Mayim would have fainted dead away.
Only if Ken Jennings were hosting.
Just found this, mentioned in Answers in the Form of Questions, a recent book by Claire McNear.
Yet again, on yesterday’s episode, questionable wagering cost a contestant the victory.
Going into FJ:
Steve had $20,000
Ben had $10,000
Tehmeena had $3200
Ben had one chance to win: He must answer the question correctly and hope that Steve misses (or bets 0). In the event that Steve does miss, Ben has to bet it all to ensure a victory.
Steve missed and bet one dollar. Ben got it right but only bet $3000. Had he bet it all, he would have won the game.
Ben’s FJ bet of $3000 is the worst wager that I can recall.
Did he think Steve was going to bet $7001?
mmm
That’s the first time we’ve had a Jimmy Hoffa cosplayer on Jeopardy.
All three of them bet quite stupidly (IMHO), starting with Steve’s final DD wager, on the last clue before FJ. He had $15,000, Ben had $10,000, and he bet $5,000 and got it right, leaving him with exactly twice Ben’s score going into FJ. Any amount over $5,000 would have given him a lock on the game, assuming he got it right.
I suppose the argument can be made that the $5,000 bet left him with a worst case scenario of a tie-breaker, whereas anything over it could have led to losing the game. But at that point he knew the category for the DD, but not for FJ. I think I would have taken my chances and bet for the lock. (But of course, in the heat of the moment, it’s not easy to work through all these possibilities.)
Setting that aside, Tehmeena should have bet 0 to hold onto second place, on the assumption that Ben would do the rational thing and bet everything.
Ben’s only good choice was to bet everything, since that was his only chance to win. Betting any other amount, especially over $3,599 (to beat Tehmeena’s best outcome) makes no sense at all.
Steve should have bet nothing if he wanted to take a chance on a tie-breaker or gone big to maximize his winnings. The fact that he won despite giving the wrong response is only thanks to the combination of his bad bet and Ben’s.
But, as they say, sometimes it’s better to be lucky than smart.
But it sure is annoying to the rest of us. 
Ken’s back!
Yes! Mayim has a sitcom skill set [barely] but definitely NOT game-show skills. Mayim-free Jeopardy just a smoother flowing atmosphere. Ken Jennings has true mad nerd skills!
Yay! Return of the Tony Randall impersonator!
And I noticed that, once again, a response of “Roosevelt” wasn’t followed by a request to “be specific”.
Yay for Ken! I wondered about the Roosevelt answer, too. Maybe because there is only one Roosevelt on the monument? That’s not really a good guess, though. Never mind. 
Yeah, we were both relieved to have him return. I do wish they’d settle on a permanent host, tho. And soon!
My wife and I were extremely upset about a clue last week, and she sent them this message.
I was very distressed this week when a clue referred to the Inquisition as “urging” Jews to leave Spain in the 15th century. The Inquisition cruelly tortured Jews for centuries, sometimes en masse, sometimes to death, and killed tens of thousands because they refused to convert. Many of those who outwardly converted tried to practice Judaism in secret, and if they were found out, their property was seized and they were usually killed. Finally, in 1492, the few remaining Jews were forced out on pain of death. I think that the term “urge” is a grotesque understatement, and I “urge” Jeopardy! to make a public correction for the sake of accuracy and truth.
I would have thought that they would have been more sensitive, now that they have Jewish host, and furthermore that Mayim would have voiced an objection before the clue was aired. Either she’s not knowledgeable enough or not forceful enough. Either case is just another reason I don’t like her as host.
There was a similar whitewashing of the Spanish Inquisition on the British quiz show QI a few months ago. While the Inquisition may have toned down its worst excesses at certain times and places, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t deserve its reputation as monstrous, cruel, and antisemitic, Monty Python notwithstanding. Saying otherwise is no different from Holocaust denial.
No mention of the incredibly stupid (or at least unlucky) FJ wager by Erica? One more dollar and she would have won. I can’t even see how that wager works if she and one or both of the others get it wrong.
I’m not one to second guess wager strategy usually. There are always a lot of unknowns. But this one did bother me. There was no reason not to be more in her situation and avoid the possible tie.
William bet the correct amount, which was enough to cover a 3rd-place double-up. But I have no idea why Erica bet essentially the same amount. IMO, her correct bet would have been $6001, which would have covered a double-up by William.
I’m guessing she will rue that wager for a long time.
Going into FJ the scores were:
Emily - 7,800
William - 8,800
Erica - 11,600
“Normal” Jeopardy betting strategy would have William going all-in and thus Erica would have to bet 6,001 to cover that. Neither is concerned about what Emily does. Emily should bet zero because her only chance is that neither of the other two get the question correct.
A more sophisticated view would have William realizing that Erica has to get it wrong for him to win, so he would bet nothing… but now Emily comes into play so this particular strategy is not attractive today.
What actually happens is that both William and Erica bet to cover Emily doubling up, and assume the other will get it wrong! As @Railer13 said, this is correct for William (probably) but kinda weird for Erica.
Emily - 7,800 + 7,800 = 15,600
William - 8,800 + 6,801 = 15,601
Erica - 11,600 + 4,001 = 15,601
A recurring theme we have seen often lately, is that the bet to exceed your opponent by one dollar is a good start, but why not bet more since if you get it wrong you’re toast anyway (but keep in mind what you’ll be left with if all get it wrong).
The judging seems to be very inconsistent lately.
I don’t remember the exact instance, but there was a contestant a couple weeks ago whose FJ response was correct, but was disallowed because she was running out of time and illegibly scribbled the last few letters.
Erica’s response looked a whole lot like that (maybe worse), yet was ruled correct.
I noticed that. It almost looked like the judges realized they blew it the last time, and now they’re more forgiving. This is the adjustment.
I couldn’t hear how William said “Stuyvesant” incorrectly. The judges said “no t” but it didn’t sound that obvious to me.
He tended to mumble several of his answers. I think he said “Suyvesan” for that one. Obviously he knew what it was and just couldn’t get the word out correctly, but that’s the rules.