Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by waynomo, Jun 3, 2013.
Maybe that's why it's called "Double Jeopardy"?
This has been a frustration of mine for years. In 90% of the episodes, at least one person wagers incorrectly in FJ. Often two do it. I just don't understand it. Even in the spoilered game that Wayno posted, the third place contestant should have wagered ZERO. No reason to wager $1200 in that spot. I always thought I should approach Jeopardy about being a wagering coach for the contestants. I'll give them the wagering strategy before they go on in exchange for 5% of their winnings.
Oh, and I'm of the belief of going for the tie, not the $1 win. I'd rather play someone I know I can probably beat (the extra $1 would garner a victory) then someone random.
And it happened again today. Here were the stakes going into FJ:
All 2nd needs to do is bet $200 or more. Instead he goes all in, betting almost all of his wad. And of course, 1st bets a ton, needing to stay ahead should they both get it. 3rd bets a modest amount.
All three miss, a triple stumper. 3rd ends up winning.
Another game given away. Honestly, 2nd doesn't deserve to win. If you don't understand how to bet, or make an effort to learn before you play, I have no sympathy for you.
I saw a taping about 15 years ago. The show is taped in real time till they get to Final Jeopardy. They stop taping at that point and bring out consultants to work with each contestant to figure out how much to wager. I'm not sure if the consultants suck or if they only have the leeway to make sure the contestants don't screw up big time.
I wonder if they still do that any more. I'm active in a Jeopardy forum, where there are many former (and current!) players posting. No one has ever mentioned this. Ever.
I'm going to guess they no longer do this.
Please ask and let us know. I would be surprised if they didn't still do this. At the of taping, Alex Trebek came out and explained it to us. They felt it was important that the contestants didn't screw up the FJ wagering.
(you know they tape several shows a day?) I forget if we saw 3 or 5.
My understanding is that they're not "consultants" in the sense that they're helping the contestants with their wagering. They're just members of the production staff who are making sure that the wagers the contestants come up with make sense and are written legibly on the screen.
Here is a reply from one of the contestants on that episode. Talk about "from the horse's mouth". She was the current champion, and was in first place at FJ. She was not the one who made the bet I am referring to, that was the 2nd place contestant.
FJ has 8 permutations of correct/incorrect responses. I'd make my bet on the assumption that opponents with more money will be incorrect and bet $0 and those with less will be correct and bet all.
I'm not sure I totally understand what you said, but nonetheless, there are accepted betting standards based on what most people do. Obviously not everyone follows common sense, and sometimes an odd betting strategy pays off. But years of study (and believe me, hard-core Jeopardy fans are nothing if not statistic oriented) have shown that using certain strategies pays off for more often than not.
One wrench can be the category, and your general feel for how you will do, versus your opponents. This is where the odd betting strategies I mentioned above can come into play.
But hey, that's why we still play the game.
Two contestants tied tonight! I don't think they planned it that way. I did think both bets where a tad on the unusual side though.
I went back and rewatched the bets when I realized they had tied. The champion made a $1000 bet. The challenger, however, bet just enough that if the champ got it right and had doubled his money and the challenger got it right (he didn't) they would have tied as well.
Interesting how it ended.
I think the tie was planned.
That would mean collusion. Can they do that?
It certainly looks like that is what happened.
I suspect that there is stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.
Absolutely not. Anything we don't see has no affect on the game.
There is a studio audience, they see everything. And if you read the Jeopardy forum (jboard), it is full of former & current contestants. They give lots of behind the scene fill in the blanks, but it's all innocuous.
Nothing goes on that isn't innocent. See my post above, #28. That's the only kind of BtS going on.
I've often pondered something else about Final Jeopardy. I was taught to underline book titles, but I've never noticed a contestant doing that when writing their answer. Considering how many of the contestants are teachers, I find that odd that none of them would underline a book title.
Perhaps they're told not to underline them for ease of reading? Anyone know?
Underlining book titles? I never heard of that, except maybe in a bibliography section (which I've seen a million formats for, some of which are underlined, others are italicized, etc).
In general writing, book titles are usually just capitalized or quoted. In modern print, underlining is also considered deprecated - they much prefer bold or italics for emphasis.
Fascinating. Just googled this and found that many methods are acceptable. Before computers, underlining was preferable since making italics was generally harder to do.
I guess I'm showing my age.
If you're nervous and have only 30 seconds[*] to write something, I have a feeling that underlining it would be the last thing on your mind.
I have occasionally seen underlining (or putting movie/TV titles in quotes), but I can't point to specific examples -- you're right that it's very rare. I don't think there's a specific rule against it, though.
[*] The contestants actually have a little longer than 30 seconds, because the pen starts working once the clue is displayed, not when the music starts. Also, they're told to write either "who" or "what" during the commercial break (and it's not ruled wrong if they forget the "is" or "are").