Her poker face was good, as was mine as I was spoiled by the NYT tweeting about it before it even aired where I live but I managed to keep it a surprise for y family.

I was tilted by the Manning thing, as she could have guessed Eli, or someone who didn't know sports could have even guessed Archie as a famous name, but ended up not mattering!

I somehow thought of Myanmar going through countries but not Bangladesh because I'm an idiot, apparently. I was thrown off by the "English spelling" portion of the clue. Thought it was weird they emphasized it thinking it may have two possiible names like Myanmar/Burma.

How do we define possible answers? I think there were 4 Manning's playing in 2006. Only two were QBs and only one was in the AFC. If we discount year, then there are 3 QBs in the same family.


EDIT: I guess my point is that if you narrow it down to QB, AFC, and 2006, then Peyton is the only Manning that is possible.

That's true but then you would basically never need a first name?

A couple weeks ago they didn't accept Hemsworth as an answer even though "Avengers" was in the clue and only one of the Hemsworth brothers played in a Marvel movie. They also never accept Adams, Roosevelt or Bush for Presidents / First Ladies questions even if the clue makes only one of them possible.

I don't watch enough to know, but based on your examples then it shouldn't be allowed.


I was also curious as 3 Manning QBs played in the NFL, but also Daniel and Ricky played that year (yet everyone seems to be focusing on Peyton and Eli because they were QBs).

I accidentally got semi-spoiled by this thread (browsing yesterday and saw 'GG Amy') but thought maybe it was referring to something else when she was cruising through the game. Once the guy doubled up I figured it was over. But if I hadn't been spoiled I would've been legit shocked she missed that final. I thought it was one of the easiest ever, and yeah either you know it or you don't, but the fact that she couldn't rattle off the 10 most populous countries was shocking to me.

Also kinda funny that she lost to a librarian from Chicago.

This is so much better!!!!!

Lollll. That was tragic.

Intuitively I thought the 10 most populous country would likely be in Asia with ending in H and my brain immediately arrived at Bangladesh.

That’s how I came up with it.

Interesting $0 wager today from the new champ. Not the worst thing I've ever seen by a long-shot, but I'd at least force the opponent to prove they know they have to bet it all there. Also interesting is that he probably had a slight edge in the category vs. a millenial contestant, making the situation he was wagering for even less likely.

Disagree with the above, especially if he thinks he has an edge in the category.

Since there are no co-champions, $1 should be the standard wager unless you absolutely hate the category.

As discussed many times in this thread, a wager of either $0 or $1 shows similar winning chances of over 80%. It should also be pointed out that 2nd place fails to wager everything in this spot as much as 25% of the time.

Both $0 and $1 are good wagers, anything else is laughable.

Re: the bolded; I had no idea it was that high

Ken should definitely not be saying things like “A has exactly half of B” like he did here.

Still about 8 episodes behind being caught up, so another 6 or 7 I think with Amy still? Obviously been spoiled by social media, and was avoiding this thread until I did get spoiled.

Couple thoughts:

1) Mentioned about 40 posts earlier ITT by many others, Ken really needs to STFU with the GTO commentary on wagers, even if these players are so oblivious. It is clearly meddling with the game. Let them blindly make poor wagers, or at least save it until after they wager. "You know what you need to do." SMH.

Was Ken even that good of a wager-er? I can't recall.

2) I assume Ken is just fed the pre-game scripts but way too much about the Big 4 regular season winners. Every other episode is some sort of rambling statistic or trend about Ken (yours truly), James, Matt and Amy.

3) Kind of related to 2), since Amy's been to about 15-20 episodes, I really have got the feeling that Ken wanted to see her lose. Something about his tone and praise has seemed really phony to me, as if he was threatened by a champ as dominant as him.

Also maybe about a week ago in episodes for me, how did the FJ question about a western US war monument site from the 60's at a volcano (misremembering the exact phrasing of the question) manage to be a triple stumper? I figured they all did not want to guess Hawaii because it seemed so blatantly obvious.

Definitely agree w/1. 2 I also agree is a bit much but I assume not completely his fault (as you also point out).

I really don't think Ken is threatened by her exactly. Ken would absolutely mop the floor with her in a heads-up comp and I think that's pretty obvious. He knows it, Amy knows it, and pretty much any serious fan knows it. However, I do agree that he'd much rather his record not be beaten so he was probably rooting against her a bit.

Nevertheless, I don't think his praise for her was phony. It was more or less his exact feelings about her. Basically it was "She's great, but not nearly as great as me." That's arguably an accurate assessment, but if you come of that way as a host, then you're doing it wrong.

Is that sweater Riley’s literal nicest outfit?
This is your one shot. Do not miss your chance to blow

Good game last night. Impressive comeback by Zoha, questionable moustache/facial hair choice by the new winner.

I kinda felt bad watching Riley the night before. I might be totally misreading her age, but it felt like she had very little experience with the game in general, and it might have been the kind of deal where her friends just thought she was good at bar trivia or something and told her to tryout and she got on. Interesting contrast to champs like Amy and James and obviously many others who tried out for years before making it. Could easily see her looking back in 10 years and thining she really ****ing blew it going on the show then.

$20,000
$10,000
$3,000

If $1 is a good wager, $5 is equally as good, probably even better if you like the category.

2nd is never wagering $4,001-$9,999. And even in the ultimately rare scenarios they are, they are never wagering like $9,990. I think it's fine to go higher than $1 if you like the category.

Let's not forget, this is the idiotic wager thread. Of course 2nd wagers $4000-$9999 a stupid amount of the time.

Just read this from the last time this came up. https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...e#post57279049

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Scores going into FJ today:
Scott $17,000
Emma $12,200
Ben $6,800

Ben bets $0 and gets it right. Had Emma missed FJ, Ben would have won the game with any reasonable bet.

I get why some people assume that players don't make horrible wagering mistakes. They think Jeopardy contestants are very smart and therefore wouldn't do something stupid like that.

But every regular viewer or reader of this thread knows better. I have no idea why that's still up for debate?

The point I was trying to make is in a 20k vs 10k game, if it's acceptable for 1st to wager $0 or $1, that $2 to $x is the exact same as $1. Not sure how high to make x, but you'd have to agree there's no world where $1 is different than $2.

Did you not read the link I sent you replying to your last post? There have been players that wager $9999 in that scenario. Therefore yes, there is a difference between $1 and $2.

Every single time this scenario comes up this happens! $0 or $1 are the only viable wagers here. If you don’t want to believe that then read the thread. It’s discussed way too many times in great detail and from people other than me.

If you want to argue that $155 and $156 are the same, I probably wouldn’t disagree. But $1 and $2 is a huge difference in a game where people like to bet everything but one dollar.

Again, this is not a theoretical exercise. Did you watch yesterday’s game? The lady put the correct answer just to cross it out and then write it down again. So she clearly had second thoughts about that answer. If she had changed her answer, the third place player would have won the game without the inexplicable wagering error.

Despite the fact that there are episodes on record where a contestant risks a locked game, we’re still discussing if there’s a chance somebody would bet $9999 in a $10k vs. $20k situation. Not sure which of those two things is more head-scratching.

Did I miss something or did Lawrence really give the answer "mother" without phrasing a question and nobody cared?

Head scratcher of the day: Is there any airline that's less likely to be founded by a sheikh of Dubai than El Al?