Alex literally straight-up asked Arthur how old he is in the interview segment. Rude as heck
Meh, big deal. After seven or eight games you start to run out of things to ask.
Honestly, if I somehow had a 7-game winning streak he’d have nothing left to ask me. I’m boring. Might have four nights’ worth of funny anecdotes. By Game 7 he’d have to ask me how old I was or what my shirt size was or something.
Anyway, tonight’s win was, I believe, the fourth-highest winning total in the history of the game.
Watching him play I am honestly wondering how long he can go. 20 games? 40? 75? He looks totally unbeatable.
How many people are also fans of Erfworld? Arthur Chu did the voice overs for the recent “video” updates.
Is it worth pointing out that, even if you took away Chu’s Daily Double hunting and his wagering strategies, he’d STILL be a damn good player?
I mean, his Daily Double hunting approach can ONLY work so long as he’s ringing in fast and first and answering questions correctly.
And his betting strategy only works if he’s in the lead going into Final Jeopardy.
Needless to say, he HAS been doing both of those things. Which means he’d probably be a repeat champion even if he played the usual boring way.
Chu is now the occasion for comments at Washingtonpost.com. Why we’re actually mad at ruthless ‘Jeopardy!’ contestant Arthur Chu
Someone tried to bring up the racial factor but got shot down.
I think people react the way they do because, psychologically, we seek order, and his method upsets that order.
Interview with Chu at the AV Club. Pretty interesting, comes off as a normal guy.
Ken Jennings interviews Arthur for Slate. The racial factor is discussed at some length.
It seems Jeopardy episodes are pre recorded. Since he seems to be back at home and done with his recordings, his streak must be over already right?
They only tape so many at a time. For example, Jennings had to return to LA to tape more games.
Not necessarily- their filming season usually ends right about now. He MIGHT still be champion, but might not have to tape any new episodes for a few months.
Tying does though.
I was talking about letting a friend live rent free in your apartment.
How do they prevent the audience from tweeting the results?
They can’t. They do ask the audience not to tell anyone the results before the episode is aired, and the contestants themselves are contractually bound to not disclose anything about an episode before airing. Word of Ken Jennings losing to Anna Zerg was in the news the day of that taping, and there was nothing Jeopardy! or Sony could do about it.
It seems like they could do something about it, by putting a non-disclosure agreement on the tickets, allowing them to assess a fine if it is violated. Discovering who did it might be difficult, but I’d think it no more difficult than doing so for the players themselves. Anyone can attempt to share the results anonymously. It’s not like Twitter requires you to enter your real name or anything. (And not like you couldn’t lie, anyways.) And IP tracing only works if you don’t know what you are doing.
I find it interesting that the controversy is supposedly about people hating on him, yet most of the comments that I read are supportive of him.
Remember that contestants don’t get their money until months after the shows appear on the air. So, the producers have SOME leverage over the players. They can tell us (and they did!), “If we see you announcing on Facebook that you won, or if we see you on the evening news in your hometown talking about the show, we’re not going to pay you.”
But if I told my wife what happened and she told her girlfriends and they told some friends… well, there’s not much they can do to me.
They have even LESS leverage over audience members. If you just happened to be sitting in the audience when Joe Schmeaux finally defeats Chu, what can they threaten you with? They can ask you politely not to post what you know on social media, or not to tell reporters. But even if you do, how can they really puinish you?
I’m a bit late, but in Chu’s last game, it seems the “vote to tie” strategy might’ve helped on 2/28.
Entering Final Jeopardy, the scores were:
Arthur: $22,400
Semret: $11,400
Dawn: $7,400
The most Semret can score is $22,800. So Arthur needs to bet $401 to ensure that he’s the sole winner if he gets it right. Instead, he bet $400. Interestingly, Semret only bid $10,600, which brought him up to $22,000 instead of $22,800 - so if Arthur had gotten it wrong, they would’ve tied, instead of leaving Semret as the sole winner. Of course, if Arthur had bet $401 instead of $400 and gets it wrong, no tie - but there’s not really a benefit to Semret for doing so. So it seems both players seemed to be making bets on the assumption of going for a tie.
Yeah, I saw that and was quite surprised by it. It might make sense for Arthur to try and tie, but why would someone want Arthur to come back on against them?