Author Topic: Jeopardy! players who were never incorrect. (Read 2268 times)

Jimmy Owen · « **on:** July 21, 2012, 08:00:52 AM »

Are there any J! players who were never incorrect, but didn't win the game?

MrBuddwing · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2012, 11:25:51 AM »

Actually, never being incorrect would be a recipe for losing, wouldn't it? If you get all your questions right because you didn't/couldn't ring in a lot, you're not likely to win.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2012, 11:53:08 AM »

Quote from: MrBuddwing on July 21, 2012, 11:25:51 AM

Actually, never being incorrect would be a recipe for losing, wouldn't it? If you get all your questions right because you didn't/couldn't ring in a lot, you're not likely to win.

You're assuming that the ONLY reason that someone got all his questions right is because he didn't ring in a lot. The game is set up so that most people are right most of the time. Otherwise, it would be a pretty sad little show. I buzzed in a lot and was 22-2 in my losing effort. Somebody else may have buzzed in just as much and not missed any.

rjaguar3 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2012, 12:44:36 PM »

It happened this past Tuesday (July 17, 2012) with Kimberly.

http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3950

EDIT: Also, Jim lost with no incorrect answers on June 15, 2012 http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3918

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:46:23 PM »

So twice in the last couple of months. Yeah, this is a lot less rare than even I thought it would be.

A good follow-up question: How often does a WINNER have no misses?

TLEberle · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:40:26 PM »

I was discussing a different thing with Kevin Prather some time ago, but it plays into what Mr. Buddwing was saying: that a player who misses a couple but gets forty other ones right will beat someone who was always right a few times. I told Kevin about a laser-tag set that I had where the stationary target had a li'l computer in it that would calculate your score with this formula:

hits * (hits/attempts).

I liked that idea because it rewarded lots of hits and lots of tries instead of just a couple of hits and then stopping.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2012, 05:08:26 PM »

Quote from: TLEberle on July 21, 2012, 04:40:26 PM

hits * (hits/attempts).

I liked that idea because it rewarded lots of hits and lots of tries instead of just a couple of hits and then stopping.

It also penalizes someone who hits 20 times but misses 90 times. Also a good thing.

PYLdude · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:09:21 PM »

Quote from: Matt Ottinger on July 21, 2012, 11:53:08 AM

Quote from: MrBuddwing on July 21, 2012, 11:25:51 AM
Actually, never being incorrect would be a recipe for losing, wouldn't it? If you get all your questions right because you didn't/couldn't ring in a lot, you're not likely to win.
You're assuming that the ONLY reason that someone got all his questions right is because he didn't ring in a lot. The game is set up so that most people are right most of the time. Otherwise, it would be a pretty sad little show. I buzzed in a lot and was 22-2 in my losing effort. Somebody else may have buzzed in just as much and not missed any.

And you were doing really well for yourself if I remember correctly. 'Cause weren't you the first player after KenJen became champion to really give him a run for his money?