OT: Jeopardy! fans

[JPhillips]

For the love of God, bet to win.

[QuikSand]

For the love of God, bet to win.

preach

[Ksyrup]

The current champ seems like he could be around for awhile.

[QuikSand]

He's a solid player and getting comfortable.

[SirFozzie]

Spoilers for tonight's Tournament of Champions Episodes:

Going into Final Jeopardy, $17.4K, $17.4K, $4200.

Obviously the third place player has to wager everything and hope the other two bet big (and wrong). But what's the play if you're tied?

Bet it all, or bet enough to leave you ahead of third place even if you're wrong and third place is right? (where if the other first place person bets bigger, they will win.)

(SPOILER ALERT): Third Place bet 0 (and had no clue), 1st Places bet $17,400 and $7,000, and the one who bet big won because they both got it right.

[Ksyrup]

I was yelling at the TV when they couldn't answer 4 of the 5 MLB questions, and then didn't know who Robin Zander and Rick Nielson were.

[JPhillips]

Bet big. If you're in first and you get it right you should never end up worse than tied. I can live with not knowing the answer. I can't live with knowing the answer and still losing.

[cuervo72]

Haven't watched any of the ToC yet...are there not still wildcard spots for the top four non-winners? If it's the old format standing pat on $17,400 wouldn't be crazy.

[SirFozzie]

Nope. Winner take all, all being spot in the semifinals (except $5000 for 2nd and third)

edit: Here's the format (with spoilers for past episodes)

https://www.jeopardy.com/contestant-zone/2022/tournament-champions

18 play in round 1, 6 winners advance
6 Round 1 winners+3 Byes (top seeds/winners), 3 winners advance to the final
Best of seven finals (in that you have to win 3 times to win the Tournament)

[Solecismic]

Thursday's board seemed a world different. And the first real contender for the title.

[QuikSand]

Thursday's board seemed a world different. And the first real contender for the title.

+1

[QuikSand]

**** 2022 Tournament of Champions SPOILERS to follow ****

[QuikSand]

So, we have had 5 games this far in this best-of-7 contest, and the endgame has played an outsized role. Both the question selection, and the wagering strategy.


On the former front... I don't know how to articulate this ideally, but it feels frustrating to have, in this specific high stakes setting with three very capable players, a FJ question that feels (obviously to me) like a flat out stumper. Maybe the question writers are somehow unable to sense that with any reliability, but... for the most part, in most situations, a stumper FJ just favors the second place finisher. And that feels... unjust, to me.


On the latter... after 5 games, and some consequential aggressive DJ wagering by Andrew in particular, the "correct outcome" feels like a quiet loser to me. I know this is adding my own judgment here, but it's been awfully frustrating. In Game 4, in particular, Sam was in 2nd place facing FJ and the question turned out to be a stumper... but he inexplicably wagered all his money and gave away what should have been a win, had he followed what I judge to be the obvious wagering strategy in that situation. That felt like his last shot to get a win, but then in Game 5 Amy inexplicably decided to NOT make the standard bet-to-win wager in that game, and her agonized face corresponded not to her being stumped, but her realizing the response was indeed gettable and her wager was going to cost her the game, which it did.


I know J! has been built on more than merely racking up total correct responses, and the wagering is a beloved part of the game. I still feel like we're being slighted when it plays what feels to me like an outsized role, even in this stretched-out format built not only to maximize suspense/ratings but in theory to lessen the short term randomness it creates.


It's been a fun tournament, but frustrating for the cant-help-ourselves crowd who dwells on this kind of thing.

[QuikSand]

I am glad, I will say, that the disappointing losses by 2 of the 3 seeded super-champions could have yielded a really disappointing final three... but the group has been very interesting to watch. Andrew's "true DD" wagering strategy is a fun wrinkle, Sam is a very likeable guy, and while I think if this were a best-of-infinity series Amy is the best player by a reasonable margin, the other two are just good enough to keep this pretty lively.

[QuikSand]

Daily box scores for those who celebrate

Jeopardata | Jeopardy.com (https://www.jeopardy.com/contestant-zone/jeopardata)

[kingnebwsu]

I wanted Sam to win Friday because he's not the caliber of player who deserves to be shutout in the ToC but when Andrew hit back-to-back DDs I jumped out of my chair because I thought I was about to witness an all-time Jeopardy moment Unfortunately it didn't happen.

On the plus side...Sam ensures we get another game!

Unrelated but I think Sam may be the Jeopardy contestant I would most love to get a beer with. It seems like he would be so entertaining and a joy to meet. Creepy to fly to Northern California right now to ask, right?

Also, this new format is amazing.

[Kodos]

Was happy to see Sam get a win. Amy must be kicking herself.

[Ksyrup]

Sam is awesome.

[cuervo72]

Not to put retroactive pressure on the guy, but it looks like Yogesh Raut is a contestant on Wed's program. This could be interesting.

[QuikSand]

Yogesh is a good player, but I have never, ever felt raw refined smugness through the TV set like I do with this fucking guy

[JPhillips]

Yah, he's maybe the ost unlikable guy to ever win.

[cuervo72]

lol

Yeah, I dunno. I think there is some of that, but I think there is maybe some awkwardness as well. I've listened to some of his podcasts and he comes across a bit better there, I think. I'd like to see his run continue for a while to see if he loosens up a bit.

BUT...I don't know if that will happen. Rumor has it that Troy Meyer (or in LL nomenclature, MeyerT) is on the show next week (Thur?). One, he's every bit as good as Yogesh. Two, I feel like they know each other somewhat (MeyerT has been on his podcast, and I think have been on quizzing teams together -- along with GroceV [yikes!]). I thought there were rules forbidding playing against people you know (Ken wrote about this preventing someone from getting on during his run), so...

[QuikSand]

i see how it is with you LL elitists, already circling the wagons around your guy

[cuervo72]

Hah. Well, Andrew Whatley (Wed) is also in LL, and Kyle Daly (Thur) may be as well (if DalyKH is him). So is Michael Cavaliere from today's episode. It almost seems a rarity when there's a show w/o one.

For me a lot of this is I know this guy has an insane knowledge base, I would like to see how it translates. I'm actually a bit concerned, given buzzer troubles and some very hesitant DD betting.

[cuervo72]

Oh, I actually watched the Celebrity episode last night (generally I've not been). Patton Oswalt against Candace Parker and some run-of-the-mill pretty TV actress. It was...not competitive. I think as a general rule, nerdy middle-aged comedian types do pretty well with easy mode Jeopardy! (see Richter, Andy, though yes I know he lost his latest Celeb match).

[Kodos]

Does Yogesh remind anyone else of Jon Lovitz?

[Kodos]

The celeb Jeopardy contestants seem to be embarrassingly bad at Jeopardy for the most part.

[Ksyrup]

I assume Ken's playing dumb about not knowing this guy's background? I mean, I have never heard of him before but I don't follow trivia quiz people and their histories. But he's someone you'd think Ken would have run across.

[cuervo72]

He has to, he is at least somewhat familiar with the trivia circuit (there are names from LL that I recognize now which were in Ken's first book) and was in LearnedLeague for a long time; unless he totally ignored anything but the questions (which is certainly possible) he might have bumped up against the name. The 2020 Championship for example. Some familiar names from that were GroceV[ictoria] (6th, The Chase), JacksonM[att] (7th, Jeopardy!), Yogesh (9th), RutterB (12th, Jeopardy!), SchneiderA2 (yes, that's Amy - 40th), JenningsK (50th).

Troy Meyer won the thing, fwiw.

It does seem that J! is all-in on this superchampion thing though, with another "event" coming up (essentially the ToC notables from last season + James). With recent casting it seems like they are actively making an attempt to call in ringers, if you ask me.

[JPhillips]

Good to see Yogesh handle losing with grace and charm.

What a fucking meltdown.

[Ksyrup]

I haven't seen the aftermath but just the way he acted on stage when he lost - everyone is usually really gracious, whether they are a 20-time winner or 1-timer. He more or less just stood there steaming, didn't give a crap what was going on around him.

[QuikSand]

Rumor has it that Troy Meyer (or in LL nomenclature, MeyerT) is on the show next week (Thur?). One, he's every bit as good as Yogesh. Two, I feel like they know each other somewhat (MeyerT has been on his podcast, and I think have been on quizzing teams together -- along with GroceV [yikes!]). I thought there were rules forbidding playing against people you know (Ken wrote about this preventing someone from getting on during his run), so...

Well... Troy is aboard now. He's very solid and goofy-likeable.

[QuikSand]

Suddenly feeling nostalgic for a likable champ like Rogesh…

[cuervo72]

Oh, yeah. This dude annoyed me greatly. Would have liked Troy to stick around longer, certainly.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, the thing with Jake that bothered me though wasn't his celebration, it was his weird facial contortions, body language, and overall fidgetiness. I hate to be critical, but he seemed like the type of guy that if you met him in a social situation...well, I'll leave it at that.

I think Troy probably got tired by the end of the taping day. For one, he was using a chair in the final two games. Two, he just didn't seem quite as sharp. Yogesh also mentioned that he hadn't gotten on until he was past his quizzing prime (38) -- it's not like these guys haven't been trying a while. He probably has a point though. I know that in doing my trivia study (yes, study -- more on that) there are times of the day where I am sharp, others...not so much. Also with watching Jeopardy! -- if my brain is fried at the end of the day, I play along a lot worse. Same goes for watching too many episodes at a time; 3 is about the limit. I can't imagine having to stay mentally sharp for an entire taping day.

Re: LL -- yeah, I thought myself pretty decent with trivia too going in, and found soon enough that there was a ton of stuff I either didn't know, or had learned 25 years before and forgotten. It's why I was hesitant to join first too. In my fourth season I answered exactly 50% of the questions.

Of course I am competitive, so I strived to get better. On the LL boards there was a thread on how to do that; some like Matt Jackson (quizzing background) mentioned old quiz bowl packets. These were incredibly dense and had some fantastically obscure details. My gut reaction: oh hell no.

Others -- including current "Chaser" -- Victoria Groce -- advocated spaced repetition. Actually, I'll just quote her:

So basically, there are three sources of information for learning trivia stuff and they all have their pros and cons:

1.) Stuff you come across in reading/listening to informative media/etc. (whether you're doing that primarily to acquire information for trivia or not).
Pros: Easiest to place new information in context. Generally if you're someone who likes trivia in the first place you'll probably be someone inclined to read for pleasure, so this is just fun.
Cons: Most people won't remember a lot of specifics about stuff they read casually unless they take some notes about it and reinforce it later (https://qz.com/1213768/the-forgetting-curve-explains-why-humans-struggle-to-memorize/) -- that's why you see so many people lament that they just read about such-and-such last week but they can't remember it now. Depending on what you're interested in reading/watching you may pick up stuff that's pretty far afield from what gets asked in trivia contexts, although that's only a con if you're solely interested in learning things for trivia purposes, which seems...unusual.

2.) Lists, all kinds.
Pros: Most trivia questions have a hook (the interesting fact that makes it interesting to ask about and fun to answer) and a pin (something that limits the answer to one particular thing). The writer's expectation is usually that you'll answer off the hook, but list knowledge can give you a lot of the pins. The most asked about lists (things like Best Picture/Actor/Actress winners, sports MVPs, US presidents, world capitals) come up a lot in trivia contexts.
Cons: Most boring to learn, and also can be the most difficult to learn if you don't already have some prior associations in your head. (For most Americans, learning the Best Picture winners wouldn't be *that* hard because you've at least heard of most of them and have probably seen some. Learning, say, the prime ministers of a small country that plays a comparatively small role in world affairs would probably be a lot harder.)

3.) Questions from other trivia things (past LL questions, Jeopardy, trivia books, you name it).
Pros: You know this is stuff that people have found relevant enough to ask about, so it's pretty high-yield.
Cons: Doesn't necessarily help you figure out what newer stuff people might find worth asking about.

Personally I got a lot better when I realized I could combine learning trivia stuff with something I have to do every day and generally don't enjoy (exercise) to make the time go by much faster. (I am very jealous of people who get an endorphin boost from exercise, because I 100% do not.) +1 to spaced repetition, mentioned above; I started doing that when I was going back to school and I am a believer.

For reference -- today she's considered one of the US's best quizzers by other quizzers; her first four seasons in LL, .550-.600 range. Last season? .900.

LL sorts its questions into categories (after the fact), and keeps a nice graphical tally on how each player has done historically (really, that's one of the things I really like about LL -- it's very much like what was put together for MP FOF as far as player/season pages go. The historic category graph looks very much like the FOF player "footprint" even.) After a couple of seasons it was apparent that I SUCKED at ART. Now, having a glaring weakness is rather bad, because your opponents can see this and assign points accordingly. Suck at ART? There's 3 points you know you're not going to get.

So, I installed Anki (https://apps.ankiweb.net/), downloaded a "Great Works of Art" deck, and started studying. It's not as if I hate art -- in fact, I really like art. I just didn't know much about it. So why not become better acquainted with artists and works? It's studying, but at the same time it's really just looking at pretty pictures. And what do you know, before long I could see other pretty pictures that I hadn't seen before and say "hey, is that a ____?" And holy crap, I'd be right! After a while I began to modify my deck to add other artists who weren't well represented (it was weak on modern art, women artists, Black Artists, etc.) I got much better at it in LL, started getting those 3s. Got much better at J! art questions as well.

From there I moved on to LITERATURE. I built my own deck, here -- going through lists of best works, adding them to my deck (there are a lot of these lists; BBC/PBS "Big Read," Guardian, Time, Modern Library, Le Monde, etc.). I hadn't paid attention to books...well, since I was 12. Tons I didn't know. Now I know a lot more. But as part of this, I decided -- well, why not actually read? I probably had read fewer than 10 novels in the past 30-35 years. I had more time now (grown kids). I can change my habits, watch less TV, cut down on video games (well, really only City of Heroes). 2022 I read 94 books.

So, on and on. Improvement is definitely possible. I might take it to an extreme, yes. Like that "other trivia things" part. I've built an Anki deck with many, many, MANY past LL questions. You know what? The commish does go back to old material. Ok, sometimes it takes 15 years, but if I've seen a question in the past few weeks...

Anyway, yes, better at "trivia" but also side-effect of just learning about more things in general.

(Staying "current" is a challenge. Especially with TV. Sports, even. Music, taking a look at the Billboard charts every now and then does help. Keeping abreast on current blockbuster movies. But no, you can't assimilate everything.)

[cuervo72]

Oh, another point on pop culture stuff though, at least as LL goes. The commish is a middle-aged, white, American guy, I think just a little shy of 50. A good slice of the player base is in that demographic too. While he tries to make the questions increasingly more inclusive, there will I think always be a set that plays a bit easier to his (our) cohort. I don't know if anyone remembers Ryan Bilger from Jeopardy! -- very smart kid, made it to the 2021 ToC. His lamentation? Not knowing how to best get up to speed on older pop culture.

[sterlingice]

(I'm a little embarrassed to ask, but what is "LL"?)

SI

[cuervo72]

https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=91544

[sterlingice]

Ah, thx!

SI

[Ksyrup]

Did anyone see the very end of double Jeopardy on last night's show where Ken basically gave the champion a hint in between the champ buzzing in and his answer? He got it wrong anyway and it didn't factor into the result at all, but surely it's against protocol for the host to say "he's your favorite author" to a contestant before he actually answers. That was bizarre.

I appreciate Ken's camaraderie with players who have been on for several episodes, but that went beyond the normal post-answer quips or between segment chit-chat.

[QuikSand]

yikes

[Lathum]

What was she thinking?

[JPhillips]

I'm normally all about the agressive bet, but she made a huge mistake. She's going to regret that for the rest of her life.

But I did like the third place guy betting zero. I think more second and third place contestants should do that so that it doesn't matter whether or not they know the answer.

[larrymcg421]

What's funny is the winner made a really bad error just two days earlier.

Melissa got the final DD, which was also the final clue of the game. At the time she had $21,400 and 2nd place had $12,400.

She only bet $3,000, when a bet of $3,401 would give her a chance for a lock with no risk at all. Luckily, she got FJ and still won.

[JPhillips]

Yes, it's been a shitshow all week.

[Lathum]

What's funny is the winner made a really bad error just two days earlier.

Melissa got the final DD, which was also the final clue of the game. At the time she had $21,400 and 2nd place had $12,400.

She only bet $3,000, when a bet of $3,401 would give her a chance for a lock with no risk at all. Luckily, she got FJ and still won.

I noticed that also. Amazing how bad a basic game theory some smart people are

[cuervo72]

I've yelled at the tv on that one before -- she's not the first to do that.

[Solecismic]

A reminder that today (3/30, Thursday) is JeoparDay. You can take the Anytime test today regardless of the normal one-year wait. It does not reset that clock to one year, either.

If you "pass" that (strongly rumored to be 35 correct answers in 50 questions over 12 1/2 minutes), you might be invited to take the test again, proctored, on camera. If you pass the proctored test, you might be invited to interview to be on the show. Once interviewed, apparently you have 18 months during which you could receive "the call" to travel to Los Angeles and play for real.

[QuikSand]

Thanks. I...am not sure I got 35. Choked on two that I knew but just couldn't summon, and counted 8 that I just didn't know. Ugh.

[JPhillips]

For the love of God, bet to win.

I can't quite believe what happened tonight. You have to bet enough to win.

[QuikSand]

The J! Masters contests thus far (8pt ET, ABC) have been very entertaining, but oddly stretch my willingness to sit still and pay attention to J!

Oh, and on the "bet to win" notion... interesting twist in Game 4.

[JPhillips]

The J! Masters contests thus far (8pt ET, ABC) have been very entertaining, but oddly stretch my willingness to sit still and pay attention to J!

Oh, and on the "bet to win" notion... interesting twist in Game 4.

It worked, but that had to be a low-odds bet. You simply can't play assuming Holzhauer is going to miss questions.

[QuikSand]

Agreed, I do not like the play, despite it working there.

[QuikSand]

I will say that only a few games into the J! Masters series, it seems like all the participants have agreed that betting everything in most DD situations is optimal. The doom from a loss is nowhere near as severe as in the regular game when it just sends you home. And the 3-1-0 points scheme (which I support) is enough to make shooting for first place still the obvious goal.

[JPhillips]

The last answer in Double Jeopardy might have been the worst answer I've ever seen.

[Lathum]

The questions are too hard.

[larrymcg421]

It worked, but that had to be a low-odds bet. You simply can't play assuming Holzhauer is going to miss questions.

I think the fact that 2nd place points are in play makes it more acceptable. He wins if Holzhauer gets it wrong and gets 2nd if Holzhauer gets it right.

If he bets everything, his best case scenario is to tie and hope to beat James on the tiebreaker.

[JPhillips]

I think the fact that 2nd place points are in play makes it more acceptable. He wins if Holzhauer gets it wrong and gets 2nd if Holzhauer gets it right.

If he bets everything, his best case scenario is to tie and hope to beat James on the tiebreaker.

But I think you have to go for 3 if the opportunity is there. If you're willing to settle for 1 you've already lost. There are so few matches that each 3 points is huge.

[Ksyrup]

Tonight's final jeopardy answer might have surpassed the Walt Disney answer a few weeks ago as the most obvious final jeopardy answer I've ever seen.

[Edward64]

Some news. No idea if she was good or bad.

Mayim Bialik Out At ‘Jeopardy!’ – Deadline (https://deadline.com/2023/12/mayim-bialik-exits-jeopardy-1235669885/)
Mayim Bialik will no longer be part of the Jeopardy! hosting team.

The actor posted the news on Instagram on Friday.

The move comes as Ken Jennings has been hosting Season 40 of the syndicated show by himself.

Deadline revealed in May that The Big Bang Theory and Call Me Kat star walked away from hosting the final week of season 39 of the gameshow as a result of the strike.

[Ghost Econ]

She was unbelievably horrendous.

[cuervo72]

Good; still catching up on the episodes from earlier this season -- all Ken -- and I remarked to my wife "you know, I'm really not missing Mayim." Which really didn't need saying -- neither of us liked her hosting -- but it really did seem like Ken was superior, the show is running along smoothly (even if the writing was occasionally weak)...why bother going back to the [clunky] shared duties?

[Ksyrup]

I didn't hate her, but she's nowhere near as good as Ken. And I will definitely not miss her pauses when she reveals the question on Double Jeopardy answers. God that was annoying.

[JPhillips]

Ken has gotten a lot better with the banter between himself and the contestants.

[JPhillips]

Yogesh working really hard not to be so hatable in the tourny.

[QuikSand]

Ken has gotten a lot better with the banter between himself and the contestants.

+1

[Kodos]

Jeopardy Masters makes me feel really ignorant. I prefer Celebrity Jeopardy!

[larrymcg421]

Betting fail on last night's game.

P1 (Champ) - 3600
P2 - 9400
P3 - 8800

P1 bets everything. Who cares? They shouldn't have a shot to win. But still dumb considering what happened.
P2 makes the only correct wager with $8201, enough to cover a P3 double.
P3 should know that P2 is likely to do this and their only chance of winning is if P2 misses. They should bet no more than 1501 to stay ahead of P1's doubled score of 7200. Instead they bet 7800.

P1 is only one to get it right and wins. Their wager was still kinda dumb because they would've lost if they got it wrong, but won no matter what if they bet zero.

[Solecismic]

It's nice to see new contestants again.

I had my interview more than a year ago. At the time, they said I'd be in the pool for 18 months, but they've since increased it to 24 months with all the second-chance tournaments.

Chen from today's game was the first from my group of nine to get the call. I'm pretty sure I won't - there are too many middle-aged computer geeks in the pool and I'm not exactly a ToC player in the making.

John Barra, who is the contest coordinator, really liked Chen. I told my wife after the interview that I was sure he'd be invited soon. If anyone from the group got the call, it would be him. Chen seems very down to earth, personable, interesting. I'm very sorry he didn't win a game. If I remember correctly, his specialty is reconstructive hand surgery.

[cuervo72]

Best of luck, Jim -- you're probably not wrong about the middle-aged computer geek point.

--------

I actually had a dream last night that I was a contestant, though it was in a studio which was some sort of 1970s abandoned house/museum, (a much younger) Trebek was there, and I started out as someone who was assisting in the games first. When I woke up I was finally about to get my shot, against a champion who had won an astounding $177k in their first game. LUCKY ME.

And that's still one of the worries I have about ever trying out again; I'd get my one shot (though these days I guess it's not necessarily just one) and run into a buzzsaw. I've improved, but is it enough? When is it enough? I mean, there's T.J. Tallie (https://j-archive.com/showplayer.php?player_id=13695). He won a single game, came back, won one more in Champions Wildcard. This guy is in my LearnedLeague rundle -- and more often than not gets the best of me (I am 4-7-5 against him). He finished 60 of 786 in the last championship (I was...T297*). I know he is good. He only won 1+1.

There's also the never ending worry that I'd just choke. I don't do well in front of crowds. I'm not sure THAT is ever going away.



* Other J! notables (I'm sure I'm missing some):

T. Meyer - 5th
V. Groce - 6th
P. Mueller - 14th
M. Jackson - 19th
Y. Raut - 45th
A. Schneider - 56th
J. Zuffranieri - 120th
M. Roach - 138th
B. Rutter - 205th
A. He - 259th

(It's worth noting that how the LL rounds operate, there can be a bit of noise in the standings -- you get more points for questions that fewer people get right -- IF you have the confidence to mark those as "money" questions. So there's a factor of judging what will be hard for others -- it's not just "most answers wins." The previous championship, Yogesh finished in 8th, two points ahead of both Victoria and Matt (just short of 1500). 4-time champion Troy finished 31st, the only time out of TEN he finished out of the top-10. I suspect we're going to see him on J! again.)

[cuervo72]

I also wonder how deep they will dig with the JIT tournament. Take Patrick Friel (https://j-archive.com/showplayer.php?player_id=386). He won two games in Season 13 (1997!). I doubt few remember him (though he also won $100k on WWTBAM). But, he's won the last two LL championships. Might do pretty well if given another shot.


(His loss was a doozy; 23 right, 2 wrong...against an opponent with 23 right, 2 wrong, who became a 5-day champ.)

[QuikSand]

Shameful wagering error tonight. Ugly to watch.

[JPhillips]

Steve tonight is either trying to play F. Murray Abraham or that's really F. Murray Abraham trying to play Steve.

[larrymcg421]

Ken irritated me with one of his explanations after a player got it wrong. The clue was about it becoming illegal to burn this in 1965. A player buzzed in and said American Flag. Ken said that's incorrect and added that it's legally protected speech. My guess is the guy knows that, but still thought it could be flag because it became legally protected speech well after 1965.

[QuikSand]

...I missed that ep, but generally feel his strike rate is well into the acceptable range when deciding to add some color. You can tell he's a trivia guy for sure, it seeps out here and there, but I rarely find him pedantic or obnoxious.

[larrymcg421]

I agree. That was just one that stood out.

[JPhillips]

Three answers in one round ruled incorrect after being accepted has to be a record.

[Solecismic]

Friday's the last new game of season 40. One of the new contestants, Rachel, is the second from our group of nine interviewees to get the call.

Odds are that's it for our group, but I think we're still eligible for a few months, going into next season, because all the tournaments meant we had less of a window than most.

Reruns return on the 29th, so if she wins on Friday, it will be at least a couple of months between games. Not sure if they've begun taping or sent out invitations for season 41 taping. Hopefully it won't start with months and months of second-chance tournaments, like last year.

[Solecismic]

Good to see Rachel get a win, and against solid competition.

I didn't get much of an impression of her last year, just that she seemed very young. But she knows her stuff.

[Lathum]

When you watch the show do you give yourself credit for a correct answer if you don't say it out loud?

[thealmighty]

When you watch the show do you give yourself credit for a correct answer if you don't say it out loud?


Depends if I'm the only one in the room or not.

[Solecismic]

I don't, because I'm trying to equate saying it out loud like I'm buzzing in.

I think on Friday, the third person from my group of nine is on. Not entirely sure. But if the guy's story is about being interviewed for Jeopardy in a hospital parking lot while his wife was having an ultrasound appointment during her pregnancy, John Barra (contestant coordinator) seemed to love the idea.

The really funny part of it is he had his laptop on the dash while we were doing the test games and the practice interviews. This whole process took about an hour for the group and he went last. As he was doing his interview, the camera showed the gap between the front seats and you could see, at one point, his wife was kneeling down behind the driver's-side seat.

[Kodos]

I wept a little for our country when nobody on Celebrity Jeopardy knew how many senators we have at the federal level.

[Ghost Econ]

I wept a little for our country when nobody on Celebrity Jeopardy knew how many senators we have at the federal level.

Well, I mean the Democrats don't appear to actually be doing their job, and a not so small number of Republicans are either functionally dead or mentally incapable of working.

so taking that into account it's difficult to get an exact number.

[JPhillips]

Crusader Kings gives me the win in Final Jeopardy!

[JPhillips]

dola

The bet by the second place contestant in Final is a strategy I wish more players used. Make the first place player get it right and make your answer meaningless.

[JPhillips]

double dola

If you're going to have a category called In the Pink it has to be followed by In the Stink.

[JPhillips]

triple dola

3 letter theatre chain

A: What is Texas Roadhouse?

[QuikSand]

triple dola

3 letter theatre chain

A: What is Texas Roadhouse?

FOUR answers in the first round tonight that did not match the category (3), or didn't respond to the proper thing sought in the wording of the question (1)

[QuikSand]

capped off by the classis second place blunder of playing hero ball and making a bet that fails the upside/downside test nearly perfectly

leader had 9K+, second place had 6K+, third place has a trifle like 400

leader nearly always is betting the 3-4K needed to win

second has the choice to bet or sit tight

second cannot win without the leader missing, so in that case the leader is down to something like 5K... he's at 6600 or whatever, the bet seems clear...definitely don't bet enough to lose in the event the champ misses

but he did, he bet nearly all of it, i don't recall specifically... and when the leader missed, he had frittered away his safe win by betting too much

go home, get out

why don't these people just spend 30 minute studying the math of the game? they are all genuinely smart people, this is embarrassingly common... spend 5.5 hours instead of 6.0 hours on "great rivers of Asia" and nail down the one thing that is literally guaranteed to be present in every single J! game

[JPhillips]

Yes. At the moment most contestants in second are going to bet big. If they started betting zero as the common strategy in 2nd(with the totals fitting this strategy) it would make the end fascinating. How often would first try to anticipate a zero bet from second and also make a zero bet?

The ending would be much more interesting after a while.

[Ghost Econ]

How long do they give them to formulate the bet? Is it right after they present the category + a minute? I feel like the pressure can mess with people depending on how much time they have to do the math.

[Ghost Econ]

One of my daughter's teachers is on tonight. It took him a bit to figure out the buzzer timing but is holding his own at halftime.

[Ghost Econ]

My daughter isn't in love with Liam, but she wants to protect him like he's a baby deer. Also, there have been some exceedingly stupid people on lately.

Oh, and last night Liam had $18,800 while second had $14,000. The question for Final was practically unanswerable. But the 2nd place contestant lost $4,801 for some reason and ended up at 9,199. Liam bet $9,201 in order to beat 2nd if he was right, but also missed. He ended up with $9,599 for the win. 2nd should have just bet between $0 and $4,400 since 3rd place didn't make final jeopardy.

I have to think these people are either greedy or just panic.

[QuikSand]

Oh, and last night Liam had $18,800 while second had $14,000. The question for Final was practically unanswerable. But the 2nd place contestant lost $4,801 for some reason and ended up at 9,199.

On a pretty rare occasion, the leader bets zero, either due to a really bad topic, or a (flawed, imo) hope that the second place player will similarly bet conservatively or not at all. Here, she was in 2nd and bet enough to beat the champ by $1 if he bet zero. But that extra amount turned out to be the difference between winning and not, for her. Unconscionable, so easy to avoid that... but the odds are just bad in the case that you get any shot to win (i.e. the leader misses) so wagering there is generally unwise unless there's specific reason to (e.g. a great category for you).

I'm sure there are 1,000 people more qualified than I am to do this, but I kinda want to run a 20m Zoom webinar for J! players to explain the wagering theories well enough to wipe out 75% of these bonehead plays. These smart players spend hours memorizing all the mountain peaks of every continent, but this stuff literally comes up nearly every game and so many of them are flatfooted, it's crazy.

[JPhillips]

I think of it as simply trying to need as few things as possible to go your way.

If you're in first you have to bet enough to win no matter what the others do. You need one thing to go your way.

If you're in second and still able to win, you should assume the first place will bet enough to win. You should bet zero or enough to win if they get it wrong. Ideally you need one thing to go our way, but you may need to get the question right as well.

If you're in third, you need to consider what the other two will end up with if they both get it wrong and then bet zero or enough to win if you can. You can't get it to one thing, but you might be able to get it to two rather than three things going your way.

[Ghost Econ]

It's also fascinating to watch Liam because hes won 5 (maybe 6) games without having ANY knowledge of pop culture. Like he misses super easy pop culture. But he's 20 and gets nearly all the alcohol related questions correct.

[cuervo72]

Ryan Bilger did very well in J! but has asked (pleaded?) for advice at LearnedLeague in how to get better at pop culture questions; he kills on history but is weak on culture. Josh Hill too — calls them “EGOT” categories.

Heck, I even see this with Matt Jackson. Regular season LL he is good but not elite; Championship time when academic questions are super hard, he still knows them, which more than covers for pop deficiencies.

[Ghost Econ]

Michelle should have been the hottest jeopardy champion. Fuck Dan.

[Ghost Econ]

Today was possibly the worst game of jeopardy I've ever seen. How the fuck did none of them know who Michael dell is?

[JPhillips]

I really don't understand her bet. I get zero or max, but 5100 out of 5600 wen you're tied for first makes no sense to me.

[QuikSand]

bonkers

[Ghost Econ]

I half expected them all to get everything and have a 3 way tie at $0.

[QuikSand]

Oh dear.

Wagering tragedy brings us a repeat of a super annoying “champ.”

[JPhillips]

Absolutely brutal way to lose. I'd relive that for a long time.

[B & B]

The knowledge and skill it takes to just get on Jeopardy, much less win on the show could only be undermined by not correctly spelling cavern, a word learned in 4th grade.

Also, I didnt mind the girl in the black dress. Muted the interviews (as always) but she clearly has some 'ticks'

[JPhillips]

Both guys got it "right" but fucked up the answer so it didn't count.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Today was possibly the worst game of jeopardy I've ever seen. How the fuck did none of them know who Michael dell is?

The farmer in the nursery rhyme?

I couldn't have told you his name for $1m cash in hand, but would have hesitated to guess the (actual) correct answer because it felt too obvious.

[QuikSand]

Oh dear.

Wagering tragedy brings us a repeat of a super annoying “champ.”

ok, so spoilers here...

the finish of (IIRC) 11600 - 11600 - 10000 is pretty remarkable and provocative, so some more deference than usual for the 3rd place finisher if they make a wagering blunder... but it does feel like the chance of BOTH 1st/2nd players betting everything is high enough, the one thing you MAY NOT DO is bet everything... 3rd place wagers, i think, $1 less than everything and misses, leaving only a dollar

so 2nd place player (annoying hypermimic tic woman) wagers 10000, misses, and is left with 600

1st place player weagers all 11600 and finishes in 3rd



so, the first error is with the 3rd place finisher calculating the odds... needing to remember that the only situation where their final dollar amount is relevant is if both the other players miss the question... I think the humility needed to recognize that no matter how good you think you are, the chances of a 3x stumper are just higher than you being the golden child there. so, they bet big and miss, rather than bet nothing or light to ensure a win in the event of a stumper question.

in a two way tie for the lead, i don't know the right strategy overall varying on category confidence, but... it sure feels to me like a "bet it all and be prepared for a toss up" is better than hoping for a stumper... but betting nearly everything seems like a nearly unforgivable play there... you're now wagering on the specific outcome that your opponent with a win already will miss it and you will get it... these are connected, not independent, events, and the chances of that seem too low to rely on after working that hard... just bet it all (first choice), bet nothing (second), both are better than betting nearly everything, it seems to me.

so player 2 wins after making a fatal error, but only because players 3 also made a fatal error... but fortunately the can't-stop-swaying woman lost the next night and we are out of that loop

ugh

[cuervo72]

I think in that case if I am P3 I'm betting 1601. It covers you in the case of a triple stumper where P1/P2 both go balls out, but also covers the (perhaps not likely) case where you get it right, P1 goes balls out and misses, and P2 wimps out and bets nothing -- which I have seen before in the case of a tie going into final, I think.

What I'll never get is that "big, but not everything" bet of someone tied going in. (I've also been confused by a $1 bet here; if you get it wrong and other player stands, you're screwed; probably also screwed if they get it right. Yeah, you might freeze out P3 if they are < half, but HTH it doesn't seem like the best strategy.)

[QuikSand]

I think in that case if I am P3 I'm betting 1601.

given time they don't have on stage, I agree

in the heat of the moment, though, the bet-every-penny is still unreasonable to me

[B & B]

Personally my fave Jeopardy moments are when the entire field whiffs and I get it right. Not frequent but has happened a few
dozen times. Sadly, tonight it happened again. (no spoilers)

[JPhillips]

I guessed Drudge Report.

[QuikSand]

+1

[QuikSand]

more nominally bad wagering on Wednesday night...

Scores going into Final:
Micah $15,800
Kiley $14,200
Greg $6,200

Greg bets everything because he's a lawyer and couldn't bill the hours to understand math... his fairly obvious play is to sit tight, he can't double up and catch anyone so the only situation where he is relevant is if the other two bet pretty big and miss... ugh

But Kiley made a weird bet of 10,001... not sure the logic there, as we mostly expect the leader to wager 12,601... if he does and misses, Kiley's the winner in every situation other than her making a wager like this and missing it... so, provisionally, ugh

And then Micah apparently doesn't like the category so he bets only 5,000... enough to drop him below Kiley's current score, so... no, I don't like that either


Anyway, turns out Kiley is the only one who gets the (seemingly pretty easy) clue, and wins $24,001 to return tonight, and for unrelated reasons will make various old people feel uncomfortable.

[cuervo72]

Anyway, turns out Kiley is the only one who gets the (seemingly pretty easy) clue, and wins $24,001 to return tonight, and for unrelated reasons will make various old people feel uncomfortable.

I am a couple of weeks behind so I can't speak to what this clue may have been, but on the topic of old people, I can not tell you how many times my wife and I have yelled at the screen for answers about 60s/70s/80s things which don't get rung in on.

On the other hand, I've never heard "Umbrella" in the wild, so...

[QuikSand]

I am a couple of weeks behind so I can't speak to what this clue may have been, but on the topic of old people, I can not tell you how many times my wife and I have yelled at the screen for answers about 60s/70s/80s things which don't get rung in on.

On the other hand, I've never heard "Umbrella" in the wild, so...

it's to the point where Mrs. Q and I kinda race to call a "they're too young, they wont know this" when it appears and then good trivia people just whiff on some Robocop reference or the equivalent...

[cuervo72]

I mean, I get it. I have watched some of the episodes from the 80s (I think they reran Chuck Forrest's eps at some point) and they ask about some things which I am like "WTF? I bet that hasn't been brought up by anyone in the 40 years since this aired."

(What's also interesting is what was being asked, say, 20 years ago. During Ken's run I think there were four questions about Cold Mountain. Sure, it still pops up every now and then, but geez, it must have been in the trivia zeitgeist in summer of 2004. But there are definitely things that play easier now after 20 years, and things that play harder.)

[B & B]

GSN is running old Ken Jennings contestant episodes and Id forgotten how dominant his run was.

Trebeck paused when someone other than Ken had a shot at a daily double. Then later made a reference to the all time single daily high way back when and it was like 52k.

IN the finals one lady was so out that for her written answer she wrote out
Whatever Kens answer is.

I had a spit take.

[QuikSand]

(What's also interesting is what was being asked, say, 20 years ago. During Ken's run I think there were four questions about Cold Mountain. Sure, it still pops up every now and then, but geez, it must have been in the trivia zeitgeist in summer of 2004. But there are definitely things that play easier now after 20 years, and things that play harder.)

A question the other night (sorry cuervo) asked about Ted Lasso at a deep level that I thought was more suitable for, say, Harry Potter... got the same vibe about the "trivia zeitgeist." (I happened to know it, but only because of YouTube shorts)

[cuervo72]

Nah, that's fine. I have missed recent Ted Lasso questions (and will miss future questions) because I don't watch any new TV. I try to keep abreast of new shows that might come up on LL (missed The Bear, though), but if there's anything looking for detail I'm screwed (like a pair of questions in an OQL set looking for names of characters on The Good Place). J! though has recently had questions on new shows that don't even fall in the "popular" category -- they're either niche shows or ones that Sony has some interest in, I guess. Like, ones which go unbuzzed and the contestants have a "WTF are you even talking about?" kind of look.

[JPhillips]

I have no faith in humanity after tonight.

[bhlloy]

I would have bet my mortgage on him knowing the answer to that

[JPhillips]

Huge surprise. The winner was so terrible early in the game.

[cuervo72]

Just caught up and watched that episode. I first thought of the correct answer, but then also went with the incorrect answer. The wording of the question left it open to interpretation and didn’t necessarily say that it was written in 1935. I interpreted it that the person may have owned that much in 1935.

Edit: I guess neither of them died in ‘35, one was bitching about something specific in ‘41 anyway. But the movie studio mention was big in swinging my answer.

[thealmighty]

Maybe he missed on purpose so he wouldn't have to wait forever and come back?

[JPhillips]

I'm a fan of Paolo.

edit: Sorry.

[QuikSand]

enough commentary

[Thomkal]

enough commentary


I don't watch that often but I had the same comment Quik-enough with comments and reactions already

[JPhillips]

Great game tonight.

[QuikSand]

Harrison has the vibe of a long timer. Lucked out tonight on wagering.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, he's pretty solid, and knowing he has an academic quizzing background and looking at his "footprint" over at LL, if he can survive the games/tv/"trash" categories, he looks to be REALLY strong in some of the academic ones, which usually bodes well for picking up uncontested $2000 clues.


(He's not JacksonM good in the academic categories, but still pretty darned good.)

[QuikSand]

I generally reserve my outrage for players who are betting to win for the night. But, tonight, we had an inexplicable bet of everything by a player, comfortably in second, but not able to get to first… Bet everything lost at all, and fell to third and sacrificed $1000 American.

[JPhillips]

There needs to be a term for someone who misses all three Daily Doubles.

[QuikSand]

Last night, I think the best overall player in the TOC lost because of an over-aggressive DD wager. So, that's food for thought for those of us who lean toward "go for it."

(---respectful pause---)

In my defense, my usual and most intense go-for-it leaning is reserved for a special situation. What I hate is the person who knows they have to bet aggressively but who pulls the punch from going all in.

Frex: Leader has 13K, challenger sitting on 9K gets DD. Bets 5K to take a small lead.

Me: No, you're just as fuct at 4K as you are at zero, bet it all and try to choke the life out of the other guy.

[cuervo72]

Hmm - I have to catch up on the ToC, so I wonder who this might be. But that was the case I thought with Stella in the WC championship too.

[JPhillips]

I'm irrationally angry at last night's winner for wearing clothing that's way too big for him.

[jcard]

There needs to be a term for someone who misses all three Daily Doubles.

Triple Duuuuh-ble

[Ghost Econ]

I miss Michelle

[JPhillips]

Triple Duuuuh-ble

Guy then missed the Final. It was the Golden Sombrero of Jeopardy.

[jcard]

Triple Duuuuh-ble

EDIT:

“What is a Triple Duuuhble?”

[Kodos]

I miss Michelle

I enjoyed her presence as well.

[Kodos]

In my defense, my usual and most intense go-for-it leaning is reserved for a special situation. What I hate is the person who knows they have to bet aggressively but who pulls the punch from going all in.

Frex: Leader has 13K, challenger sitting on 9K gets DD. Bets 5K to take a small lead.

Me: No, you're just as fuct at 4K as you are at zero, bet it all and try to choke the life out of the other guy.

Agreed. You play to win the game!

You probably approved of Curt Cignetti passing up a field goal to go up by 6 in the 4th quarter of the championship game and instead going for the first down on 4th & 5. And getting rewarded with a touchdown for his decision. :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xe-qakPqNCc?si=WuYPHCClhRYurb9Z" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[JPhillips]

I hate it when the winner wins because of a terrible bet. How do you bet 0 when you're in the lead but it's close?

[JPhillips]

Ken has gotten very good and comfortable.

"Rugs not Drugs. Good message for the kids."

[Kodos]

Does Mehal remind anybody else of Jerry Seinfeld? And Isaac makes me think of Weird Al

[JPhillips]

Tonight's ending was interesting. In third, she was lucky that they ended tied. If one of them was even just 100 back I'm not sure they both bet big enough to allow her to win.

[cuervo72]

Jeopardy!-related - Paolo's girlfriend (a graphic designer) put together a pretty cute site which basically serves as a Sporcle quiz aggregator/tracker: The Triviary (https://thetriviary.com/)

Not a bad study tool, if that's your thing.

[Ghost Econ]

Can we stop with the joke answers in final jeopardy? It's not endearing.

[QuikSand]

Last night a really interesting wager on a DJ-round Daily Double.

Leader/challenger was "on a roll" after running a poetry category and may have started to get some Holzhaueresque visions... there are maybe 15 more clues remaining, he's got something like 19,500 and the champ is at 15,400... the DD was on the easiest row, I think, so as an $800 it's likely to be fairly easy, that factors in here too. He mulls and decides to wager exactly the amount that the champ has in the bank ($15,400 I think it was)... and then misses and is basically lost.

Fascinating stuff to try to think through in your 5 seconds to mull it. I think the right wager is more like the $4K of your lead, to try to make it a couple clicks more likely you will have the lead, but set aside aspirations of a huge blowout runaway... but that's still kinda squishy, for me.

[Ghost Econ]

My thought is if you're extremely confident in the category and it's the last DD you bet enough to put the game away. If you have no real trust in the category, you bet what you feel you can lose. Otherwise, I think it comes down to, do your think you'll get 50% of the remaining questions? If yes then get enough so that either you can double up 2nd place in the with the rest of the questions, or leave enough money so that you can catch up with the remaining questions.

I'm your example, probably wager between 5-6k given what is probably left so that you end up somewhere between 16-28k by the end of the round depending on how the rest of the game goes.

Although with the speed you need to give a wager, the real answer is you pull it out of your ass and trust yourself.

[JPhillips]

I thought it was strange to bet the second place total. Not sure if he was trying to flex there or what.

It just shows how all of the betting decisions could use thought and practice. You're right about the time limit making it really hard to figure things out if you don't have a plan coming in.

[Kodos]

Most players underbet. This was the more rare example of overbetting.

[cuervo72]

That sounds like a tough situation, really. #1a goal going into FJ has to be a runaway, but in that case you need 10,300 more to cover -- and that's IF you think you can maintain 2:1 the rest of the game. #1b of course is to not be on the wrong end of a runaway going into FJ. I'm assuming in this case P3 was a non-factor.

So...I mean, I guess I can see a case where you want to shoot your shot there, if that bet is enough to clinch the runaway. But if there is half the board left...I dunno. I think I'm with Quik - see if you can benefit from the DD with a modest bet to give a greater chance at going into FJ in the #1 slot, but not enough that it doesn't take you out of the running for it.

(Personally, I seem to have more trouble with the DD at home than I do FJ. I don't know why; maybe it's that it's not a snap answer, but there's still not really that much time to puzzle it out? Also a reason I still don't know about ever trying out. A weakness on DD is...not good.)

[JPhillips]

I really like Jamie Ding. I wonder if he realizes just how much his life will change for the next few years.

[cuervo72]

Maybe? I wonder how plugged into the quizbowl world he may be (a lot of top trivia folks seem to know each other); he mentioned meeting Ken at an NAQT event and he finished 16th in the last LearnedLeague championship (winner: Matt Jackson*). So his performance may not be all that surprising— though I don’t know if anyone ever expects to have this good a run.

* like Matt, Jamie is weaker in a couple of pop culture categories (Ppop Music, TV) but stronger in “academic” categories. Which seems to be working out well for him in both arenas.

[JPhillips]

Almost jinxed things. Last night was a close call.

[Kodos]

I’ve been rooting for him to lose. I find the “bureaucrat” thing annoying, and I don’t like his orange clothes quirk. I thought I was finally going to be rid of my petty annoyances with him last night, and was irritated that the other guy didn’t get the final jeopardy question right.

Yes, I realize my reasons for not liking him are pretty weak.

[JPhillips]

I like him and his quirks lead me to believe he's pretty clearly on the spectrum.

[QuikSand]

I've drifted to anti-Jamie now, but no strong feelings. Agree he's likely along the spectrum to a degree.

[Lathum]

He made a real tactical error with his daily double bet in the second round and if he didn't answer the final question for 2K and his opponent did he would have been vulnerable.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I thought it would be very Greek tragedy if his greed to get a 100k game ended up costing him his run.

But, no problems in the end.

[Kodos]

wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/television/jamie-ding-jeopardy-streak-ken-jennings-5182a277)

But his other superpower has nothing to do with gameplay. On a show that boasts television’s nitpickiest fans, Ding has achieved the unthinkable: Everybody loves him.

Well, not everybody.

[JPhillips]

My wife was surprised that people here didn't like him.

[JPhillips]

First time I can remember a champ like that getting consistently beaten on the buzzer.

[Kodos]

.:funkychickendance:

[Ghost Econ]

First time I can remember a champ like that getting consistently beaten on the buzzer.

The Jeopardy Reddit is blaming it on a scheduled 10 day break in filming around that time in his streak.

[Ghost Econ]

First time I can remember a champ like that getting consistently beaten on the buzzer.

The Jeopardy Reddit is blaming it on a scheduled 10 day break in filming around that time in his streak.

[cuervo72]

Ahh, I recognized that guy; read this when he posted it.

1.5 years of Trivia: Total N00b to LearnedLeague Group A | Greg Shahade (https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/2023/01/31/1-5-years-of-trivia-total-n00b-to-learnedleague-group-a/)

[larrymcg421]

It didn't end up mattering because Greg knew FJ, but Jamie made a huge blunder by buzzing on the last question. The champ missed it, bringing him below double Jamie's score. If Jamie doesn't buzz at all, he still has a chance on FJ, but getting it right wouldn't have changed his chances at all.

[JPhillips]

We could have kept Jamie, but we had to switch to this dingus instead.

[Kodos]

I’m rooting for him to lose too. He always looks like he is taking a crap.

[QuikSand]

It didn't end up mattering because Greg knew FJ, but Jamie made a huge blunder by buzzing on the last question. The champ missed it, bringing him below double Jamie's score. If Jamie doesn't buzz at all, he still has a chance on FJ, but getting it right wouldn't have changed his chances at all.

100% this, I know it's in-the-moment but that was a major unforced error... if any of the FJ thresholds* are close toward the end, you have to navigate with them in mind.


*those being:
-you're the leader more than 2x second place
-you're the leader more than 1.5X second place
-you're in 2nd within 2/3 of the leader
-you're in 2nd within 1/2 of the leader

[Ghost Econ]

I’m rooting for him to lose too. He always looks like he is taking a crap.

This is why I couldn't be on Jeopardy ... that and I am pretty much always taking a crap.

[QuikSand]

I'm anti-dingus as well, even though I reckon much of this is beyond his active control. The squinting, the arm gesturing, and the intentional delay with every question... yeah, miss me with this guy, let's move on.

[JPhillips]

The current champ too often makes physical comments on his answer. That's fine very rarely, but doing that multiple times an episode is just performative. Answer the question and move on.

[JPhillips]

Know how you're going to bet before you get to the show.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Some folks have asked me to explain my wagering strategy in Celebrity Jeopardy so here it is…how I won despite being wrong �� <a href="https://t.co/gQ0j3CW8sJ">pic.twitter.com/gQ0j3CW8sJ</a></p>&mdash; Mina Kimes (@minakimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/minakimes/status/2054640899171455096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 13, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[QuikSand]

Congrats to Mina

[larrymcg421]

Basic wagering fail tonight.

[JPhillips]

I'm really surprised that the second place zero bet hasn't caught on more.