The Jeopardy thread [was James Holzhauer][contains spoilers]

FIRST DAY, FINAL JEOPARDY

Easy… if you’re Christian. If I had been there, I would have written, “What is ‘How should I know? I’m Jewish.’” Note: the part of the Clue about Coolidge was an irrelevant distraction.

INCREASING LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY

I agree with Commonsense. I found the first day only slightly harder than normal, the second day harder than the first, and the third day harder still. At this rate, if they get to the 7th day, it will be unbelievable.

THE WEAKEST LINK

Obviously, all 3 players display a high level of skill and speed. Nevertheless, I agree with commasense [again] that Brad is punching up.

MY FAVORITE PART
My favorite part of this Tournament is the mutual respect and camaraderie. Did you see James high-5 Ken after that double up on day 3? Sure they’re all competitive, but they also recognize that the other 2 are worthy opponents, a rare situation for any of them. During the interviews with Trebek, they all admitted that they’ve adapted their technique for these specific opponents.

BEFORE, DURING, & AFTER

I would have gotten all but the last one given enough time.

ISTM it’s a pretty well-known quotation. Perhaps easier for practicing Christians, but IMHO it should have been relatively easy for many people with ordinary exposure to the dominant Christian culture of the Western Hemisphere. (FYI, I’m Jewish and an atheist.)

I hadn’t thought much about it, but you’re right that the whole Coolidge thing is an apparent non-sequitur. It doesn’t seem to be a “pinner,” a second clue to the right answer that many Jeopardy clues contain. Unless there’s supposed to be some connection between “Silent” Cal and “the Word.” I don’t see it. Anyone else?

Thank you.

I agree with you!

I just watched this video by a guy who claims that Jeopardy manipulated the game play to end James Holzhauer’s run. I’m nearly completely skeptical, for all of the reasons we discussed early in this thread, but he brings in some analysis of the games to propose that the game James lost in was one of the easiest ever played (as measured by its combined Coryat score). The notion being that by giving James’ opponents very easy clues, the producers weakened his advantage, making it possible for Emma to beat him.

I haven’t checked Film Theory’s facts and math, but assuming he’s right about that, the biggest flaw in his theory is that I don’t believe the Coryat score can be treated as an objective measure of the material’s difficulty, as he seems to do. It’s a measure of how those specific contestants did with that specific material. One can assume that easier material would have higher Coryats, but (correct me if I’m wrong) a game with three Ph.D. contestants and nothing but clues in their specialties that no one else could get would also have a high Coryat, right?

As such, ISTM, the writers can’t know in advance exactly what the Coryat score of any given set of clues will be, and any game full of obviously easier questions would be noticed. Was James’ last game that much easier? I don’t have time to look right now, but perhaps a few of us here can look it over at http://www.j-archive.com/ and make a judgment.

commasense, I doubt there was any conspiracy to eliminate James. In this thread, I mentioned that one way to get rid of James would be to neutralize his advantage in trivia knowledge with easier questions but I don’t think that happened. The people with the power to sabotage James were the producers. The producers are also the people who benefit most from the higher ratings that James brought. I’m betting that the producers wanted to milk that run for as long as they could.

Even if Coryat scores were a reasonable indicator of difficulty, some games are just going to be easier than others. Our conspiracy theorist would have to show not only that this game was relatively easy but that this game was so much easier than could be anticipated by the normal variations of difficulty. Does anyone want to extract the Coryat scores and calculate the standard deviation?

I agree with you, and I think I made the same point earlier in the thread. However, the video says that the payouts to James nearly quadrupled their usual prize budget, and ads for syndicated shows are booked months in advance, so the producers wouldn’t have been able to capitalize enough on James’ run to make up that gap. (He doesn’t note that they certainly could have raised the rates *after *the summer break, when James returned.)

If you watch the video, he claims that James’ losing game was only a few points off the highest possible Coryat score (easiest game), and that the average is much lower.

One major point he doesn’t consider is that Jeopardy would be in violation of Federal law if it could be shown that they did anything to help or hurt a specific contestant. If there were any reasonable doubt, the government would be looking closely at such a high-profile situation.

Finally, given that James made the GOAT possible, even if they lost money on his initial appearance, and couldn’t make it up by raising ad rates at the start of the next season, they will almost certainly be making tons of cash with the GOAT. I don’t think we have to worry about Sony going broke on Jeopardy!

Was it just me or have the last two nights (Jan 15-16] been two of the worst games ever played? A ton of triple misses and no answers plus that poor woman tonight nearly had the worst non-Wolf Blitzer score of all time.

I did not know that Iago had the most speeches of any non-title character in a Shakespeare tragedy .

Horatio was a reasonable guess. Tough way to lose, I thought James would get it.

I just rewatched tonight’s game out of Seattle. It seems to me she was flustered from the very start, trying and failing to buzz in.

I only watched today’s, but I came here to comment on how painful it was. It wasn’t just the one woman. The other guy who lost was also terrible, and honestly the defending champ didn’t do all that well. I don’t think she would have been able to beat most contestants. It makes me half-tempted to try out for the show, if their well is getting so dry, but there’s no way I’d be able to afford to fly to LA, much less stay there for some unknown period of time.

Interesting. Did the score ever end up being close enough for this to matter? (Of course, we can’t factor in the psychological effect of being unfairly ruled incorrect.)

Those are interesting points on all sides. But I’d counter your last one with a question. Let’s say the producers sent out a memo saying “I am hearing from friends and family that the questions are too hard lately, making it not as fun to play at home. Let’s go a little easier, please.” Would that really be actionable? Or what if they went even closer to the line, saying “Competitive games are more exciting: let’s make sure we have clues that even the average contestant has a decent chance of knowing.” That’s not the same as actually specifically sabotaging the returning champion, as it would be if they invited on two college professors and made an inordinate number of clues feature their specific subject areas.

Because it does seem possible that James’s quadruple-sized winnings could have been hurting their bottom line. And if he had stayed dominant champion for too long, I don’t think the ratings bonanza would have lasted. Let’s say he went way longer than Ken Jennings (and the producers had no idea whether this might be possible). Eventually, let’s face it, people would get bored with it.

Registration for the online test is open now.

If they ever do a live-action version of Bob’s Burgers, they should look at the reigning champ when it comes time to cast Tina.

I agree, they were all terrible. The guy from Connecticut didn’t know what a Nor’easter is? And I feel really bad for the nervous woman. For one thing, I think she was keeping her thumb off the buzzer, so when she wanted to buzz in she was always behind. And at least once she knew the answer and was trying to say it, but was so nervous she couldn’t get her voice to work.

For a while I was worried Veronica was going to be playing Final Jeopardy by herself. Has that ever happened?

If you get called out to play, you’re guaranteed at least $1,000, which, depending on where you live, should cover most of the cost of a one-night trip to L.A. If you have to stay longer, that means you’re making lots more money.

IANA Federal prosecutor, but ISTM that any documented change to normal practice during a run like James’ would be suspicious on its face because of the obvious financial motive. But to a certain extent, the show is like a casino: they’re always going to come out ahead in the long run. As I mentioned above, even if they lost money during James’ run, it probably allowed them to raise ad rates for the next season, and the GOAT gave them another opportunity to recoup.

My guess would have been Prospero.

The Tempest isn’t a tragedy.

I was thinking Shylock, but then remembered “The Merchant of Venice” isn’t a tragedy either. Except to Shylock.

At least five times. Links to j-archive.com:

February 26, 1986
July 1, 1987
February 23, 2005
March 16, 2011
March 12, 2015

The responses that really got me were “tornadoes” in England* and “the Texas Marshals.” :smack:

*I believe they occasionally do have “blizzards,” however.

I couldn’t believe no one got “Quadrophenia” or “Ithaca” either.

Thanks for tracking these down. How did you manage it, BTW?