This is Jeopardy!

I think I've asked before how many your answers you guys get right when you're watching on TV at home. For me it's about 5.

But if you were on the show how do you think you would do? If I average five per episode on the couch I would be lucky to get two the entire show correct. And I would probably wind up with negative money and I would just be calling myself Turd Ferguson the entire time.
 
Assume 3 or 4 of the times you got the right answer, someone will beat you to the buzzer. Your best shot is to hope you get one or 2 of those, refrain from all guesses and hope your $400 wins due to betting errors in final jeopardy by the other 2 people (with you wagering $0).
 
How well I do depends on the categories.
I do best with music, movies, sports, and geography. I struggle with literature, ancient history, Greek mythology.
 
Aaron said:
How well I do depends on the categories.
I do best with music, movies, sports, and geography. I struggle with literature, ancient history, Greek mythology.
Click to expand...
Same here. I know about cars, music, TV, technology and some history. But I don't know those others.

I often get 1 or 2 answers that all the contestants miss. And I will shout out maybe a dozen correct answers per game (before they say it). But I also shout out 3 or 4 wrong, and I'm mostly beaten out by the contestants.

Like I've said, we played weekly trivia for a while. And there's a big difference between shouting answers you know, and having to answer all questions.
 
I'm so dumb, I can't even understand what "best of 7" means. How did Neilesh win with only 5 games played? He had 3 wins, but if they played 7 games, it's possible that one of the other two could also get 3 wins. I don't get it.
 
They should have just labeled it “first to 3” because what they did really doesn’t represent best out of 7
 
How can you really do a best of 7 with 3 players? How would you resolve 3-3-1 split? But there is no way 3 wins can clinch a best of 7 if you are depending on outright wins. However, if you have tiebreakers and player A has clinched the tiebreaker over player B and player C, and players B & C have each one 1 game, then player A would clinch at 3.
 
Yes to both of those. None of us thinks it makes sense.

The only justification I can come up with is this: they don't want a tiebreaker, so first to 3 beats a second player to 3, so they stop at first to 3. The only way they'd play 7 games is if it was tied at 2 games each.
 
Do they really not explain the rules? So there's some sort of best of seven with three people which as you both were talking about doesn't make sense. But my first thought was if it's a 3-3 tie between two of them, the tiebreaker would be whoever won the most money.

But whoever got to three first probably makes more sense scotch.
 
The ToC is over, so that means...

...another tournament! This time, the JIT - Jeopardy Invitational Tournament. They grab top players from different years, and slap them together. Last night, it was these 3
1739898433654.webp
Matt Amodio won. But I noticed he looks a bit different than his early appearances

1739898648839.webp

That's what you get for being on TV, year after year.
 
I guess he's been around longer than we realized. Kind of annoyed by another tournament, but an open invitational might be interesting.
 
Harvey, a new contestant with Parkinson's, blew away the 8-time champion.
S41_28470_SILIKOVITZ_home.webp

I attribute that to 2 things:
1) He's Jewish
2) He's from the same part of New Jersey as me.
 
I attribute it to him being smarter than the other two.......

With the Parkinson's, I'm surprised that he was so fast with the buzzer.

He kicked ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom