PDA

View Full Version : morons who don't know how to wager in final jeopardy (spoilers for july 8 game)


PSXer
07-08-2014, 06:58 PM
going into final jeopardy the girl in second place had $11000 and the guy in first place had $22000

the smartest wager for him was to bet $0 (which is what he did, good job)


and she should have bet all of it because that was the only way she had a chance

but instead she bet $2601

they both got the final right so she ended up in second place and he won with $22000

what the heck was she thinking

if she had bet it all she would have tied for first and they both could have kept the money and moved on to the next day


it bottles my mind how many people go on this game and don't know any strategy at all. should have done some basic research like Arthur

Hey Hey Paula
07-08-2014, 09:03 PM
Maybe she was thinking, better second place than third? That was my strategy on Jeopardy, back in 1989. Do they still give out lovely parting gifts? I still have the shop vac I won that day.

Trinopus
07-08-2014, 09:07 PM
Maybe she figured she had a 23.65% chance of answering correctly, and so bet as to maximize the dollar score at the end of the game, rather than betting to maximize the chances of being in first place.

I've always seen "Double or Nothing" as a bad strategy, but, of course, it depends on what, exactly, you're trying to maximize.

(I'm the sort who would "bank" all the time on Weakest Link.)

Little Nemo
07-08-2014, 09:11 PM
Maybe she was thinking, better second place than third? That was my strategy on Jeopardy, back in 1989. Do they still give out lovely parting gifts? I still have the shop vac I won that day.But you don't get to keep the money you have on the board. The second place winner gets a flat two thousand dollars and the third place winner gets a flat one thousand dollars. So you're generally better off swinging for the fences and trying to finish in first place - where you keep all your money and get a chance to come back and win more money - rather than playing it safe for just an extra thousand dollars.

It's Not Rocket Surgery!
07-09-2014, 09:51 AM
PSXer is right. I am baffled by the number of otherwise bright people who have no idea how to bet. If they've overcome their nerves enough to be in a position to possibly win, there's no reason for them to be betting without a clue.

In this situation, she assured herself an extra $1000 by throwing away a good chance at $22,000 (plus more, if she managed to won again the next day).

Bad Final Jeopardy! bets are fairly common, but bad Daily Double bets...you can't go two games without seeing at least one of those. I make sure I'm not holding the remote when watching, because I'd be sure to throw it. Why do SO MANY players bet $2000 on doubles, no matter what? And the number of players who get a double late in the game, can take the lead, bet enough to hurt them if they miss it, yet don't bet enough to take the lead... Aaaargh!

Eyebrows 0f Doom
07-09-2014, 10:17 AM
Yeah, bad FJ wagers make me so angry! I was yelling at the screen last night watching her bet. You've been playing well the whole game and then you throw it all away because you can't count! Her bet guaranteed that no matter what anyone else did, if they all got it wrong or all got it right, or any combination, that she would not win, when if she bet it all, she would have had a 50% chance of winning. Idiot.

Heh, from a post on the Jeopardy message board: "Her wager was as bad as the Brazilian soccer team."

Hey Hey Paula
07-09-2014, 11:19 AM
But you don't get to keep the money you have on the board. The second place winner gets a flat two thousand dollars and the third place winner gets a flat one thousand dollars. So you're generally better off swinging for the fences and trying to finish in first place - where you keep all your money and get a chance to come back and win more money - rather than playing it safe for just an extra thousand dollars.

Well, in my case I had no chance of coming in first that day. The first place guy was trouncing both of us. I ended up "tied" for second place, other guy and I had both bet so as to leave $100 on the table, and all three of us got the answer wrong. I ended up with the third-place prize (shop vac and camcorder) rather than the second place prize (trip to some resort in Arizona that I didn't want to go to anyway) because I had the least money on the board before Final Jeopardy. I got other nifty prizes too, like a case of olive oil, a case of instant rice, I forget what else - but no Turtle Wax or Lee Press On Nails! ;) I miss the old days of game shows sometimes.

I also didn't win Ben Stein's Money, but I got a telescope as my consolation prize.

Little Nemo
07-09-2014, 11:40 AM
Well, in my case I had no chance of coming in first that day. The first place guy was trouncing both of us.Yes, if you have no chance at first place, you should try to secure second. But my point was many players don't estimate the odds correctly. In the scenario described in the OP where the prizes were $22,000, $2000, and $1000, you'd be mathematically justified in trying for the first prize even if you were 95% certain you didn't know the correct answer.

magnusblitz
07-09-2014, 12:39 PM
The one that really annoys me is when a player gets a Daily Double as the last clue before the Final Jeopardy round, and is in a position to win the game outright with a large enough bet, and won't make the bet despite it being a category they've just aced. Sure, if it's something you're completely unfamiliar with, don't do it, but if you just got four of the other questions in the category right...

MeanOldLady
07-09-2014, 12:46 PM
Heh, from a post on the Jeopardy message board: "Her wager was as bad as the Brazilian soccer team."Snap!

And yeah, I'd have gone all in. Oh well.

Gatopescado
07-09-2014, 01:02 PM
going into final jeopardy the girl in second place had $11000 and the guy in first place had $22000

the smartest wager for him was to bet $0 (which is what he did, good job)



Or, you could argue that it was the worst bet. He got the answer correct, and could have walked away with 44k.

Without knowing what the others have wagered, or what the question is in advance, its really a crap-shoot.

PSXer
07-09-2014, 01:20 PM
Winning is the most important thing

It's not worth it to wager anything and risk losing your chance to come back the next day

Little Nemo
07-09-2014, 01:24 PM
Or, you could argue that it was the worst bet. He got the answer correct, and could have walked away with 44k.

Without knowing what the others have wagered, or what the question is in advance, its really a crap-shoot.No, it was the smart bet in his case. He knew he was guaranteed at least a tie as long as he kept the money he had - $22000 in this case. He'd have been risking that by betting.

He was playing against somebody who had $11000 to bet. If she bet it all and won, she'd have $22000 and tie him.

Now suppose he bet a single dollar. If he won, he'd have $22,001 and would win. But what would be the point? He keeps his money and comes back the next day regardless of whether he wins or ties. All he'd be doing is knocking her out of the game. Which would not only be petty but counterproductive - he's just mostly beaten her in that day's game so he'd rather play her again than compete against a stranger who might be better than him.

And that's if he gets the right answer. If he gets the wrong answer and she gets the right one, he has $21,999 and she has $22,000. He loses the game by a single dollar. He doesn't even get to keep his money - he's now the second place winner and just gets the standard $2000 prize. And he doesn't get to play again the next day.

As for betting everything, that's not quite as bad. He could win $44,000 which would represent an extra $22,000 to him. But he's risking $21,000 (all his winnings minus the $1000 consolation prize) and his opportunity to come back the next day (which is worth a minimum of $1000). So he should still hold steady and bet nothing.

suranyi
07-09-2014, 03:02 PM
I recently heard an interview with Alex Trebek in which he said that in his opinion every contestant should always wager as much as possible. It's not like anybody would actually lose their own money if they lost on Jeopardy, he said, so why not maximize the amount you take home if you do win.

Zsofia
07-09-2014, 03:23 PM
Well, when I did it I was in first place going into Final Jeopardy but I had a little mini-breakdown when it came time to bet. Seriously, they had to call time on me. Which is funny because I'd practiced and practiced and practiced betting strategies and was really hoping that I'd be in the position I was in, but somehow I just.... lost the ability to double a number, I guess. Sorry I offended you so much.

It's a good thing, though, because I didn't know the answer and fucking up the betting got me two grand instead of one.

dropzone
07-09-2014, 06:43 PM
It's pretend money until the game is over so I generally go all-in. Except in the case in the OP. Then I'd be all-in unless I was the guy with the 22k. Then I'd let other people play stupid.

Biotop
07-09-2014, 06:46 PM
Is there any reason not to bet to tie with another player for first place as opposed to beating them by a dollar?

Cayuga
07-09-2014, 06:49 PM
A couple of weeks ago I saw two games in three days in which the contestant with the most money going into Final got the answer right and lost because of his/her wager. There's no excuse for that.

dropzone
07-09-2014, 07:29 PM
Can the players see what the others have going into FJ, or are they betting blind?

Biotop
07-09-2014, 07:46 PM
Ideally all the players could collude before the game. At Final Jeopardy, each of the two leading players bets exactly enough so that they will tie the third place contestant if they are wrong. The third place contestant bets nothing. All that is left to do is for the two leading players to intentionally miss the final question. All players tie, and all three keep the third place total and repeat forever. No rules broken and a steady income for a half hour's work.

muldoonthief
07-09-2014, 08:10 PM
Can the players see what the others have going into FJ, or are they betting blind?

Everybody knows all the totals, and the FJ category, before placing their final wager.
Ideally all the players could collude before the game. At Final Jeopardy, each of the two leading players bets exactly enough so that they will tie the third place contestant if they are wrong. The third place contestant bets nothing. All that is left to do is for the two leading players to intentionally miss the final question. All players tie, and all three keep the third place total and repeat forever. No rules broken and a steady income for a half hour's work.
I'm guessing there are pretty strict rules against collusion, and ISTR reading that the players have zero off-screen contact until the game is over.

Biotop
07-09-2014, 08:26 PM
I'm guessing there are pretty strict rules against collusion, and ISTR reading that the players have zero off-screen contact until the game is over.

I wonder...?


+++++

In any case, is there a standard Final Jeopardy wagering theory?

It seems the leader (player A) should bet only enough to tie the second place player (player B) should B correctly double his total. Player B should wager everything. The third place contestant (player C) should wager, if possible, only enough to tie Player A if A is wrong. If C cannot tie A's pre-FJ total minus B's pre-FJ total, then C should wager nothing.

Rick Kitchen
07-09-2014, 08:26 PM
When I was on, they had production assistants working with us, answering our questions about what we needed to bet in order to tie or to get second, etc. I bet for second place because I didn't have enough money to beat the first placer, but I did have enough to insure that I wouldn't get third place if I missed the FJ question.

Morbo
07-09-2014, 09:33 PM
I saw that and my mind was bottled boggled as well. :)

Did she think he was going to specifically wager $8400 or more? Totally confusing.

Just Asking Questions
07-10-2014, 11:27 AM
I recently heard an interview with Alex Trebek in which he said that in his opinion every contestant should always wager as much as possible. It's not like anybody would actually lose their own money if they lost on Jeopardy, he said, so why not maximize the amount you take home if you do win.

Which just goes to show that he doesn't understand the game. If the second place and third place people could keep the money they had, he would have a point. But they only get $2K and $1K.

No wonder he gets snippy when people don't bet the max in daily doubles. Here's a clue, Alex: they are trying to win. The other strategy of daily doubles is, if you get them, even if you bet $5, no one else can use that DD to double their money.

Zsofia
07-10-2014, 12:20 PM
When I was on, they had production assistants working with us, answering our questions about what we needed to bet in order to tie or to get second, etc. I bet for second place because I didn't have enough money to beat the first placer, but I did have enough to insure that I wouldn't get third place if I missed the FJ question.
When I was on (two years ago) they didn't give you any help. You did get scratch paper.

Gatopescado
07-10-2014, 12:50 PM
No, it was the smart bet in his case.

Well, he got the answer right, so you could make the case it was the wrong thing to do. Could've made another 22k. And come back next day, by himself.

Curious, did he win the next day? And did he make more than 22k? If he lost, and walked away with a 2 day total of 24k and a box of rice, how do you feel about his previous strategy now?

Great Antibob
07-10-2014, 01:05 PM
I recently heard an interview with Alex Trebek in which he said that in his opinion every contestant should always wager as much as possible. It's not like anybody would actually lose their own money if they lost on Jeopardy, he said, so why not maximize the amount you take home if you do win.

When I was on, he was fielding questions from the audience during a commercial break. During one answer, he wondered aloud why everybody didn't just postpone filing their taxes until November like he did.

He's a game show host and obviously not a game theorist or a financial adviser.

It's really different standing behind the podiums. It's really easy to brain fart while standing up there. I don't mind the FJ screwups much. I almost did it myself.

Biotop
07-10-2014, 02:44 PM
It's really different standing behind the podiums. It's really easy to brain fart while standing up there. I don't mind the FJ screwups much. I almost did it myself.

It should be standard practice for the FJ leader to bid for a tie. We have had several threads, I see, over the years on Jeopardy strategy, and nothing argues well against playing for a tie. Not only is it kind of mean to screw the second place player out of thousands of dollars, the situation could well be reversed on the next show. The "plan to tie" among the two leading players is the soundest play-- no collusion needed.

Just Asking Questions
07-10-2014, 03:00 PM
It should be standard practice for the FJ leader to bid for a tie. We have had several threads, I see, over the years on Jeopardy strategy, and nothing argues well against playing for a tie. Not only is it kind of mean to screw the second place player out of thousands of dollars, the situation could well be reversed on the next show. The "plan to tie" among the two leading players is the soundest play-- no collusion needed.

I must politely disagree. The point of the game is to win. This isn't kindergarten "we don't keep score/everyone gets a trophy". This isn't The Politeness Society. This Is Jeopardy!

The goal of you as a Jeopardy player should be to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Biotop
07-10-2014, 03:21 PM
I must politely disagree. The point of the game is to win. This isn't kindergarten "we don't keep score/everyone gets a trophy". This isn't The Politeness Society. This Is Jeopardy!

The goal of you as a Jeopardy player should be to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

I must politely disagree.

The goal of you as a Jeopardy player should be to bring as much cash home as possible for as long as possible. I don't know about the lamentation of their women, but I am going to hear something a bit stronger than a lamentation from mine if I don't adopt the greed strategy and thereby return home without maximum dollars possible.

Zsofia
07-10-2014, 03:22 PM
They're all really nice, though. Seriously, the people playing the day I played were the nicest damned people. I didn't have the heart for any driving before me. :)

Robot Arm
07-10-2014, 04:04 PM
Well, he got the answer right, so you could make the case it was the wrong thing to do. Could've made another 22k. And come back next day, by himself.

Curious, did he win the next day? And did he make more than 22k? If he lost, and walked away with a 2 day total of 24k and a box of rice, how do you feel about his previous strategy now?Someone upthread said the money was all pretend until the game is over, but I don't think that's strictly true. You know, even before the show starts, that you will get $1,000 if you finish in third, etc. That's real money, and smart wagering will help you take home the most real money at the end of the day.

For the woman discussed in the OP, it breaks down like this (in real money terms); she was guaranteed $1,000 , made a wager that guaranteed her $2,000, but had a chance at $22,000. Had she bet everything, she was risking $1,000 for a chance at $21,000. Those are pretty attractive odds.*

But the math is different for the guy who was leading. He was guaranteed $22,000. Had he bet everything. he could have won $44,000, or finished last and only got $1,000. He was risking $21,000 for a chance at $22,000; barely better than even money. With that in mind, Gato, I think he made the smart play.


* Of course, the whole thing will never be an exact science because each player's final place will be determined by all three wagers, not just their own. The analysis for the second-place player assumes, for example, that the leader will bet nothing. Under the circumstances, though, that seems a reasonable assumption to make.

Cayuga
07-10-2014, 06:10 PM
ISTR reading that the players have zero off-screen contact until the game is over.

Quite the opposite back in 1982, anyway. The day's dozen or so contestants all gather in a large room, chat, shoot the shit, fill out paperwork, and get instructions. Then they are all taken down to the studio where they sit together in a designated section.

They go up on stage in groups of three, and Alex reads them some practice questions (so they can practice using the buzzer) and does a practice interview. Those not on stage watch and talk amongst themselves until it's their turn.

Contestants stay together while the audience is let in, and then two are chosen to face the returning champion. The rest sit together and kibbitz.

As soon as one show is done taping, the contestant coordinator points at two people "You, and you." and they go onstage and face the winner. The remaining members of the pool continue chatting.

janeslogin
07-10-2014, 06:29 PM
I. If two players tie for 2nd/3rd place in FJ for more than $2000

janeslogin
07-10-2014, 06:37 PM
I. If two players tie for 2nd/3rd place in FJ for more than $2000

Got caught by the five minute bell. So again:

I. If two players tie for 2nd/3rd place in FJ for more than $2000 what do they take home? Tie for exactly $2k or $1k or $0 what happens?

II. What do they get for today if two or more players tie for first place?

III.If a player has less than zero before FJ do they get any consolation?

Eyebrows 0f Doom
07-10-2014, 06:43 PM
Got caught by the five minute bell. So again:

I. If two players tie for 2nd/3rd place in FJ for more than $2000 what do they take home? Tie for exactly $2k or $1k or $0 what happens?
I think that the person who went into FJ with the larger amount is considered 2nd place.

II. What do they get for today if two or more players tie for first place?
They each get the total they won. If they tie with $22,000 they each win $22,000. Though I am not sure if a player wins the game with less than $2000, if they get a minimum amount or only what they actually won (plus whatever they get on the next show.)

III.If a player has less than zero before FJ do they get any consolation?

They'll get the 3rd place $1000.

Little Nemo
07-10-2014, 08:08 PM
Suppose there's an episode with three weak players and they go in to the Final Jeopardy round with $500, $200, and $100. The lead player bets nothing and holds on to his lead and $500 in winnings. The second and third place players walk away with the $2000 and $1000 consolation prizes.

Does the lead player still get just the $500 he won? Or is there a minimum prize he gets for winning first place (beyond the chance to return for the next game)?

Biotop
07-10-2014, 08:19 PM
Suppose there's an episode with three weak players and they go in to the Final Jeopardy round with $500, $200, and $100. The lead player bets nothing and holds on to his lead and $500 in winnings. The second and third place players walk away with the $2000 and $1000 consolation prizes.

Does the lead player still get just the $500 he won? Or is there a minimum prize he gets for winning first place (beyond the chance to return for the next game)?

This winner would still be guaranteed at least another $1000 in his next game, so I would bet that he just gets his winnings.

Mince
07-10-2014, 08:26 PM
PSXer is right. I am baffled by the number of otherwise bright people who have no idea how to bet.

Though I'm sure they're intricately linked, success on Jeopardy! is indicative of knowlege and memory, not intelligence. So it is not surprising when, occassionally, a contestant who correctly answers a lot of the questions, err, correctly questions a lot of the answers, doesn't seem to understand the betting mechanics.

I recently heard an interview with Alex Trebek in which he said that in his opinion every contestant should always wager as much as possible. It's not like anybody would actually lose their own money if they lost on Jeopardy, he said, so why not maximize the amount you take home if you do win.

If you're assured first place, if just a tie, then any money you have accrued is your money. So, if you wager any money that jeapordizes (ha) your position, then you are risking your own money. Maybe that's not the case with "Double Jeopardy," as you're generally not assured first place at that point, but you still have to wager wisely in an effort to attain first place.

Leaper
07-10-2014, 11:33 PM
There was a theory that she thought that the "tiebreaker by whoever was ahead at the end of the previous round" applied to ties between first and second, and that that meant that she couldn't come back under any circumstances.

Seems the most likely to me.

Gatopescado
07-11-2014, 02:06 AM
Though I'm sure they're intricately linked, success on Jeopardy! is indicative of knowlege and memory, not intelligence.

This is the first post that acknowledges the hugest wild-card in Jeopardy! strategy: The ability to answer the question.

Want to win the most money on that show? Have better reflexes and know your shit. In my mind, Final Jeopardy usually is just extra gravy. Game is done by that point.

But I'll admit, I'm not a regular watcher.

mr. jp
07-11-2014, 02:49 AM
Before you go on, you should really know the average proportion of contestants who get the final answer right, the average proportion in which one contestant gets it right and another wrong, and also the average value a contestant gets from competing.

It's not immediately obvious to me how the leading player should bet. If the average proportion who get the final answer right is, say 75%, and the average value from competing is $20.000, then the first player should've bet everything, not 0. (Unless he has a reason to believe he is significantly better than average.)

mr. jp
07-11-2014, 02:51 AM
Also, if you can get second place to go along with you, that is an advantage, not a drawback. Afterall you just defeated that person, so there should be a greater chance that you can defeat him or her again than there would for some random person.

Biotop
07-11-2014, 06:09 AM
Also, if you can get second place to go along with you, that is an advantage, not a drawback. Afterall you just defeated that person, so there should be a greater chance that you can defeat him or her again than there would for some random person.

Exactly. But should that person be in first place, and you in second next time, you hope the foe will realize the same benefit in playing to keep you around-- something I would be sure gets mentioned during that little handshake session that occurs as the final credits roll.

I'm not sure the strategy even changes if the FJ catagory is something obscure to you (example: "Polynesian Needlepoint" or some such). However, if you are a biologist, and the FJ catagory is "Biology," then it makes more sense to take advantage of your luck and as leader bet the farm.

Zsofia
07-11-2014, 10:59 AM
Before you go on, you should really know the average proportion of contestants who get the final answer right, the average proportion in which one contestant gets it right and another wrong, and also the average value a contestant gets from competing.

It's not immediately obvious to me how the leading player should bet. If the average proportion who get the final answer right is, say 75%, and the average value from competing is $20.000, then the first player should've bet everything, not 0. (Unless he has a reason to believe he is significantly better than average.)
None of which will do you a damned bit of good if you don't happen to know that particular Final Jeopardy question.

mr. jp
07-11-2014, 11:09 AM
None of which will do you a damned bit of good if you don't happen to know that particular Final Jeopardy question.

This is about the decision that is made before you know the question. Of course whatever decision you make could turn out to be wrong, but such is every decision.

Eyebrows 0f Doom
07-11-2014, 11:26 AM
It's not immediately obvious to me how the leading player should bet. If the average proportion who get the final answer right is, say 75%, and the average value from competing is $20.000, then the first player should've bet everything, not 0. (Unless he has a reason to believe he is significantly better than average.)

If you are talking about the leading player in the game mentioned in the OP, him betting anything at all lowers his chances of winning from 100% to I don't know what the percentage would be but it's way less than 100%. He'd be throwing away a sure thing on a gamble that he knows the answer.

If a win for the leader is not assured, then you take into consideration how well you think you know the topic and the scores of your opponents. One can usually figure out the answer just by how the clue is worded, even if the topic category sounds very difficult. From what I've seen over the year, a majority of the time the leader going into FJ ends up winning, often because they all get the answer and he bet enough to pass 2nd. Of course there are also many many times where the leader does not know it and the 2nd or 3rd place ends up winning.

mr. jp
07-11-2014, 11:51 AM
If you are talking about the leading player in the game mentioned in the OP, him betting anything at all lowers his chances of winning from 100% to I don't know what the percentage would be but it's way less than 100%. He'd be throwing away a sure thing on a gamble that he knows the answer.


Yes. But that still might be the right move, if the chance of guessing correct is high, and the expected value of competing on Jeopardy is relatively low. If he bets, he should bet all, or nearly all.

kath94
07-11-2014, 01:19 PM
Stupid question related to this Jeopardy episode, but not the OP. I just watched this one last night, and I'm sure at one point the army guy responded, "Brent Michaels" when it should have been "Bret Michaels." I assured my husband that when they returned from break, but before Final Jeopardy, they'd correct him & deduct the money for that A/Q.

Did anyone else hear it the way I did?

Eyebrows 0f Doom
07-11-2014, 01:41 PM
Yes. But that still might be the right move, if the chance of guessing correct is high, and the expected value of competing on Jeopardy is relatively low. If he bets, he should bet all, or nearly all.

No, you're wrong here. The object of Jeopardy is not simply to win as much money as possible. It's to win the game and come back the next episode to win more. It doesn't matter how high his change of guessing correctly is, it won't be 100%.

Now that's not to say that if it's a topic he knows he is an expert in, he won't get it right. He probably will get it correct, but there is always a change he won't. It could be the one fact he doesn't know, he could misspell something, or he could just have a brain fart and even though it's something obvious and he knows it, he doesn't get it out in time. That is why if you go into FJ with a lock, betting where if you get it wrong you will have less than double the total of 2nd place is not smart and is not encouraged.

Just Asking Questions
07-11-2014, 02:27 PM
Stupid question related to this Jeopardy episode, but not the OP. I just watched this one last night, and I'm sure at one point the army guy responded, "Brent Michaels" when it should have been "Bret Michaels." I assured my husband that when they returned from break, but before Final Jeopardy, they'd correct him & deduct the money for that A/Q.

Did anyone else hear it the way I did?

Yep. I did as well. Surprised they let it go, considering some of the mispronunciations they do penalize.

Sean Factotum
07-15-2014, 10:25 AM
I must politely disagree. The point of the game is to win. This isn't kindergarten "we don't keep score/everyone gets a trophy". This isn't The Politeness Society. This Is Jeopardy!

The goal of you as a Jeopardy player should be to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.


So I guess this is how you want every game to end? (http://russandalexandspam.blogspot.com/2014/05/ruttered.html)

Maserschmidt
02-17-2018, 06:59 PM
For goodness' sake, lady. :smack:

ETA: I bumped this instead of starting a new one, but just noticed the date header. Sorry.

TBG
02-22-2018, 07:01 PM
I miss PSXer, hia Jeopardy obsession is just one reason.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.