Because people love all or nothing. They don’t base it on knowing both what their two opponents have in money and assuming they know the answer, so they would have a better chance at winning.
Can I just say from experience that I am amazed how many people even in this modern day don’t know really what it’s like to be on blast if you will, you know like just having the audience watching you even if you know that people is still distracting and there is so many background people with the cameras and the producers and the make up people and there takes all damn day just to get like a half hour Shoot wrapped up with good footage for them to make one show sometimes takes more than all day and so it becomes tedious just standing if you’re not used to just standing there people get nervous and their knees and they get faint and all sorts of things can keep you from thinking, even if you practice how to wager beforehandyou have to be a natural center type person and then it takes a little practice. The stage lights are damn hot even when it’s freezing cold those things will melt you.
After the 2013 Teen Tournament ended up with triple zero, they changed the rules with a tiebreaker clue to determine the winner that was mentioned during 2023 CWC, but it was for tournament play only.
Leonard Cooper in 2013 is the only contestant in "Jeopardy!" tournament history (all tournaments combined) to lose his semi-final but win the tournament. A triple-zero score in the 2nd semi-final necessitated the use of the wild card option in the semi-finals, similar to the 1st round. In the 3rd semi-final match, Nilai Sarda with $30,400 defeated Cooper with $30,200 and Emily Greenberg with $24,400. The only other non-zero semi-final score was Irene Vazquez, who only had $100 from the 1st semi-final match.
I saw that episode. Like one of the others shown here, the top 2 players were tied & had to bet all their $ to keep up. I thought the 3rd place player that day stupidly bet all her $ when if she'd even held back $1 she could've won.
Also from what I recall, both the top 2 players in that game were champions. 1 of them was unable to continue playing because of a job conflict so had to continue against the returning champ. These 2 were tied going into Final J!
I have found that STREAMING episodes is so much more fun as it takes me only a few seconds longer to answer so I can pause and allow. Plus I can zip past babble.
Speaking of tournaments, here's another dishonorable mention--the second quarterfinal from the 1991 Seniors Tournament. Of course, since Jeopardy! never mentions the Seniors tournament anymore, I can understand why they excluded it.
2:05 But what was the actual answer? Was it December 31st, 1899? 2:22 Oh...I had to think of it like a clock. I just learned something new. 4:25 I knew the answer for that one! 5:03 What is the American Red Cross? 6:29 1 and 2. 6:53 Who is Leonardo Da Vinci? 8:24 1 and 3.
The first day of the 20th Century was January 1st, 1901. Alex Trebeck mentioned it in the video. The American Red Cross is not just a WOMEN'S organization. Anyone can join it. (It looked like one of the contestants was about to write "What is the Daughters of the American Revolution," which was the right response, but only wrote "Daughters," then crossed it out and replaced it with "What is The League of Women Voters," which unfortunately was the WRONG response, which means he should have went with his first instinct; I don't think the League of Women Voters existed in the 1890s anyway.) Leonardo da Vinci was ITALIAN NOT DUTCH!
If you are are in third and the other two are tied, never ever ever bet the farm. Because the two who are tied have only two choices: Everything or nothing. Really stupid to not hold even a dollar back in that case.
Oh, and to add, if possible, if you're third and can bet to have $1 more than two tied leaders, do that, since it forces them both to bet everything (due to the tie). You can also do this if you're third and the leader has a runaway and you're jockeying for second by forcing the only person you can catch to make a bet. Only ever bet to have $1 more than somebody if you're third, as this forces a bet out of them. Don't ever do this if you're second - this is a common blunder - because it ignores the leader's cover bet and often allows third place to overtake you if you're wrong. Remember you are not the only one betting! I cannot stress that enough. I love FJ strategy and have read Andy Saunders' guide numerous times, so I'm mentioning him here because I learned a lot from him.
I guess they didn't know about betting strategy back in the show's early days. I've seen a few of the 1970s J! games, and the players then didn't seem to have any kind of strategy for Final J! then either, but that may just be the case for the surviving episodes I've seen.
It wasn't until the Cheers episode where Cliff Clavin needlessly wagers all his money from a runaway lead that real-life contestants started to wager more conservatively, lest they "pull a Cliff Clavin".
I've heard that in his first game - the first one ever of the Trebek Era - he made a cover bet and Trebek basically called him a chicken. So in his second game, he bet it all. Needless to say, the show was still figuring things out.
When you are tied for the lead, you assume the other knows the answer. If he is right and bets everything and you bet everything but a dollar, you lose by a dollar. You don’t assume they don’t know it.
This was a particularly bad case of somebody losing everything they had in the Final Jeopardy! round after writing down incorrect questions instead of the correct question.
No game in history resulted in all three players at zero or negative score at end of Double Jeopardy. If it ever happens, the producers will just have to make up a new rule. The SNL version of Celebrity Jeopardy dosen't count.
IMO, the first question of the video is really dumb. If the year 056 AD, for example, is considered a year in the _first century,_ then the year 0 of any century should be considered the _first year_ of the century. (I know there was no year 0, but there should have been, because, on a number line, the next integer after -1 is 0. You must pass by the whole number 0 to get from -1 (1 BC) to 1.) They may as well have asked, "Is ground floor in a building floor 1 or floor 0?" Hint: In South America, it's 0. Or they may as well have asked, "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?"
The years 001 to 100 or the first century, not 001 to 099. A century is 100 years. Thus the first century began at 1 and ended at 100, and every century since has followed suit. Millennia work the same way.
@@richardcypherrahl Yes, but the first _year_ of each century does _not_ follow suit, which is what I was trying to point out. (0)53, for example, is the first century. But 400 is _not_ the first _year_ of the century. The reasoning is inconsistent. The first century _should have_ had its first year as 0, not 1.
@@ViolinistJeff No. First century is year 1 to year 100. Can't be anything else. It has to be 100 years, it has to start at 1. That means the second century starts at 101 and ends at 200. Again, that is forced. And this carries over 18 (now 19) more times.
@@msolec2000 That is how it is, but I say the original design is wrong. I shall clarify and repeat my above argument. It should not have gone directly from 1 BC to 1 AD. There should have been a year 0. That is because of the mathematical fact that on a number line you cannot go from -1 to 1 without passing by 0.
If a person were born at 12:01am, Jan 1, 1900, they would be a year old on Jan 1, 1901. In the same way, the century would have been a year old by Jan 1, 1901. The abstract argument is made that there was no "Year Zero," but the Western system of numbering of centuries was never based on a "Year Zero" in the first place. In practice, birthdays and anniversaries are celebrated as I described above. By this reckoning, centuries start - are "born," if you like - on Jan 1, xx00. "Jeopardy is WRONG!!" (in Marisa Tomei's voice from "My Cousin Vinny')
Why would a century have 99 years? When you count to one hundred, do you stop at 99? Don’t you go all the way to 100? The “zero” isn t important here, but the “100” is. The nineteenth century gets 100 years and it gets to end with the year 1900 that defines it.
but your novel system is irrelevant. The people who celebrated the beginning of the twentieth century didn’t know about your logic, and we should accept their reckoning.
@@juicyfartsofjimcornette1154No. There is no year zero. It went from 1 BC to 1 AD. In history, the Arab world invented zero. They gave us the word algebra, as most Al words like alcohol are Arabic words. When counting, we start with 1, so the 20th century started in 1901. Also in Biblical times, the day was shorter. The earth’s revolution is getting slower and will continue based on comparison to the planet God resides on, where a day there is a 1,000 years to us. Time is a planetary thing, based on revolution, rotation on axis and travel around the sun, giving us a year length, day length and month length.
@@playfulyogi5639 - Screw the tiebreakers, I'd rather have Fremantle and Sony put aside their differences so Jeopardy! can have *Beat The Spoilers* (from Spoiler Double Dare) as it's bonus round. Don't worry, *Final Jeopardy!* would still happen, just not as a bonus round anymore. Of course, it also means shorter Single and Double Jeopardy! rounds too, but it'd be worth it just to get back the best bonus round ever in game shows. My "controversial" opinion of course.
Early years Jeopardy people didn't know crap about Callenders because the first day of the 20th Century was January 1st 1900 January 1st 1901 was the second year of the 20th Century.
You were 100% incorrect then, and you're 100% incorrect now. The first year of the 20th century was 1901; the last year of the 20th century was 2000. The first year of the 21st century was 2001; the last year of the 21st century will be 2100. The first year of the 19th century was 1801; the last year of the 19th century was 1900. . . . . . . The first year of the first century was A.D. 1; the last year of the first century was A.D. 100. The first year of the first century B.C. was 100 B.C.; the last year of the first century was 1 B.C., which was also the year immediately prior to A.D. 1 (there was no year zero).
I am always surprised with how many people start counting with zero! …but why would you think the year 1900 wasn’t in the nineteenth century…which is defined by it??
Crazy that in the first two clips, both questions are about the calendar and Alex appears to be wearing the exact same outfit.
It's amazing how so many players, even in the modern era, don't know how to wager.
The majority of the planet has the intelligence of a sign post.
Because people love all or nothing. They don’t base it on knowing both what their two opponents have in money and assuming they know the answer, so they would have a better chance at winning.
Can I just say from experience that I am amazed how many people even in this modern day don’t know really what it’s like to be on blast if you will, you know like just having the audience watching you even if you know that people is still distracting and there is so many background people with the cameras and the producers and the make up people and there takes all damn day just to get like a half hour Shoot wrapped up with good footage for them to make one show sometimes takes more than all day and so it becomes tedious just standing if you’re not used to just standing there people get nervous and their knees and they get faint and all sorts of things can keep you from thinking, even if you practice how to wager beforehandyou have to be a natural center type person and then it takes a little practice. The stage lights are damn hot even when it’s freezing cold those things will melt you.
After the 2013 Teen Tournament ended up with triple zero, they changed the rules with a tiebreaker clue to determine the winner that was mentioned during 2023 CWC, but it was for tournament play only.
Leonard Cooper in 2013 is the only contestant in "Jeopardy!" tournament history (all tournaments combined) to lose his semi-final but win the tournament. A triple-zero score in the 2nd semi-final necessitated the use of the wild card option in the semi-finals, similar to the 1st round. In the 3rd semi-final match, Nilai Sarda with $30,400 defeated Cooper with $30,200 and Emily Greenberg with $24,400. The only other non-zero semi-final score was Irene Vazquez, who only had $100 from the 1st semi-final match.
@@mitchellhodack657 how much will they earn with $25000
That episode jeopardy round had categories from the Carly Rae Jepsen hit call me maybe.
There was a Triple 0 on January 18th, 2016, and that was the last time that happened in Alex Trebek’s lifetime.
I saw that episode. Like one of the others shown here, the top 2 players were tied & had to bet all their $ to keep up. I thought the 3rd place player that day stupidly bet all her $ when if she'd even held back $1 she could've won.
Also from what I recall, both the top 2 players in that game were champions. 1 of them was unable to continue playing because of a job conflict so had to continue against the returning champ. These 2 were tied going into Final J!
The player who was leading at the end of the Double Jeopardy! round was Jon Lovitz.
@@mitchellhodack657 the critic
@@mitchellhodack657Celebrity Jeopardy does not count.
I’m surprised that the triple $0 episode in 2016 was not mentioned.
Must have been not a climatic as these five.
The tag says Top 5 so while there have been more than 5 instances, the creator of the video picked their Top 5 instances based on their opinion.
Just like Bob Barker in The Price is Right, Alex Trebek mentions some historic moments in Jeopardy!
I have found that STREAMING episodes is so much more fun as it takes me only a few seconds longer to answer so I can pause and allow. Plus I can zip past babble.
0:07 That's a young Alex Trebek.
1:22 did anybody realize the -$5000 score on Paul?
I don’t know much about geography, but I did know the last answer was Belfast.
The first question is one of the worst clues ever presented on a quiz show.
Speaking of tournaments, here's another dishonorable mention--the second quarterfinal from the 1991 Seniors Tournament. Of course, since Jeopardy! never mentions the Seniors tournament anymore, I can understand why they excluded it.
It happened on July 9, 1991.
"Easy come, easy go."
Love this!
I was wondering how you could end up with a game of jeopardy with no winner and this is amazing to see
For Season 29 this is definitely change the game for Leonard Cooper after no winner in the Teen Tournament in Semifinals #2.
9:45 - 9:46
John now knows what it is @ 4:19.
2:05 But what was the actual answer? Was it December 31st, 1899?
2:22 Oh...I had to think of it like a clock. I just learned something new.
4:25 I knew the answer for that one!
5:03 What is the American Red Cross?
6:29 1 and 2.
6:53 Who is Leonardo Da Vinci?
8:24 1 and 3.
The first day of the 20th Century was January 1st, 1901. Alex Trebeck mentioned it in the video.
The American Red Cross is not just a WOMEN'S organization. Anyone can join it. (It looked like one of the contestants was about to write "What is the Daughters of the American Revolution," which was the right response, but only wrote "Daughters," then crossed it out and replaced it with "What is The League of Women Voters," which unfortunately was the WRONG response, which means he should have went with his first instinct; I don't think the League of Women Voters existed in the 1890s anyway.)
Leonardo da Vinci was ITALIAN NOT DUTCH!
I'd like to see a co-champion compilation.
8:14--Lovitz didn't have to bet it all to win.
Same thing with the others. The key is to *spare a dollar* at least in the bonus round.
He was essentially playing for fun. The house minimum was $10,000 and no one there was going to top that amount.
As a tribute to late host Alex Trebek, here are the top five JEOPARDY! episodes that ended with a painful three-way zero loss. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸
If you are are in third and the other two are tied, never ever ever bet the farm. Because the two who are tied have only two choices: Everything or nothing. Really stupid to not hold even a dollar back in that case.
Oh, and to add, if possible, if you're third and can bet to have $1 more than two tied leaders, do that, since it forces them both to bet everything (due to the tie). You can also do this if you're third and the leader has a runaway and you're jockeying for second by forcing the only person you can catch to make a bet. Only ever bet to have $1 more than somebody if you're third, as this forces a bet out of them. Don't ever do this if you're second - this is a common blunder - because it ignores the leader's cover bet and often allows third place to overtake you if you're wrong. Remember you are not the only one betting! I cannot stress that enough.
I love FJ strategy and have read Andy Saunders' guide numerous times, so I'm mentioning him here because I learned a lot from him.
1:36--Why did he bet it all? All he needed to wager was $501 and he would've won.
I guess they didn't know about betting strategy back in the show's early days. I've seen a few of the 1970s J! games, and the players then didn't seem to have any kind of strategy for Final J! then either, but that may just be the case for the surviving episodes I've seen.
It wasn't until the Cheers episode where Cliff Clavin needlessly wagers all his money from a runaway lead that real-life contestants started to wager more conservatively, lest they "pull a Cliff Clavin".
I've heard that in his first game - the first one ever of the Trebek Era - he made a cover bet and Trebek basically called him a chicken. So in his second game, he bet it all.
Needless to say, the show was still figuring things out.
When you are tied for the lead, you assume the other knows the answer. If he is right and bets everything and you bet everything but a dollar, you lose by a dollar. You don’t assume they don’t know it.
None of the teens were doublin their money, no pun intended. Belfast was the easy choice.
This was a particularly bad case of somebody losing everything they had in the Final Jeopardy! round after writing down incorrect questions instead of the correct question.
If only any one of them even bet all but $1.
That's what I'm saying. Save one dollar during the bonus round.
Why is the one with Claudia Corriere not in there?
Maybe the channel wanted to include a Celebrity episode.
Why are we not included season 32.
Yeah there was one that happened in 2016 in season 32
Maybe they wanted to include a Celebrity episode on the list.
First game.why in the world would the leader bet it all? Not good at math, I guess 😮
It wasn't a runaway.
Although his best bet would have been to wager $501 and HOPE the second place player got it wrong.
because that was the second game ever and people just didnt understand the best strategies yet
I don’t know what he was thinking. There was no reason to wager big! He pulled a Cliff Clavin!
No game in history resulted in all three players at zero or negative score at end of Double Jeopardy. If it ever happens, the producers will just have to make up a new rule. The SNL version of Celebrity Jeopardy dosen't count.
IMO, the first question of the video is really dumb. If the year 056 AD, for example, is considered a year in the _first century,_ then the year 0 of any century should be considered the _first year_ of the century. (I know there was no year 0, but there should have been, because, on a number line, the next integer after -1 is 0. You must pass by the whole number 0 to get from -1 (1 BC) to 1.)
They may as well have asked, "Is ground floor in a building floor 1 or floor 0?" Hint: In South America, it's 0.
Or they may as well have asked, "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?"
Is it still considered a new century when it becomes a one (2001 in the case for the 21st), or did the powers that be grew a brain?
The years 001 to 100 or the first century, not 001 to 099. A century is 100 years. Thus the first century began at 1 and ended at 100, and every century since has followed suit. Millennia work the same way.
@@richardcypherrahl Yes, but the first _year_ of each century does _not_ follow suit, which is what I was trying to point out. (0)53, for example, is the first century. But 400 is _not_ the first _year_ of the century. The reasoning is inconsistent. The first century _should have_ had its first year as 0, not 1.
@@ViolinistJeff No. First century is year 1 to year 100. Can't be anything else. It has to be 100 years, it has to start at 1. That means the second century starts at 101 and ends at 200. Again, that is forced. And this carries over 18 (now 19) more times.
@@msolec2000 That is how it is, but I say the original design is wrong. I shall clarify and repeat my above argument. It should not have gone directly from 1 BC to 1 AD. There should have been a year 0. That is because of the mathematical fact that on a number line you cannot go from -1 to 1 without passing by 0.
If a person were born at 12:01am, Jan 1, 1900, they would be a year old on Jan 1, 1901. In the same way, the century would have been a year old by Jan 1, 1901.
The abstract argument is made that there was no "Year Zero," but the Western system of numbering of centuries was never based on a "Year Zero" in the first place.
In practice, birthdays and anniversaries are celebrated as I described above. By this reckoning, centuries start - are "born," if you like - on Jan 1, xx00.
"Jeopardy is WRONG!!" (in Marisa Tomei's voice from "My Cousin Vinny')
Nevertheless, a Year Zero DID EXIST! They just didn't think about it when starting Year One.
Why would a century have 99 years? When you count to one hundred, do you stop at 99? Don’t you go all the way to 100? The “zero” isn t important here, but the “100” is. The nineteenth century gets 100 years and it gets to end with the year 1900 that defines it.
but your novel system is irrelevant. The people who celebrated the beginning of the twentieth century didn’t know about your logic, and we should accept their reckoning.
@@juicyfartsofjimcornette1154No. There is no year zero. It went from 1 BC to 1 AD.
In history, the Arab world invented zero. They gave us the word algebra, as most Al words like alcohol are Arabic words.
When counting, we start with 1, so the 20th century started in 1901.
Also in Biblical times, the day was shorter. The earth’s revolution is getting slower and will continue based on comparison to the planet God resides on, where a day there is a 1,000 years to us. Time is a planetary thing, based on revolution, rotation on axis and travel around the sun, giving us a year length, day length and month length.
If Posi-Traction were a calendar lol
There should be a tie breaker
No, if a contestant is too stupid to know how to play the game right, then they deserve to lose.
only if they have a positive score otherwise they would not be able to play final jeopardy
@@playfulyogi5639 - Screw the tiebreakers, I'd rather have Fremantle and Sony put aside their differences so Jeopardy! can have *Beat The Spoilers* (from Spoiler Double Dare) as it's bonus round. Don't worry, *Final Jeopardy!* would still happen, just not as a bonus round anymore.
Of course, it also means shorter Single and Double Jeopardy! rounds too, but it'd be worth it just to get back the best bonus round ever in game shows.
My "controversial" opinion of course.
Early years Jeopardy people didn't know crap about Callenders because the first day of the 20th Century was January 1st 1900 January 1st 1901 was the second year of the 20th Century.
You were 100% incorrect then, and you're 100% incorrect now.
The first year of the 20th century was 1901; the last year of the 20th century was 2000.
The first year of the 21st century was 2001; the last year of the 21st century will be 2100.
The first year of the 19th century was 1801; the last year of the 19th century was 1900.
. . . . . .
The first year of the first century was A.D. 1; the last year of the first century was A.D. 100.
The first year of the first century B.C. was 100 B.C.; the last year of the first century was 1 B.C., which was also the year immediately prior to A.D. 1 (there was no year zero).
@@freezer8530 - It means you and the powers that be are idiots with that logic!
@@freezer8530that would make sense but the last guy could've only risked 1 dollar because second place wouldn't win even if she got it right
I agree with this Jan 1, 1900
I am always surprised with how many people start counting with zero! …but why would you think the year 1900 wasn’t in the nineteenth century…which is defined by it??