The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: davidbod on February 11, 2011, 10:13:37 AM
-
Watching a whole bunch of J! eps from the last 3 years on YouTube (thanks to user viddykiddy18), I'm amazed at how bad some of the contestants are at strategising the last couple of questions.
A typical one (with 'less than a miute' already called) had the leader on $19,500, and 2nd place had $10,400 (3rd place is far behind). Player 2 then hits DD and bets, reluctantly, $1000. He misses and, no surpise, time up is called and it's a lockout.
Surely you should either bet the farm (if you like the DD category more than your average FJ! performance) or $1 (if you don't).
Given how good the players are with their FJ! wagers, the often poor endgame strategy surprises me.
David
-
Not only bad wagering strategy in general, but it seems that contestants are reluctant to wager any significant dollar amount on a DD, especially late in the game. $2,000 is not a significant late-game wager in most cases, but really, that's just about the highest DD wager you see anymore. (Been watching a lot more J! lately as we get the kid's lunch packed for the next day.)
I've wondered if the average Double J! DD wager doubled since inflation (as it probably should have done), or been lower. It's certainly not higher.
You can recoup a lost $2K wager in one clue. I know there's a lot going on for contestants, but the strategy isn't well thought out in most cases.
-
[quote name=\'davidbod\' post=\'256934\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 10:13 AM\']A typical one (with 'less than a miute' already called) had the leader on $19,500, and 2nd place had $10,400 (3rd place is far behind). Player 2 then hits DD and bets, reluctantly, $1000. He misses and, no surpise, time up is called and it's a lockout.
Surely you should either bet the farm (if you like the DD category more than your average FJ! performance) or $1 (if you don't).[/quote]
A third alternative is discussed among Jeopardy fans, but it takes some awareness and some quick math skills. Using your example above, Player two should bet $650 and then miss on purpose. That leaves him with exactly half of Player 1's score. The idea being that in the final, Player 1 bets nothing (preserving a guaranteed payday) and Player 2 just has to get it right to claim his prize. Of course, that only works if it is, in fact, the last clue of he game, and you still have to get FJ right.
That gives you a better chance to win than a minimum bet that merely prevents a lockout. And you're right, if you like the category, going all in right then gives you the potential lead and a much better position in FJ. And you're also right that a lot of very smart people do not think about any of this when they get on the show.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'256936\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 07:52 AM\']A third alternative is discussed among Jeopardy fans, but it takes some awareness and some quick math skills. Using your example above, Player two should bet $650 and then miss on purpose.[/quote]
I'm a big fan of any strategy that allows you to say "Who is your MOTHER, Trebek!" with absolutely no sense of irony. :)
And you're also right that a lot of very smart people do not think about any of this when they get on the show.
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 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 name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'256945\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 11:34 AM\']Well, that's what it is, ain't it?[/quote]
In her eyes, no, you're supposed to wager solely on how comfortable you are with the category and not worry about all of that oogy mathy stuff. Apparently I'm taking all of the fun out of it.
I have long since learned that trying to get her to see reason about things like this never ends well, and so now more often than not I just do the math in my head.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'256946\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 11:38 AM\']I have long since learned that trying to get her to see reason about things like this never ends well[/quote]
I guess that's the endpoint, and true in most relationships. :) Well played, sir.
-
[quote name=\'davidbod\' post=\'256934\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 09:13 AM\']Surely you should either bet the farm (if you like the DD category more than your average FJ! performance) or $1 (if you don't).[/quote]
Except the minimum DD wager is $5.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'256936\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 07:52 AM\']Of course, that only works if it is, in fact, the last clue of he game,[/quote]
Something I just thought of. More useful in DJ (mostly for this reason), but.
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? 'Cuz if you know it's going to be, say, six minutes, it seems like setting a countdown timer on your wristwatch would be a good idea, so you can do a time check in an event like this. Might not be EXACT, but it would be good enough to know within a clue or two when the buzzer is going to sound, and probably good enough to accurately judge this exact situation.
I realize I'm overthinking what is obviously a very fringe case, but it got me thinking and so I figure I'd ask.
-
[quote name=\'WhammyPower\' post=\'256954\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 12:41 PM\']Except the minimum DD wager is $5.[/quote]
Says who? I could swear I've seen a $1 wager before. (I could be wrong, but I'd still like to know your source.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'256956\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 03:43 PM\'][quote name=\'WhammyPower\' post=\'256954\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 12:41 PM\']Except the minimum DD wager is $5.[/quote]
Says who? I could swear I've seen a $1 wager before. (I could be wrong, but I'd still like to know your source.)
[/quote]
I can back up that $5 minimum for Daily Doubles. First here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_bet_0_do...double_jeopardy (http://\"http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_bet_0_dollars_in_double_jeopardy\")
And in paragraph #5 of this: http://www.oddchange.com/jdoc/rules.html (http://\"http://www.oddchange.com/jdoc/rules.html\")
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".
There was also a College Tournament (2001 finals, I believe) when a player hit the DD and asked how little he could wager and was told (by one of his competitors) that it's $5.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'256959\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 01:03 PM\']I can back up that $5 minimum for Daily Doubles. First here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_bet_0_do...double_jeopardy (http://\"http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_bet_0_dollars_in_double_jeopardy\")
And in paragraph #5 of this: http://www.oddchange.com/jdoc/rules.html (http://\"http://www.oddchange.com/jdoc/rules.html\")
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".
There was also a College Tournament (2001 finals, I believe) when a player hit the DD and asked how little he could wager and was told (by one of his competitors) that it's $5.[/quote]
'Fair 'nough, then. It is entirely possible that I misremembered.
-
[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 name=\'davidbod\' post=\'256962\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 01:51 PM\']I'm guessing, in the US at some stage too?[/quote]
Never once. Which is why we found it so interesting when you guys did that over on your side of the pond.
Yes, private information nips that problem (if one were to consider it a problem) right in the bud, for the most part.
-
[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 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. :)
-
[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.
-
[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 (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOp03rRM6Pw&feature=related\")
Here is the clip you are looking for.
-
[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 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.
-
[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 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.
-
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 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.
-
[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 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.
-
[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.
-
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.
-
[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 ..."
-
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.
-
"Bad television"???
Ladies and gents of the American peoples, where has your game show mojo gone? No wonder even the most half-assed British formats find it so easy to invade your shores at the moment.
Why not go the whole hog and call it "Jeopardy! But Not Too Much Jeopardy! Because Our Viewers Don't Like That!"?
Jep contestants are so well-rehearsed these days the likelihood that (a) a modern-era contestant would forget, and (b) that it would be a game-changer, is pretty rare. However, if it were to happen once every 500 games or so, that is hil-ar-ious. To 'design out' a feature of the game like this not only goes against the grain of what the original format was about, but it stops an 'event' happing.
In my book, 'events' are good things. They are the things that stop episode 217 merging into 218 merging into 219... like an endless barrage of homogenous radioactivity. If a contesants loses out on 20G's because they forgot to put "What is...", sure the audience are going to feel bad for the contesant, BUT they're also going to talk about the show too (compare and contrast when our Chasers started offering NEGATIVE amounts).
Incidentally, the disconnect between the grammar of the clues and answers is widely thought to be one of the main reasons why the show never caught on in the UK, but given that they repeat clues enough already as it is (see http://www.slate.com/id/2282795/ (http://\"http://www.slate.com/id/2282795/\") and http://www.slate.com/id/2284678/) (http://\"http://www.slate.com/id/2284678/)\") I can understand the need.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257028\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 12:03 AM\']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.[/quote]
When the score was tied because neither team got the bonus biography, a question about the subject was read as the tiebreaker, for 10 points. (This rule was in place by at least the 1972-73 season.)
Also, my notes (on the computer for the first 6 ESPNC episodes; my other notes are on a sheet of paper I can't find at the moment) show no instances where a team got the biography with 5x + 3 or 5x + 4 seconds left and the final scores were revealed, which means that there would be no way to tell whether the scores were rounded down to the next multiple of 5 or rounded to the nearest multiple of 5. However, if the seconds were always rounded down, then there would be no need to obscure the NFLer's score, as they could be said to have 135 points, as opposed to 140.
-
[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]If you allow someone to bet zero on a clue, then why bother to play the clue at all? Every other clue in the game has that risk of "get it wrong and you lose the bet," whether on Opera or Geography of the Brain.
[quote name=\'davidbod\' post=\'257029\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 11:00 PM\']In my book, 'events' are good things. They are the things that stop episode 217 merging into 218 merging into 219... like an endless barrage of homogenous radioactivity.[/quote]But there are enough events, like co-champions, all-tie-on-zero, that gal who made a one-dollar error in her bet, wrote the right response but lost, that to say "Oh! You forgot to indulge our verbal tic, so we're taking away your forty grand" isn't an event, that's foul TV, whether in 1986 or 2011. The difference is that Jeopardy! has been on the air in this country for 27 years. Has anything like that ever happened on Fifteen-to-One?
It is funny when Jeremy Paxman cracks the whip with "Answer me now!" and "You buzzed, you have to answer immediately," so I find that part of the show's charm. It was head-scratching in that episode of The Weakest Link where a contestant said "Pass" instead of "Bank" three times, zeroing out the chain and not getting to answer a question. I don't find it so funny when the judge rules a Final response incorrect because a letter was left out. That irritates me, and I don't like watching a fun quiz show and end up irritated.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'257048\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 04:22 PM\']I don't find it so funny when the judge rules a Final response incorrect because a letter was left out. That irritates me, and I don't like watching a fun quiz show and end up irritated.[/quote]
For some reason, there seems to come a point in the development of any hard-quiz when it starts taking itself too seriously. Jeopardy hit that point for me in 2005 when they didn't give a child credit because, with immaculate penmanship, she wrote "Who is Bejamin Franklin?"
Similarly, the folks at NAQT -- who provide our show and many other tournaments with terrifically written questions -- have what I believe is an overly officious rulebook (http://\"http://www.naqt.com/rules.html\") for the tournaments they host themselves.* They say it's because the teams that participate at the upper levels take the game so seriously that such rules are necessary. And they have a point. It's one of the reasons I don't tend to accept requests to moderate outside tournaments. I still remember being lectured to a couple of years ago by a sixteen-year-old about the proper way to read a math question. Still, somebody needs to tell these students to lighten up and enjoy playing the game, and it might as well be the people organizing the game.
On our show, you're best off being right. If you're close, you might get credit for it or you might not. That's what a judge is for. And just like a referee at a sporting event, the call might go your way or it might not. On another day, something similar might get judged differently. We have rules about what to do when OUR material is flat-out wrong, but beyond that, you accept the judge's decision and that's it. We've had some very disappointed players (a game turned the other day on a player not getting credit for 'commutative' when what he said was 'communative') but by having fewer rules we give ourselves more leeway and, we think, provide a much more enjoyable experience for all concerned, including the viewers.
*Don't even get me started about the Big Hairy Deal they make over the difference between 'Invisible Man' and 'The Invisible Man'.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'257050\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 04:31 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'257048\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 04:22 PM\']I don't find it so funny when the judge rules a Final response incorrect because a letter was left out. That irritates me, and I don't like watching a fun quiz show and end up irritated.[/quote]
For some reason, there seems to come a point in the development of any hard-quiz when it starts taking itself too seriously. Jeopardy hit that point for me in 2005 when they didn't give a child credit because, with immaculate penmanship, she wrote "Who is Bejamin Franklin?"
Similarly, the folks at NAQT -- who provide our show and many other tournaments with terrifically written questions -- have what I believe is an overly officious rulebook (http://\"http://www.naqt.com/rules.html\") for the tournaments they host themselves.* They say it's because the teams that participate at the upper levels take the game so seriously that such rules are necessary. And they have a point. It's one of the reasons I don't tend to accept requests to moderate outside tournaments. I still remember being lectured to a couple of years ago by a sixteen-year-old about the proper way to read a math question. Still, somebody needs to tell these students to lighten up and enjoy playing the game, and it might as well be the people organizing the game.
On our show, you're best off being right. If you're close, you might get credit for it or you might not. That's what a judge is for. And just like a referee at a sporting event, the call might go your way or it might not. On another day, something similar might get judged differently. We have rules about what to do when OUR material is flat-out wrong, but beyond that, you accept the judge's decision and that's it. We've had some very disappointed players (a game turned the other day on a player not getting credit for 'commutative' when what he said was 'communative') but by having fewer rules we give ourselves more leeway and, we think, provide a much more enjoyable experience for all concerned, including the viewers.
*Don't even get me started about the Big Hairy Deal they make over the difference between 'Invisible Man' and 'The Invisible Man'.
[/quote]
Question, since I believe Jeopardy! has a panel of judges, (if anyone knows) what happens if there is a question about a response given, but one group of the judges believe it should side one way and another group believes it should be sided another way? Does Harry Friedman have tiebreaker authority then or how do they come to a decision if there is no consensus with the judges on how to rule?
-
[quote name=\'ten96lt\' post=\'257057\' date=\'Feb 12 2011, 07:36 PM\']Question, since I believe Jeopardy! has a panel of judges, (if anyone knows) what happens if there is a question about a response given, but one group of the judges believe it should side one way and another group believes it should be sided another way? Does Harry Friedman have tiebreaker authority then or how do they come to a decision if there is no consensus with the judges on how to rule?[/quote]
I don't know what the specific procedure is, it wasn't explained to contestants. We were just told that there may be times when the game is stopped for the judges to make a ruling. There have been stories of lengthy stops while the writers actively researched an unexpected response. I doubt it's as set-in-stone as a Supreme Court vote, but I bet that if it did come down to breaking a tie, the head writer -- not Friedman -- would make the final call.
-
For some reason, there seems to come a point in the development of any hard-quiz when it starts taking itself too seriously. Jeopardy hit that point for me in 2005 when they didn't give a child credit because, with immaculate penmanship, she wrote "Who is Bejamin Franklin?"
October 14, 2005. (http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=563) Alex said the misspelling changed the pronunciation, but still...ow.
*Don't even get me started about the Big Hairy Deal they make over the difference between 'Invisible Man' and 'The Invisible Man'.
The 2007 Camouflage seemed to have a similar situation (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ljQiw1NyA") where they didn't accept the first contestant's answer because he prefaced it with a "the" (which wasn't on the board). I don't know whether the answer had to be said exactly as it was on the board, but it still struck me as odd.
I accept being pwned by the below. :)
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257075\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 09:21 AM\']didn't accept the first contestant's answer because he prefaced it with a "the" (which wasn't on the board). Ignoring the idiotic uploader comments, I blame Roger Lodge for incorrectly assuming what the contestant's answer was -- in that context, one would naturally preface the answer with a "the".[/quote]And if its not on the board on "Wheel of Fortune", its counted wrong; naturally prefaced or not.
Furthermore, if the puzzle was in reference to the 2005 remake, "The" does NOT appear anywhere in the title (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_News_Bears\"). Nice try, Dan.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257075\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 06:21 AM\']Ignoring the idiotic uploader comments, I blame Roger Lodge for incorrectly assuming what the contestant's answer was -- in that context, one would naturally preface the answer with a "the".[/quote]
And since you have so much insight on this topic, perhaps you can tell us whether the contestants were told in their briefing that puzzles must be solved exactly as they appear on the board.
Can you do that, Dan? Because I would think you'd look awfully silly holding this up as a comparison if you couldn't.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'257064\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 04:12 AM\']I don't know what the specific procedure is, it wasn't explained to contestants.[/quote]
From background reading, my understanding is that one of the writers takes a line judge role to bat back around 90% of the judging yea/nays - with a tape stop only usually happening when a scheduled break was due to occur or, rarely, when it's at a particularly critical point in the game.
I'd be extremely surprised if Friedman didn't get involved in at least some of the rulings. He ought to be involved if only for the sake of consistency over episodes, but more importantly if his name's over the door then ultimately he needs to be happy that everything's above board. I've never heard of any UK game show where the producer's completely delegated the judging role to the minions, my shows included.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257075\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 06:21 AM\']Ignoring the idiotic uploader comments, I blame Roger Lodge for incorrectly assuming what the contestant's answer was -- in that context, one would naturally preface the answer with a "the".
(EDIT: No, I'm afraid I don't know whether the answer had to be said exactly as it was on the board. I apologize for the error, and retract my statement.)[/quote]Horsepucky. You said it and got caught. Own your pwnage.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'257075\' date=\'Feb 13 2011, 09:21 AM\'](EDIT: No, I'm afraid I don't know whether the answer had to be said exactly as it was on the board. I apologize for the error, and retract my statement.)[/quote]
When you're at your computer wondering about why we have a problem with your posts, think about how often anybody has to retract a statement, and how regularly you do.