Jeopardy contestant Arthur Chu - Page 6

DoneTryin · ‎03-09-2010

KYToby - I like your style

Linders Back · ‎03-10-2010

I'd rather see contestants use his strategy than when the game is close and they beat the second place person by $1. At that point I wish more would bet to tie and make JEOPARDY pay both the winning amounts.

pinkskates4 · ‎03-10-2010

On 2/26/2014 LyndaGee said:
On 2/26/2014 Dagna said:
On 2/26/2014 suzieQ4me said:
I do not agree with his "running up the score" so to speak. He could have backed off a bit toward the end yesterday and let the players who had $18,000 LESS than him have a better chance at making a bit of money. I guess the $135,000 he had accumulated was not enough, so he kept going at it fast and furious!! All this is only my opinion. He is a very smart guy, and my main complaint is just that he wasn't a good sport toward the other players. Again, just my opinion and the way I saw it.

OMG. What????? Isn't the purpose of this game to win as much money as you can?

When did it become - you should back off so that others can win money?

When did winning become being a poor sport?

Did you think Ken Jennings won "too much?" Should he have "backed off and let others win?" Was he a "poor sport?"

I am so tired of the hypocrisy of - it's not fair - unless of course I like the person and/or he shares my political views and then he can do whatever he wants.

What does this have to do with politics?

This particular situation? Nothing. I was referring to the constant carping on this board about how "unfair" it is for various people to "make too much money" but when others who make as much or more are mentioned - who are of the opposite political persuasion, that is defended.

In this case, apparently, the fact that Chu isn't "likeable enough" is the reason for all the concern about the "unfairness" of his winning "too much"

LyndaGee · ‎03-11-2010

On 2/26/2014 Dagna said:
On 2/26/2014 LyndaGee said:
On 2/26/2014 Dagna said:
On 2/26/2014 suzieQ4me said:
I do not agree with his "running up the score" so to speak. He could have backed off a bit toward the end yesterday and let the players who had $18,000 LESS than him have a better chance at making a bit of money. I guess the $135,000 he had accumulated was not enough, so he kept going at it fast and furious!! All this is only my opinion. He is a very smart guy, and my main complaint is just that he wasn't a good sport toward the other players. Again, just my opinion and the way I saw it.

OMG. What????? Isn't the purpose of this game to win as much money as you can?

When did it become - you should back off so that others can win money?

When did winning become being a poor sport?

Did you think Ken Jennings won "too much?" Should he have "backed off and let others win?" Was he a "poor sport?"

I am so tired of the hypocrisy of - it's not fair - unless of course I like the person and/or he shares my political views and then he can do whatever he wants.

What does this have to do with politics?

This particular situation? Nothing. I was referring to the constant carping on this board about how "unfair" it is for various people to "make too much money" but when others who make as much or more are mentioned - who are of the opposite political persuasion, that is defended.

In this case, apparently, the fact that Chu isn't "likeable enough" is the reason for all the concern about the "unfairness" of his winning "too much"

Ever read the Television Without Pity board? Some are picking on Arthur there, too - Saying they'll boycott the show until he loses, because they don't like his style/personality. Nothing to do with the money. Silly.

Moonlady · ‎03-10-2010

He may simply be nervous, so I don't hold that against him (he sure perks up and applauds when Alex Trebek makes his entrance).

I'm not a big fan, however, of hunting for the daily double--the questions are meant to get progressively harder, so that is a bit off-putting. That's his strategy though, and he's not the first to do it. The idea is to make money and win. Good opponents can neutralize that strategy, anyway; so far, they may as well have brought pictures of the other contestants and placed them on the stands ${#emotions_dlg.mellow}$ . That said, I do wish the Jeopardy! producers would mix it up a bit and stick those daily doubles elsewhere so it's not so predictable. After all, they used to allow each contestant (not just the winner) to leave with any money accrued, and fixed that "problem."

Now, if Wheel of Fortune would make a few changes so the same person doesn't monopolize the wheel for the entire show...

What worries you masters you.

RetRN · ‎10-01-2013

Arthur Chu--2016.

Love my grandkids · ‎11-24-2013

I agree about mixing up the locations of the Daily Doubles. And I say AGAIN: I don't care a whit about his looks or attitude.

He's playing to WIN, which is the whole point of the game. Geeez. None of them are there to make friends, but to WIN MONEY.

Sure it's nice if they're likeable, but what difference does it make? None, at least not to me.

Love my grandkids · ‎11-24-2013

On 2/25/2014 RetRN said:
On 2/25/2014 Love my grandkids said:
He's playing smart. What's wrong with that?

You seem to have a lot in common with him. Smug?

I stated my opinion. Why is that ""smug""?