Jeopardy online test 2019

Going to look at my recording and see if there is a pause or edit. An edit might be detectable by the position of BBB’s mouth between the last two letters.

Quote: rxwine

Going to look at my recording and see if there is a pause or edit. An edit might be detectable by the position of BBB’s mouth between the last two letters.

Just watched it now. No hesitation at all.

Quote: Mosca

Just watched it now. No hesitation at all.

Her perception of time is probably altered, which wouldn’t be unusual I suppose under these circumstances.

Quote: Mosca

Good show. Like many Jeopardies, this was pretty obviously a game where everyone knew the answers but it was the person who got the buzzer first who won.

I kept saying, geez, I know Barb
knows most of these, why isn't
she buzzing. This is before I realized
the game is rigged. Why all you
people love a rigged game so much
is a mystery to me. It's like pro
wrestling, when you know it's rigged,
who cares.

Quote: rxwine

Going to look at my recording and see if there is a pause or edit. An edit might be detectable by the position of BBB’s mouth between the last two letters.

These are micro-edits, you would have be using really sophisticated software.

Quote: EvenBob

I kept saying, geez, I know Barb
knows most of these, why isn't
she buzzing. This is before I realized
the game is rigged. Why all you
people love a rigged game so much
is a mystery to me. It's like pro
wrestling, when you know it's rigged,
who cares.

Yeah, there must be thousands of lawsuits by now. Or not.

Quote: FleaStiff

These are micro-edits, you would have be using really sophisticated software.

Well, unless someone has already looked for a break in framing in slow motion, there's still a possibility that it could be detected. You can't break framing with any movement without leaving a trace unless you bother to fix it. That's why I figure about the only clue would be her mouth position.

Couldn't see anything unusual in slo-mo either. Only thing I didn't do was blow it up to size of the screen to take a more isolated look.

Quote: rxwine

Yeah, there must be thousands of lawsuits by now. Or not.

It's rigged in favor of the previous
winner, how could you sue for that.
You agreed to participate knowing
they have a huge edge over you.

Quote: EvenBob

It's rigged in favor of the previous
winner, how could you sue for that.
You agreed to participate knowing
they have a huge edge over you.

The fact that the previous winner has more experience with the buzzer is not the definition of rigged. It’s well known and fairly obvious that someone who has been on the show already would have an edge over newbies.

Rigged would be if his buzzer physically worked differently than the other contestants. Or if he was made aware of the categories or questions beforehand and the other contestants weren’t.

Simply being better at something due to experience is not rigged

Quote: michael99000

The fact that the previous winner has more experience with the buzzer is not the definition of rigged.

Sure it is. They want people to be
consecutive winners, it's what
draws in viewers, to root for them.
They know for an absolute fact
that the winner has a higher
chance of winning because of
the buzzer. Yet they have done
nothing to make the system more
fair because they want it unfair.
People who win repeatedly are
their cash cows, why would they
want to change it.

That's rigged.

Quote: EvenBob

Sure it is. They want people to be
consecutive winners, it's what
draws in viewers, to root for them.
They know for an absolute fact
that the winner has a higher
chance of winning because of
the buzzer. Yet they have done
nothing to make the system more
fair because they want it unfair.
People who win repeatedly are
their cash cows, why would they
want to change it.

That's rigged.

So you are saying this guy will never be beat. He is smart and has the "buzzer" advantage. Tell that to James or Jennings

Quote: EvenBob

Sure it is. They want people to be
consecutive winners, it's what
draws in viewers, to root for them.
They know for an absolute fact
that the winner has a higher
chance of winning because of
the buzzer. Yet they have done
nothing to make the system more
fair because they want it unfair.
People who win repeatedly are
their cash cows, why would they
want to change it.

That's rigged.

So any contest where one participant has more experience than the other is rigged ?

Quote: vegas

So you are saying this guy will never be beat.

He will beat himself, he'll
make critical errors in his
answers. It won't be because
somebody has better buzzer
skills than him.

Quote: michael99000

So any contest where one participant has more experience than the other is rigged ?

Most contests are planned so
the participants are evenly
matched. Prize fights, chess
tournaments, horse races.
In contests where it's uneven,
the most experienced always
a have big edge. Like in the
Olympics, or Tour de France
or car racing.

I did arm wrestling for awhile.
If a guy has a longer forearm
than you, he has a huge
advantage. So you make the
arms match up length wise.
If you let long arm guys
compete without evening up,
the unfair rules have rigged
the game in his favor.

Quote: EvenBob

Most contests are planned so
the participants are evenly
matched. Prize fights, chess
tournaments,

White goes first in chess.

Quote: vegas

So you are saying this guy will never be beat. He is smart and has the "buzzer" advantage. Tell that to James or Jennings

His theory breaks down when you consider the champion had a first show where he was inexperienced with the buzzer but was still able to win. He just won't admit he's wrong.

Quote: rxwine

White goes first in chess.

"The general perception that White has an advantage is founded more in psychology than reality. White's initiative disappears for no apparent reason as a game progresses."

Quote: rsactuary

His theory breaks down when you consider the champion had a first show where he was inexperienced

And won because the returning champ
screwed up his answers, not his buzzer
skills. Just like any other game, there
will come a series where the champ
knows too few correct answers and
he's screwed no matter how buzzer
skilled he is and the 2nd place person
wins by default.

Quote: EvenBob

And won because the returning champ
screwed up his answers, not his buzzer
skills. Just like any other game, there
will come a series where the champ
knows too few correct answers and
he's screwed no matter how buzzer
skilled he is and the 2nd place person
wins by default.

Prove that... you're just guessing.

Quote: EvenBob

"The general perception that White has an advantage is founded more in psychology than reality. White's initiative disappears for no apparent reason as a game progresses."

Who are you quoting?

Here is a quote for you.

Quote: Wikipedia

Chess Engines Grand Tournament (CEGT) tests computer chess engines by playing them against each other, with time controls of 40 moves in 120 minutes per player (40/120), and also 40/20 and 40/4, and uses the results of those games to compile a rating list for each time control. At the slowest time control (40/120), White has scored 55.4% (W34.7 D41.3 L24.0) in games played among 38 of the strongest chess engines (as of May 27, 2009).[17] At 40/20, White has scored 55.1% (W35.6 D39.1 L25.3) in games played among 1568 engines (as of April 22, 2018).[18] At the fastest time control (40/4), White has scored 54.8% (W39.6 D30.5 L30.0), in games played among 128 programs (as of May 28, 2009).[19]

Source: First-move advantage in chess

CheckMATE!!!

Quote: EvenBob

Sure it is. They want people to be consecutive winners, it's what draws in viewers, to root for them. They know for an absolute fact that the winner has a higher chance of winning because of the buzzer. Yet they have done nothing to make the system more fair because they want it unfair. People who win repeatedly are
their cash cows, why would they want to change it.

That's rigged.

How do you make it "more fair"?

"Whoever buzzes in first can answer" was how the first TV game show - Winner Take All - worked.

College Bowl. Sale of the Century. Gambit. High Rollers. Even "blink and you'll miss them" shows like The Magnificent Marble Machine and 3 for the Money. All "buzz-in" shows. Were those rigged?

>>>>>>>>> Were those rigged?
Rigged is true strong a term for that which is being alleged.

Quote: FleaStiff

>>>>>>>>> Were those rigged?
Rigged is true strong a term for that which is being alleged.

Exactly.

Rigged would be if one contestants buzzer was designed to work better or differently than the others.

On Jeopardy they all work the same, it’s just that the champion has more experience using it. That’s not what rigged means.

Quote: michael99000

Exactly.

Rigged would be if one contestants buzzer was designed to work better or differently than the others.

On Jeopardy they all work the same, it’s just that the champion has more experience using it. That’s not what rigged means.

That's really true. In rehearsal, I was assigned the champion podium for a few minutes. It was exactly as responsive as the podium I used in the filming. I also used the middle podium in rehearsal (they moved us in and out twice in different pairings, both to give us some familiarity with the mechanics like the buzzer and writing on the screen, and to give the director a look at relative heights, the clothes we wore on camera, other elements.)

There was an interview with Ken Jennings, Brad Rutter, and another mega champion recently, and a discusion of what was important to winning. They all agreed the single most important factor was buzzer timing, not knowledge or speed or any other component. I think one of them made the comment i paraphrased about it being an art, not a skill. And they agreed that they got better and better at it the more they played.

So EB has a point about returning being an advantage. It's huge, along with the confidence that comes from being previously successful, not being on national tv for the first time, all the newbie stressors.

What I'm trying to do by blogging and dissecting all of this is give everybody a feel for what it is to do this, in detail and hopefully keeping it interesting. Nothing is 100% positive in life, and perception in the moment can be very different from reality.

But I don't think any of it was unfair. Each champion had to overcome the same disadvantages as a challenger initially, and every one of them lost (or will lose) at some point. Not rigged: just how it plays.

So I've brought up some things that were odd, or broke against me, or you wouldn't know just from watching my game. It's been a huge learning opportunity for me. I'm also my own worst critic, and some of the things that happened bring out a need to discuss or explain what I was thinking or what led to a particular result. I thought it would make for a more interesting thread if I'm dead honest from my perspective rather than ignoring the flaws in my performance and weaknesses in the game format.

And I've done that here not just because it's a gaming forum, or because a dozen of WoV friends went with me, but because this is a site that deconstructs games, their theory and math, and procedures of play, presentation. A lot of you have had really good observations or criticisms, and I think it's pretty interesting conversation which goes further than just my one appearance.

I also like that we started with a general challenge from Mike to audition, and we have a complete story arc from step 1 to finish with my surprising advancement through the process.

But I have to tell you (again), it was a very positive, unique, and worthwhile thing to do. The show people could not have been better. After state and federal taxes, the money I won will just about cover the expense of going, so it was a free roll. And I'm making dozens of new friends among past and current contestants, and hearing from friends from decades ago, all very positive stuff. So I count it as a big win.

Quote: michael99000

On Jeopardy they all work the same, it’s just that the champion has more experience using it.

And more experience in eye scan, mental focus....and what poker players might refer to as deep stacks.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I thought of one possible improvement. Different color lights which tell you whether you're buzzing too early or too late. How much would that have helped?

There were several things people asked which touched on standards and practices that I meant to answer but got on other topics instead. Some of the things they do:

I knew I was going on a particular taping day that would include a week's worth of shows. I was not told any other contestant names who would be there. I'm pretty sure they select from various auditions and check that the contestants don't seem to have a common point that might lead to knowing someone else in your taping day.

The exception is the Tournament of Champions, which may include people who have met, most notably this year James and Emma (the woman who finally beat him). I think this is part of the reason the bio forms are so extensive. There were about 40 pages of forms to fill out between the contracts and stories and background info, if you add up everything from test to auditions to appearance.

Part of what you have to disclose is whether you know anyone from Sony or Jeopardy!, any past contestants, or anything else affiliated with the show. They investigate those ties, which can be disqualifying, but not necessarily.

The boards are drawn randomly from the entire bank of those written to that point, the morning of each taping day.

The boards each have 6 columns as displayed, but there are 7 columns per board. Those columns are randomized and only 6 appear on the show. I think the 7th is recycled into the writing pool.

Each column has 5 answers shown, but they have 6 clues assigned. The 6th clue is used if any part of the use of one of the other 5 is fouled, whether through a flubbed reading, an inadvertent exposure, a failure to display a video or audio cue. They do not allow a re-take on a question that has been used but had an error that might advantage or disadvantage a player.

The unused clues are available on the J! site right after the game has been aired, for people who like to play along with authentic material. I think you can sign uP there for a daily feed so you can compete.

On taping day, everyone is in the pool, with one or two alternates. Names are placed in a hat, and after rehearsal, two are drawn by the standards and practices person. Those two are offered a fist tap for podium 1 or 2 tokens. They do their last minute preps, along with the champ, and get mic'ed and placed onstage. The rest of the week challengers are herded into seats in 2 rows in the audience reserved for us.

As the show is ending and credits roll, the next 2 names are drawn, and offered the fist tap in the aisle, then herded to the green room for last minute prep, along with the champion, who has their own dressing room to change clothes. Then they are brought out to the stage and the setup and game repeats.

The only change from this random routine is if someone has the same name in the trio of players. They can't know if there's a problem ahead of time because who knows what player will win and return, or what the luck of the draw will bring. They will ask one of them to use a nickname if they have one and will naturally answer to it, or shuffle one of them to a different game, or if necessary (and as a last resort), bring them back on a different date. This is one of the reasons they have alternates standing by.

I think that covers the questions people had about this area. If not, go ahead and ask again, please.

Quote: rxwine

I thought of one possible improvement. Different color lights which tell you whether you're buzzing too early or too late. How much would that have helped?

That would have helped a lot, I think. They have that info as a running metric on a screen the contestant coordinators watch, at their table offstage. So it could probably translate to signals at the podium.

So did you get to watch the 2 games before you? I guess that would have been the monday and tuesday tapings? If you did, does that help in order to see how the champion plays.

What are your thoughts on them accepting "The Mooch" as an answer for "Scaramucci"?

Quote: rsactuary

What are your thoughts on them accepting "The Mooch" as an answer for "Scaramucci"?

I think they should have asked for clarification, but that would have been plenty of time to think of the correct answer.

Quote: GWAE

So did you get to watch the 2 games before you? I guess that would have been the monday and tuesday tapings? If you did, does that help in order to see how the champion plays.

I did watch them, from the audience. It was helpful, because I saw how he had changed from last season to running the bottom of the board and trying to screw everybody up by using up the valuable clues before they got their feet under them. I decided I had to go head to head with that tactic, which is why I went straight across when I got control.

I think there can be good arguments made a lot of ways to play it, but the 8 games I'd seen him play (had not seen the first week of season 36 taping) showed him changing to that and killing the DDs early. I didn't want it to be a buzzer race with easier questions - I was trying to build a lead and catch the DD before he could. I knew the buzzer was going to be tough against two guys in their 30s - there's a medical reason they make us retire by 56, and reflexes are part of it.

It didn't work particularly well, but perhaps better than anything else would have. Karma that someone like me, who cares a lot about spelling and usage, would get tripped up by a category where everything was misspelled on purpose. Lol.

Quote: rsactuary

What are your thoughts on them accepting "The Mooch" as an answer for "Scaramucci"?

I think they're applying a bit of a double standard, Alex in particular, in how they're running the game right now. He's getting a lot of room on questions. Alex is cutting him off and giving him "correct" on 1 or 2 answers a game, then expanding his answer sometimes, or giving an alternate. Other people are being held to the stricter standard they traditionally enforce.

I would have expected "da mooch!" to be wrong. If I had said it without coming up with Scaramucci myself, I wouldn't be surprised to be ruled incorrect.

"Chemin de fer" is correct specific to James Bond. "baccarat" I think is incorrect. It's incorrect for sure when referring to Casino Royale (original), Dr. No, and Thunderball, but I don't know the Canon enough to say he never played "baccarat" by that name in some other movie.

Jason added a syllable into a long word answer, can't remember the exact word, but it ended correctly in -ary, and he said it with -iary at the end. Other recent game, that challenger who did something similar was ruled incorrect with an extra syllable.

Can't remember all of them, but the pedantic Jeopardy! fans on another site are noticing.

I was kind of surprised Alex didn't accept "corona" for "chromosphere" and say yes, corona or chromosphere. However, the clue contained the word "colorful" which demanded something from that vocabulary about the name, and corona doesn't qualify.

My humble opinion is: I think Alex wants a superchamp to go out on, and has made a conscious or unconscious choice to give him every opportunity to succeed. If that's at the rest of our expense, so be it. He's dying, and nobody there gives a sh*t about this small stuff right now.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

College Bowl. Sale of the Century. Gambit. High Rollers. Even "blink and you'll miss them" shows like The Magnificent Marble Machine and 3 for the Money. All "buzz-in" shows. Were those rigged?

Strange comparison. Most shows have "open" buzzers that allow a player to ring in at any point. In "$ale of the Century", contestants frequently buzzed in too early and could not correctly answer the question. Early buzzes were common in the speed round.

"Jeopardy!" is unique in its need for question to be finished and a switch to be flipped before anyone can answer. This changes how it is played and rewards reaction time more than a normal game show.

"Jeopardy!" also uses a different buzzer. The slap the plunger type are easier to practice with because you can get them anywhere. Former champions say clicky-pen, but it has no feedback. Though I guess you could make a "Jeopardy!" style buzzer with lights using an arduino or something.

I AM NOT SAYING "JEOPARDY!" IS RIGGED! It it very different from other shows. Knowing the answer first does not mean you will get it first.

re: baccarat. Chemin de fer is a type of baccarat. It is called "baccarat chemin de fer." I think they would have accepted "baccarat", "baccarat chemin de fer", or "chemin de fer", though possibly only after inquiry by judges. Punto banco would probably not cut it as it is different variant. Say the question was about that more recent movie where he played poker. I think they would have accepted "texas hold 'em (poker)" or just "poker" in that case.

As to the baccarat/chemin de fer issue, I would have definitely gone with baccarat had I been playing. Expecting the average person to know chemin de fer from baccarat is beyond Jeopardy expectations, which is why I would have gone with the more familiar baccarat. Had I been a judge, I would have accepted either. As to what should be the right answer, I would need to re-watch the Bond films where he plays either game. I do recall specifically he was playing chemin de fer in For Your Eyes Only, as evidenced by Bond having free will to hit or stand.

As to "the Mooch," I was surprised too that was accepted without argument. I am not saying it should have been wrong, but Alex should have asked for the actual name. To play the devil's advocate, I've seen FDR accepted in lieu of Franklin Roosevelt, so maybe in some cases they just care that it's clear you know the answer.

Here's a page devoted to the topic:

Famous James Bond films with Baccarat Scenes:

https://www.casino-reviewer.co.uk/online-casino-news/570/view_details/Famous-James-Bond-films-with-Baccarat-Scenes

Note that in the first Bond film he specifically says it's Chemin de fer (while exiting the casino with Ms Trench).



On a Bond trivia sidebar, note that 007's famous catchphrase of "surname--first name--surname" comes from him mimicking Sylvia.

Quote: Wizard

As to the baccarat/chemin de fer issue,

In the Bond books I'm fairly certain
it was never referred to as baccarat.
Not as cool or elegant as chemin-de-fer.

Goldeneye

Here is the baccarat/chemin de fer scene in Goldeneye.



Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXbR5O86zcY

As you can see from the clip, the game is verbally referred to as baccarat, but the fact that the players had free win in the second hand shows they were playing chemin de fer.

Here is a breakdown of the second hand played:

Bond, as the player, draws a 6.
Woman, as the banker, stands.

Bond's initial two cards were two faces, so he wins 6 over 5.

Hitting with a 5 after the Player draws a 6 is a terrible play, by the way. The odds favor hitting.

Thunderball


Direct: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q6-9rd6-W8

At the 2:09 point in the video above, both players clearly have free will to accept a third card, although the title of the game is never stated.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

In the same video as above, starting at the 4:19 point, we also see the players having free will to take a third card. Again, the name of the game isn't stated.

For Your Eyes Only

Beginning at the 7:30 point is the scene from For Your Eyes Only. Again, the name of the game isn't stated, but the players have free will with a third card. I'd love to analyze the hand played, but they don't show what card the Player got nor his total.

Quote: Wizard

As to the baccarat/chemin de fer issue, I would have definitely gone with baccarat had I been playing. Expecting the average person to know chemin de fer from baccarat is beyond Jeopardy expectations, which is why I would have gone with the more familiar baccarat. Had I been a judge, I would have accepted either. As to what should be the right answer, I would need to re-watch the Bond films where he plays either game. I do recall specifically he was playing chemin de fer in For Your Eyes Only, as evidenced by Bond having free will to hit or stand.

As to "the Mooch," I was surprised too that was accepted without argument. I am not saying it should have been wrong, but Alex should have asked for the actual name. To play the devil's advocate, I've seen FDR accepted in lieu of Franklin Roosevelt, so maybe in some cases they just care that it's clear you know the answer.

I know "The Mooch" but I didn't know the guy's real name.

In defense of 'FDR' those are at least his initials, which is a variation of his name. I guess you could say "The Mooch" is too. Whereas something like "The Gipper" is not.

I wonder if WJC would fly for Clinton, or any other prez who normally doesn't get the initial nickname.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Quote: Wizard

As to the baccarat/chemin de fer issue, I would have definitely gone with baccarat had I been playing. Expecting the average person to know chemin de fer from baccarat is beyond Jeopardy expectations, which is why I would have gone with the more familiar baccarat. Had I been a judge, I would have accepted either. As to what should be the right answer, I would need to re-watch the Bond films where he plays either game. I do recall specifically he was playing chemin de fer in For Your Eyes Only, as evidenced by Bond having free will to hit or stand.

As to "the Mooch," I was surprised too that was accepted without argument. I am not saying it should have been wrong, but Alex should have asked for the actual name. To play the devil's advocate, I've seen FDR accepted in lieu of Franklin Roosevelt, so maybe in some cases they just care that it's clear you know the answer.

I know "The Mooch" but I didn't know the guy's real name.

In defense of 'FDR' those are at least his initials, which is a variation of his name. I guess you could say "The Mooch" is too. Whereas something like "The Gipper" is not.

I wonder if WJC would fly for Clinton, or any other prez who normally doesn't get the initial nickname.

The fact you didn't know the Mooch's real name shows that he shouldn't have got a pass.

WJC wouldn't fly either. FDR, LBJ, and JFK are the probably the only three Presidents that should be accepted.

I randomly flipped it on last week and finally watched Jason get bounced in Final.

Trebek gave a rather sobering interview last Friday on Canadian television. In it he talks of how he's slurring his words and that sores in his mouth from the chemo are making it difficult for him to enunciate. He also talks of how he's had a lucky life and that he's not afraid of dying. Fun stuff. I suppose he'll start appearing in next year's dead pools.

Quick story at Deadline.

Actual interview on CTV...

Quote: Gialmere

Trebek gave a rather sobering interview last Friday on Canadian television. In it he talks of how he's slurring his words and that sores in his mouth from the chemo are making it difficult for him to enunciate. He also talks of how he's had a lucky life and that he's not afraid of dying. Fun stuff. I suppose he'll start appearing in next year's dead pools.

Quick story at Deadline.

Actual interview on CTV...

One can only hope they have as much grace and dignity as he is displaying when their time comes.

Quote: MaxPen

One can only hope they have as much grace and dignity as he is displaying when their time comes.

He's almost 80. Dying rich and famous,
with millions of fans worldwide, there
are worse ways to go. He has a net
worth over $50 million. He has nothing
to be ashamed of.

Son of SOOPOO, the Crossword Puzzle Champion, has been selected to make it to the second round of qualifying! In two nights he will take another test and have a 'zoom' interview of some sort. He told me that they are filming now, but only using local contestants due to COVID-19. So he has no idea when he would be called to the show, even if he is someone they would call to the show.

Teddys, BeachBumBabs.... hopefully add SonOfSooPoo!

Quote: SOOPOO

Son of SOOPOO, the Crossword Puzzle Champion, has been selected to make it to the second round of qualifying!

Please tell son of SOOPOO I say congratulations on making it to the second round! He may get asked about interesting things about him Alex might bring up in the "meet the contestants" part of the show. I think the WoV challenge would make for a good story.

Quote: Wizard

Please tell son of SOOPOO I say congratulations on making it to the second round! He may get asked about interesting things about him Alex might bring up in the "meet the contestants" part of the show. I think the WoV challenge would make for a good story.

I’ve always thought expert in both etymology and entomology is a good factoid.

Alex has passed. Very sad day.