Warning: This page contains spoilers for the November 17, 2022, game of Jeopardy! — please do not scroll down if you wish to avoid being spoiled. Please note that the game airs as early as noon Eastern in some U.S. television markets.
Here’s today’s Final Jeopardy (in the category Movies & Literature) for Thursday, November 17, 2022 (Season 39, Game 49):
Ridley Scott’s first feature film, “The Duellists”, was based on a story by this author to whom Scott’s film “Alien” also pays tribute
(correct response beneath the contestants)
Today’s Jeopardy! contestants:
Sam Buttrey, an associate professor of operations research at the Naval Postgraduate School from Pacific Grove, California (0 wins)
|
Andrew He, a software developer from San Francisco, California (2 wins)
|
Amy Schneider, a writer from Oakland, California (1 win)
|
Andy’s Pregame Thoughts:
After yesterday’s game–which will surely be discussed for a very long time—Andrew He is now one victory away from winning the 30th Tournament of Champions. However, the series doesn’t end until a player wins three games, and both Amy Schneider and Sam Buttrey are still in contention until that happens. One thing that I thought the players did improve upon significantly in Game 3 compared to Game 1 and Game 2: The Daily Double hunting was taken up by all three players in Double Jeopardy. If this continues, this will give Andrew less of a chance of finding those Daily Doubles and will increase Amy’s and Sam’s chances of winning games.
(For what it’s worth, I also have more to say about last night’s game with further thoughts on how I think further online brouhahas in this area can be prevented; I have an editorial already written, which will be published on Saturday.)
In an amusing bit of timing, the opening round today contains a category called “the King James Bible Saith”—I can’t wait to see how this category is going to be received by the audience tonight.
PSA: The best way to keep COVID-19 at bay (and keep Jeopardy! producing new episodes) is for everybody to get their vaccinations as soon as they can, including any boosters as recommended. When wearing a mask, please ensure that your mask covers both your nose and your mouth.
Are you going on the show and looking for information about how to bet in Final Jeopardy? Check out my new Betting Strategy 101 page!
(Content continues below)
Correct response: Who is Joseph Conrad?
More information about Final Jeopardy:
(The following write-up is original content and is copyright 2022 The Jeopardy! Fan. It may not be copied without linked attribution back to this page.)
Tonight’s Final Jeopardy feels significantly more straightforward than yesterday’s. Ridley Scott’s film The Duellists was based on the Joseph Conrad short story “The Duel”/”Point of Honor” (published as a part of Conrad’s 1908 short story collection A Set of Six). Moreover, the spaceship Nostromo in Ridley Scott’s Alien is named after Joseph Conrad’s 1904 novel of the same name. Again, I think this is an excellent Tournament of Champions-level clue, as Conrad is usually only associated with Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim in a Jeopardy! context.
We have many new offerings at The Jeopardy! Fan Online Store! Proceeds from the sale of the “Doctor Oz’s Fast-Acting Snake Oil Elixir” T-shirt are being donated to The Trevor Project:
Game Recap:
Jeopardy! Round:
(Categories: Historic Dates; The King James Bible Saith; Head For The Hills; A Word Of Warning; Songs From The Hit Album; We’Ll All Need A Drink After This)
Amy had control for most of this round and was unlucky that Andrew got to play the Daily Double. While Andrew did double up, Amy had more than $10,000 after the Jeopardy! round and held a commanding lead.
Statistics at the first break (15 clues):
Amy 8 correct 0 incorrect
Sam 4 correct 0 incorrect
Andrew 2 correct 1 incorrect
Statistics after the Jeopardy round:
Amy 16 correct 0 incorrect
Andrew 7 correct 1 incorrect
Sam 6 correct 1 incorrect
Double Jeopardy! Round:
(Categories: Native American Place Names In The U.S.; Memoirs & Personal Accounts; Far Out; Miscellany; Double Letters In The Middle; Silent Films With Jacqueline Stewart)
Double Jeopardy! was another huge battle—this time between Amy and Sam. Sam doubled up on a Daily Double, while Amy went more conservative on hers—picking up only $4,000. It was enough for Amy to hold the lead going into Final at $25,000! Sam had $20,000 and Andrew was in a distant third at $6,800.
Statistics after Double Jeopardy:
Amy 28 correct 1 incorrect
Sam 18 correct 3 incorrect
Andrew 11 correct 1 incorrect
Total number of unplayed clues this season: 12 (0 today).
Final today was a Triple Stumper; Sam went for a big bet but Amy successfully predicted a difficult clue and ended up with victory at $19,000! Amy has her second win as Game 5 tomorrow becomes crucial!
Tonight’s Game Stats:
Looking to find out who won Jeopardy! today? Here’s the Thursday, November 17, 2022 Jeopardy! by the numbers:
Scores going into Final:
Amy $25,000
Sam $20,000
Andrew $6,800
Tonight’s results:
Andrew $6,800 – $5,999 = $801 (Who is Dick?) (2 wins)
Sam $20,000 – $20,000 = $0 (Who is A.C. Clarke?) (0 wins)
Amy $25,000 – $6,000 = $19,000 (Who is Lovecraft?) (2 wins)
Scores after the Jeopardy! Round:
Amy $10,200
Andrew $4,000
Sam $2,400
Opening break taken after: 15 clues
Daily Double locations:
1) HISTORIC DATES $1000 (clue #20)
Andrew 1600 +1600 (Amy 8200 Sam 2400)
2) FAR OUT $1600 (clue #13)
Sam 6000 +6000 (Amy 13800 Andrew 6000)
3) NATIVE AMERICAN PLACE NAMES IN THE U.S. $800 (clue #20, $8400 left on board)
Amy 17000 +4000 (Andrew 6000 Sam 16800)
Overall Daily Double Efficiency for this game: 224
Average Row of Clue Selection, Before Daily Doubles Found:
Amy 2.85
Andrew 4.20
Sam 4.33
Unplayed clues:
J! Round: None!
DJ! Round: None!
Total Left On Board: $0
Number of clues left unrevealed this season: 12 (0.24 per episode average), 0 Daily Doubles
Game Stats:
Amy $21,800 Coryat, 28 correct, 1 incorrect, 43.86% in first on buzzer (25/57), 2/3 on rebound attempts (on 4 rebound opportunities)
Andrew $6,200 Coryat, 11 correct, 1 incorrect, 19.30% in first on buzzer (11/57), 0/0 on rebound attempts (on 3 rebound opportunities)
Sam $15,600 Coryat, 18 correct, 3 incorrect, 35.09% in first on buzzer (20/57), 0/0 on rebound attempts (on 1 rebound opportunity)
Combined Coryat Score: $43,600
Lach Trash: $4,800 (on 3 Triple Stumpers)
Coryat lost to incorrect responses (less double-correct responses): $5,600
Amy Schneider, career statistics:
1462 correct, 97 incorrect
69/85 on rebound attempts (on 182 rebound opportunities)
50.43% in first on buzzer (1346/2669)
70/81 on Daily Doubles (Net Earned: $218,200)
30/47 in Final Jeopardy
Average Coryat: $25,345
Andrew He, career statistics:
265 correct, 37 incorrect
15/17 on rebound attempts (on 41 rebound opportunities)
36.55% in first on buzzer (250/684)
18/23 on Daily Doubles (Net Earned: $89,400)
4/12 in Final Jeopardy
Average Coryat: $17,033
Sam Buttrey, career statistics:
229 correct, 24 incorrect
12/14 on rebound attempts (on 37 rebound opportunities)
38.77% in first on buzzer (221/570)
6/8 on Daily Doubles (Net Earned: $10,600)
5/10 in Final Jeopardy
Average Coryat: $17,460
Remaining Players’ Tournament of Champions Chances (after 100,000 Simulations)
Amy 50.317%
Andrew 47.901%
Sam 1.782%
Chances of 5 games: 74.273%
Chances of 6 games: 19.000%
Chances of 7 games: 6.727%
Today’s interviews:
Sam is a published constructor of crossword puzzles.
Andrew has visualized Ken throwing cue cards at him in the hotel room.
Amy got to throw out the first pitch at a Giants and A’s game.
Andy’s Thoughts:
- The wagering gambits have started. I’m okay with Amy’s bet, as regardless of the outcome, it keeps Andrew locked out, and the tournament continues.
- Today’s box score: November 17, 2022 Box Score.
Final Jeopardy! wagering suggestions:
(Scores: Amy $25,000 Sam $20,000 Andrew $6,800)
Amy: Standard cover bet over Sam is $15,001. If you want to try to finesse Sam, a bet between $1,401 and $4,999 might work. (Actual bet: $6,000)
Andrew: If Amy covers Sam, she falls to $9,999. Thus, you should bet at least $3,801. (Actual bet: $5,999)
Sam: Bet between $5,000 and $6,399, thereby keeping Andrew locked out. (Actual bet: $20,000)
Contestant photo credit: jeopardy.com
When commenting, please note that all comments on The Jeopardy! Fan must be in compliance with the Site Comment Policy.
If you are going to quote any information from this page or this website, attribution is required.
Ah well, another miss. Of Conrad, I know Lord Jim, Heart of Darkness and The Secret Agent. I vaguely recall promos for The Duellists and of course I remember the name of the ship from Alien, but I did not know the connection to Conrad in either case😞
Current FJ streak: 1L
I’m assuming my solution for yesterday’s FJ is correct for now. If the show changes its mind and rules it incorrect I will follow suit.
Once again, no clue. I guessed Ray Bradbury just because of the Alien reference and ‘The Martian Chronicles’ was the first thing I read of Bradbury’s.
I’ve read a fair bit of Conrad, but didn’t make connection between “duel” and “duellists”. Might’ve gotten it if I’d ever seen Alien.
I was hoping they were leaving out a more obvious connection between Scott and the unknown author in question, and went with Phillip K. Dick.
Just a comment on yesterday’s game: I can’t add anything to the discussion of the clue because it is definitely not my area of expertise, but maybe one way of smoothing things over is to let Andrew keep his win, but give Sam a win, as well.
That wouldn’t be particularly fair to Amy.
Maybe I’m off base here, but the fact that the tournament ended months ago and the episode was aired as is seems to imply that the result will stand as shown.
Any remediation would have to be applied post-tournament.
That seems most likely. There might be a chance that those involved could realize what happened before they filmed the next ep and then announce a ruling change at the beginning of it, but that looks to be a longshot.
Yeah, seems like in that case they would just re-record the revealing of the FJ responses and air that.
Has there ever been a situation where the show changed a ruling after a show aired? Expect that any changes would happen before shows air. Seems unlikely the show will make any change.
And while I don’t expect them to award both Andrew and Sam a win, I am not sure I would see that as unfair to Amy. Sam was hurt by the error in the clue/accepted response. Amy wasn’t. Based on wagering of the contestants on FJ, Amy would never have won the game.
Amy would be hurt as it gives her one fewer game to make up a deficit.
True.
Ultimately, unless they made a change before taping of the next game started, don’t see how they can do anything now. We don’t know the results of the remaining games but the show does. How do they make changes now? Games going forward (without a changed ruling before the next game taping starts) were played with given player win totals in mind. How do you go back and say that for purposes of determining the ToC champion, different win totals are being used?
What I believe they HAVE done in the past is invite a contestant back when they lost on a questionable ruling. Of course, that wouldn’t work here.
Frankly, unless someone gives me a better explanation than I’ve seen as to why Sam’s answer was not acceptable, than if Andrew won the tournament, they should give yesterday’s game to Sam and restart from where they left off. (E.g. if Andrew wins Friday’s game, then start filming again at 1 win for Sam and two each for Amy and Andrew.) OTOH, if Amy wins Friday or Monday, the mistake wouldn’t change the outcome, although I’d like to see the show give Sam credit in some way. And if Sam won the next two but lost game 7, oh, what a can of worms! But, yeah, I’d declare Sam the actual winner in that case.
Has the show addressed the situation in any way?
Explanation: the show is hiding behind a decision made in 1984 to use the KJV as its official translation and source for all Bible clues, in spite of all scholarship that has come since.
Thanks for that explanation, Andy. It puts us all at the same level of understanding, whether right or wrong.
You have stated that the King James version of the Bible is the prime reference work on biblical clues The Oxford English Dictionary has a placement during the credits, saying it is used as a prime reference work for some clues. Does Jeopardy have one prime reference work it uses to vet clues, etc? (Obviously, the KJV, and, the OED, are in great use.)
Well, I am actually glad they have that leg to stand on, making the results somewhat less controversial. The show still needs to learn from their mistake not to make up such iffy FJ clues. If they had made up a clue about something scientists believed in 1611 (date of KJV) that scientists today dispute, I’m sure they would have worded the clue to indicate the time period, if not the dispute. [Groan, I just realized that this makes me think of the current SCOTUS making rulings based on scientific and religious beliefs at the time the Constitution was written.] I am remembering there was an FJ within the last few weeks that contained a word like “reportedly” or some such to make the clue not necessarily a FACT, just “knowledge” of what it was about.
I assume that information like that [using KJV, OED, etc.] is included in whatever ‘Terms & conditions’ sort of documents that contestants have to sign in order to compete on Jeopardy! (though those would presumably also have some sort of “judges rulings are final” clauses). I hope it is enough to make Sam feel better about his loss and Andrew feel better about his win.
Do we know how many times in the past someone has protested a clue and were successful in doing so? I know they’ve brought previous players back due to issues along those lines. Assuming Sam doesn’t win the next 3 or 4 games (assuming Amy wins one) how do you make Sam whole again? Do you give him a bye to the finals of next years TOC? Or will just be an ooops moment?
That would assume that Jeopardy! admits that there was an issue with the clue in the first place—and, quite frankly, I don’t see them doing so.
Yeah very unlikely indeed. I think the only time I remember a super huge game show flub was on the Million dollar drop and they were to bring them back but ooops canceled.
Since Jeopardy uses the King James Version of the Bible as it’s prime reference work for biblical clues, and, the KJV says the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, Jeopardy will stand behind it’s clue. The matter of the Epistle’s authorship, and, number of Old Testment references by Biblical scholars is disregarded. Too bad for Sam.
What a mess!
Admin note: Please remember to keep specific comments regarding specific episodes in the posts for those games. This is to avoid spoiling viewers who might have to watch games out of order.
With this game concluded, that means that Sam has to win tomorrow’s game, or this whole thing’s over.
Gives us something we didn’t have with the GOAT tournament: multiple contestants in a winner take all situation. Would like to see Sam win at least one game to make it more interesting. Two would be really fun with a true winner take all game.
Sam has to win tomorrow’s game but still I remember about the ship from Alien and well with Conrad,I read a bit of it as well but still his books just gives me another shot at finding out more about his works.
Not a popular opinion I’m sure, but I HATE the Jeopardy bible categories and clues. Yesterday’s Final is but one reason (there’s so much with the bible that’s not 100% certain), but the constant emphasis on the religious stuff rubs me the wrong way. I’m disappointed in the show for going to the bible so often.
I’d like to see clues delving into the texts of other religions.
First, because there are numerous other religions with texts just as interesting as the Bible.
Second, because it would annoy uptight Christians who think that the world revolves around only them.
And yes, there are so many questions around the absolute accuracy of the Bible, especially when it contradicts itself.
Today was much simpler, and cleaner, than yesterday’s clue and response. I guessed Conrad because I remembered Nostromo from the first time I saw “Alien”. Never have read Conrad’s book to see why Ridley Scott, or Dan O’Bannon, chose that name for the ship, but they must have had a reason.
Have already seen mainline posts about last night’s game, so it will not go away, for a while, but I also don’t think anything will change. But congrats to Andrew and Sam for just not making this tournament and match-up quite the slam-dunk everyone thought it might be.
I get a feeling that the super-streaks may have happened in part because of COVID in the last two years, and now that things are back to normal and not as many people have as much time to stay home and brush up on trivia, I think we may see more streaks in the 10 to 20 game range, but nothing to match Amy or Matt and certainly not as many ‘super-champs’ as in the lead-up to the last tournament, but only time will tell, and we will see when the next tournament starts.
An online source says that it was just because Ridley Scott loved Joseph Conrad’s books so much. They had called it at least two other names (one from Lewis Carroll) before deciding to call the ship Nostromo, so chances are they didn’t have a plot reason for all three of those names, so probably not for any of them. [Frankly, I did not know about the Joseph Conrad book, so I had always assumed the ship was named Nostromo as a version of Nostradamus, who seemed to like to foretell disasters. Even now, that seems apropos enough to have helped Ridley Scott pick it from among Conrad’s many titles, characters, locations, etc.]
Since the ship in ‘Alien’ was just a freighter/tug of a class for which presumably there were MANY more just like it, I’m thinking it would not fit the plot line for there to have been a big reason behind it being named Nostromo, unlike NASA in ‘The Martian’ naming that ship Hermes.
Do you remember that though the movie ‘Alien’ was released in 1979, when the plot supposedly took place was EXACTLY 100 years after THIS year? Hopefully we will be lucky enough to really get to that year or at least to 2063 [per Star Trek, First Contact (with an alien species, the Vulcans) is April 5, 2063] since we have already managed to get past 1984 and 2001.
Some interesting wagering situations in this game befitting the overall position. Amy and Sam both know that one of them MUST win, but they can’t collude. In a regular game Andrew would have a somewhat better chance here as he could hope for a double-stumper on the part of the others with them betting to cover each other, but in this game because he knows that it’s in their interest that he NOT win, he has to hope that each of them bets selfishly allowing him the chance to backdoor a win.
Pardon my rudimentary ‘game theory’-speak 🙂
With today’s win by Amy, the whole controversy becomes moot if one of two things happens. If Amy wins tomorrow (likely), the controversy ends because neither Andrew nor Sam would have won the tournament regardless of the outcome of yesterday’s game. This makes it very likely that Amy wins tomorrow making the controversy moot which is why the producers didn’t have to make any changes. The other outcome which makes the controversy moot is if Sam wins the remaining three games (very unlikely). Since we know the producers have not commented or changed anything with regard to yesterday’s fiasco, in all likelihood, we can project that Amy probably won game 5, making the controversy moot.
I like your analysis. There are a couple of other possibilities:
The producers simply chose to not do anything w/o regard to who ultimately wins the tournament. OR
They didn’t realize there was any issue until sometime after the tournament had wrapped up.
I would not hazard a guess as to how likely either of those are.
Hi, Michael,
I concur and acknowledge those possibilities. I just think they are a lot less likely in light of the fact that we haven’t heard anything official from Jeopardy! staff. It seems likely that we would have heard something by now if one of my two scenarios were not the case. In my opinion, the most likely thing is that Amy won game 5 (tomorrow’s episode) and so nothing needed to be done about game three’s fiasco. I will be surprised at any other outcome, although, I hope I’m wrong as I would like to see the Tournament continue, especially, if Sam gets one or more wins. IMHO, it would be nice if each of the contestants got to win one or more games.
Your comment about Amy probably winning tomorrow making the controversy moot [actually “irrelevant” is better — “moot” means subject to debate, which this controversy has been all along] was my supposition (BEFORE today’s game) as to why Jeopardy! may have let yesterday’s game stand [without comment].
Re: “moot” — I try to keep from using moot that way aloud, but I, too, tend to THINK it. I was aghast dictionaries deciding to award “factoid” [invented information widely believed to be fact due to having appeared in print or just because it SOUNDS correct] its second definition to actually mean what it had been being erroneously used to mean [a small trivial FACT]. (Perhaps this was the first step leading to the usage and acceptance of “alternative facts”!) But, anyway, IMHO since dictionaries acquiesced to opposite meanings for “factoid” based on common misuse, they should do that for “moot”, too.
Hi, Lisa,
I do like the use of “irrelevant” in this situation but “moot” is also applicable. I was not using the definition for moot that you referred to. Instead, I was using another definition which is “having little or no practical relevance.” That definition for “moot” is pretty much the same as “irrelevant” so either one is appropriate in this case. So, feel free to not only “Think” moot but also to use it. 🙂
But the producers wouldn’t have known Amy won until the tournament was over. If the thought was wait until they determine if the error is moot, what would they have done had Amy not won? Assuming Andrew won, would the producers tell me that although 2 days ago we awarded you your second win, that was a mistake and you only had one win and thus the most recent win is #2 for you? And they could be in the situation (looking at tomorrow’s game) that we won’t know who won until after FJ. Not sure how the show could wait (hoping Amy wins) to breath a sigh of relief the error is moot and at the same time plan to say wait (rather than having the celebration begin) to say there has been a scoring change from a couple games prior.
And that is if they were planning to correct if need be while taping was still happening. If they were/are looking to do that after the fact, taping would have stopped after Andrew wins (assuming he does). What do they do then in terms of “correcting” the error?
Following up on my theory of yesterday: Perhaps the judges didn’t realize until yesterday (well after the entire Tournament was in the can) that there was an issue with Hebrews, Romans, authorship. Maybe unlikely but go along with me for the moment. So, yesterday, when they first became aware of the issue, they already knew who had won. So they decided to do nothing because yesterday’s results didn’t affect the outcome. So maybe Amy does take the crown tomorrow, as was suggested above.
Could be the case. But there have been other controversial decisions/ruling that got some publicity and the producers never responded to those either. So I don’t think its necessarily the case that silence means they aren’t saying anything because it didn’t affect the outcome. Just may be because they don’t view it as an issue at all or just don’t want to admit an error.
I believe that all of us who are thinking maybe Amy winning the tournament is why the show ignored the BIG PROBLEM are just thinking MAYBE that is the case (and taking today’s win as an indication that it COULD STILL be true rather than that it means it IS TRUE). I agree that they probably just don’t want to admit an error and that (for whatever reason) they didn’t view it as an issue before they had finished taping. [My guess is that if Sam even protested they just showed him the references they had supporting their clue/response and he could not look up any contradictory information and just assumed he had been wrong — especially if his response had been to some degree a guess in the first place.]
But even so, did it affect the outcome? Going into Game 4 with Andrew leading 2-1-0, do Amy and Sam play differently than they would have in a 1-1-1 tie affair? As someone over in the Jeopardy! Reddit thread pointed out, in a way yesterday’s events do taint the overall tournament, regardless of outcome.
Andy,
In the wagering strategy for Andrew why do you say he should bet 3,801 instead of just 3,800, which would bring him to 10,000 and still beat Amy’s 9,999?
Basically, it’s a hedge just in case the other player leaves a dollar off on the other end.
I was looking at the other option, which was for Andrew to have bet nothing, in case Amy got it wrong, and he would have been guaranteed a win regardless of his own answer. If Amy got it right, he was MOST LIKELY not going to win, although that wasn’t the way it actually worked out give her conservative bet.
GIVEN her conservative bet . . .
I hate not being able to correct my own typos 😠 🙄
“But the producers wouldn’t have known Amy won until the tournament was over.” Exactly, and since the tournament was recorded a month or more ago, they already knew well before anything aired. If anything other than my two scenarios occurred, we probably would not have seen game 3 as it played out. Of course, we won’t know until all episodes have aired but the producers already have known for weeks. That’s why I say, one of my two scenarios is most likely with Amy having won a third game somewhere along the line (quite probably game 5 tomorrow but game 6 or 7 would do, too). As I wrote before, though, I hope I’m wrong because I would like to see all of the contestants have, at least, one win which could still happen if Sam wins one or two.
This should have been in the above thread in reply to Brian M. at 6:15 p.m. Sorry about that.
You still are assuming that 1) the producers actually think there was an error and 2) that given they do, they think they need to respond. I don’t think that either is necessarily true. So even if Andrew wins, they may not respond to anything. There have been disputed rulings/answers over the years met with silence by the show.
If Amy wins in seven games, that means that Sam should’ve won the tournament.
Yes, you are correct, Eric. I should have corrected myself to say that Amy would have to win either game 5 or game 6. If Sam wins the next two games, he should have won the tournament. My main point was that as long as Andrew doesn’t win another game, then game 3 becomes moot. If Sam wins the remaining three games, game 3 also becomes moot. As you pointed out, if Amy wins game 7, that means that Sam had to have won games 5 and 6 and, therefore, should have 3 wins. I think I mentioned this earlier but left that out in the previous comment. Thanks for catching it, Eric.
I didn’t understand Sam’s bet. Maybe he was really confident in the topic.
Most likely, Sam was trying to force Amy to make a cover bet over him by going all in. Had she done so, she would have lost if either of her competitors had gotten FJ correct. As it turned out, it was a triple stumper so Amy wisely bet conservatively (but Sam could not have counted on that).
Any connection with Andrew Saunders, the Battle of Britain expert?
Amy dodged a bullet with her $6,000 FJ bet. If Sam had bet nothing, he would have won. As Andy suggests, if Amy chooses not to cover, she should bet no more than $4,999.
I’m discouraged on the subject of “Hebrews” after finding information easily available online. I’ve watched Jeopardy for decades–funny New Yorker cartoon this week about the program! However, my view is that a sometimes called “cult of personality” has affected the program adversely. Are contestants viewed as impartially as previously, or are streaks more valued and tricky twists in clues becoming the game within the game? This forum for considerations is delightful, so I participate cautiously today.
Nothing has changed from the past on that front.
This is bit cryptic, but I hope it means that the contestants are in fact treated impartially.
That’s exactly what it means.
I had not thought of it being better to lose to Sam than to Andrew in deciding Amy’s bet. Excellent point. I am still mad at Sam for his bet tonight (not really, but sort of). Before Final Jeopardy my wife and I discuss the wagers and I opined that Sam should bet nothing as he only had a chance if Amy didn’t know it. I didn’t think it likely that Amy would bet zero as that would only make sense if she was betting that it was a double stumper. Anyway, I was rooting for Sam to take at least one game and this seemed like his night. Garrrrgh.
Right there with you Stuart. I would like to see them all win one. I would love to see it go to a 7th game. I thought Sam’s best chance was to bet zero. In two of the first three days of the championship series, second place won by making a small FJ wager.
Sam did bet zero in other games in the Finals. Just didn’t today. Given what he bet, I would have picked nothing instead. Though its easy to say that looking back at what actually happened.
Yeah, another factor of the wagering situation that was so interesting to me. Ordinarily with these scores going into FJ, Sam would probably be best served by betting conservatively in the range suggested by Andy. Given the Tournament situation, where he is down 1-2-0 in the “first to three” format, he really needs to maximize his chance of winning this game, but also needs to minimize Andrew’s chance of winning. That does seem to suggest that ‘hoping Amy is wrong but is still wagering a nominal sum to cover a small wager on Sam’s part’ and just betting zero is a valid option. Note that if Amy considers this possibility herself, she could employ a short wagering strategy and just bet $4999 or less herself, still locking Andrew out, but forcing Sam to wager a non-zero amount and be correct in order to pass her.
Andy, as an adjunct to your note about today’s category “The King James Bible Saith”, I’d say today’s category “We’ll All Need A Drink After This” was apropos, too.
Amen.
Though I had no idea what the correct response for FJ should be, I was very surprised that not one of the three got it correct. My first thought was Clarke, but I had no specific reason and I doubted it was a science fiction writer as that is so seldom referred to as ‘literature’.
Now that Andrew reminded me of him, I think Dick was a better guess than Clarke.
Also, though the FJ category of “Movies & Literature” was 100% accurate, wouldn’t that category on a single Jeopardy or double Jeopardy board likely contain a collection of clues in which some are about movies and some are about literature? I am not thinking about this in terms of helping figure out the clue, just in terms of determining betting.
Movies and Literature are each such broad and common categories that if there were a category on the J! board called “Movies & Literature” I would be very surprised if it were not all questions about the intersection thereof (books made into movies, books referencing movies, and so on).
However, if there were a category along the lines of, say “Korean Movies & Literature”, then I’d expect some questions just about movies and some just about literature.
You are probably right. I am probably generalizing it from categories like “Nuts and Seeds” or “Lakes and Seas” or something like that (not that either of those have actually been used).
It is entirely possible that in this game (#4) Amy would not have bet so as to avoid a conflict with Andrew if the series was tied at 1-1-1. This means that tonight’s betting was affected by last night’s FJ fiasco.
The betting may have changed, but a cover bet by Amy doesn’t change the ultimate result of the match. I don’t think you can make the case you’re making.
It should be noted that when Amy threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Giants game, the game in question was broadcast by Fox Sports. Rather than show Amy throw out the first pitch, they showed an old clip of Kurt Busch throwing the first pitch, presumably to advertise a NASCAR race. Fox got lambasted for that. Mike Krakow, the Giants announcer, said the next day that Amy threw out the first pitch, not Kurt Busch.
Why am I not surprised. Thanks for the info.
Andrew pointed out on twitter (and perhaps elsewhere) that this game (Nov 17) aired exactly one year after Amy’s first win aired (in a game where she also defeated Andrew). That’s gotta be a first on a number of levels:
– a contestant winning a J! game on the same date two years in a row
– a contestant losing a J! game on the same date two years in a row
– a contestant being the same contestant on the same date…
– heck, probably even having a contestant PLAY a game on the same date two years in a row (though that may have occurred before with ToC contestants, I dunno)