The rule is you can change your answer as long as neither the host nor the judges have ruled you incorrect. What seemed odd tonight was Ken paused a while before he said anything. Presumably hedge farm threw him for a loop a little.
1 Like
That’s what I figured and I was surprised that Ken was not able to quickly rule. I was actually glad it did not influence the outcome.
“Hedge farm” sounds to me like misspeaking rather than a guess, not unlike a failure to frame as a question. I have a memory of similar second chances given - that pregnant pause after an initial small stumble - in other cases like that. Admittedly, that’s not quite fair to those who don’t get such a chance because the host himself didn’t notice the stumble and then have their responses ruled incorrect at the break. So it goes.
I enjoyed how evenly matched two of the contestants last night were. 
H and I are both disappointed that I missed yesterday’s Final Jeopardy answer given my great fan-dom for a certain musical group 
2 Likes
Mamma Mia! How could you have missed it! 
1 Like
Oh, mama mia, mama mia, mama mia, let me go
3 Likes
Great game tonight!
2 Likes
The champ lost with $51K. Didn’t someone (the admissions officer from Brandeis) lose to Holzhauser with $54K? He was the winningest contestant NOT to win his/her game. Today’s contestant losing with $51K must be the second winningest loser?
2 Likes
Adam Levin (Bradeis sports info director) is the one who had $53,999 in a loss to James. That is the highest second place score in Jeopardy history. I haven’t seen anything that says directly that Dane’s score yesterday was the second highest second place score.
However, I did see that Dane’s $26,000 was the second highest (to Adam) non-leading score going into Final Jeopardy. Today's Final Jeopardy - Wednesday, November 10, 2021 – The Jeopardy! Fan Given that Dane risked everything but a $1, his final total (as a matter of math I think) has to be the second highest second place score.
Also from Jeopardy Fan, Andrew’s score was the 43rd highest in show history and the highest score in a player’s first win.
Yesterday saw all 3 Daily Doubles as “all in” bets. Andrew missed the first one. Made sense he would bet a lot on the second one given clue was 2d clue down. Dane needed to bet big to get back into the game and he did.
There are two ways to get big scores. Runaway games or games with multiple contestants betting big and getting questions right. Latter are more fun to watch.
2 Likes
Nothing to do with hosting. I and my dh wish they would let 2nd and 3rd place get the amount in earnings that they scored. Like Wheel. What’s up with that?
6 Likes
I have thought the same thing for years. There has to be enough money in the Jeopardy franchise for them to be able to afford to do this.
It might change the betting strategies a bit for final jeopardy. However, I am okay with that.
1 Like
In Wheel, you are actually winning money as you go along. You win a puzzle and you get that money. Back in the day, you went shopping for prizes with that money (leftover balance on account or gift certificate)2. Would be odd to say at the end, you don’t get to keep it unless you won the most in that 1/2 hour. To me the equivalent to allowing 2d and 3d place to keep their money would be allowing contestants who don’t win the Wheel puzzle to keep the money they had emassed in that puzzle.
I think at one point, 2d and 3d did keep money they had. Believe it changed when Alex began hosting. If nothing else, it prevents contestants building up say $10k and then stopping participating in the game.
To me, Jeopardy is doing what Wheel does on a game basis rather than a puzzle basis. Jeopardy has only one puzzle per show (its the entire game). Win it and you keep the money; don’t and you don’t.
While true, the money potential was also much lower in the Art Fleming days; clues were $10 to $50 in the Jeopardy! round. Even then, I doubt the non-winner’s earnings covered much more than travel costs - if that. Although the contestant pool was very LA-centric in those days.
To my mind the main structural weakness in Jeopardy is that Final Jeopardy seldom has any tension in it. I have never seen anyone who at that point has doubled his nearest challenger put at risk a sure win. Even Holzhauer didn’t do it. And when one of these big champs is on a roll that means nearly every game is determined by the end of the second round. Yet the hosts keep up the pretense that something is at stake and act surprised that the Champ has made a small bet. Absolutely everyone else knew that was the only bet that made sense!
I would favor a change of the rules so as to give an incentive for the Champ to go big and put the outcome in doubt. How about making it that you double your pot if you win in that way?
Alex would often mention that a game was a runaway or that a contestant “could not be caught”. Subsequent hosts have been reluctant to do that.
Only on “Cheers” does a contestant pull a “Clavin”!!!
2 Likes
Suppose my double-the-money rule were in place. I suspect most would still choose to stand pat. It’s an ancient habit of mind to give greater weight to the possibility of loss than the prospect of gain. Still, I expect some would accept the risk if there was that level of enhanced winnings at stake. The suspense would add much-needed oomph in these overmatched situations. Perhaps another tweak of the rule would be that the amounts of the bets would in these cases be revealed prior to the anwers (er, questions) being reealed. That would create a potential doubling of the dramatic denouement - a first gasp when it is revealed that the Champ has put himself at risk; and a second gasp when he either wins big or loses big.
Seems to me is a gimmick (particularly revealing the wager first) the show doesn’t need. The name of the game is coming back again tomorrow to play again. I wouldn’t expect many (if any) contestants not names James to go the suggested route. Most contestants don’t make max bets with the rules in place today.
I enjoy watching close games. And watching long run champs (who tend to have a lot of runaway games). And games that are near runaways. This week we had a game that could have been a runaway. Andrew bet big on a Daily Double. But Dane came right back and made an “all in” bet himself go get back into it. I don’t think you need to have a game that is in doubt until Final Jeopardy to have an enjoyable match. Just like sporting contests do not need to be decided at the buzzer or even in the last minute to be enjoyable games. No stats to back this up but I think most runaway games become so in the last 5 questions.
Guest hosts have not understood the betting rules. They have been surprised with small bets by champs in “just barely runaway” games. Alex was surprised James didn’t bet big (he always did) on his last show even though James make the correct bet being in second place (with where third place was).
Last night early reminded me of Matt. Andrew picked bottom row questions, build up some money and then doubled it on Daily Double. He made smaller bets than Matt in the subsequent daily doubles. And has missed some of them. Seems like he will play closer to how Matt played than what we have seen in other contestants since Matt.
It might well be the case that not many would be enticed by the double-your-money trick, but some almost certainly would, especially in a category in which they felt knowledgable or felt the challengers were especially weak. It would at least create a real choice where none now exists, and the revealing of the choice would be a dramatic moment coming where none now exists even though that moment should be the climax of the match. Call it a gimmick, but the show is not without its gimmicks. What is timing the buzzer if not a gimmick? Or responding to answers in the form of a question? Come to think of it, that’s one that serves no purpose and ought to be retired.
“Responding to answers in the form of a question” ? Part of the history and tradition of the show. I doubt that will be “retired” any time soon