What do you dislike most about Countdown?

[Clive Brooker]

Editing out unsolved conundrums. This has happened twice to my knowledge, and presumably on many other occasions.

As a principle I think that as far as possible we should watch the game that was actually played. Apart from anything else, omitting an unsolved conundrum means that some people will be denied an armchair victory.

[D Eadie]

Editing out unsolved conundrums. This has happened twice to my knowledge, and presumably on many other occasions.

As a principle I think that as far as possible we should watch the game that was actually played.

Err, you do. If the game is a draw we have to do tiebreak conundrums, but our airtime is 36 minutes, which we cannot extend to 39 or 40 when it suits us. If you have a solution then i'd love to hear it. As for denying people at home an armchair victory............please.

[Martin Smith]

What do you think the big clock is for?

The clock is there to add another thirty seconds to the already significant thinking time available during the selection process. In fact, I always laugh when Jeff says: "Here's your chance to catch up as it's your pick of the letters", because the person not picking usually has the advantage of not having to concentrate on making the decisions and relating them to Rachel. The only time this does not apply is when the person picking is super quick at anagramming and stemming on the fly and can thus pick V/C based on actual words already seen rather than just trying to obtain a useful distribution. I wonder what percentage of players this applies to.

I have to admit that my impression is that picking the letters is an advantage, although probably less than picking the numbers. Most Apterous types know the really useful stems and probably the 'Fruitful Sevens', so having control of whether tofinish on a vowel or consonant can make a difference. If you're not capable of thinking on your feet to realise that you're an I away from a nine, just always choose CCCVVVCCC or something. Choosing the letters also allows you to play defensively or aggressively, depending on the score. If the first 3 vowels are IOU and you're leading, choose consonants to increase the chance of a difficult round. If you're trailing, choose another vowel to try and create long words.

Incidentally, I apologise to Damian if he feels that this thread is too negative. I just feel that there are common issues we can agree on, and things which can be improved on. I was always interested to see whether my gripes are common ones.

[Clive Brooker]

I apologise to Damian if he feels that this thread is too negative.

Likewise. My last post seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Kai Laddiman]

Any 4 large of your choice was clever and witty

I INVENTED IT

[D Eadie]

I apologise to Damian if he feels that this thread is too negative.

Likewise. My last post seemed like a good idea at the time.

No need to apologise at all gents. Like i said before, if its a widespread issue then it's perhaps something we can deal with, but individual preferences just have everyone chasing their tails. I do think we're a pretty solid ship at the moment though, so for me its about carrying on as we are doing. 12 months ago the world and his wife told us the show was over for good, but we'll be 5000 editions old in March, with one eye on our 6000th.

[Lesley Hines]

Any 4 large of your choice was clever and witty

I INVENTED IT

Haha give us elderly folk (34) a chance to catch up, Kai!

My only criticism is getting the contestants to check each other's work. I'm not sure I'd have the guts to say if someone had misdeclared or spelt something incorrectly (and words have been disallowed on their spelling: I remember languor in particular). I wouldn't like to look like an absolute pedant and pore over their numbers solution, but otherwise it's down to trust.

I realise this is done for geographic (the set's huge!) and aesthetic purposes, but it's tough enough being sat in the chair without have to adjudicate on your opponent. Fortunately I had someone I trust opposite me (we gingers stick together ) so life is sweet!

[D Eadie]

My only criticism is getting the contestants to check each other's work.

I agree, that's just so unreasonable.

[Jojo Apollo]

I apologise to Damian if he feels that this thread is too negative.

Likewise. My last post seemed like a good idea at the time.

No need to apologise at all gents. Like i said before, if its a widespread issue then it's perhaps something we can deal with, but individual preferences just have everyone chasing their tails. I do think we're a pretty solid ship at the moment though, so for me its about carrying on as we are doing. 12 months ago the world and his wife told us the show was over for good, but we'll be 5000 editions old in March, with one eye on our 6000th.

Speaking of tails, any thoughts on that Basil Brush suggestion I gave earlier?

[Gavin Chipper]

I think the only improvement that could be made to the format would be equal rounds of letters and numbers during the elite games (Series finals and COC) as going second can be a slight advantage for maths wizards.

No. Not this. When, for the finals, we tossed a coin to decide who sat where it was very interesting. If you choose the challenger's chair you get 2 numbers, which could matter but sometimes I chose to sit in the champion's chair. Why? Not only do you get 1 extra choice of letters you also get to declare second one more time. This can be crucial. "Do I stick with 7 or risk pluralising it for the 8? Oh no...what will he go for? Oh, he's declaring first and has a 6 - brill!"

That was one advantage of sitting in the champion's chair. Knowing your opponent helps with this tactic.

I think it's good now that Jeff has a format, e.g. if C1 chooses the letters he'll ask C2 first to declare. This is very consistent and helps if I want to risk something. I don't think DesO was very consistent with this but Jeff certainly is.

There have been debates before when people have suggested an even numbers of each round and then other people have said that there isn't such an advantage choosing the numbers, and perhaps the advantage could be with choosing the letters. But wherever the advantage lies, or if it exactly cancels out, it's difficult to "prove" and the best way of ensuring that there isn't an inherent advtange is to have an equal number of each round. And it's not just about fairness but balance. I know it's mainly a letters game, but it is about letters and numbers, and to have a 15-round game where you only pick numbers once just seems a little odd to me.

[D Eadie]

There have been debates before when people have suggested an even numbers of each round and then other people have said that there isn't such an advantage choosing the numbers, and perhaps the advantage could be with choosing the letters. But wherever the advantage lies, or if it exactly cancels out, it's difficult to "prove" and the best way of ensuring that there isn't an inherent advtange is to have an equal number of each round. And it's not just about fairness but balance. I know it's mainly a letters game, but it is about letters and numbers, and to have a 15-round game where you only pick numbers once just seems a little odd to me.

So whats your solution?

[Michael Wallace]

There have been debates before when people have suggested an even numbers of each round and then other people have said that there isn't such an advantage choosing the numbers, and perhaps the advantage could be with choosing the letters. But wherever the advantage lies, or if it exactly cancels out, it's difficult to "prove"

It's impossible to "prove" anything, it's not very difficult to get an approximate measure of the advantage it confers, though.

[Liam Tiernan]

There have been debates before when people have suggested an even numbers of each round and then other people have said that there isn't such an advantage choosing the numbers, and perhaps the advantage could be with choosing the letters. But wherever the advantage lies, or if it exactly cancels out, it's difficult to "prove"

It's impossible to "prove" anything, it's not very difficult to get an approximate measure of the advantage it confers, though.

How?

[Michael Wallace]

There have been debates before when people have suggested an even numbers of each round and then other people have said that there isn't such an advantage choosing the numbers, and perhaps the advantage could be with choosing the letters. But wherever the advantage lies, or if it exactly cancels out, it's difficult to "prove"

It's impossible to "prove" anything, it's not very difficult to get an approximate measure of the advantage it confers, though.

How?

By somehow getting hold of an enormous database of Countdown games and analysing the results?

[Tracey Mills]

Actually I agree with the comment on here that it should be later...possibly around 4:30-5pm. More kids and families can watch it then and that has to be a good thing.

Agreed.

Agreed also because I enjoyed it more at that time

[Liam Tiernan]

It's impossible to "prove" anything, it's not very difficult to get an approximate measure of the advantage it confers, though.

How?

By somehow getting hold of an enormous database of Countdown games and analysing the results?

Not very difficult? By all means then, work away.

[Charlie Reams]

Not very difficult? By all means then, work away.

If only there was someone who had a big database of Countdown games at their fingertips...

[Gavin Chipper]

There have been debates before when people have suggested an even numbers of each round and then other people have said that there isn't such an advantage choosing the numbers, and perhaps the advantage could be with choosing the letters. But wherever the advantage lies, or if it exactly cancels out, it's difficult to "prove" and the best way of ensuring that there isn't an inherent advtange is to have an equal number of each round. And it's not just about fairness but balance. I know it's mainly a letters game, but it is about letters and numbers, and to have a 15-round game where you only pick numbers once just seems a little odd to me.

So whats your solution?

First two "halves" as before, then something like L1 N2 L2 N1 C, or L1 L2 N1 N2 C.

[Liam Tiernan]

Not very difficult? By all means then, work away.

If only there was someone who had a big database of Countdown games at their fingertips...

Ok, joking aside, how would you go about it? Through Apterous games or games from the show? If you choose show games, how do you allow for the fact that the challenger, (statistically the weaker player) always gets to choose first? If it's Apterous, then you would have to compare between players of roughly equal rating (because we're talking about a 1 round advantage here). Maybe you could do it by band of 100 pts. It might be interesting to see how the different bands compare.
My suspicion is if there is any advantage to choosing first/second it will only be the top levels, in which case we're into quarter-final territory, where the chairs are chosen randomly anyway. Why change the format for that? If Michael or anybody else wants to give it a go, I'd like to see the results. I have no problem with being proved wrong. (It wouldn't be the first time, or the last).

[Simon Myers]

My suspicion is if there is any advantage to choosing first/second it will only be the top levels, in which case we're into quarter-final territory, where the chairs are chosen randomly anyway.

Not true, despite it coming across that way on the show.

[Julie T]

If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so then we retake the round coming off the clock. You won't see them being asked to write down at home. And lastly, anyone who hasn't written their word down would almost always without exception go first.

Thanks for the info, Damian!
I did wonder why it never seemed to happen that neither contestant had written their word down.

[Julie T]

just didn't want to appear like I'd nerdily read the dictionary

As opposed to reading the dictionary unnerdily?

Yeah, like browsing it with a bottle of Cristal in a hot tub with bunny girls.

Reminds me of the lyrics of 'Rockstar' by Nickleback. Amongst the stuff he wants like a 'bathroom he can play baseball in', I'm sure I spotted 'the latest dictionary'!
Maybe Nickleback are secret Countdowners or Scrabblers!

[Kirk Bevins]

I did wonder why it never seemed to happen that neither contestant had written their word down.

I'm sure Damian will know more but certainly when I've been in the studio I've never seen *both* contestants saying "not written down" so it can't happen that often anyway.

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

I did wonder why it never seemed to happen that neither contestant had written their word down.

I'm sure Damian will know more but certainly when I've been in the studio I've never seen *both* contestants saying "not written down" so it can't happen that often anyway.

But when it does, it just shows how good the editing is.

[D Eadie]

I did wonder why it never seemed to happen that neither contestant had written their word down.

I'm sure Damian will know more but certainly when I've been in the studio I've never seen *both* contestants saying "not written down" so it can't happen that often anyway.

Hahaha. You make it sound like you're there all the time. How many shows have you watched in total in studio over what period?

Come on James. I know you're dying to..............

[James Robinson]

I did wonder why it never seemed to happen that neither contestant had written their word down.

I'm sure Damian will know more but certainly when I've been in the studio I've never seen *both* contestants saying "not written down" so it can't happen that often anyway.

Hahaha. You make it sound like you're there all the time. How many shows have you watched in total in studio over what period?

Come on James. I know you're dying to..............

In this series, I have attended 23 shows.

[D Eadie]

In this series, I have attended 23 shows.

And how many times has the 'not written it down for both' scenario cropped up?

[James Robinson]

In this series, I have attended 23 shows.

And how many times has the 'not written it down for both' scenario cropped up?

I was there when Jeffrey & Darren did it with the CENTENARY selection. That's the only one I saw.

[Marc Meakin]

In this series, I have attended 23 shows.

And how many times has the 'not written it down for both' scenario cropped up?

I was there when Jeffrey & Darren did it with the CENTENARY selection. That's the only one I saw.

So 1 in 23 shows, is that a fair average

[Clive Brooker]

So 1 in 23 shows, is that a fair average

Suppose every player has one not written down solution per game (reasonable?). I was always useless at probability, but I think it's fair to say they would fall in the same round (assuming independence) once in every 14 games. On this basis 1 in 23 should be well within the expected bounds.

FWIW I've attended 5 games and it happened once.

[D Eadie]

It's happened dozens of times down the years, but once every 5 studio days sounds about right.

[Marc Meakin]

It's happened dozens of times down the years, but once every 5 studio days sounds about right.

Did it happen at the Final?

[Ciaran Thompson]

There have been debates before when people have suggested an even numbers of each round and then other people have said that there isn't such an advantage choosing the numbers, and perhaps the advantage could be with choosing the letters. But wherever the advantage lies, or if it exactly cancels out, it's difficult to "prove" and the best way of ensuring that there isn't an inherent advtange is to have an equal number of each round. And it's not just about fairness but balance. I know it's mainly a letters game, but it is about letters and numbers, and to have a 15-round game where you only pick numbers once just seems a little odd to me.

So whats your solution?

Hi I'm new here, but not new to Countdown, and I've always thought as well that there should be more emphasis on the numbers. I think its clear that the programme is more about words and letters, but even so it seems that theres too little to do with numbers. Afterall, there are 11 'word' rounds, a conundrum (which ofcourse is a jumbled up 'word'), two teatime teasers which are also jumbled up 'words', theres the Origin of 'Words' section and then theres just three numbers rounds. I think its unfair that one of the contestants only gets to pick one numbers selection out of 14 selection games. I seem to recall Carol and now Rachel mentioning the lack of numbers. I sometimes think Rachel is a bit reduntant compared to Susie, afterall Rachel is the Maths expert, who only gets to use her skills 3 times per show, yet Susie - the English expert gets to use her skills 11 times per show. Perhaps Rachel could have a section like Susie's 'Origin of Words', where she could give maths tips, or maybe one of the TTT's could be a numbers puzzle like a number pyramid or number equation etc. And ofcourse maybe another numbers round.

Here's my format:

No.-Round----Player
1.---Letters---A
2.---Letters---B
3.---Letters---A
4.---Numbers-B
-----DC Guest Section
-----Teatime Teaser-----------------
5.---Letters---A
6.---Letters---B
7.---Numbers-A
8.---Letters---B
9.---Letters---A
10.--Letters---B
11.--Numbers-A
------Numbers Teaser ---------------
12.--Letters---B
13.--Letters---A
------Suzie Dents Section (Alternate with a section for Rachel???)
14.--Numbers-B
15.--Conundrum (Buzzer)

In the French version they have 14 rounds (8 letters, 4 numbers, 1 word conundrum and 1 numbers conundrum), which is not too disimilar to the old 14-round Countdown Finals.

I'm also saying this because I prefer the numbers as I do better at them than the letters or conundrum! lol!

[Charlie Reams]

Suzie

Susie.

Also, welcome to C4C.

[Clive Brooker]

Weclcome Ciaran. I like the idea of a numbers puzzle once in a while.

I've often thought a "numbers conundrum" would be interesting. Presumably this would need some new electonics - something similar to "fastest finger first" on Millionaire. Most unlikely to happen on the show, but I would have thought it was possible on Apterous. Perhaps it's already there.

[Kirk Bevins]

I've often thought a "numbers conundrum" would be interesting. Presumably this would need some new electonics - something similar to "fastest finger first" on Millionaire. Most unlikely to happen on the show, but I would have thought it was possible on Apterous. Perhaps it's already there.

I don't like this idea. I'd buzz instantly and then use the 2 or 3 seconds to fudge it.

[Liam Tiernan]

Weclcome Ciaran. I like the idea of a numbers puzzle once in a while.

I've often thought a "numbers conundrum" would be interesting. Presumably this would need some new electonics - something similar to "fastest finger first" on Millionaire. Most unlikely to happen on the show, but I would have thought it was possible on Apterous. Perhaps it's already there.

That might be an interesting variant. Points deducted for a wrong buzz, maybe?

[Charlie Reams]

Most unlikely to happen on the show, but I would have thought it was possible on Apterous.

It would be technically difficult. Something like the numbers Duel thingy from DCedL, wherein you race to evaluate a large expression like ((25+75)*800)/4+15, might be interesting.

[Clive Brooker]

I've often thought a "numbers conundrum" would be interesting. Presumably this would need some new electonics - something similar to "fastest finger first" on Millionaire. Most unlikely to happen on the show, but I would have thought it was possible on Apterous. Perhaps it's already there.

I don't like this idea. I'd buzz instantly and then use the 2 or 3 seconds to fudge it.

That's not what I meant at all. Both players enter their solution as they do at the end of the 30 seconds on a standard numbers game. Whoever enters a valid solution and hits "done" first wins.

For all I know it may already exist.

Edit - from Charlie's comment I think he got what I meant.

[Kirk Bevins]

That's not what I meant at all. Both players enter their solution as they do at the end of the 30 seconds on a standard numbers game. Whoever enters a valid solution and hits "done" first wins.

For all I know it may already exist.

So it's effectively a typing race for easy games?

[Clive Brooker]

That's not what I meant at all. Both players enter their solution as they do at the end of the 30 seconds on a standard numbers game. Whoever enters a valid solution and hits "done" first wins.

For all I know it may already exist.

So it's effectively a typing race for easy games?

That's true, just like many numbers games are a waste of time. A 20-round attack game would be a proper test.

[Kirk Bevins]

A 20-round attack game would be a proper test.

Fair point.

[Clive Brooker]

A 20-round attack game would be a proper test.

Fair point.

As was yours. Because I'd been thinking of challenging games, I hadn't previously appreciated that pure typing speed alone might win one player a number of rounds. I'm not sure if that's necessarily bad, though.

[Gavin Chipper]

If it's done using click-button thing only, then it won't be down to typing and it will probably be a more level playing field.

[Ciaran Thompson]

Weclcome Ciaran. I like the idea of a numbers puzzle once in a while.

I've often thought a "numbers conundrum" would be interesting. Presumably this would need some new electonics - something similar to "fastest finger first" on Millionaire. Most unlikely to happen on the show, but I would have thought it was possible on Apterous. Perhaps it's already there.

Thanx Clive (and everyone) for your welcome etc. Yes it is probably unlikely to happen. However, if they finally get around to doing some 'Specials', then perhaps they'll feature the numbers conundrum on a 'numbers special' edition. If they did, perhaps Rachel could write out the equation on the whiteboard, Jeff starts the clock, contestant buzzes when they think they've got the answer, they say it and if correct, Rachel presses button and CECIL reveals answer???

I still think they should change one of the letters into another numbers round and feature a numbers teaser.