So far, Amy has been a machine and does not look beatable. I won't go so far as to say the show is rigged, but I do think they do things to keep winning strakes going. My theory is that when they get a strong multi-game winner that they start scheduling 2nd and third tier qualifiers to go up against them. I think the qualifiers probably are assigned a score, and that even though they qualified I think some are lower seeded than others. I think those cannon fodder qualifiers are then thrown against one of the big winners to perform the same task the Washington Generals performed against the Globetrotters. The champion is by then quite proficient with the buzzer while the weak challengers are like deer in the headlights.
You could see this when Matt Amodio went down. After weeks of playing against slow and weak players, he suddenly came up against two players who both beat Matt and could have beat anyone else. It was as if the show runners had decided it was time for Matt's reign to end.
I think you’re on to their scheme.
Ratings have been in the sewer since Alex died. Manufacturing an all-time great may be the only chance to bring them back. When it didn’t work with 38-consecutive game winner Amodio a couple months ago, they decided to up the ante with a tranny freak.
Aside from fixing games in the manner you described, which I think is spot on the money, they can also be fixed by buzzer manipulation. A split second delay on the buzzers of a favored player’s opponents is all it takes.
What are the chances that 2 of the top 4 winners in the show’s very long history happened within a few months of each other when the ratings desperately needed a boost, and one of the winners is a politically fashionable gender deviant?
“I’ll take 1 in a Million for $200, Alex.”