History Headscratchers / JEOPARDY

2nd Feb '16 12:09:14 AM Green_lantern40
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** Generally speaking, it runs in a 7-8 block (usually following [[Series/WheelOfFortune ''Wheel of Fortune'']]). Some local affiliates run it at different times for their own reasons. But the majority have been running it along with "The Wheel" in that 7-8 block for the last 30+ years.
to:
*** Generally speaking, it runs in a 7-8 block (usually following [[Series/WheelOfFortune ''Wheel of Fortune'']]).with ''Series/WheelOfFortune''). Some local affiliates run it at different times for their own reasons. But the majority have been running it along with "The Wheel" in that 7-8 block for the last 30+ years.
19th Jan '16 8:56:06 PM Kayube
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** It also keeps contestants from going for ties as a tactic to keep a beatable opponent in the game in order to keep winning.
11th Jan '16 12:29:43 PM dmcreif
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** There may have been budgetary issues. Possibly. But the notion that removing the co-champion rule cleaned up the taping schedules makes more sense.
26th Jun '15 7:36:03 PM MetalSmasher86
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* Why does every contestant in the lead for Final Jeopardy purposely settle for a one-dollar margin of victory when they could get more money by wagering more while still staying ahead of the 3rd-place player if he got it wrong? For example: going into Final Jeopardy, Player 1 has $3,000, Player 2 has $7,000, and Player 3 has $12,000. Player 3 will most likely wager $2,001. But what he doesn't know is that he can get more money for a win if he bets against Player 1 rather than against Player 2. If Player 3 wagers $5,999 instead, he'll get more money for a right answer ($17,999 instead of $14,001) yet still get the same 2nd-place consolation prize for a wrong answer since he'll still beat player 1 no matter what ($6,001 - $6,000 if Player 1 got it right and went all-in). Why don't more contestants realize this?
to:
* Why does every contestant in the lead for Final Jeopardy purposely settle for a one-dollar margin of victory when they could get more money by wagering more while still staying ahead of the 3rd-place player if he got it wrong? For example: going into Final Jeopardy, Player 1 has $3,000, Player 2 has $7,000, and Player 3 has $12,000. Player 3 will most likely wager $2,001. But what he doesn't know is that he can get more money for a win if he bets against Player 1 rather than against Player 2. If Player 3 wagers $5,999 instead, he'll get more money for a right answer ($17,999 instead of $14,001) yet still get the same 2nd-place consolation prize for a wrong answer since he'll still beat player 1 no matter what ($6,001 - $6,000 if Player 1 got it right and went all-in).all-in), and all without looking like a jerk to the guy in second place. Why don't more contestants realize this?
5th Jun '15 7:27:13 AM case
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** Probably a couple of reasons. One is that occasionally a leading contestant will play "nice" and make their bid so that second place with tie if they double; kind of annoying and almost unsporting for this to be at the whim of that contestant. The second reason is that it makes it slightly less predictable when queued contestants will play. Imagine coming into a taping, and they say "there were a lot of co-champions this taping, so you're being pushed forward to the next one." Which is a bit of a shame because it was kind of cool when it happened.
22nd Dec '14 7:50:25 PM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* It seems wrong how they rank post-doubled winners (2001-present), especially those with unlimited tenure (2003-present), alongside pre-doubled, tenured winners (pre-2001), as if there never was a difference between the two groups. The $100,000+ Frank Spangenberg earned back in 1990 is not the same $100,000 on the show today. It's like ranking Trebek-era champions alongside Fleming-era champions. There has to be consistency!
to:
* It seems It's wrong how they rank post-doubled winners champions (2001-present), especially those with unlimited tenure (2003-present), alongside the pre-doubled, tenured winners (pre-2001), as if there never was a difference between the two groups. The $100,000+ Frank Spangenberg earned back in 1990 is not the same $100,000 on the show today. It's like ranking Trebek-era champions alongside Fleming-era champions. There has to be consistency!consistency.
22nd Dec '14 7:49:23 PM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
* Why did they remove the co-champion rule? If it didn't exist, players like Michael Dupee and Dan Melia would never have had the chance of becoming 5-time undefeated champions or winning their Tournament of Champions. And it negates the awesomeness of the three-way nonzero tie from 2007.
10th Sep '14 3:58:22 PM TheOneWhoTropes
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* What does the main page mean "Aired in a 7-8 block"? Where this troper lives, at least, "Jeopardy!" Airs at noon every weekday, and it's just on episode, immediately followed by "TheBoldAndTheBeautiful".
to:
* What does the main page mean "Aired in a 7-8 block"? Where this troper lives, at least, "Jeopardy!" Airs at noon every weekday, and it's just on episode, immediately followed by "TheBoldAndTheBeautiful".''Series/TheBoldAndTheBeautiful''.
21st May '14 3:01:59 AM Quanyails
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** Some people do. Under the [[http://www.j-archive.com/help.php J! Archive]], the two strategies are referred to as Venusian and Martian wagering strategies, respectively.
14th Apr '14 4:42:04 AM MetalSmasher86
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added a bit more detail to my previous edit.
* Why does every contestant in the lead for Final Jeopardy purposely settle for a one-dollar margin of victory when they could get more money by wagering more while still staying ahead of the 3rd-place player if he got it wrong? For example: going into Final Jeopardy, Player 1 has $3,000, Player 2 has $7,000, and Player 3 has $12,000. Player 3 will most likely wager $2,001. But what he doesn't know is that he can get more money for a win if he bets against Player 1 rather than against Player 2. If Player 3 wagers $5,999 instead, he'll get more money for a right answer ($17,999 instead of $14,001) yet still get the same 2nd-place consolation prize for a wrong answer since he'll still beat player 1 by one dollar. Why don't more contestants realize this?
to:
* Why does every contestant in the lead for Final Jeopardy purposely settle for a one-dollar margin of victory when they could get more money by wagering more while still staying ahead of the 3rd-place player if he got it wrong? For example: going into Final Jeopardy, Player 1 has $3,000, Player 2 has $7,000, and Player 3 has $12,000. Player 3 will most likely wager $2,001. But what he doesn't know is that he can get more money for a win if he bets against Player 1 rather than against Player 2. If Player 3 wagers $5,999 instead, he'll get more money for a right answer ($17,999 instead of $14,001) yet still get the same 2nd-place consolation prize for a wrong answer since he'll still beat player 1 by one dollar.no matter what ($6,001 - $6,000 if Player 1 got it right and went all-in). Why don't more contestants realize this?
This list shows the last 10 events of 19. Show all.