Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by waynomo, Jun 3, 2013.
What about it's original title, "War, what is it good for?"
Say it again, y'all
Actually no, that would not be good, but either of these should be.
Война и миръ
Voyna i mir
Just watched Friday night's (9/27) show..
Dude on end had $9200
Chick in middle had $13,200
Champ had $12,500
Category for FJ was "European Capitals" so you know the question is going to be hard as F**K...
I was SCREAMING at the dude on the end not to risk ANYTHING!
Of course, he risked EVERYTHING!
All 3 got it wrong and chick in the middle won with $1,799..UGH!!!
HE COULD HAVE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely classic case of poor betting.
I got curious and tried to find out what the lowest amount ever won on Jeopardy was and came up with Jimmie Bucci ($100 over 2 days). There appear to be several cases of $0 and $1 amounts for a single match but those folks won more in subsequent matches.
I assume that can't happen now since 2nd and 3rd place folks win preset amounts?
That raises an interesting question... what's the minimum prize for first place?
It would be rather odd for the final scores to end up something like $100/$1/$0, and have 2nd and 3rd place win $2000 and $1000, while first place only wins $100.
I think that's how they do it though, since the winner gets to come back the next game.
Right -- the minimum prize for first place is $1, and since they'll come back on the next show, they're guaranteed to go home with at least $1,001.
(If a game ends in a 3-way tie for $0, none of the contestants get to come back for the next show, and I don't know how they handle the minimum guarantee amounts in that case.)
So they can potentially end up worse off than the guy he had beaten who came in second.
Another day of incredibly bad FJ wagering:
Damian Henri: $18,000+$17,999=$35,999
Rohit Dewan: $17,200+$17,200=$34,400
Kristan McMahon: $2,800+$2,799=$5,599
Had it been a triple stumper instead of an instaget, the final amounts would be $1, $0, $1.
Damian should have bet $16,400, Rohit $801 (or $800), and Kristan nothing.
ONLY because it was an instaget did the wagering not matter.
Is it better to make your bets with the assumption that everyone will get it wrong, or assuming everyone gets it right? I've always thought it was to bet as if everyone got it right, but as I'm seeing comments here, maybe that is not the right approach.
Now Alex (and the judges..whatever!) penalized a contestant for (allegedly) mispronouncing "Elaine" - as in "Elaine" from Seinfeld:
He said, "Uh-laine" and they wanted him to say, "EEE-laine"-I remember my ex-MIL talking about her friend EEE-laine, but ex-MIL was from New York- not everyone is from the East Coast, and not everyone pronounces words the same....
It sounded like he said "Helene".
Arrgh! Again. Bad betting actually cost her the game today. No debate, she gave the game away.
It's painful to watch.
It's funny, if I knew I was going to be a contestant on the show I would watch every episode I could get my hands on plus read as much as I could on the Jeopardy board.
And these people are supposed to be smart? Yeesh!
If you are in third place with way less money than the other two, who are going to be betting against each other, I think it's better to bet nothing in the event that everybody (or at least those other two) don't get it right and you might - I said might - wind up having the most money left in the end.
If everybody gets it, you wouldn't win anyway. So, yes it's a gamble but at least you have a chance.
AGREED! Especially if the category is something horrible like "Middle Eastern Geography" or "British Monarchs" or something that is going to be super difficult...IMHO!