The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
Big Jeopardy! Change
reason1024:
--- Quote ---On the contrary - wouldn't the better players be more likely to get obscure FJs correct? FJs should be easier if you want to prevent long runs. For example, who would be more likely to know that there was no US Vice-President in 1964?
--- End quote ---
I guess we'll find out :) My reasoning was that easier FJs will mean just about everyone doubles up, and the leader after Double Jeopardy will triumph. Since returning champions have already demonstrated they are smart and good on the buzzer, and continue to refine their timing against \"cold\" opponents, they'll probably be comfortably ahead at that point. Success succeeds.
While a better player probably ought to be able to get harder FJs correct, all it takes is one \"bad break\" to end a reign -- a really hard answer that a trailing player just happens to get the right question to through a fluke. (\"Hey! I know that one! My college roommate was Etruscan!\") -- or a lucky gambit with a low wager by an opponent where everyone misses.
Your only defense against a bad break in FJ is to make sure that you've doubled up on your opponent. Harder questions make those bad breaks more likely, IMHO.
There's probably always been enough factors with the Daily Doubles all along, and the cream has usually risen to the top in the past. Although, I've got to say that it seems like the Daily Doubles have gotten more dangerous too.
I know there's gotta be SOMEONE out there keeping track of this stuff... any idea anyone?
Cheers,
Mike / reason
TheInquisitiveOne:
--- Quote ---Well... elaborate.
--- End quote ---
I will be glad to, Mr. Brooks. Let us say that the show hits a drought of 5+ game winners. There are more than 10 people who win the same amount of games (say, three games) and have won (on average) $45,000. Now, there are about five or more people who have been on for two days and took the show for an average of $60,000. Some of the $60,000 champions will be shafted out of a spot in the T of C because they were not there for enough days. (I know that this sounds like an extreme case, but this is possible.)
My point is that bigger money winners over shorter periods of time can get screwed out of a shot at a quarter million dollars.
The Inquisitive One
(Again, my reasoning can be wrong, so please feel free to clarify.)
Brandon Brooks:
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Jul 25 2003, 11:39 PM\'] I will be glad to, Mr. Brooks. Let us say that the show hits a drought of 5+ game winners. There are more than 10 people who win the same amount of games (say, three games) and have won (on average) $45,000. Now, there are about five or more people who have been on for two days and took the show for an average of $60,000. Some of the $60,000 champions will be shafted out of a spot in the T of C because they were not there for enough days. (I know that this sounds like an extreme case, but this is possible.)
My point is that bigger money winners over shorter periods of time can get screwed out of a shot at a quarter million dollars.
The Inquisitive One
(Again, my reasoning can be wrong, so please feel free to clarify.) [/quote]
Valid point. But in terms of Jeopardy!, I see it a bigger feat to win more days earning less money than to win few games and get more money. (No offense to Myron; winning $50K in one day on J! takes plenty of skill, indeed.) You can get lucky on a wager on a category you know everything about. But it is less likely that you'll be \"lucky\" through out an entire game. Therefore, I think that lasting longer is better way of measurement... uh, I didn't mean that. You know what I mean.
Brandon Brooks
bttritle:
The thing that amazes me about the latest Tournament of Champions qualification discussion is that this is somehow new.
The first overriding qualification has always been the number of wins. That's why there were four-time champs invited this last go-round, it's why news of a three-time champ qualifying is always fodder for discussion.
This is not a radical departure from what they've done for the last 20 years. They'll take the champions with the longest streak of wins first, and if there is a tie for the last spot, they'll break it by dollar amount. Is this really earth-shattering?
Ben T.
Matt Ottinger:
--- Quote ---Is this really earth-shattering?
--- End quote ---
No, more like an aftershock, but I still think it was worthy of discussion. After all, once they've made a radical change like eliminating the undefeated champion, I don't think you can assume that other rules will automatically stay the same just because that's the way they've always done it.
In this case specifically, one of the reasons for the change seems to be so that they can have people win lots more money. If bragging about large amounts of money is an important factor for them, then it seems valid to wonder whether \"total earnings\" would replace \"games won\" as the determinant.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version