't do that analysis until later. I had four months between taping and air date to get quite familiar with Stratton's dilemma!)

[Elijah Baley]

I thought this was a fairly tough FJ. Peace Palace led me to the Netherlands, but the clue implied that the internment site was also famous - which pointed more to Poland. So, that left me wondering if there was some famous peace palace in Poland that I didn't know about, or a famous internment camp in the Netherlands. Netherlands won the coin toss because I'm assuming that there were internment camps in all occupied countries.

Westerbork is the heritage site/camp. It was an internment and transport (deportation) camp.

I was leaning toward Poland and trying to remember what country Theresienstadt/Terezin is in (it's the Czech Republic/former Czechoslovakia.) I wondered if the so-called "Paradise Ghetto" that the Nazis showed off to the Red Cross had been made into a heritage site!

It's been a long time since I read War and Remembrance but I've never forgotten it.

I think Theresienstadt was a lot more well known than Westerbork. I like to think I'm reasonably well educated on WWII - casual education mostly - and honestly, if I've heard of Westerbork, I don't remember it, other than in passing in connection with Anne Frank and the name didn't stick. I'm guessing few others knew about Westerbork given the triple miss and the many guesses for Poland here - and I suspect Poland will poll much higher than the correct response.

War and Remembrance was a good book - The Winds of War was equally good - but I wonder if WWII in general and the Holocaust more specifically are as ingrained in our cultural awareness as it was when I was growing up and reading books like those.

[AFRET CMS]

Remind me which episodes you were on? The episode(s) where you had zero trouble with what most agree is BY FAR the most challenging/stressful moment of the entire contestant experience?

I am lucky enough to have been on that stage, and I vividly recall the stress of 5-digit arithmetic plus the pressure to finish (albeit no ticking clock) plus game theory thinking plus is-that-tough-category-name-actually-hiding-a-gimme. In taping seven games, I can tell you that the ONLY time my hands were shaking was while I was holding that Sharpie and quadruple-checking my math/logic!

The reason it's challenging or stressful is because most contestants don't have a clue regarding optimal wagering theory. Or course you're nervous when you have no idea what you're doing.

I would hypothesize you were nervous doing the actual arithmetic, not the logic behind it. There is a big difference.

yeah you can't chalk it up to nerves with such a large sample size...can't tell me that all of those contestants that used crappy wagering strategies suffered from anxiety to make them come up with such bad wagers

I am female and have a Ph.D. in mathematics. I feel as if I need to state my credentials to make my point.

When I studied wagering before my taping, trying to keep all of the scenarios straight just about made my head spin. For wagering from second, I decided that I could do the following "under the lights", and it would cater to a large variety of situations: If I had less than 2/3 of leader's score, might as well bet it all since I need to get it right and leader to get it wrong. If I had 2/3 or more of leader's score, 3 times my score minus 2 times leader's score would be the most I could wager to stay above wherever leader would end up with a bet to cover me and an incorrect response. I would wager that, or a smaller amount if that would keep me over double third's score. (This was when tie winners both came back--the rule change would make me subtract a dollar from the wager.)

So I was second after DJ! (16200, 11800, 8500). I duly wagered 3(11800)-2(16200) = 3000. Unfortunately, leader missed, third and I both were correct, and third bet big. I spent the cab ride to the hotel wondering what the heck I had done to myself. The first thing I did was go the the Wagering Calculator and (re)discover the term Stratton's Dilemma. Interestingly, on 1-21-05 Ted Stratton went "small" and could have lost the same way I did, but third bet small. Wagering from second and third is complicated by the fact that you don't know what your opponents are going to do--even first place players occasionally make funky wagers. In my case, I absolutely could not cater to both a triple stumper and the scenario that happened. This was hashed out in my game thread.

So, it's more than five years later and, if I had it to do over again, the only thing I would do differently is wager $2999 instead of $3000. Are there a bunch of people out there who still think I'm a girl who arbitrarily picked a nice round wager? You betcha. That's OK. I apologize for the length of this. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, and I don't expect anyone to care what opinion I have about them.

OK, Rob is now tied with Linear Gnome for first place in "favorite post in this thread" instead of being by himself.

Some FJ wagers are pretty straightforward, and it's usually disheartening to see a player lose a game that could have been won with a non-foolish wager. More often, though, are scenarios like you describe where the only way to make a "correct" wager is to be able to (a) read a competitor's mind about THEIR wager, or (b) see five minutes into the future to determine who's going to be correct.

In my first game, the defending champion was in the negative, so only two of us were left for FJ -- which reduced the possibilities but also meant neither of us had seen the other in a previous game, so we had no history of wagers that might have helped a predict a tendency.

AND the category was one that Alex rightly hypothesized that neither of us would particularly like.

Leader had 17,100; I was in second place with 15,600.

Leader's "logical" bet would have been to cover my potential double and make a big wager, meaning I "could possibly" bet up to 12,599 and still win on a double miss.

However, both of us surmised that the other might not like the category and might bet small, so I bet 1600 just to cover a potential zero from the leader. He also bet to cover a potential zero from me, but in doing the math added his desired margin instead of subtracting the margin from the difference in our scores, and wagered 1505 instead of the 1495 he intended to. Regardless, by NOT betting to cover my double, he improved his chances from 1/4 to 2/4, and would have won on a double miss. A double miss would have lost him the game with a "standard" wager.

Fortunately, he missed and I got it correct, and won the game with a much smaller payday than a "standard" wager may have led to -- but my goal in that specific scenario was to win and play again, not "go big or go home."

And that jockeying was with only two players -- complexity increases geometrically, not arithmetically, when you factor in a normal three-player FJ.

I would be the last to argue with Linear Gnome's reasoning -- it was one of several sound chains of logic; you simply have to choose your assumptions and make a "best guess" what the other person(s) might do. Military contingency planning, which relies extensively on game theory, has as one of its primary tenets "You make a threat estimate based on what the adversary CAN do, not on what you think the adversary WILL do."