Author Topic: Terrible late-game J! strategy (Read 7623 times)

clemon79 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2011, 05:26:07 PM »

[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'256965\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 02:10 PM\']The Jeopardy! answer-and-question format is so well-entrenched in the popular perception of the show that it would simply be stupid to axe it.[/quote]
I imagine it's done largely for consistency's sake: they have such a focus on phrasing in the first two rounds, that it would look weird to the folks at home not to in the final one. But they decided (rightly, for all of the reasons you mention) that they don't want it to affect the endgame, so they spot the contestant the "What is?" now.

This way, for the purposes of FJ, they axe it without actually axing it.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2011, 05:28:38 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'256955\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:41 PM\']Is the "length" of the round consistent from show to show, or do they massage it for timing (for example, Trebek takes longer or shorter with the contestant chat segment) purposes?[/quote]
Pretty sure the latter. I don't remember being told, or ever reading anywhere, that each round was timed to a specific length.

bosox1256 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2011, 06:05:57 PM »

[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'256965\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 05:10 PM\'][quote name=\'davidbod\' post=\'256962\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:51 PM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'256945\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 07:34 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'256944\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 10:17 AM\']It bugs the S.O. (who has in fact passed the J! test) when I work out what the "logical" wagers are during the break before FJ. She doesn't like how the FJ wager is reduced to a mathematical exercise. I don't see how you *can't*, most of the time.[/quote]
Well, that's what it is, ain't it?
[/quote]

Except, of course, it doesn't have to be if the contestants don't know their opponents' scores, as happened in the UK version and, I'm guessing, in the US at some stage too?

What *really* ticks me off about FJ is that, from what I've read on Ken J's blog, the producers tell you to write Who is or What is ahead of time, in case you forget! Way to design out the whole point of the show! If yoy're gonna do that, why not ditch it entirely and reclaim a minute of game time from people just saying "What is..." 60 times.
[/quote]

Having a player who would otherwise have won the game being ruled incorrect on account of not phrasing his response in the form of a question makes for bad television. (I'm trying to find the 1/1/86 clip of a woman who loses the game precisely for that reason, and Alex looks disappointed after he realizes the error and has to tell her that she has to be ruled incorrect.)

The Jeopardy! answer-and-question format is so well-entrenched in the popular perception of the show that it would simply be stupid to axe it.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOp03rRM6Pw...feature=related

Here is the clip you are looking for.

J.R. · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2011, 06:30:18 PM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'256959\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:03 PM\']Also, I recall a player trying to bet nothing many years ago. When told by Alex, "You can't", he said, "Then $5. The minimum".[/quote]
Is there any kind of official reason why they have the $5 minimum?

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2011, 06:35:09 PM »

[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'256979\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:30 PM\'][quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'256959\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:03 PM\']Also, I recall a player trying to bet nothing many years ago. When told by Alex, "You can't", he said, "Then $5. The minimum".[/quote]
Is there any kind of official reason why they have the $5 minimum?
[/quote]
Probably so in a situation similar to what's been mentioned in this thread, you can't chicken-shit your way through it by wagering $0. Now why it's $5 and not $1, I don't know.

clemon79 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2011, 07:25:20 PM »

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'256980\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:35 PM\']Probably so in a situation similar to what's been mentioned in this thread, you can't chicken-shit your way through it by wagering $0. Now why it's $5 and not $1, I don't know.[/quote]
No, I get this. They don't want the numbers to be ugly to the viewers at home. It SOUNDS silly, but I bet they did some kind of market research that showed that it turned off viewers.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2011, 07:44:31 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'256989\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 04:25 PM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'256980\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:35 PM\']Probably so in a situation similar to what's been mentioned in this thread, you can't chicken-shit your way through it by wagering $0. Now why it's $5 and not $1, I don't know.[/quote]
No, I get this. They don't want the numbers to be ugly to the viewers at home. It SOUNDS silly, but I bet they did some kind of market research that showed that it turned off viewers.
[/quote]
Makes sense, but you can still bet numbers like $743. $5 is just a minimum, not a mandated multiple.

chad1m · « **Reply #22 on:** February 11, 2011, 07:51:04 PM »

Assuming $5 has been the minimum since the 60s, and this is obviously just conjecture, maybe it was made that since it would be half of the minimum clue value on the board?

clemon79 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2011, 08:08:05 PM »

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'256993\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 04:44 PM\']Makes sense, but you can still bet numbers like $743. $5 is just a minimum, not a mandated multiple.[/quote]
Oh, good point.
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'256995\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 04:51 PM\']Assuming $5 has been the minimum since the 60s, and this is obviously just conjecture, maybe it was made that since it would be half of the minimum clue value on the board?[/quote]
Also very possible.

Steve McClellan · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2011, 08:23:00 PM »

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'256980\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:35 PM\']Probably so in a situation similar to what's been mentioned in this thread, you can't chicken-shit your way through it by wagering $0. Now why it's $5 and not $1, I don't know.[/quote]
I seem to recall hearing (from a usually-reliable friend's 40-year-old memory) that the original scoreboards only had slides for 0 and 5 in the ones place, hence all wagers had to be in multiples of $5. Then, when they brought the show back, they kept the DD minimum at $5, because that's what it had always been.

Can anyone confirm or deny?

clemon79 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 11, 2011, 08:27:08 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'257003\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 05:23 PM\']I seem to recall hearing (from a usually-reliable friend's 40-year-old memory) that the original scoreboards only had slides for 0 and 5 in the ones place, hence all wagers had to be in multiples of $5. Then, when they brought the show back, they kept the DD minimum at $5, because that's what it had always been.[/quote]
I was going to throw this out there, but then I decided it clashed with the "but you can bet whatever" point that Kevin made. But based on how those displays worked, I think it's a definite possibility.

rjaguar3 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2011, 10:15:08 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'257003\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 07:23 PM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'256980\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:35 PM\']Probably so in a situation similar to what's been mentioned in this thread, you can't chicken-shit your way through it by wagering $0. Now why it's $5 and not $1, I don't know.[/quote]
I seem to recall hearing (from a usually-reliable friend's 40-year-old memory) that the original scoreboards only had slides for 0 and 5 in the ones place, hence all wagers had to be in multiples of $5. Then, when they brought the show back, they kept the DD minimum at $5, because that's what it had always been.

Can anyone confirm or deny?
[/quote]

It's actually a very good possibility. To wit, on the first episodes of Sports Challenge, the producers were too cheap (I'm guessing) to spring for a full flipboard for the units digit, so they had only a 0 and 5 and rounded the scores to the nearest 5 on the Bonus Biography. I believe this proved awkward on the 5th episode, when the NFL team was down 140-50 going into the 90-point bonus biography. As soon as the silhouette of Deacon Jones appeared, the NFLers buzzed in with the right answer. Dick Enberg ruled that the clock had ticked down to 89. The ending of the show had to be done without reference to the final point totals (as was done in the previous episodes to announce the teams' cash winnings, equal to their score), and the director appeared to make a concerted effort not to show the NFLer's final score, so I don't know how it was displayed.

Some time later (I have detailed notes on this, but can't pinpoint a year) the rounding rule was discarded and the units digit could display all ten digits 0-9.

GameShowGuru · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2011, 10:56:12 PM »

This thread singlehandedly explains why I like The Who, What, or Where Game exponentially better than Jeopardy!

Put another way, spades is to Jeopardy! what bid whist is to the Who, What, or Where Game.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2011, 11:16:34 PM »

[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'256965\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 04:10 PM\'][quote name=\'davidbod\' post=\'256962\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:51 PM\']What *really* ticks me off about FJ is that, from what I've read on Ken J's blog, the producers tell you to write Who is or What is ahead of time, in case you forget! Way to design out the whole point of the show! If yoy're gonna do that, why not ditch it entirely and reclaim a minute of game time from people just saying "What is..." 60 times.[/quote]

Having a player who would otherwise have won the game being ruled incorrect on account of not phrasing his response in the form of a question makes for bad television. (I'm trying to find the 1/1/86 clip of a woman who loses the game precisely for that reason, and Alex looks disappointed after he realizes the error and has to tell her that she has to be ruled incorrect.)[/quote]
I'm with rjaguar3. It's not "bad TV" any more than it's bad TV on the rare occasion that a kicker misses the extra point after a touchdown.

Then again, I didn't like it when they started having clues that didn't fit the A&Q format. That is, the clues didn't make sense as answers to the question, "Who/What is ..."

WarioBarker · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2011, 01:03:12 AM »

Quote from: rjaguar3 on February 11, 2011, 10:15:08 PM

on the first episodes of Sports Challenge, the producers were too cheap (I'm guessing) to spring for a full flipboard for the units digit, so they had only a 0 and 5 and rounded the scores to the nearest 5 on the Bonus Biography. I believe this proved awkward on the 5th episode, when the NFL team was down 140-50 going into the 90-point bonus biography. As soon as the silhouette of Deacon Jones appeared, the NFLers buzzed in with the right answer. Dick Enberg ruled that the clock had ticked down to 89. The ending of the show had to be done without reference to the final point totals (as was done in the previous episodes to announce the teams' cash winnings, equal to their score), and the director appeared to make a concerted effort not to show the NFLer's final score, so I don't know how it was displayed.

It really doesn't matter what Enberg said -- rounding to the nearest 5 means that 89 should've been ruled as 90, which means they tied the game...and leaves me wondering what the show did in the event of a tie.

The result as you describe it leaves me thinking that at least early on, the show didn't have any rule in place for that kind of situation.