Countdown Format Change?

[Jon Corby]

Oops, I just said that the proposed "let Rachel choose round 14 numbers" idea was terrible, when in fact it seems that it's genuinely going to be implemented. I'm taking this out of that thread as it no longer seems like it's just related to the 30th anniversary tournament.

My post was more a kneejerk - I presumed it was a pisstake seeing as how other ideas have been shot down in flames in the past, and this isn't at all 'an obvious solution' to anything, it's probably more contentious than most - but I'm not always good at articulating what my brain has already raced ahead and worked out.

So is it a terrible idea? Should round 14 (a very crucial round in close games) really be at Rachel's mercy? Could she (deliberately or otherwise) favour one player over the other? If there is to be a non-picked round, should it really be round 14, and not say 5 or 10 instead?

I've always thought it was quite cool that the challenger gets the advantage of an extra numbers pick, so should it actually just be a case that there is a slightly different format for knockout games where you want both contestants on an utterly even footing? Or should seedings sort this out?

Or does it not really matter? And if it doesn't, should she also pick a letters round to even that up? Should she just pick every round? What's the point in anybody picking?

Seduce me with your opinions please.

[Innis Carson]

I certainly wouldn't want to be in Rachel's position, knowing that I'm going to be (understandably) blamed for the outcome of the game in many cases. It would be very hard for Rachel to choose impartially at all times, and even harder to convince all the viewers/contestants that she's doing so.

I'd say the fairest way of implementing this idea is probably having the selection chose randomly the way Gevin suggested (1 in 5 chance for each number of larges), perhaps using a separate mini-CECIL.

[Countdown Team]

Yes, you are right. It probably creates more problems than it solves, all things considered.
Ah well. It was interesting while it lasted.

[Nick Deller]

Yes, you are right. It probably creates more problems than it solves, all things considered.
Ah well. It was interesting while it lasted.

Putting it in Rachel's hands is awkward, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of random chance. I'm given to understand that the typical C4 viewer at that time of day is very keen on their random chance... so give the celeb of the week 9 flashy sealed envelopes containing 3x1L, 3x2L, 1x6S, 1x3L and 1x4L, let them open one up to decide the pick, and the job's a good'un.

The only potential problem I can see is that when Paul Zenon's on, the numbers pick will be a photograph of Nick holding up a 7 of spades that Susie signed earlier in the programme... can't have everything, I guess.

[Jon Corby]

Yes, you are right. It probably creates more problems than it solves, all things considered.
Ah well. It was interesting while it lasted.

Well that's killed this discussion stone dead then.

I'm now slightly confused whether I was right in the first instance to say you were taking the piss...

TBF I have no idea what's going on anymore. The WUM has become the WUMMED.

[Jon O'Neill]

Someone in Aptochat suggested that the person who is behind should get to pick it. I like this suggestion.

[Nick Deller]

Someone in Aptochat suggested that the person who is behind should get to pick it. I like this suggestion.

Hmm. It leads me to wonder whether it's preferable to go into R14 3 points behind and picking, or 3 points ahead and letting the other guy pick - and how that might affect R13 of a tight game.

[Kirk Bevins]

Someone in Aptochat suggested that the person who is behind should get to pick it. I like this suggestion.

Hmm. It leads me to wonder whether it's preferable to go into R14 3 points behind and picking, or 3 points ahead and letting the other guy pick - and how that might affect R13 of a tight game.

This...or if there's a tie then the challenger will still get the advantage. I think keeping it is how it is currently is best. I also took Mr Team's response to be tongue-in-cheek yet several of you clearly didn't. (For a start, you can't just radically decide to change the format without thinking through the repercussions/problems!)

[Jon O'Neill]

I'm now slightly confused whether I was right in the first instance to say you were taking the piss...

Only you and Kirk have said it might have been a pisstake.

[Gavin Chipper]

Someone in Aptochat suggested that the person who is behind should get to pick it. I like this suggestion.

Anything approaching a serious competition does not give someone an advantage because they are behind, the weaker player, the challenger or anything of the sort.

[Gavin Chipper]

Yes, you are right. It probably creates more problems than it solves, all things considered.
Ah well. It was interesting while it lasted.

The idea of Rachel picking does, but Graeme's actual suggestion or some version of it (having a random element) doesn't.

[Jon Corby]

Someone in Aptochat suggested that the person who is behind should get to pick it. I like this suggestion.

Anything approaching a serious competition does not give someone an advantage because they are behind, the weaker player, the challenger or anything of the sort.

A game show might though, if they wanted to make it slightly more challenging for the champion.

[Gavin Chipper]

Someone in Aptochat suggested that the person who is behind should get to pick it. I like this suggestion.

Anything approaching a serious competition does not give someone an advantage because they are behind, the weaker player, the challenger or anything of the sort.

A game show might though, if they wanted to make it slightly more challenging for the champion.

Gameshows have different levels of showiness though. Countdown is generally accepted to be more about skill than show. Besides, it's not as if it was introduced for that reason. The 15-round format was just designed in an ugly way, and they had to give the advantage to one of the players. It wasn't advantage first then ugly format - it was the other way round. In the 9-round system it was symmetrical.

[Jon Corby]

The 15-round format was just designed in an ugly way, and they had to give the advantage to one of the players. It wasn't advantage first then ugly format - it was the other way round. In the 9-round system it was symmetrical.

Do you know this for a fact? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering how sure we can be that this is the case. I mean, it wouldn't have been that difficult to make the 15 round format symmetrical as well, I'm sure some thought was put into the format!

[JackHurst]

If you were actually looking to get rid of the choice in rounds 14, I think a nice way to do it would be determining the selection by the day of the week. Monday=1 large, Tuesday=3 Large... Friday=Six small. Something like that.

[Heather Styles]

In my ideal world, Round 14 would be another letters round.

[Andy Platt]

In my ideal world, Round 14 would be another letters round.

Taxi for Styles

[Jojo Apollo]

Why not just have it symmetrical, with 4 number rounds, 10 letter rounds and the Conundrum, so that are there are equal picks on both disciplines.

[David Barnard]

Should be 4 large every time, same for everyone then, or am I just deluded? Andy would certainly agree with this idea

[JackHurst]

2 numbers rounds would be better than 4 numbers rounds for sure. Anybody who says different is a n00b.

[Andy Platt]

Should be 4 large every time, same for everyone then, or am I just deluded? Andy would certainly agree with this idea

I certainly agree with this idea


You know one of my thoughts when looking over the idea was that one of the numbers rounds was always 1 large - and the contestants had to pick any of the other choices for theirs.
Might have changed things up a bit.

[Mark James]

Why not just leave it the way it is? I think it's grand. If you're going to win you should be good at all the disciplines.

[Gavin Chipper]

The 15-round format was just designed in an ugly way, and they had to give the advantage to one of the players. It wasn't advantage first then ugly format - it was the other way round. In the 9-round system it was symmetrical.

Do you know this for a fact? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering how sure we can be that this is the case. I mean, it wouldn't have been that difficult to make the 15 round format symmetrical as well, I'm sure some thought was put into the format!

I think Damian has said before about symmetry, having one numbers game in each part, and I think I recall him denying (certainly many others have denied it) that the extra numbers choice makes that much of a difference. My point is that it does make a difference, but nowhere near enough of one for someone wanting to design in an advantage to bother with it. Plus with games after an octochamp (two challengers), and in the knockout stages, it makes no sense. And I find it aesthetically displeasing.

[Gavin Chipper]

2 numbers rounds would be better than 4 numbers rounds for sure. Anybody who says different is a n00b.

Two numbers games would be rubbish. Might as well not bother with them at all. if it's about letters and numbers, you have to keep both parts relevant to the game. 4 in 15 rounds is hardly excessive.

I was surprised by the 15-round format when it was introduced because the old 9-round format had a 3:1 ratio of numbers to letters, whereas the 14-round finals had a 2:1 ratio. I sort of assumed that it was considered by the Countdown people that the 3:1 ratio was slightly too far in favour of letters, and that more rounds meant the chance to give a higher proportion of numbers games. Maybe that the "ideal" ratio was somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1. But then the 15-rounder went in the opposite direction.

[Jon Corby]

My point is that it does make a difference, but nowhere near enough of one for someone wanting to design in an advantage to bother with it.

Why the fuss then?

[Gavin Chipper]

My point is that it does make a difference, but nowhere near enough of one for someone wanting to design in an advantage to bother with it.

Why the fuss then?

It's enough of an advantage for it to be unfair and annoying, but if you specifically designing in an advantage, you'd probably want more than that.

Also, on the fours numbers games thing, I know a lot of people are resistant because they prefer the letters and it's more about the letters, but adding an extra numbers game would surely be more of a positive for the numbers fans than a negative for the letters fans. 10-4-1 would be less than a 10% decrease in the number of letters games, so it's nothing really. But it's obviously it's proportionally a much bigger increase for numbers games. It must just be greed.

[Mike Brown]

I think that the majority of viewers (not sure about contestants) prefer the letters games, but I could be wrong. And I was certainly glad the ratio changed when I went on in the relatively early days of the 15-rounder. I was never a fan of the quantity of numbers games in the 14-round finals, although I agree that it would have been nice if some kind of symmetry (and perhaps a similar ratio of letters to numbers) could have been maintained when the format changed. From what I remember, that wasn't considered practical and Damian definitely thought that having more letters games was important (presumably for the viewers the show was, after all, being made for).

[Kirk Bevins]

I think that the majority of viewers (not sure about contestants) prefer the letters games, but I could be wrong. And I was certainly glad the ratio changed when I went on in the relatively early days of the 15-rounder. I was never a fan of the quantity of numbers games in the 14-round finals, although I agree that it would have been nice if some kind of symmetry (and perhaps a similar ratio of letters to numbers) could have been maintained when the format changed. From what I remember, that wasn't considered practical and Damian definitely thought that having more letters games was important (presumably for the viewers the show was, after all, being made for).

Interesting perspective, Mike. From what I've experienced, the number game is favourable. People always tell me they're "crap at the letters" and hate that bit and when the numbers game comes on they're like "oohhh I can do this". More often than not they'll still struggle with the numbers but in their head they're much better at it and can enjoy it more. Whether I speak for the majority of Countdown's audience I don't know but I know my darts friends/uni friends all preferred the numbers because it was "easier"!

[Matt Morrison]

Yup, I'd say the vast majority of quite different types of people I've ever spoken about Countdown to prefer the numbers, and that doesn't include a single "darts friend".

[Jon Corby]

I think that the majority of viewers (not sure about contestants) prefer the letters games, but I could be wrong.

Doesn't surprise me at all that many contestants struggle with the numbers round. Countdown is primarily a word game, and there are millions of people out there who go nutty for words but have no arithmetical aptitude. One of the reasons I like it is that I go nutty for both words AND numbers.

[Mark Deeks]

Also, even if you're not very good at the letters, you can still play the dirty word game, spotting words like FART and POOP and BONER and the like. Or the ol' completely-invent-a-word game, like KWIJIBO or whatever. I have friends who watch Countdown and can't play at a competitive level, yet who get their fun from doing things like that. In related news, I have immature friends.

[Jon O'Neill]

Whether I speak for the majority of Countdown's audience I don't know but I know my darts friends/uni friends all preferred the numbers because it was "easier"!

Remind me what you studied at university again?

[Mike Brown]

Whether I speak for the majority of Countdown's audience I don't know but I know my darts friends/uni friends all preferred the numbers because it was "easier"!

Remind me what you studied at university again?

Darts?

[Mike Brown]

Countdown is primarily a word game, and there are millions of people out there who go nutty for words but have no arithmetical aptitude.

This. It's possible to imagine Countdown with all letters games (although it might get a bit tedious), but it would be pretty hardcore with every round being a numbers game.

One of the reasons I like it is that I go nutty for both words AND numbers.

Yeah, I like the mix too. It also beats Scrabble (in my book) because you don't have to fit the words on the board. I'm sure other people prefer Scrabble for precisely the opposite reason.

[Jon Corby]

That was an old Clare Sudbery quote btw, not my actual thoughts

[David Williams]

I think this is all marginal at best, but there two types of advantage. One is getting a selection that suits you more than your opponent, and applies at any time. The other applies only at the very end. If you are more than ten points ahead you want to maximise the chances of a flat round. If you are more than ten points behind, you want to minimise them.

1. If you pick the numbers you can go for your favourite selection.

2. If you pick the numbers at the end, you can go for one large if you want a flat round, something else if you don't.

3. If you pick the letters, you can go for your favourite selection, or go for a vowel or consonant to complete a word you've spotted with one letter missing.

4. If you declare your word second, you can decide whether to go for the safe seven or the dodgy eight after you know what you've got to beat. This is an advantage at any time, and even more so at the end, when you can go for the same as him for a flat round, and pick the other one if you need to win the round.

Up to round 12 it's all even. In rounds 13 and 14, 1, 2 and 4 belong to the challenger, and only 3 to the champion. My suggestion to even it up a little would be for the person who picks the letters to be the one that declares their word second. I can't imagine anyone other than obsessives like us even noticing.

Incidentally, in the nine round format it was the champion who had these advantages. Did anyone (except me!) even notice the switch?

[Michael Wallace]

I thought Charlie and I did some stats on the 'benefit' of getting the round 14 numbers pick, did we ever put it on the forum? I seem to remember there is basically zero advantage, but don't have the time right now to go digging up the numbers.

[David Williams]

I thought Charlie and I did some stats on the 'benefit' of getting the round 14 numbers pick, did we ever put it on the forum? I seem to remember there is basically zero advantage, but don't have the time right now to go digging up the numbers.

I don't remember seeing it. Might be interesting (assuming you were both around your 25th birthdays when you did it). Intuitively I would think there has to be an advantage, but many people don't try to exploit it. Rachel occasionally tries to coax people who are between ten and twenty points behind to go for something other than one large, but no-one ever takes her up on it.

[Michael Wallace]

I thought Charlie and I did some stats on the 'benefit' of getting the round 14 numbers pick, did we ever put it on the forum? I seem to remember there is basically zero advantage, but don't have the time right now to go digging up the numbers.

I don't remember seeing it. Might be interesting (assuming you were both around your 25th birthdays when you did it). Intuitively I would think there has to be an advantage, but many people don't try to exploit it. Rachel occasionally tries to coax people who are between ten and twenty points behind to go for something other than one large, but no-one ever takes her up on it.

We probably were quite close to that age, actually I seem to remember that a) you have a relatively low chance of being in a position where it matters, and then ii) the probability of a selection coming up that specifically the trailing player will get that the other won't is similarly small. Of course, this is all a bit pointless without any actual numbers to back it up to hand, but I distinctly remember running a bunch of analyses on a large apterous dataset and finding literally nothing to indicate it was something worth worrying about.

[Andy Platt]

I thought Charlie and I did some stats on the 'benefit' of getting the round 14 numbers pick, did we ever put it on the forum? I seem to remember there is basically zero advantage, but don't have the time right now to go digging up the numbers.

I don't remember seeing it. Might be interesting (assuming you were both around your 25th birthdays when you did it). Intuitively I would think there has to be an advantage, but many people don't try to exploit it. Rachel occasionally tries to coax people who are between ten and twenty points behind to go for something other than one large, but no-one ever takes her up on it.

Not many people are around 25 years old, so they don't understand the situation.

(I, of course, know better)

[Mike Brown]

That was an old Clare Sudbery quote btw, not my actual thoughts

Lol. Still, I stand by my reply.

[Gavin Chipper]

I thought Charlie and I did some stats on the 'benefit' of getting the round 14 numbers pick, did we ever put it on the forum? I seem to remember there is basically zero advantage, but don't have the time right now to go digging up the numbers.

I don't remember seeing it. Might be interesting (assuming you were both around your 25th birthdays when you did it). Intuitively I would think there has to be an advantage, but many people don't try to exploit it. Rachel occasionally tries to coax people who are between ten and twenty points behind to go for something other than one large, but no-one ever takes her up on it.

We probably were quite close to that age, actually I seem to remember that a) you have a relatively low chance of being in a position where it matters, and then ii) the probability of a selection coming up that specifically the trailing player will get that the other won't is similarly small. Of course, this is all a bit pointless without any actual numbers to back it up to hand, but I distinctly remember running a bunch of analyses on a large apterous dataset and finding literally nothing to indicate it was something worth worrying about.

I seem to remember seeing some sort of analysis once. I think it's fairly obvious that it would only be in a small minority of games that it would actually make a difference to the outcome, but I think it's beside the point. It's a pointless irritation, and has the perception of unfairness, and there will still be some games where it does make a difference, even if it's not many. And those games still count.

It would be just as easy not to have this situation, so why not not have it?

[David Williams]

For two good contestants, equally-matched at all aspects of the game, assume

1. The gap between them after 13 rounds will be no more than 20 points.
2. The conundrum will be solved.
3. If either of them wins round 14, they will get it spot on.

None of them 100%, especially the last one, but bear with me. Assume also that one large gives a 90% chance of a flat round, but, say, three large gives only a 70% chance. (No doubt the actual figures are checkable.)

If one player is between 10 and 20 points behind, one large gives him a 90% chance of staying there, 5% chance of going further behind, and a 5% chance of getting a crucial conundrum - so a 2.5% chance of winning. Three large gives him a 7.5% chance of winning.

Similarly, if the gap is between 0 and 10 points, one large gives a 95% chance of a crucial conundrum, and a 5% chance of going more than 10 points ahead - so a 52.5% chance of winning. But three large increases the chance of going more than 10 points ahead to 15%, and the chance of a win to 57.5%.

So having the choice increases the chance of winning by 5%. Or, more accurately, one quarter of the difference in 'flatness' between the best and worst selections, reduced by whatever the effect of the three initial assumptions is. But I still think it's significant in a closely-matched contest. How many hours of apterous would it take to increase your winning chances by 5%?

[Gavin Chipper]

I think the particular skills of the contestants can make a difference to whether the extra choice is decisive. If you have two players that are quite evenly matched overall, but one is strong on the numbers and the other quite weak, then it will increase the chance of it being decisive. It will still be a minority of games but two selections of 6 small/4 large rather than one is likely to swing it in favour of the numbers specialist on more than a negligible number of occasions.

[Mark James]

I think the particular skills of the contestants can make a difference to whether the extra choice is decisive. If you have two players that are quite evenly matched overall, but one is strong on the numbers and the other quite weak, then it will increase the chance of it being decisive. It will still be a minority of games but two selections of 6 small/4 large rather than one is likely to swing it in favour of the numbers specialist on more than a negligible number of occasions.

Who cares? If someone is better at numbers than their opponent then they deserve to win. It's part of the game. You should be a numbers, letters and conundrum specialist if you're going to win.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think the particular skills of the contestants can make a difference to whether the extra choice is decisive. If you have two players that are quite evenly matched overall, but one is strong on the numbers and the other quite weak, then it will increase the chance of it being decisive. It will still be a minority of games but two selections of 6 small/4 large rather than one is likely to swing it in favour of the numbers specialist on more than a negligible number of occasions.

Who cares? If someone is better at numbers than their opponent then they deserve to win. It's part of the game. You should be a numbers, letters and conundrum specialist if you're going to win.

I think you're missing the point. I could have just as easily put that two selections of one large is likely to swing it in favour of the non-numbers specialist on more than a negligible number of occasions. The point is that it makes a difference who gets the extra choice.

[Andy Platt]

For two good contestants, equally-matched at all aspects of the game, assume

1. The gap between them after 13 rounds will be no more than 20 points.
2. The conundrum will be solved.
3. If either of them wins round 14, they will get it spot on.

None of them 100%, especially the last one, but bear with me. Assume also that one large gives a 90% chance of a flat round, but, say, three large gives only a 70% chance. (No doubt the actual figures are checkable.)

If one player is between 10 and 20 points behind, one large gives him a 90% chance of staying there, 5% chance of going further behind, and a 5% chance of getting a crucial conundrum - so a 2.5% chance of winning. Three large gives him a 7.5% chance of winning.

Similarly, if the gap is between 0 and 10 points, one large gives a 95% chance of a crucial conundrum, and a 5% chance of going more than 10 points ahead - so a 52.5% chance of winning. But three large increases the chance of going more than 10 points ahead to 15%, and the chance of a win to 57.5%.

So having the choice increases the chance of winning by 5%. Or, more accurately, one quarter of the difference in 'flatness' between the best and worst selections, reduced by whatever the effect of the three initial assumptions is. But I still think it's significant in a closely-matched contest. How many hours of apterous would it take to increase your winning chances by 5%?

I've thought about this sort of thing without really applying numbers to it.

I love this sort of analysis by the way. I'm surprised GC didn't jump in first to post something like this.

For the record, at current time of writing, going on apterous stats:
-Top 1L player has 93%, and 30th has 84%, so the spread is quite small.
-Top 3L player has 88%, but 2nd has 77%, and even as high as 21st has only like 50%, but then again the figures are skewed because you have to have played 30 rounds of it in the last 30 days to be qualified for the leaderboard. But the point still stands I guess

[Mark James]

I think the particular skills of the contestants can make a difference to whether the extra choice is decisive. If you have two players that are quite evenly matched overall, but one is strong on the numbers and the other quite weak, then it will increase the chance of it being decisive. It will still be a minority of games but two selections of 6 small/4 large rather than one is likely to swing it in favour of the numbers specialist on more than a negligible number of occasions.

Who cares? If someone is better at numbers than their opponent then they deserve to win. It's part of the game. You should be a numbers, letters and conundrum specialist if you're going to win.

I think you're missing the point. I could have just as easily put that two selections of one large is likely to swing it in favour of the non-numbers specialist on more than a negligible number of occasions. The point is that it makes a difference who gets the extra choice.

I understand the point but I personally don't see having the choice as an advantage or disadvantage. Both players either know the solution or they don't or else one player knows it and the other doesn't. In that case the person who knows it deserves to win. The same goes for letters rounds. You either know the longest word available from the selection of letters or you don't. Who picked the selection seems irrelevant to me.

[Andy Platt]

I understand the point but I personally don't see having the choice as an advantage or disadvantage. Both players either know the solution or they don't or else one player knows it and the other doesn't. In that case the person who knows it deserves to win. The same goes for letters rounds. You either know the longest word available from the selection of letters or you don't. Who picked the selection seems irrelevant to me.

Yeah but as an example, Innis's 6 small solve percentage is (at the moment) 20% higher than mine, and my 4 large solve percentage is 12% higher than his, so that's a pretty important detail if the game is pretty close (which it typically won't be as he is much better than me at letters, but you know, point still valid).

[Jennifer Steadman]

I don't have a problem with the format as it is now during the normal series - as it stands, there is a slight disadvantage to whoever's in the champion's chair as their opponent gets to pick the last numbers, but I'd say the champion SHOULD be tested to see if they're worthy of being there. This is only iffy when there are two new contestants following an octochamp - but, following the result of that, the champion-v-challenger dynamic is resumed.

However, when you get to a competition like the 30th anniversary championship, at no point is there a champion-v-challenger dynamic. It starts off as challenger-v-challenger and, after the first round games, becomes champion-v-champion. What I'm saying is that neither contestant should be favoured - at least not on the luck of the draw. In most games, the effect of choosing the last numbers is negligible, but in games of a high standard as these ones are bound to be, it could have a huge effect on the game, particularly in games between, say, a 6 small and a 4 large specialist. Plus with the rigid, pre-determined draw, it's really unfair that some contestants would hypothetically get a second pick every time while another would only ever have one.

I'd say don't change the format overall, but maybe consider making the third pick neutral for the Championship. By neutral, I don't mean Rachel's choice; I mean some sort of computer-generated pick. At the very least, seating position (and therefore number of picks per game) should be decided on the toss of a coin in the competition to avoid certain contestants having a pre-determined advantage throughout it, just because of where they are in the draw. Sure, the draw was random and the result of coin-flipping will be just as random, but at least it will be random on a game-by-game basis rather than a case of "Well, X is here in the draw, so because he's on the right-hand side of the draw in all his matches, he'll get 2 picks each game".

Hope that all makes sense. I'm rubbish at explaining things.

[Kirk Bevins]

I'd say don't change the format overall, but maybe consider making the third pick neutral for the Championship. By neutral, I don't mean Rachel's choice; I mean some sort of computer-generated pick. At the very least, seating position (and therefore number of picks per game) should be decided on the toss of a coin in the competition to avoid certain contestants having a pre-determined advantage throughout it, just because of where they are in the draw. Sure, the draw was random and the result of coin-flipping will be just as random, but at least it will be random on a game-by-game basis rather than a case of "Well, X is here in the draw, so because he's on the right-hand side of the draw in all his matches, he'll get 2 picks each game".

Hope that all makes sense. I'm rubbish at explaining things.

You've said it yourself. Why toss a coin to decide who goes in which chair when the draw has done that for you randomly? Is this akin to a draw being made and then you follow it through and you favour the redraw every round because "it's unfair if you get drawn in the same half as Innis first time so you should get another draw so you have a chance of meeting him in the final". To me it's 50:50 either way.

Edit: Actually I see your point I think. If someone was in the challenger's chair all the time due to a 50:50 then that's far greater than someone being in the challenger's chair all the time due to tossing a coin every round.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it's interesting that a lot of the debate is about the advantage of picking the last numbers round, rather than getting more picks. I suppose if we're keepig three numbers games, then the fairest system would be to have the person who picks once to get the last pick, since it's the best one to have.

But since we're now all agreed that four numbers games is better (even though some of you are still in denial about this), to minimise the advantage of the last pick, it might be an idea to have LLNNC for the last part, so each contestant's pick is as near to the end as possible. Or you could have NNLLC to reduce the importance of having the last numbers pick. I think think my first suggestion would be a good system for the show, with added excitement for the viewers going into the last three rounds.

[Clive Brooker]

Nowadays if you're declaring second you can match the first player's declaration and earn yourself at least 20 more seconds to find a solution. So picking the numbers shouldn't be such an advantage.

[Andy Platt]

Don't let Corby hear you say that.

[Gavin Chipper]

Nowadays if you're declaring second you can match the first player's declaration and earn yourself at least 20 more seconds to find a solution. So picking the numbers shouldn't be such an advantage.

You'd have to be very good at ignoring distractions though for that to count as 20 free seconds.

[Clive Brooker]

Don't let Corby hear you say that.

In case it isn't obvious I'm not really advocating the tactic. I'm suggesting to whoever it may concern that Nick ought to change the way he does things.

Gevin, the sort of situation I'm thinking of is a 1 large game where the target is closest to say, 8x the big number. You spend too long on the obvious route during the 30 seconds but you're pretty hopeful that if you spend a few seconds looking at 7x and 9x a solution will fall out quite easily. If you don't find anything you only have to say you've used a number twice or something like that and even the most vigilant cheat police won't suspect anything.

[Ciaran Thompson]

Isn't the obvious solution (excuse the pun) to have an extra numbers game as Gavin said?
We had four games on the most recent 8 out of 10 Cats special and in the old Grand Finals. It was great that way.

I've come across 5 foreign versions of Countdown including the original French one, and they all have more mathematical content than ours. It improves the game and does not hinder it. We need more maths on British TV. I'm sure Rachel would not object.

Have 16 rounds for the championship games, by shortening the Antedote section and / or Susie's origin of words. I dont think a lesson in etymology is needed for such games. Dont get me wrong. I do like Susie's 1 minute interlude but not in grand finals and championship games. Admittedly, it can serve as a breather in a tense game, as Jeff used to call.

How about: 10 letters, 4 numbers and 2 conundrums

Part 1: LLNLL (brief antedote)
Part 2: LNC (Half way point/ breather / brief antedote) LLN
Part 3: LLLNC

or

Part 1: LLLNC (slightly longer antedote as Conundrums are the shortest rounds)
Part 2: LLN LLN (No origins section)
Part 3: LLLNC

more symetrical that way.

[Andy Platt]

some stuff

Always hated conundrums half way through.
Plus, long story short, old people who make up a lot of Countdown's fan base are probably averse to drastic change, so Damian/the team are far more likely to implement something small than something like this

Edit: also, have dictionary corner been injected with a small amount of poison, or what is the actual reason for them taking the antedote [sic]?