Jeopardy watch....

[75Crazie]

$401 has to be one of the lower win amounts, though I'm sure in the history of Jeopardy there has been lower.

I was wondering the same thing, so I did a quick search and found this post on something called "Quora":

There’s a famous episode from 2016 where all three players got Final Jeopardy wrong and wiped themselves out.

I found that hard to believe (and definitely do not remember that episode), but the post includes an image that shows the results: two people were tied for the lead at $13,800 going into FJ and the third had $6000, and they each obviously got a wrong all-or-nothing bet. I have no idea why the trailer wagered everything.

[mkirsh]

My hoops buddy Joe won tonight! Even though he’s a terp he’s a really good dude (with an excellent jump shot). Hoping he can start the next streak!

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I am ashamed to admit I just watched the last 20 minutes of The Weakest Link. I can’t believe how dumb these contestants were. Not one of them could beat any third place finisher on any Jeopardy game. That’s 20 minutes I’ll never get back.

[rsvman]

I'm not sure, but it seems to me like they messed up the Final Jeopardy clue tonight. In essence, they wanted contestants to know who won Oscars in three different years.
The thing is that the years in question were all one year earlier than the actor actually won the Oscar.

Is there a convention, since the Oscars are given out in February, to use the year before, when the movies were actually in theaters, as the year, or something? I thought it was odd, as the answer was at odds with online resources.

[pfrduke]

I'm not sure, but it seems to me like they messed up the Final Jeopardy clue tonight. In essence, they wanted contestants to know who won Oscars in three different years.
The thing is that the years in question were all one year earlier than the actor actually won the Oscar.

Is there a convention, since the Oscars are given out in February, to use the year before, when the movies were actually in theaters, as the year, or something? I thought it was odd, as the answer was at odds with online resources.

Yes, that is an Oscars convention. This year’s ceremony, for example, awarded the films, actors, etc that were the best of 2021. So CODA is the 2021 best picture Oscar winner, for example.

[brevity]

I'm not sure, but it seems to me like they messed up the Final Jeopardy clue tonight. In essence, they wanted contestants to know who won Oscars in three different years.
The thing is that the years in question were all one year earlier than the actor actually won the Oscar.

Is there a convention, since the Oscars are given out in February, to use the year before, when the movies were actually in theaters, as the year, or something? I thought it was odd, as the answer was at odds with online resources.

Yes, that is an Oscars convention. This year’s ceremony, for example, awarded the films, actors, etc that were the best of 2021. So CODA is the 2021 best picture Oscar winner, for example.

The clue is written carefully and correctly. From Friday's episode, with the final category Oscar-Winning Actors:

Each of the 3 films for which he won an Oscar, from 1975, 1983 & 1997, also garnered a Best Lead Actress Oscar

The years describe the films, not the ceremonies.

I am ashamed to admit I just watched the last 20 minutes of The Weakest Link. I can’t believe how dumb these contestants were. Not one of them could beat any third place finisher on any Jeopardy game. That’s 20 minutes I’ll never get back.

The pandemic made me lean into game shows a lot more than usual, so I watch Weakest Link as well. It can be frustrating to watch. A few weeks ago there was actually a Jeopardy! crossover.

kellymiyahara.jpg

Kelly Miyahara, formerly the announcer of Sports Jeopardy! and a Clue Crew member of the main show, appeared on Weakest Link to face her fear of trivia. Despite confessing that this wasn't her strength, she was easily the best contestant there, and got voted out in the round of 3, which is usually when the 2 weaker contestants get rid of their competition.

[brevity]

Some basketball with our Jeopardy!

eleanordixon.jpg

Eleanor Dixon has become the most famous Villanova hoops fan since Piccolo Girl. On Friday she wagered and earned $2,018 on a Daily Double and later won the game. Then, in Monday's episode, she wagered and lost $2,016 on a Daily Double, entered the final round in third place, and wagered enough to lower her third place score to $1,985. All Villanova championship years, all intentional.

[rsvman]

Some basketball with our Jeopardy!

eleanordixon.jpg

Eleanor Dixon has become the most famous Villanova hoops fan since Piccolo Girl. On Friday she wagered and earned $2,018 on a Daily Double and later won the game. Then, in Monday's episode, she wagered and lost $2,016 on a Daily Double, entered the final round in third place, and wagered enough to lower her third place score to $1,985. All Villanova championship years, all intentional.

Interesting story, but the last example is a defeatist way to play the game. Why wager an amount that will lower your number to something if you miss? It's almost like setting yourself up for the miss.

If you watch how people bet on Daily Doubles it is instructive. Let's say the player has $5600. They will often bet a number something like $1600, which would make a nice round number if they miss. I like to see somebody bet, say, $2400 when they are at $5600; in other words, bet a number that will leave them with a nice round number if they get it RIGHT, rather than if they MISS. I am probably overanalyzing here, but I think you can kind of tell (at least a little bit) whether the person is an optimist or a pessimist, or at least whether they feel confident or not so confident about a certain category, by what numbers they choose to bet (if they aren't betting a round number).

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Interesting story, but the last example is a defeatist way to play the game. Why wager an amount that will lower your number to something if you miss? It's almost like setting yourself up for the miss.

If you watch how people bet on Daily Doubles it is instructive. Let's say the player has $5600. They will often bet a number something like $1600, which would make a nice round number if they miss. I like to see somebody bet, say, $2400 when they are at $5600; in other words, bet a number that will leave them with a nice round number if they get it RIGHT, rather than if they MISS. I am probably overanalyzing here, but I think you can kind of tell (at least a little bit) whether the person is an optimist or a pessimist, or at least whether they feel confident or not so confident about a certain category, by what numbers they choose to bet (if they aren't betting a round number).

I tend to agree but it often depends on the situation vis-a-vis other people's scores. For example, if it is near the end of Double Jeopardy and it is fairly close, if the person in the lead gets a daily double, they often want to bet with a focus on losing so that worst case they are still in the lead if they get it wrong. If, for example, they have $12,000 and the person in second has $9,000 and time is running out, they should bet under $3,000 to make sure to stay over $9,000 as it is important to be in the lead going into final Jeopardy.

Also factoring into it is their familiarity with the category (as you noted) and where on the board the question is. The lower down the question, theoretically the harder it is, so the odds of success go down (though it doesn't always work out like this).

The strategy you are suggesting is basically what James did, and it worked out pretty well for him.

[Indoor66]

I think that a players mindset vis a vis risk adversity and levels of self confidence are a big factor in these decisions. James scored high on both these.

[Phredd3]

Interesting story, but the last example is a defeatist way to play the game. Why wager an amount that will lower your number to something if you miss? It's almost like setting yourself up for the miss.

If you are starting in third, the odds of you winning are already pretty low. If you've already won a prior game, why not just have a little fun with the wager? Most players aren't doing this to make a living out of it. It's just a fun lark. In other words, good for her!

[rsvman]

If you are starting in third, the odds of you winning are already pretty low. If you've already won a prior game, why not just have a little fun with the wager? Most players aren't doing this to make a living out of it. It's just a fun lark. In other words, good for her!

I get it, but it only strengthens my point. She had already admitted defeat. The curious point to me is that the only way her little lark works is if she gets the question wrong. So if she had known the answer, would she have missed it on purpose?

[Phredd3]

I get it, but it only strengthens my point. She had already admitted defeat. The curious point to me is that the only way her little lark works is if she gets the question wrong. So if she had known the answer, would she have missed it on purpose?

No. The scores going into Final Jeopardy were $12,200, $11,800, plus Ms. Dixon's $5784. If she doubles her winnings, she has $11,568. The leader's bet has to cover double second place, so he basically has to shoot it, with a minimum bet of $11,401. Accordingly, the second place optimum bet is to wager $231, to cover Ms. Dixon so he wins regardless of who between second and third answers correctly. So Ms. Dixon has basically a zero percent chance of winning, in the absence of a wagering error by one of the other players.

Ms. Dixon's awesome calculation was to make a wager in which she could BOTH a) take advantage of a wagering error by an incorrect second place player and potentially win outright, or b) in the unfortunate alternative, lose and be awesome about it. It was the perfect choice with no downside.

As it turns out, the middle player did make a wagering error, but got the question correct, so Ms. Dixon lost awesomely. What's not to like about that?

[rsvman]

I didn't see the episode. I don't know that anybody thinks through the wagering for Final Jeopardy as clearly as you do, and I know a lot of second-place-going-into-Final make wagering errors. I guess I'd never consider myself completely out of it in that scenario, but I get your point.

My larger point, though, was not specifically about this player or this game. This player's story just reminded me of something I've been thinking about for a while. I'll stick with my concept that any player that, for example, has any amount of money that ends with 600 who then wagers any amount that ends in 600 (other than playing a true daily double) is consciously or subconsciously sabotaging him/herself. I am always impressed, on the other hand, by anybody whose amount of money ends with, let's say, 600, who bets any amount that ends with 400. That person is consciously or subconsciously SUPPORTING him/herself.

I suppose either of these bets says even a bit more about the player...it says, in my opinion, that perhaps the player has at least a little tiny bit of OCD, regardless of whether they bet positively or negatively. Otherwise, why would they bet anything other than a nice, round number like a thousand, or two thousand, or three thousand, or whatever. Because they WANT the number, after they have made their guess, to be an exact thousand. And why would they want that if they didn't have at least a tiny bit of OCD? I can't even imagine betting anything other than a multiple of 1000, unless I hit teh Daily Double in a category that I really hate or in which I feel completely incompetent, in which case I would bed maybe 100 or 200 or something like that.

[tommy]

Math professor who in his youth was a K-Ville tenter and who was a likable defending champ, lost in Final Jeopardy tonight with a betting strategy that some will question. Blew a decent sized lead to another likable player.

[duke74]

Math professor who in his youth was a K-Ville tenter and who was a likable defending champ, lost in Final Jeopardy tonight with a betting strategy that some will question. Blew a decent sized lead to another likable player.

And blew the answer. State opera of South Carolina..."South Pacific"??? Really? A gimmee.

His bet would have been $1 more than the second place contestant, had the contestant bet it all and gotten the right answer...if I remember correctly.

[75Crazie]

And blew the answer. State opera of South Carolina..."South Pacific"??? Really? A gimmee.

I am ashamed to say I couldn't come up with the answer, and I am a big fan of Gershwin's music in that opera. The only stab I could make was an anemic guess of "1776".

[budwom]

And blew the answer. State opera of South Carolina..."South Pacific"??? Really? A gimmee.

His bet would have been $1 more than the second place contestant, had the contestant bet it all and gotten the right answer...if I remember correctly.

Yeah, we got a big chuckle out of that erroneous answer...

[Skydog]

And blew the answer. State opera of South Carolina..."South Pacific"??? Really? A gimmee.

His bet would have been $1 more than the second place contestant, had the contestant bet it all and gotten the right answer...if I remember correctly.

You buried the lede: South Carolina has a State Opera??!!!

[duke74]

You buried the lede: South Carolina has a State Opera??!!!

According to Mayim, yes. Surprised me too, although not after considering the opera selected and the cultural links. (A round of "Summertime" coming)