Julia
seashell eyes
windy smile
calls me
so I sing a song of love
Julia

That's actually the point, her knowledge is nowhere near insane. She's solid without question, but every game there are ~10 questions nobody knows that are at best in the slightly upper echelon of trivia knowledge.

But she's apparently a demon on the signaling device, combined with the fact that most of her opponents have no idea how to play, so she dominates.

Correct, she's very solid and maybe even insane in certain categories like literature, but I still am shocked at the number of triple stumpers that I know (and I would bet my house that Roger and Arthur know).

I already did that bit, kioshk. It was a total Parker.

j555 - stop posting this **** just to intentionally try and spoil people or i will ban you for a couple of weeks. thx.

caught up on the last 5 this weekend. yes hajj is joke easy and i'm almost certain they accept 'pilgrimage'.

I've googled Bonnie and Clyde's last names probably ten career times yet Parker and Barrow never stick with me. I'm definitely on the "People don't know Parker" train.

it was just unnecessarily nitty.
the point of "more info pls" is when there is more than one possible answer and they need to verify you are picking the correct person.

so if for example they asked "which US president led the rough riders" and you say "Roosevelt" they're totally justified in asking "more info pls" so you have to show them you mean teddy and not FDR.

however with that bonnie question, there is simply no other person that could even remotely fit the criteria for an answer.

they are trying to get you to figure out the person in the clue. it was a very low value dollar amount, and clearly "bonnie" should be more than enough to qualify.

i could be totally off base, but i've watched a ton of games and never seen anything like that.

i'm not trying to conjure up a conspiracy theory here, but it does seem like they ruled pretty nitty against arthur and pretty lax for julia, and the questions have seemed to be WAY easier and the contestants way dumber in julia's run.

i have absolutely nothing against julia, she's def very smart and great on the buzzer, however there is no denying that she's way better for ratings than arthur was and its great for the show to have her dominating.

she would get absolutely DESTROYED by roger, brad, pam, ken, colby, arthur, pretty much any of the great champions.

that being said she is very likeable aside from her aids wagering.

i know arthur allegedly turned a lot of people off but i can't see how this can be true. arthur was getting significant, repeated national press. he would have been pulling in new viewers by the droves.

the most annoying thing about julia for me is that she just doesn't hunt whatsoever. in fact frequently one of her opponents will be progressing through a category in order and she'll gain control just in time to pick the $1600 clue....and go pick a $400 one elsewhere instead.

yes there's a LITTLE to be said for the phil hellmuth 'smallball' strategy, but that should involve preventing your opponents from doubling up also, yet she just doesn't seem to care whatsoever.

The rules of the game are that last names are usually sufficient, but first names in normal first and last name cases never are. Therefore in this case Parker would have been enough. It does not matter if the first name is unusual, or the only one that fits the criteria or whatever.

For example, if the clue asked which player finished his career with 714 home runs, Babe would not be a sufficient answer. It's obvious what the answer is, there's only one Babe in MLB, but it's not a valid answer. Ruth however would be allowed.

As far as people knowing her last name, the typical person has no clue while the trivia person can answer this while asleep.

Re: Bonnie

I was surprised they didn't accept her first name alone since she falls into the category of "famous people known exclusively by their first name." Like if Cher was the answer to a music question, I don't think they would have made people come up with "Cherilyn Sarkisian".

God yes. I hate it when the best categories are left for the end and we don't get to see all of the clues. A Poker category on Jeopardy is pretty much a wet dream for me, along with pretty much anything sports-related.

I did sweep it, but I don't know anything about Pai Gow, and I wouldn't have gotten that one without the Monopoly reference.

That would be quite an odd response, haha. I agree with what you're saying though; odd that they wouldn't accept Bonnie. They're essentially ruling that the names "Bonnie and Clyde" aren't ubiquitous, such as Madonna or Cher, while I would contend that they certainly are.

I think it's likely that Ken, Brad, and Roger would probably beat her convincingly, but I'm not so sure about others. Winning 20 straight games is pretty damn impressive, even if we concede that her competition has seemed relatively weak. We'll get to see her go against Arthur in the ToC, right?

There's obviously a huge bias against her itt because of her wagering and conversely a huge bias for Arthur because people here just go orgasmic over someone using game theory, but I don't think there's much edge for either over the other. The ToC should be fun. The whole weak competition argument is getting a little silly now that she's played 40 different randomly-selected opponents. There could've been some very solid players in there that no one even noticed because she's so elite on the buzzer. And don't forget Arthur had a lot of real cakewalks too. Obviously it should go without saying that neither is on the Jennings/Rutter level, but that's not much of a criticism.

Lotta triple stumpers.

Her GOAT table selection is more an observation than a criticism.

so cool that Roger Craig posted in here

There's a big difference, Cher is her entire legal name.

Agree with all of this pretty much. There's one very big difference between those listed above (except maybe Colby) and Julia. Each of them have extraordinary talent in (at least) one particular area that allows them to cream the vast majority of their opponents.

Roger: Sick breadth and depth of knowledge, ballsy wagers
Brad: Fastest buzzer-hand, sick breadth and depth
Pam: Seemingly soul-reads opponents going into FJ! to wager appropriately (her BotD qualifier was siiiiiick-nasty -- read Fritz like an open book!), great breadth of knowledge, seems fine on the buzzer
Ken: Thinks quickest on the puzzle-type categories, fast buzzer, great breadth of knowledge
Arthur: Great strategy, strong knowledge-base, great buzzer-hand

Julia is a bit different. Her wagering, as previously mentioned is god-awful compared to any of the above. She's often cold on the buzzer to the point that the fish she's against snag the easy clues until she gets into her groove. She seems absurdly knowledgeable in two J!-important areas (literature and history), but often seems clueless in others.

Overall, she's very good at the game against the regular players, but it'll only take one time for that to be done. She's lucky to still be there from the episode with the Monopoly question when the guy botched his FJ! arithmetic.

Come ToC time, she'll get eaten alive by Arthur and be forgotten about by the general public. The "casuals" don't care about Dave Madden since he went early in his ToC, and Pam was long considered an also-ran until she went super deep in 2005's UToC (playing in the same ToC as Brad will never do you any favors, especially if you're a 19 year-old). This same thing will likely happen to Julia.

FYI, Here's the list of people she'll play in the ToC:

Josh Brakhage (5 games)
Drew Horwood (8 games)
Rebecca Rider (5 games)
Jim Coury* (college champ)
Andrew Moore (6 games)
Ben Ingram (8 games)
Jared Hall (6 games)
Rani Peffer (5 games)
John Pearson (teacher champ)
Jerry Slowik (5 games)
Sarah McNitt* (5 games)
Terry O'Shea* (college champ)
Arthur Chu (11 games)
Sandie Baker* (6 games)

ETA: Asterisk denotes a likely fish.

Guys, seems like we have ripe conditions for some in thread wagering!

This is a joke. Julia's streak is now nearly twice as long as Arthur's. She's faster on the buzzer than he is and has just as much knowledge. People are only saying Arthur will crush her because he hops around the board and looks for DD's. It's been shown that Julia doesn't need that boom or bust strategy. If they do meet in the ToC I'd bet on Arthur going bust and Julia prevailing.

fyp

Again, the run should've ended the day of the Monopoly question.

Julia is definitely better on the buzzer than Arthur, that was actually one of his weaker areas comparatively speaking. The knowledge base is probably similar, but both have shown holes. Arthur obviously plays the game better giving himself more chances to win.

There's really not much left to do but wait for the ToC to see if she dominates proven players like she has most challengers. But here's something interesting about the ToC, Julia seems like the type of player just to approach it no differently than a normal game. She probably won't study much and it's doubtful she'll look into game theory and wagering. While Arthur on the other hand has probably spent every day since his defeat cramming like crazy for a chance at $250k. Of the 15 contestants, he will certainly outprepare each of them prior to taping.

So come game time, even though it's wasn't true during their individual runs, Arthur could have a sizable advantage in knowledge base.

will u escrow? or we can just bet no money and whoever of us backs the wrong horse can never post ITT again.
tho that seems like a huge free roll for u as once Julia is gone you'll prolly quit posting anyways.

I would expect odds of some sort since Julia is so clearly superior.

Actually his last name was McCarty.

Antrim and Bonney were aliases.

coincidentally, i just watched all of this woman's episodes tonight. she's awful. my favourite part was where she answered 'what is k.....6?' instead of k2 on a mountain daily double.

anyway. she wins 5 days. on her 6th day she gets slaughtered and goes into FJ on $3,600. she's against something like $17k and $17.6k and looks demoralised. alex even goes as far as to correctly evaluate the situation before the commercial break with some stuff like 'ah but players B and C have to defend against each other, that could open the door for the champ!'. i'm laughing already because i know what's coming.

the category is 'at the grocery store'. the clue is 'the National Promotion Board for this food, citrullus lanatus, lists hydration as a primary health benefit.' seems like the easiest clue in history to me!



we go to the champ first. obv she has wagered every dollar like a complete and utter ****** and written orange juice, wtf?

anyway somehow it gets weirder. the 17k person wagered 4k and wrote grapefruit. the leader gets it right but instead of a 34k+ payday he actually only wagered about 7k.

just a very strange ending.

but yeah in conclusion that chick is fat, annoying and dumb.