But probably not after.
I genuinely feel sorry for the excellent players who are up against Holzhauer. But why don’t they play his game along with him? When they get a chance to choose a clue, they go back to the easy ones at the top, leaving the high-value clues for Holzhauer.
And my opinion of him rose a wee bit, when he correctly pronounced “Aïda,” rather than the way some contestants pronounce it.
Yesterday’s win put him at 21 total games won, which exceeds Julia Collins’ twenty games won and only second to Ken Jennings 74 games won. So he’s second in number of games played and amount won.
Holzhauer is winning a lot more money per game then Jennings.
Jennings won 74 games and earned 2.5 million.
Holzhauer currently has a 21-day total to $1,608,627.
He could top 4 million or more if he reaches 74 games like Ken.
Can the show’s budget allow for that much money? Will they have to shut Holzhauer down at some figure like 3 million?
They must have a maximum earnings limit?
Jeopardy! is produced by a division of Sony. Presumably they can find enough money in the sofa cushions to cover his winnings. Plus this sort of thing is huge publicity, especially among the general public. Lots of people like my mother who aren’t regular viewers are tuning in and long term, the show may acquire new viewers. I think Ken Jennings is still known among the general public.
I told my wife that after James loses, they should have a “Jeopardy after James” show where they bring back his strongest three contenders.
Yes, it would be fair to bring back the stronger players that Holzhauer bulldozed over. I feel so sorry for them in final Jeopardy. They have a respectable 7k and Holzhauer has 40k. It doesn’t matter what happens in final jeopardy, they have no chance at all.
Ken is reminding people that he kept his winnings reasonable.
If Holzhauer keeps winning they need to bring Ken back to defend his record.
It would probably draw the biggest Jeopardy ratings ever recorded.
That doesn’t seem fair to the one who beats him. He topples the cloud giant, then is immediately told to fight 2 hill giants in order to continue. I could see them being sprinkled in over the next season or so instead.
(Disclaimer, don’t watch Jeopardy, as it’snot available here, just going by what I’ve read in this thread and what I know by osmosis)
He discussed this in the interview I linked to on the first page of this thread. I think there’s definitely some truth to it.
Yeah, but while they’re staying in their comfort level, they’re losing.
That was suggested in an interview Jennings did, and although I don’t think he ruled it out, he did say he’s nowhere near as sharp and quick as he was back then (can it really have been 15 years ago?!?), and that he doubted he could beat Holzhauer now.
It was certainly that way for me after I won my one measly game in 1991 (age 35). It was as though my brain realized it had achieved its peak performance, and could start shutting down. Twenty-eight years later I can barely remember my own name!
The components to James’ game:
His knowledge is excellent, but probably no better than any other Jeopardy champion. I think I’ve known more or less every answer he’s known – missed a few, balanced by at least one that I knew and he didn’t…and I lost on jeopardy.
But his speed and timing is extraordinary. He never gets beat to the buzzer; and when he gets on a roll, I think his opponents get shell-shocked.
And then there’s his strategy: start with the high numbers, build a bankroll, hit a Daily Double and go all-in. Repeat until you have an insurmountable lead. (Interestingly, at least once he went all in on his first DD and lost. Just a momentary setback.)
Holy crap! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Pretty sure they are going to lose no matter what. Holzhauer strategy doesn’t give him any more advantage than the previously most hated style, hopping around the level 3+ questions searching for the daily doubles. Some of his opponents have tried doing that when they got the chance. But generally, almost all the questions get done every round. If Holzhauer knows the answer 90% of the time and he wins the buzzer 90% of the time, his selection strategy is mere window dressing. He’s going to win.
I was talking about three defeated contestants.
You mean exclude the current champ from a game so three defeated people can play? 
I can understand the impulse, but when you lose- you’re out. I don’t think they should change that just because you lost to a phenomenon.
That is what I had always assumed. Surprisingly, though, this Washington Post article states that Jeopardy producers say that while they do have contestants sign NDAs, they don’t have audience members.
The third podium should go to the guy who has never lost (he won five times in the last years of that being the limit, and then has won every Tournament of Champions he has competed in).
I understand the objections people are making, but I personally love this idea.
Brad Rutter, who competed against Watson and Ken Jennings in that one tournament. His total winnings exceed that of Ken Jennings.