Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim 56)

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
Jordan F
Kiloposter
Posts: 1063
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:01 pm

Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim 56)

Post by Jordan F »

We have had a lot of strong contestants in a row this series, haven't we? We have another 6 game winner in Rose Boyle, who's making a very strong case for the finals, as has almost every champion this season. Can she get number 6?

Join Jack for the recap later.
User avatar
Grant Waters
Acolyte
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Grant Waters »

SHIPMATES in r4
John Brackstone
Rookie
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:44 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by John Brackstone »

Nucleate in round thirteen
User avatar
Grant Waters
Acolyte
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Grant Waters »

I also got NUCLEATE in r13 but even UNCLEAN beats DC!
User avatar
Tony Atkins
Fanatic
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Tony Atkins »

I had CANTEEN in r13 and there are other 7s too. RAINOUTS as an 8 in the INSULATOR round.

Did the second numbers out of time doing 12x58. (931 is best on the last btw)
CO-MSO every August
CO:Rea 20th April 2024
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by James Robinson »

Jordan F wrote:We have had a lot of strong contestants in a row this series, haven't we? We have another 6 game winner in Rose Boyle, who's making a very strong case for the finals, as has almost every champion this season. Can she get number 6?
7, surely :?:

POLLANS in round 2.

Pretty happy with my personal performance, just missing DIAMINE in round 8 for a max game. Good practice for COEDI in 11 days time though. :D
Andy McGurn
Enthusiast
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Andy McGurn »

In round 6 Sam sat back within a few seconds after spotting APOSTLES which he knew was a max because the other letter was a Q. I wonder if Rose only got the 8 because she noticed him sit back, which caused her to spot it. If so Sam would've won.

I wonder this because this happened to me when I was on the show, I'd have lost my fifth game if my opponent had not sat back having spotted the solution to a numbers game really quickly. Surely if you spot a max quickly you should pretend to still be searching?
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by James Robinson »

Andy McGurn wrote:In round 6 Sam sat back within a few seconds after spotting APOSTLES which he knew was a max because the other letter was a Q. I wonder if Rose only got the 8 because she noticed him sit back, which caused her to spot it. If so Sam would've won.

I wonder this because this happened to me when I was on the show, I'd have lost my fifth game if my opponent had not sat back having spotted the solution to a numbers game really quickly. Surely if you spot a max quickly you should pretend to still be searching?
Maybe he thought she would've got it straight away, since it was on in singular form in the previous show, which will have only been recorded within the last hour or so.
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Matt Morrison »

Saw the last few rounds today. Cheating on that 7 declaration looked fucking ridiculous.
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Michael Wallace »

Matt Morrison wrote:Saw the last few rounds today. Cheating on that 7 declaration looked fucking ridiculous.
What happen?
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by James Robinson »

Michael Wallace wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Saw the last few rounds today. Cheating on that 7 declaration looked fucking ridiculous.
What happen?
After Rose had said 7, Sam hesitated for nearly 10 seconds, then said "Yeah, 7", then after Rose gave her 7, he said he no idea what his 7 was. :P (I actually thought he was going to get INSULATOR personally. :oops: )
User avatar
Andy Platt
Kiloposter
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
Location: Wirral

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Andy Platt »

Andy McGurn wrote:In round 6 Sam sat back within a few seconds after spotting APOSTLES which he knew was a max because the other letter was a Q. I wonder if Rose only got the 8 because she noticed him sit back, which caused her to spot it. If so Sam would've won.

I wonder this because this happened to me when I was on the show, I'd have lost my fifth game if my opponent had not sat back having spotted the solution to a numbers game really quickly. Surely if you spot a max quickly you should pretend to still be searching?
Always thought about this sort of psychology - has a very big influence on mentality

You could even do the opposite too. Like if 100 75 50 25 5 5 @984 came up, I know for a fact that Jack W and Dan could put that away in a second or two but a lot of of people simply won't solve it because it's pretty tricky. So you could sit back on it and really throw your opponent as they begin fruitlessly looking for something simple. (Edited out the solve incase anyone wants to have a cheeky go at it)
Same goes for a letters selection of R N G O S A I E T, experienced players might recognise that as one of the most favourable letters selections that doesn't produce a 9 - you could sit back and pretend like you have a 9, your opponent notices and gets so involved looking for a 9 that they forget to see one of the 8s.

Love it
Jack Worsley
Series 66 Champion
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Blackpool

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Jack Worsley »

I'll do it:
(100x50-75-5)/5

I personally never looked at my opponents' body language when I was on the show but I'd be interested to hear how many people who have been on did.
User avatar
Tony Atkins
Fanatic
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Tony Atkins »

I always kept thinking and scribbling even if I had a 9, just looking for an alternative solution to avoid all that paper passing, as well as the aspect of not giving a clue to the other player. In the first numbers of my third show Cliff Barnes
sat back in about 10 seconds so I knew I was missing something obvious, but my brain was so much asleep I couldn't
spot what it was I was missing!
CO-MSO every August
CO:Rea 20th April 2024
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13252
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Andy Platt wrote:
Andy McGurn wrote:In round 6 Sam sat back within a few seconds after spotting APOSTLES which he knew was a max because the other letter was a Q. I wonder if Rose only got the 8 because she noticed him sit back, which caused her to spot it. If so Sam would've won.

I wonder this because this happened to me when I was on the show, I'd have lost my fifth game if my opponent had not sat back having spotted the solution to a numbers game really quickly. Surely if you spot a max quickly you should pretend to still be searching?
Always thought about this sort of psychology - has a very big influence on mentality

You could even do the opposite too. Like if 100 75 50 25 5 5 @984 came up, I know for a fact that Jack W and Dan could put that away in a second or two but a lot of of people simply won't solve it because it's pretty tricky. So you could sit back on it and really throw your opponent as they begin fruitlessly looking for something simple. (Edited out the solve incase anyone wants to have a cheeky go at it)
Same goes for a letters selection of R N G O S A I E T, experienced players might recognise that as one of the most favourable letters selections that doesn't produce a 9 - you could sit back and pretend like you have a 9, your opponent notices and gets so involved looking for a 9 that they forget to see one of the 8s.

Love it
I've thought about the ORANGIEST thing before as well.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13252
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Gavin Chipper »

James Robinson wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Saw the last few rounds today. Cheating on that 7 declaration looked fucking ridiculous.
What happen?
After Rose had said 7, Sam hesitated for nearly 10 seconds, then said "Yeah, 7", then after Rose gave her 7, he said he no idea what his 7 was. :P (I actually thought he was going to get INSULATOR personally. :oops: )
Aren't they supposed to ask him for his word first if he declared the length second anyway?
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by James Robinson »

Gavin Chipper wrote:
James Robinson wrote:After Rose had said 7, Sam hesitated for nearly 10 seconds, then said "Yeah, 7", then after Rose gave her 7, he said he no idea what his 7 was. :P (I actually thought he was going to get INSULATOR personally. :oops: )
Aren't they supposed to ask him for his word first if he declared the length second anyway?
Nick prefers to ask whoever he asks first to declare their word first, even if they say risky or not. He only alters when it's not written down, as opposed to risky.
Countdown Team
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:13 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Countdown Team »

James Robinson wrote: After Rose had said 7, Sam hesitated for nearly 10 seconds, then said "Yeah, 7",
Try 3 seconds.
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10580
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by James Robinson »

Countdown Team wrote:
James Robinson wrote: After Rose had said 7, Sam hesitated for nearly 10 seconds, then said "Yeah, 7",
Try 3 seconds.
I never claimed to be accurate. :P (Although, if you include the time when he was asked to declare the word, it's nearly 10.)
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13252
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday October 23rd 2012 (Series 67 Prelim

Post by Gavin Chipper »

James Robinson wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
James Robinson wrote:After Rose had said 7, Sam hesitated for nearly 10 seconds, then said "Yeah, 7", then after Rose gave her 7, he said he no idea what his 7 was. :P (I actually thought he was going to get INSULATOR personally. :oops: )
Aren't they supposed to ask him for his word first if he declared the length second anyway?
Nick prefers to ask whoever he asks first to declare their word first, even if they say risky or not. He only alters when it's not written down, as opposed to risky.
I think that if they declare the same length, then whoever has declared the length second should declare the word first. Riskiness shouldn't have anything to do with it - it's just some subjective optional declaration from a contestant. But yeah, not having written it down should make a difference.
Post Reply