Matt Amodio on Jeopardy!
Quote: EdCollinsFrom tonight's show
Category: COMPOUND WORDS
$800 Clue: A technique of NFL bettors is to put money on these when they're playing at home & they'll "bark" for you.
I can't believe this was a Triple Stumper.
link to original post
That's exactly what I thought.
It seems that 'Sports' is Matt's weakest category.
Quote: EdCollinsFrom tonight's show
Category: COMPOUND WORDS
$800 Clue: A technique of NFL bettors is to put money on these when they're playing at home & they'll "bark" for you.
I can't believe this was a Triple Stumper.
link to original post
I finally figured it out, but it wouldn't have been in time to buzz in.
The "at home" tripped me up. WoO folks know "on the road" is the smart money.
Quote: FatGeezusQuote: EdCollinsFrom tonight's show
Category: COMPOUND WORDS
$800 Clue: A technique of NFL bettors is to put money on these when they're playing at home & they'll "bark" for you.
I can't believe this was a Triple Stumper.
link to original post
That's exactly what I thought.
It seems that 'Sports' is Matt's weakest category.
link to original post
He’s pretty good with sports trivia. I figured he’s a little young to know the Nolan Ryan question. Maybe sports gambling is his weakness.
Quote: smoothgrhQuote: EdCollinsFrom tonight's show
Category: COMPOUND WORDS
$800 Clue: A technique of NFL bettors is to put money on these when they're playing at home & they'll "bark" for you.
I can't believe this was a Triple Stumper.
link to original post
I finally figured it out, but it wouldn't have been in time to buzz in.
The "at home" tripped me up. WoO folks know "on the road" is the smart money.
link to original post
Wait, home dogs isn’t a thing anymore?
Quote: JimRockfordWait, home dogs isn’t a thing anymore?
link to original post
JimRockford,
If the category is compound words, wouldn't the correct response need to include the word "underdog"?
Dog (no relation) Hand
I thought about this during the game, as I initially was about to answer with just "dogs." But yes, I'm almost sure that answer by itself would not have been acceptable, for the reason you mentioned.Quote: DogHandIf the category is compound words, wouldn't the correct response need to include the word "underdog"?
Quote: DogHandQuote: JimRockfordWait, home dogs isn’t a thing anymore?
link to original post
JimRockford,
If the category is compound words, wouldn't the correct response need to include the word "underdog"?
Dog (no relation) Hand
link to original post
My comment was not about the Jeopardy question. I was referring to the assertion that “ on the road” is the smart money play.
Quote: TDVegasThese contestants going against him are going to have to take chances with the buzzer. They are getting utterly destroyed on the buzzer. My guess is many of them know the answers but Matt is catching it a split second earlier. Sometimes they catch on eventually and start buzzing in quicker…but by then it’s too late.
link to original post
That’s a significant advantage of a long time champion. Matt’s had hours of practice with the buzzer.
Quote: JimRockfordQuote: TDVegasThese contestants going against him are going to have to take chances with the buzzer. They are getting utterly destroyed on the buzzer. My guess is many of them know the answers but Matt is catching it a split second earlier. Sometimes they catch on eventually and start buzzing in quicker…but by then it’s too late.
link to original post
That’s a significant advantage of a long time champion. Matt’s had hours of practice with the buzzer.
link to original post
They are going to have to take some chances. These matches aren’t even remotely competitive. Even if you get locked out a few times…go for it.
Eventually some begin to beat him to the buzzer…but it’s way too late. His lead is insurmountable.
Quote: TDVegasThese matches aren’t even remotely competitive.
They may need to bring Watson back.
They finally found a way to beat him to the buzzer. These were strong opponents but the reason they beat him was because they beat him to the buzzer. That split second can tip the scales…big time.
Quote: TDVegasAmazing. He loses.
They finally found a way to beat him to the buzzer. These were strong opponents but the reason they beat him was because they beat him to the buzzer. That split second can tip the scales…big time.
link to original post
It could have just as easily gone to Statistical Research Assistant, Jessica Stephens from Nashville. She did a bang up job.
Quote: rxwineQuote: TDVegasAmazing. He loses.
They finally found a way to beat him to the buzzer. These were strong opponents but the reason they beat him was because they beat him to the buzzer. That split second can tip the scales…big time.
link to original post
It could have just as easily gone to Statistical Research Assistant, Jessica Stephens from Nashville. She did a bang up job.
link to original post
Both were very solid. It’s a rare player, obviously, that can continue a streak like Matt did. How many times have we seen VERY strong contestants come back the next day and go out in a whimper? Many.
Quote: TDVegasAmazing. He loses.
They finally found a way to beat him to the buzzer. These were strong opponents but the reason they beat him was because they beat him to the buzzer. That split second can tip the scales…big time.
link to original post
I'm pretty sure that Jennings and Rutter, and I think Forrest as well, when asked what their "secret" was, all replied that it was getting the timing of the buzzer (i.e. knowing exactly when they could buzz in) right.
* I am pretty sure the best contestants buzz in knowing they will probably have the right response, before they actually have it. And yes I use 'clue' and 'correct response' here instead of 'answer' and 'question'. As far as I'm concerned, they just throw in that you have to answer in the form of a question to make it even more difficult to be a good contestant. I would be a bad one!
Quote: odiousgambitAs far as I'm concerned, they just throw in that you have to answer in the form of a question to make it even more difficult to be a good contestant. I would be a bad one!
The answer in form of a question gimmick is literally nothing more than that, a gimmick. It's what makes Jeopardy different than every other straight quizzer.
Funny enough, the reason they did it was to capitalize on the Quiz Show scandals of the 1950s, which was still fresh in people's minds at the time. "We give the players the answers! ........but they have to give us the questions."
Quote: Deucekies
Funny enough, the reason they did it was to capitalize on the Quiz Show scandals of the 1950s, which was still fresh in people's minds at the time. "We give the players the answers! ........but they have to give us the questions."[/q
I used to think it was hilarious that the rule on MTV's game show "Remote Control" was you get a penalty if you answer in the form of a question.
I recently watched a YouTube video of that show, and decided it has not aged well. Its pace is too slow.
Quote: smoothgrh
I used to think it was hilarious that the rule on MTV's game show "Remote Control" was you get a penalty if you answer in the form of a question.
I loved that too. "Win Ben Stein's Money" did the same thing. You had to wear a dunce cap for the rest of the round if you answered in form of a question.
Nancy Zerg beat Ken Jennings and lost her next game.
Emma Boettcher beat James Holzhauer, won her next game, then lost.
Now we have Jonathan Fisher who beat Matt Amodio and yet, unlike the previous "giant killers", has gone on an 8-game winning streak, so far raking in over $190,000. He's also earned a spot in the next Tournament of Champions where he'll probably compete against Amodio again. Will he defy Jeopardy history and become a GIANT himself? Probably not but, it's an interesting turn of events.
-------------------------------------------
Here are some clues Fisher has missed...
1) “A 1791 proclamation by President George ordered the first this of the District of Columbia; a young George would’ve done it himself.”
2) “In the space of a few weeks in 1912, Robert Falcon Scott’s trek to this landmark ended in death, then Titanic sailed into history.”
3) “Last name of brothers James, John, Joseph and Fletcher, whose company published magazines with their name as well as books.”
4) “These stories got their collective title because little Josephine Kipling insisted they be told exactly the same way each time.”
5) “From 1824 to 1825 this hero toured all 24 states, and an Indiana city was named for him.”
1. What is Survey?
2. What is the South Pole?
3. What is Harper?
4. What are "Just So Stories"?
5. Who is is the Marquis de Lafayette?
Some minor history was made on Friday's Jeopardy! when Jonathan Fisher won his 10th game. It was the first time that back-to-back champions have won in the double digits.
Fans seem to have mixed feelings about Fisher. They've been slamming him for slow starts, conservative wagers, and hesitating when it comes time to buzz in. This Twitter quote is common...
Quote: TwitterJonathan is not like Matt Amodio, he’s not as smart, and he doesn’t bet big. I believe he had 27,000 tonight and could have bet safely 12,000 but since he is not good at final Jeopardy, it’s probably smart he doesn’t bet big.
While it's true that Fisher plays a more conservative game, these are the same fans who spent all of (now Saint) Matt Amodio's run complaining that his use of "What's" to start every response was a crime against humanity. Ah well, human nature I suppose.
Somewhat bizarrely, the one thing that fans do seem to all agree on is that Fisher looks like he's the son of actor John C. Reilly...
Hmm. Well, I suppose he does.
No one is talking about the show anymore.
Quote: GialmereWell, Jonathan Fisher lost on Tuesday ending his impressive 11 game winning streak. The lady who defeated him lost the next day. So, somewhat ironically, Jeopardy! has finally achieved a goal it's been desperately trying to reach...
No one is talking about the show anymore.
link to original post
But you are talking about it.
Player 1: $30,400
Player 2: $15,200
Player 3: $13,200
What would you have done in Player 1's shoes?
Quote: WizardSorry for a bit of a hijack, but interesting Final Jeopardy yesterday. Here were the scores going into it:
Player 1: $30,400
Player 2: $15,200
Player 3: $13,200
What would you have done in Player 1's shoes?
link to original post
i would bet $0 and guarantee at worst a tie.
It would depend on the category for me. If I felt strong with it, I would wager $3,999, the maximum to ensure victory over Player 3 in the event that I and Player 2 both got it wrong. If it were a category I was weak in, I would bet $0 and take my chances with the tie-breaker question should Player 2 double up.Quote: WizardSorry for a bit of a hijack, but interesting Final Jeopardy yesterday. Here were the scores going into it:
Player 1: $30,400
Player 2: $15,200
Player 3: $13,200
What would you have done in Player 1's shoes?
Prior to the rule change in 2014, my wager would have been $0, regardless of the category, since both players would return for the next game if there was a tie.
Quote: WizardSorry for a bit of a hijack, but interesting Final Jeopardy yesterday. Here were the scores going into it:
Player 1: $30,400
Player 2: $15,200
Player 3: $13,200
What would you have done in Player 1's shoes?
link to original post
$0 or $1 depending on the category.
0 or $3999Quote: WizardSorry for a bit of a hijack, but interesting Final Jeopardy yesterday. Here were the scores going into it:
Player 1: $30,400
Player 2: $15,200
Player 3: $13,200
What would you have done in Player 1's shoes?
link to original post
i assume under the old rules, he would keep the $ in a tie since he came back the next day.Quote: JoemanIf it were a category I was weak in, I would bet $0 and take my chances with the tie-breaker question should Player 2 double up.Quote: WizardSorry for a bit of a hijack, but interesting Final Jeopardy yesterday. Here were the scores going into it:
Player 1: $30,400
Player 2: $15,200
Player 3: $13,200
What would you have done in Player 1's shoes?
Prior to the rule change in 2014, my wager would have been $0, regardless of the category, since both players would return for the next game if there was a tie.
link to original post
under new rules, does he still keep the $ or does he only get the 2nd place prize if he loses the tie break?
Quote: 100xOddsi assume under the old rules, he would keep the $ in a tie since he came back the next day.
under new rules, does he still keep the $ or does he only get the 2nd place prize if he loses the tie break?
link to original post
Yeah, same question for me. I'll bet $0 and take the guaranteed money if I receive it even on a tiebreaker loss.
If not, then I would wager $0 if not comfortable with the final category (take my chances on Player 2 risking it all, being right AND getting an equally crappy tiebreaker category) and I would bet $1 if I felt comfortable with the category.
I don't see what alternative Player 2 has but to try to double up, but Player 2 might also try to save himself/herself $1, so if they get it right and I get it wrong, then we're going to a tiebreaker in that scenario.
Player 3 could just as soon not be there. I obviously have no interest in giving Player 3 any chance to win.
This way in order for me to lose, I have to get it wrong AND Player 2 has to get it right. That's better than betting $0 and only Player 2 having to get it right.
If I feel confident in the category I'll wager $3,999. Otherwise I'll wager $1.
Yes, under the old rules, if there was a tie for 1st place, both would keep the money, and both would come back for the next show.Quote: 100xOddsi assume under the old rules, he would keep the $ in a tie since he came back the next day.
under new rules, does he still keep the $ or does he only get the 2nd place prize if he loses the tie break?
These days, if there is a tie for 1st place after FJ, there is a tie-breaking clue for just the two players. Whoever buzzes in first with the correct response is the champion, keeps the money he accumulated that show, and returns for the next show. The other player gets the second place prize money of $2000, and does not return.
Quote: EdCollinsI bet something. Anything over $0 but less than $4,000.
This way in order for me to lose, I have to get it wrong AND Player 2 has to get it right. That's better than betting $0 and only Player 2 having to get it right.
If I feel confident in the category I'll wager $3,999. Otherwise I'll wager $1.
link to original post
What if you are guaranteed the $34,000 even if it goes to tiebreaker? You're still going to bet something? The way I see it, I have a 100% probability of getting $34,000.
Quote: JoemanYes, under the old rules, if there was a tie for 1st place, both would keep the money, and both would come back for the next show.Quote: 100xOddsi assume under the old rules, he would keep the $ in a tie since he came back the next day.
under new rules, does he still keep the $ or does he only get the 2nd place prize if he loses the tie break?
These days, if there is a tie for 1st place after FJ, there is a tie-breaking clue for just the two players. Whoever buzzes in first with the correct response is the champion, keeps the money he accumulated that show, and returns for the next show. The other player gets the second place prize money of $2000, and does not return.
link to original post
That sucks. $0 is my bet if I don't like the category and $1 is my bet if I do.
But, if you are "comfortable" with the category, which I would assume means that you feel like you would get it right more often that not, wagering anything less than $3,999 would be -EV. Assuming Player 2 bets everything, any wager between $1 and $3,999 will result in the same outcome as far as determining the champion.Quote: Mission146I would wager $0 if not comfortable with the final category (take my chances on Player 2 risking it all, being right AND getting an equally crappy tiebreaker category) and I would bet $1 if I felt comfortable with the category.
Quote: JoemanBut, if you are "comfortable" with the category, which I would assume means that you feel like you would get it right more often that not, wagering anything less than $3,999 would be -EV. Assuming Player 2 bets everything, any wager between $1 and $3,999 will result in the same outcome as far as determining the champion.Quote: Mission146I would wager $0 if not comfortable with the final category (take my chances on Player 2 risking it all, being right AND getting an equally crappy tiebreaker category) and I would bet $1 if I felt comfortable with the category.
link to original post
I'm not going to assume that Player 2 is betting everything. I think for Player 2 to bet everything makes the most sense, but Player 2 is going to understand that is the way that I would be thinking and might do something unexpected accordingly as long as he believes I am betting more than zero.
I'm probably going to act like I like the category, straighten right up and have my eyes go wide so Player 2 might believe that it is my intent to double my stack and try to leave himself some money even if he does miss. Obviously, I have no such intent unless I am literally 100% confident in the category, which I never would be.
why?Quote: EdCollinsI bet something.If I feel confident in the category I'll wager $3,999. Otherwise I'll wager $1.
link to original post
i dont see a difference in strategy between $1 and $3999?
if not betting 0, then why not just bet 3999?
Yes, I suspect that's true. And yet, why bet more than necessary on a category I don't feel confident in?Quote: 100xOddswhy?Quote: EdCollinsI bet something.If I feel confident in the category I'll wager $3,999. Otherwise I'll wager $1.
link to original post
i dont see a difference in strategy between $1 and $3999?
if not betting 0, then why not just bet 3999?
link to original post
I feel it's necessary to bet at least $1. (And that strategy itself might be wrong.) But if I think I'm weak in that category, just $1 is fine.
