Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #751  
Old 10-09-2019, 01:48 PM
TreacherousCretin's Avatar
TreacherousCretin is offline
Horrified Onlooker
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posts: 5,629
I suspect the producers already have plans firmly in place, and are keeping quiet about it out of respect for Trebek.
  #752  
Old 10-09-2019, 02:10 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,293
I hate when they determine the specific end target for the search first (female of color) and work backwards from there. Just pick the best person.

I've always wanted Ken Jennings. I think I've read that he's interested, and he has the jeopardy cred to replace a giant, and I think he'd make a good host.
  #753  
Old 10-09-2019, 04:21 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I hate when they determine the specific end target for the search first (female of color) and work backwards from there. Just pick the best person.

I've always wanted Ken Jennings. I think I've read that he's interested, and he has the jeopardy cred to replace a giant, and I think he'd make a good host.
Yeah, we wouldn't want white males to be under-represented among TV game show hosts.
  #754  
Old 10-09-2019, 04:35 PM
Mahaloth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 29,942
I guess last night they aired an incorrect fact about Tetris blocks having names.

I have to admit, that guy did a great job making a fake manual page.
  #755  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:12 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Thatís wild.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
Yeah, we wouldn't want white males to be under-represented among TV game show hosts.

Thatís almost exactly the opposite of what was said. Literally that post was against taking underrepresentation or overrepresentation into account at all when choosing the host.

I would split the difference and say they should break a tie by going with a woman of color, but should not rule out a white man if that is clearly the best host. It really needs to be someone who basically knows all the answers without having to look them up.
  #756  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:30 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
How often is the non-runaway score leader going into Final Jeopardy the only one to get FJ wrong?
  #757  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:43 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It really needs to be someone who basically knows all the answers without having to look them up.
You understand that the host has the answers on cards in front of him, don't you?
  #758  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:57 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
You understand that the host has the answers on cards in front of him, don't you?

Yes, of course. But that doesnít allow them to instantly respond to a wrong answer with ďOhh, sorry: you were thinking of the Tudor Dynasty rather than the House of Stuart that succeeded it. That will cost you $2000, but you still control the board, pick again.Ē Thatís the kind of shit Alex Trebek can pull out of his hat, and it makes him a boss. (I have heard people complain that he is a showoff, but I love it.) I donít want that mastery replaced by some telegenic presenter who can read everything smoothly off of cue cards, but doesnít really know the stuff cold.
  #759  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:50 AM
TreacherousCretin's Avatar
TreacherousCretin is offline
Horrified Onlooker
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posts: 5,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, of course. But that doesnít allow them to instantly respond to a wrong answer with ďOhh, sorry: you were thinking of the Tudor Dynasty rather than the House of Stuart that succeeded it. That will cost you $2000, but you still control the board, pick again.Ē Thatís the kind of shit Alex Trebek can pull out of his hat, and it makes him a boss...
IIRC Trebek reads all the day's questions before they tape the games, so he can be aware of any tricky pronunciations. He even alludes to the fact sometimes during a game (e.g. "I'd never heard of this one either.") I don't think he's pulling all those Mister-Know-It-All wrong answer followups out of his hat. Not that I'm dissing him - He no less impressive all the same.
  #760  
Old 10-10-2019, 04:57 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreacherousCretin View Post
IIRC Trebek reads all the day's questions before they tape the games, so he can be aware of any tricky pronunciations. He even alludes to the fact sometimes during a game (e.g. "I'd never heard of this one either.") I don't think he's pulling all those Mister-Know-It-All wrong answer followups out of his hat. Not that I'm dissing him - He no less impressive all the same.
Right, and Trebek has been doing this for 35 fricking years! So he's obviously picked up plenty of information in that time. He's very good at his job, but I don't think he's Ken Jennings or James Holzhauer smart. (We could also discuss whether their command of lots of facts is the same as intelligence, but that's probably another thread.)

As far as Trebek's replacement is concerned, it's not like there's a Game Show Host SAT test all the potential candidates can take, so that the showrunners can give the job to the person with the highest score, regardless of sex or race. In the end it will be a subjective call, probably made at least partly on the basis of test shows, audience surveys, focus groups, and the like.

But if, for instance, they're hoping to draw in more women, or younger people, or some other key demographic, and find that, for instance, a woman of color would accomplish that as well as or better than a white man, why not?

Whoever they choose, there will undoubtedly be those who will say that the new person is not as good as Trebek, and some who will say, if it's a woman of color, that she's not as good as some man they could have hired.
  #761  
Old 10-10-2019, 06:45 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreacherousCretin View Post
IIRC Trebek reads all the day's questions before they tape the games, so he can be aware of any tricky pronunciations. He even alludes to the fact sometimes during a game (e.g. "I'd never heard of this one either.") I don't think he's pulling all those Mister-Know-It-All wrong answer followups out of his hat. Not that I'm dissing him - He no less impressive all the same.
Also, when he makes comments like "You're thinking of his father," it's during the daily doubles and final jeopardy. It wouldn't surprise me if the producers put notes for those questions saying what some common wrong answers are.
  #762  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:51 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
But if, for instance, they're hoping to draw in more women, or younger people, or some other key demographic, and find that, for instance, a woman of color would accomplish that as well as or better than a white man, why not?

Iím cool with that, as long as it is someone who is at least as good at the knowledge stuff as the average second place contestant. Anything less than that, no.
  #763  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:44 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
The new head writer on Jeopardy! says players should find a style that works for them and not use Holzhauer's method, because he was a "one-in-a-million" player.

She and Alex think the games flow better from top to bottom.

I disagree, and I think the example of Jason shows that people not quite as smart as James can do well with his technique. Time will tell how popular and successful it will be.
  #764  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:32 AM
Just Asking Questions is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
Whoever they choose, there will undoubtedly be those who will say that the new person is not as good as Trebek, ...
I still say, this new guy they got isn't as good as Art Fleming, and soon they'll realize it and replace this upstart.
  #765  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:39 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
The new head writer on Jeopardy! says players should find a style that works for them and not use Holzhauer's method, because he was a "one-in-a-million" player.

She and Alex think the games flow better from top to bottom.

I disagree, and I think the example of Jason shows that people not quite as smart as James can do well with his technique. Time will tell how popular and successful it will be.
I watched yesterday's game and it seemed like they were trying to use Holzhauer's technique of starting with the $1000/$2000 clues and jumping around the board. Unfortunately, none of them had Holzhauer's depth of trivia knowledge to really control the board. It was painful to watch them all struggle like that.
  #766  
Old 10-22-2019, 12:28 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
I watched yesterday's game and it seemed like they were trying to use Holzhauer's technique of starting with the $1000/$2000 clues and jumping around the board. Unfortunately, none of them had Holzhauer's depth of trivia knowledge to really control the board. It was painful to watch them all struggle like that.
I haven't had time to watch much since Jason left, but in the few games I saw after that I found the straight-down-the-categories play that most players were doing to be pretty boring.

I guess it's a question of what you want from the game: two or three closely matched, but not outstandingly brilliant, players who go back and forth for the lead, or one really smart player who quickly builds and holds a commanding lead for most of the game. The former describes about 98% of the games played in the last 35 years, and the latter is Jennings, Holzhauer, and a few other top champions.

Personally, I find the latter type more interesting, and worth tuning in to watch. The former is not so compelling to me that I'd normally spend 30 minutes on it instead of some other more novel show I would watch on Netflix, Amazon, etc. There are too many other options out there to spend half an hour on an ordinary Jeopardy! game.

If you like the ordinary play, more power to you. Enjoy! And of course, they can't all be extraordinary, by definition. So although I've been predicting that more people will try Holzhauer's technique, obviously only a few will do very well with it, and almost no one will do as well as James did. I'm curious to find out how many people will attempt it and make it work better than the standard method.
  #767  
Old 10-22-2019, 12:30 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
FYI, here's an interview with Alex from about a year ago that I hadn't noticed at the time, and came across yesterday when I saw the story about the interview with the new head writer.
  #768  
Old 10-22-2019, 06:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
The new head writer on Jeopardy! says players should find a style that works for them and not use Holzhauer's method, because he was a "one-in-a-million" player.

She and Alex think the games flow better from top to bottom.

I disagree, and I think the example of Jason shows that people not quite as smart as James can do well with his technique. Time will tell how popular and successful it will be.

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. Doesn't this strengthen my hypothesis that they may change the rules to require that kind of play?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #769  
Old 10-22-2019, 06:40 PM
Just Asking Questions is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. Doesn't this strengthen my hypothesis that they may change the rules to require that kind of play?
I hope not! Might as well just forgo categories and just have the host read questions (excuse me, answers) in order. We already have that show. it's called Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
  #770  
Old 10-22-2019, 06:52 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I will say again what I said about this last time. How can it be true that requiring people to play the game the way everyone has played it in at least 99% of all episodes makes it just the same as "Millionaire"?

And of coarse "Millionaire" does not involve wagering, does not have three contestants trying to ring in first, and just has many fewer questions and no categories or wordplay that I can recall. Conversely, Jeopardy does not allow people to phone a friend or eliminate all but one answer. This is a rather specious comparison overall. They are both trivia game shows, but that's about where it ends, with or without my putative rule change.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #771  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:51 AM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. Doesn't this strengthen my hypothesis that they may change the rules to require that kind of play?
Not at all. ISTM that if TPTB thought that jumping around really hurt the game and wanted to change the rules, they would have done so after Chuck Forrest's or Arthur Chu's appearances. Alex and Michelle Loud say they prefer players to take clues in order, and offer reasons why they should, but both seem to accept the fact that not everyone will.

And at this point, 35+ years in, the freedom players have to choose any clue on the board is too deeply ingrained into the nature of the game to meddle with. A rule change that attempted to restrict that freedom would be cumbersome, open to interpretation, and might provoke a backlash from viewers. And IMHO, it would serve no good purpose.

Most players tend, most of the time, to take clues in ascending order, so if it's not broke, don't fix it.
  #772  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:17 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,497
With all the clues being read by Alexa lately, I pretty much expect Trebek to be replaced with an Amazon robot when the time comes.
  #773  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:18 PM
Just Asking Questions is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I will say again what I said about this last time. How can it be true that requiring people to play the game the way everyone has played it in at least 99% of all episodes makes it just the same as "Millionaire"?
The key word there is "require". No one has every required the clues to be taken in order. Alex &co can whine all they like about jumping around, they can whine that people don't bet enough in DDs, but the bottom line is, the game is being played the way the players want within the rules.

So I picked the wrong game show reference, but removing the ability to jump around would make Jeopardy! just another quiz show.

Do you want to remove the forward pass from American football because someone in 1919 thought the game shouldn't be played that way?
  #774  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:14 PM
K364's Avatar
K364 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2,804
The problem is that DD's are seeded in rows 3 and 4 90% of the time. Should just have it totally random. Probably already suggested... seems obvious.

Other approaches would gimmick up a elegant simple game.
  #775  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:23 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Another problem with the idea of changing the rules is that at the very least it would stop the flow of play whenever players picked an ineligible clue and had to choose another one. Should there be a penalty for picking a "wrong" clue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by K364 View Post
The problem is that DD's are seeded in rows 3 and 4 90% of the time. Should just have it totally random. Probably already suggested... seems obvious.
One of the reasons they are not often in the top two rows is that the DD has the same level of difficulty as the row it's in, and they want the DDs to have a certain degree of challenge. Being able to make a big bet on an easy clue doesn't seem right.

However, that doesn't explain why the DDs appear on the left side of the board more often, or why Col. 1, Row 4 should have significantly more DDs than any other spot on the board.

It could be that if they assume people will work top-to-bottom and left-to-right, putting DDs on the left side will tend to expose them earlier, thereby reducing the number of big payouts, and saving them some prize money.

Last edited by commasense; 10-23-2019 at 04:24 PM.
  #776  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:19 PM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
Another problem with the idea of changing the rules is that at the very least it would stop the flow of play whenever players picked an ineligible clue and had to choose another one. Should there be a penalty for picking a "wrong" clue?
It would speed play up because players wouldn't have to specify the dollar amount. Players would pick the category and the lowest available dollar amount would be the next clue. Not that I'm advocating for this rule change.
  #777  
Old 10-23-2019, 06:20 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
It would speed play up because players wouldn't have to specify the dollar amount. Players would pick the category and the lowest available dollar amount would be the next clue. Not that I'm advocating for this rule change.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Still don't like the idea, and don't think it should (or will) happen.
  #778  
Old 10-23-2019, 07:27 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,230
Does anyone happen to have a link to James Holzhauer on The Chase? There's a 2ish minute video of his bank section of the program, but nothing for how he fared in the next two segments.
  #779  
Old 10-24-2019, 08:32 AM
MrAtoz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Still don't like the idea, and don't think it should (or will) happen.
Another reason not to make going in order a formal rule: even the producers recognize that there are times when it's a legitimate strategy to go out of order.

Let's say it's late in the game. You're behind by a significant amount, though not insurmountable. You answer correctly, so you now have control, and Alex gives you the "Less than a minute to go" warning. There's one complete category still to be played.

In that situation, you sure as hell pick the $2000 clue first. If you're going to have any hope of catching up in the time you've got left, you need high value clues, and you need them now. Having to start at the top and work your way up to a $2000 clue that you might never reach would really hamstring your ability to get back into the game.

This is advice that the producer actually gave us in the contestant briefing prior to taping--it it's late and you're behind, go for the bottom clues first. So even if taking the clues in order is generally the best approach, they realize that occasionally circumstances make starting at the bottom a better strategy. It's higher risk, but also higher reward. Contestants deciding that the higher risk is worth it is part of the game, and always has been. Plus, someone who's been trailing for most of the game making a comeback in the last minute or two is exciting TV, and they wouldn't want to make it impossible for that to happen.

Jeopardy! is now in its 36th season. Chuck Forrest used the "Forrest Bounce" during Season 2, and various players have used it since then. If they haven't changed the rules by now, they're not going to.
  #780  
Old 10-26-2019, 12:54 AM
Steven_Maven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 59

DVR - Duh!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Most of the time I have something else I need to do during that time.
Where I live (Chicago), Jeopardy is on at 3:30 PM. Who can watch it at that time? My wife & I record it on our DVR and watch it during dinner.
  #781  
Old 11-01-2019, 01:25 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Someone on the Jeopardy Contestants Facebook group just posted this.
Quote:
A friend of mine went to a Jeopardy! taping last Wednesday. She saw the Thurs. and Fri. games. They have changed the schedule, and Alex does three games one day and two on another. He can't do five a day anymore. She said he didn't look well, and he had to re-record quite a few answers. He also had a coughing fit and was doubled over in pain because he had fallen and injured, but not broken, a rib. They had to stop the tape. He then announced that he would be taking two weeks off for various tests. He was done with the latest round of chemo and was stopping immunotherapy because it wasn't working. This doesn't sound promising. (These shows will air in January.)
  #782  
Old 11-01-2019, 03:58 PM
Ponch8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven_Maven View Post
Where I live (Chicago), Jeopardy is on at 3:30 PM. Who can watch it at that time? My wife & I record it on our DVR and watch it during dinner.
I don't understand this either. On the other hand, Wheel of Fortune comes on at 6:30 when people are usually home from work. Wheel of Fortune seems to be aimed at a dumber, less-employable audience who are home all day to watch. Why not switch the time slots for the two shows?
  #783  
Old 11-01-2019, 05:11 PM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 48,561
I don't even know when Jeopardy! is on here. I just tape it and watch it whenever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
Someone on the Jeopardy Contestants Facebook group just posted this.
This is so distressing.
  #784  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:15 PM
notfrommensa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,955
Jeopardy! is on at 3:30 pm here, and WoF is at 6:30 pm. Both are on the local NBC affiliate.
__________________
notfrommensa is clearly awesome - oslo ostragoth
  #785  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:22 PM
notfrommensa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,955
Just an observation on DD placement. The right most column is often a "fun" or novel category like "Stupid Answers" or a twist on a Before/After category. IMO, DD's don't lend itself well into tricky categories and perhaps the TPTB agree.

It is indeed distressing news about Trebek. But not distressing to leave him off my 2020 Death Pool game. Along with 95% of the other players.
__________________
notfrommensa is clearly awesome - oslo ostragoth
  #786  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:40 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
I find it interesting to note that although most players in the (admittedly small number of) regular shows I've watched this season have played top to bottom, most TOC players in the first two shows started at the bottom. No one has dominated like Holzhauer, though.
  #787  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:44 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,107
FYI, yesterday was the first day in the two-week Tournament of Champions. James Holzhauer will be competing sometime this week, although I don't know which day.
  #788  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:18 AM
MrAtoz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
FYI, yesterday was the first day in the two-week Tournament of Champions. James Holzhauer will be competing sometime this week, although I don't know which day.
It's tonight (Wednesday, 11/6).

You can always see the week's lineup of contenders at jeopardy.com, under the "Contestant Zone" drop-down.
  #789  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:18 AM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Man, can you imagine being in the TOC and being selected to play Holzhauer? You might as well not even pick up the signalling device.

Most of his competitors in regular games only saw him play a few times in the studio before they went up against him. They would have known that he was doing well, but had never seen him in a broadcast.

His TOC competitors (a five-time champ with $120K, and a four-timer with $101K) have probably seen all his games and know his legend. Tough break for them. There are at least three seven-time champs in the TOC. They might have had a slightly better chance against him. The may have their chance in the semis and finals.

Anyone want to give odds on where James finish? Any chance he won't win?
  #790  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:34 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,107
Of course it's possible he doesn't win. I don't think Ken Jennings won the TOC in which he competed.
  #791  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:41 AM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Of course it's possible he doesn't win. I don't think Ken Jennings won the TOC in which he competed.
Wanna put some money on it?
  #792  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:01 AM
MrAtoz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,630
Ken Jennings did not take part in the "regular" Tournament of Champions. It took place while his run was still in progress.

The next year, rather than having a normal tournament, they did the "Ultimate Tournament of Champions." This lasted 15 weeks and involved 145 past champions. Jennings was automatically advanced to the finals. He indeed did not win, losing to Brad Rutter. They've met several times since then, in various tournaments (most recently in the All-Star Tournament), and Rutter has won every time. Edited to add: except when the two of them competed against Watson, the computer. Jennings finished second and Rutter third. Watson won.

It will be interesting to see how James does against other contestants who also have experience, and have proven themselves to have quick reaction times and good trivia knowledge. I suspect he will win the tournament, but he may not be quite as dominant.

Last edited by MrAtoz; 11-06-2019 at 10:02 AM.
  #793  
Old 11-06-2019, 11:04 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Okay, for anyone who has not yet seen game 3 of the TOC quarter finals, Alex ribbed Holzhauer at the start of the game, saying, "Which $1,000 clue do you want to start with?"
SPOILER:
And then James went on to use his standard tactics to win in a runaway, despite not getting all the DDs, and missing one that he did get.
  #794  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:09 AM
Gus Gusterson is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: US
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by commasense View Post
Okay, for anyone who has not yet seen game 3 of the TOC quarter finals, Alex ribbed Holzhauer at the start of the game, saying, "Which $1,000 clue do you want to start with?"
SPOILER:
[redacted]
Correction to your spoiler:

SPOILER:
He did answer his DD correctly, adding $1,109 to his score.

Last edited by Gus Gusterson; 11-07-2019 at 07:10 AM. Reason: removed spoiler from the post I'm replying to
  #795  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:53 AM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Sorry, I thought he got one wrong.
  #796  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:03 PM
notfrommensa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,955
I don't understand the FJ wagering strategy of the girl (Lindsey Shultz)who finished 2nd to James.

She had 10,800 and James had 30,309. and the third place player (Dhruv Gaur) had 6,000. A runaway game

Obviously she wants to have one of the four high scores of the non winners because she has no chance of winning.

Isn't the correct strategy for her:

A. to bet it all, to ensure her highest possible total.
B. To bet 1201, to make sure she at least beat the third player, in case to beat third place player in case he bet it all and got FJ correct
C. To bet 0 and hope an pray that 10,800 is going to qualify.

She bets 3200 to get her to 14000 which at the time, may or may not be enough for one of the wildcards.

I think Going all-in is the correct wager in her situation, If she doesn't think 10800 or 12001 is enough to qualify then she should be shooting the moon.

FWIW, she has the 2nd highest total going into the 5th Qtr final, so she is guaranteed one of the spots, but she should not have known that when she played her game.
__________________
notfrommensa is clearly awesome - oslo ostragoth
  #797  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:57 AM
K364's Avatar
K364 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2,804
^ I agree, coming second in the current game isn't much of a prize compared to what earnings are possible if you advance in the tournament, so focus on what you need for the wild-card.

As you said, 10, 800 is unlikely to qualify for a WC so you have to bet something. If you bet and lose you're going to miss the WC for sure, so bet it all.
  #798  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:30 AM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Any TOC players here? I ask because in normal play, all contestants on a given tape day watch the games played before they go on. I was wondering while watching this week's games if they do the same thing during the TOC. If so, the later players would have a better idea of how much they would need to get one of the wild card spots. That would seem to give them an unfair advantage.

So do TOC players get to see the games before theirs, or are they isolated? Anyone?

Here's a completely unrelated thing I've been wondering about for some time now. At the beginning of each round, the categories are displayed as Alex reads them out. If you watch, the camera motion is precise and perfect every single time. It never undershoots or overshoots, and each monitor is perfectly framed in the shot, no keystoning, no stray reflections. And the little bit of light texturing on the bottom edge of the monitor's bezel is exactly the same on each one.

I've come to the conclusion that there is no camera shooting the actual game board (as there was for the first several decades), but that it's a CGI shot. For a while I though that maybe there was an automated camera mounted somewhere in the studio, but as I've continued to watch the perfection has convinced me that it has to be virtual.

I don't imagine anyone here would happen to know, and short of finding someone who works on the show's technical staff, there's little likelihood we'll be able to get a definitive answer. But it's something I've noticed and been thinking about for years.
  #799  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:58 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,433
Probably, if for no other reason than that shooting a monitor usually produces artifacts. They're not nearly as bad now as they used to be, thanks to screens that work two-dimensionally and smaller pixel sizes, but you'd still want to avoid it. In fact, in the earlier decades, an effects shot of some sort would be even more necessary, though it probably wasn't CGI.
  #800  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:43 PM
commasense's Avatar
commasense is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 6,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Probably, if for no other reason than that shooting a monitor usually produces artifacts. They're not nearly as bad now as they used to be, thanks to screens that work two-dimensionally and smaller pixel sizes, but you'd still want to avoid it. In fact, in the earlier decades, an effects shot of some sort would be even more necessary, though it probably wasn't CGI.
No, back then it was definitely a studio camera shooting the actual board. I have no way of knowing when they might have started doing it with CG (if I'm right), but I know that's what they did when I was on in 1991.

Although I'm no expert on the tech they might be using, ISTM that it's only been in the last decade or less that a CG version would have been feasible and economical for a game show.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017