Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Round-by-round summaries of every game in recent series; for every series in the last 5 years, try cdb, the Countdown database. Obviously this forum contains spoilers!

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10573
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by James Robinson »

Welcome one and all to the 2nd half of this week's Robinson Recap. Following yesterday's fruity offerings, let's orange a nice recap, hopefully full of raisin spirits to all you cherry souls. :lol:

Hopefully no raspberries today. :oops:

Countdown recap for Thursday 11 February 2010.

C1: Champion Craig Chittenden (3 wins, 287 points.) From Bishop Auckland, County Durham. Is in training to be a chef, his favourite is Jamie Oliver, mainly because of his Essex roots that they share. He also likes reading, his favourite book is Watership Down, or Jeff Stelling's Book On How To Cook Rabbits, as it's otherwise known. :lol:
C2: Challenger Catherine Jackson. From Twickenham, London. She works as a project manager. She likes travelling and scuba diving, even going shark diving WITHOUT a cage. :shock: :o She loves everything to do with New Zealand, since she has lived there for 18 months. She also managed to share a jacuzzi with the New Zealand rugby league team, who happened to be at the gym opposite Twickenham Stadium, which is near where she lives. 8-)
DC: Susie Dent and Mark Foster.
RR: Rachel Riley.
OT: Other words or solutions.

R01: V C N E O M H A E
R02: M R E I S G L A Q
R03: R J N I O E N L U
R04: O F S I T D E T A
R05: 8, 7, 2, 3, 5, 1. Target: 803.
TTT: CARALIBI - "The answer is there in black and white"
R06: P L U I B D E T O
R07: N S P E O A O D L
R08: C I T O N I R X O
R09: F R M P A I E N E
R10: 75, 25, 7, 10, 5, 4. Target: 282.
TTT: RAISERIP - "Open land with lots of litte houses, perhaps"
R11: W R A O V P Y A U
R12: T M O E T B L I R
R13: S S N E U I K S E
R14: 50, 10, 1, 4, 3, 7. Target: 962.
R15: T I C K P H O T O (conundrum)


And now a brief interlude before our main feature:

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Enjoy the show.

Round 1: V C N E O M H A E

C1: MENACE (6)
C2: HEAVEN (6)
DC: CAVEMEN (7)
Score: 6–6 (max 7)

Round 2: M R E I S G L A Q

C1: REALISM (7)
C2: MAILERS (7)
DC: REGALISM (8)
Score: 13–13 (max 15)

Craig will probably be kicking himself for forgetting to add the G to REALISM. :oops:

Round 3: R J N I O E N L U

C1: INJURE (6)
C2: JOINER (6)
DC: REUNION (7)
Score: 19–19 (max 22)

3 out of 3 darrens for DC, but there's nothing separating Craig from Catherine.

Round 4: O F S I T D E T A

C1: TOASTED (7)
C2: DAFTEST (7)
DC: FATTIES (7) FOISTED (7)
OT: IODATES (7) TOADIES (7) OATIEST (7) TOASTIE (7) STIFADO (7)
Score: 26–26 (max 29)

And a nice flat round keeps the scores nice and neat, as we head over to Craig's specialist round.

Round 5: 8, 7, 2, 3, 5, 1. Target: 803.

C1: 803. (((8 x 3) - 1) x 7 x 5) - 2 (10)
C2: 801.
Score: 36–26 (max 39)

WOW! Even Rachel looked surprised to see Craig get that numbers game :!: Respect, Mr. Chittenden. ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-)

Mark talks about his time on Strictly Come Dancing, mainly in the clothing department and the Weakest Link special, where he won £15,900 for charity.

Teatime teaser: CARALIBI -> BIRACIAL

Round 6: P L U I B D E T O

C1: BOILED (6)
C2: PILOTED (7)
OT: BOULTED (7) DOUBLET (7) EUPLOID (7)
Score: 36–33 (max 46)

But, Catherine's not going to lie down easily and gets back in with a nice 7.

EUPLOID is an adjective referring to having a chromosome number that is an exact multiple of the haploid number for the species.

Round 7: N S P E O A O D L

C1: SPOONED (7)
C2: SPOONED (7)
DC: NOODLES (7) POODLES (7)
OT: ANDOSOL (7) DAPSONE (7) NOPALES (7) PEDALOS (7) SPOOLED (7) SNOOPED (7)
Score: 43–40 (max 53)

Round 8: C I T O N I R X O

C1: CITRON (6)
C2: NITRIC (6)
DC: IRONIC (6)
OT: COITION (7)
Score: 49–46 (max 60)

COITION is a noun relating to COITUS, which I'm sure you all know what that means, maybe apart from you young un's out there. ;)

Round 9: F R M P A I E N E

C1: REMAIN (6)
C2: PRIME (5)
DC: FIREMAN (7)
OT: EPIMERA (7) FIREMEN (7) FREEMAN (7) PERINEA (7)
Score: 55–46 (max 67)

Catherine may be in PRIME form, but that slip sees Craig pull further away again.

EPIMERA (the plural of EPIMERON) is either the part of the side of a somite external to the basal joint of each appendage on a crustacean or the lateral piece behind the episternum of an insect.

Susie's Origin Of Words tells of the origin of "dogsbody".

Round 10: 75, 25, 7, 10, 5, 4. Target: 282.

C1: 282. (75 x 4) - 25 + 7 (10)
C2: 282. (75 x 4) - 25 + 7 (10)
Score: 65–56 (max 77)

Teatime teaser: RAISERIP -> PRAIRIES

Round 11: W R A O V P Y A U

C1: VAPOUR (6)
C2: VAPOUR (6)
DC: OVARY (5)
OT: VAPOURY (7)
Score: 71–62 (max 84)

Everyone misses the simple add-on for the darrenic 7. :oops:

Round 12: T M O E T B L I R

C1: mottlier
C2: BOTTLER (7)
DC: LIBRETTO (8)
Score: 71–69 (max 92)

Oh the agony, that dodgy 8, when just having one T for a 7 would've been fine, sees Craig's lead shrink back to 2 :!:

Round 13: S S N E U I K S E

C1: KISSES (6)
C2: KISSES (6)
DC: SINUSES (7)
OT: KINESES (7)
Score: 77–75 (max 99)

Craig decided not to go with SINUSES, although he really should've done. As it is, this numbers game could decide the fate of this game....

Catherine goes for the EASY option of 1 large.

Round 14: 50, 10, 1, 4, 3, 7. Target: 962.

C1: 961. (((4 x 3) + 7) x 50) + 10 + 1 (7)
C2: -
RR: 961. (((4 x 3) + 7) x 50) + 10 + 1 (7)
OT: 962. (((50 + 4) x 3) x (7 - 1)) - 10 (10)
Score: 84–75 (max 109)

When will these people learn that 1 large is NEVER SAFE!

Luckily, since Craig didn't find the perfect answer, the gap is at 9 points, meaning we have a crucial for the first time in nearly 2 weeks.

Round 15: T I C K P H O T O

C1 buzzes on 19 seconds to say TOOTHPICK which is correct.
Score: 94–75 (max 119)

And it's Craig who pulls the TOOTHPICK out and advances to tomorrow's show, where he'll hope to make it 5 out of 5.

Catherine put in a very good performance today and could definitely have done good in other games, she was just unlucky to be up against someone in good form.

That's the end of this week's Robinson Recaps, so until next week, bye bye.

Statistics Corner

Craig:
Total score - 94
Raw score - 100
Total % of max - 79
Raw % of max - 84
Total average score per round - 6.3
Raw average score per round - 6.7
Number of maxes - 5

Catherine:
Total score - 75
Raw score - 87
Total % of max - 63
Raw % of max - 73
Total average score per round - 5.0
Raw average score per round - 5.8
Number of maxes - 4

Further summaries are at:
http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=62
Last edited by James Robinson on Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ian Dent
Devotee
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Ian Dent »

1 large is the safest option.
Wil Ransome
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:38 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Wil Ransome »

If someone is less than 10 points behind at the final numbers game, the worst thing that can happen is that you lose 10 points on it and so have no chance when the conundrum comes. There is no great advantage in winning and gaining 10 points yourself, because come the conundrum you'll still be less than 10 points ahead and it will be crucial: it will be crucial if you are a few points behind or a few points ahead, it really doesn't matter all that much, because someone will probably get the conundrum and whoever does will win.

So what you must do is choose the option that makes it least likely that you will give away ten points. One from the top is best, since it is the most likely one for both players to score ten points. And today Catherine Jackson did that and the fact that she went from two behind to nine behind was irrelevant. She did the right thing.

Similar reasoning tells you that if you are more than 10 points ahead you should choose one from the top; if you are less than 10 points ahead or 11-20 points behind you should choose something difficult, like six small numbers, because that gives you most chance of sealing or getting back into the game.

So long as you're good at the numbers. I should have thought this was all pretty obvious to successful and regular players.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Exactly Wil Ransome's message. I couldn't have put it better myself. What would you have done James? Gone 6 small to go from being 2 behind to 12 behind and it's game over? Nice tactic. :shock:
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10573
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by James Robinson »

Kirk Bevins wrote:Exactly Wil Ransome's message. I couldn't have put it better myself. What would you have done James? Gone 6 small to go from being 2 behind to 12 behind and it's game over? Nice tactic. :shock:
That's not really my point, although if it was me, I probably would've gone 6 small or 2 big.

My main point is that people keep on hammering home that 1 large is easy, and already a few times in this series, it has proven not to be so.
Wil Ransome wrote:So what you must do is choose the option that makes it least likely that you will give away ten points.
And to pick up on that point, the best thing to do is to choose the option that makes it the most likely that you will get 10 points, and your opponent gets nothing. It's all about how confident you are with the numbers, I suppose, hence Craig goes 6 small all the time.

And another point, I'm actually wondering why Catherine didn't go for 2 large again, after all, she did get 10 points on the 2 large she asked for earlier in the show :?:
Dinos Sfyris
Series 80 Champion
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Dinos Sfyris »

From a tactical standpoint ^What Wil said.

But that's beside the point. Most people on the show only get one game which means only 2 numbers picks. They should be able to pick whatever the hell they want.
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10573
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by James Robinson »

Dinos Sfyris wrote:From a tactical standpoint ^What Wil said.

But that's beside the point. Most people on the show only get one game which means only 2 numbers picks. They should be able to pick whatever the hell they want.
That's a very good point, Dinos. Quite a lot of people are just on the show for the experience, regardless of whether they win or not.

It's really only us die-hards that take a lot of attention into tactics/strategies, etc.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Jon Corby »

James Robinson wrote:My main point is that people keep on hammering home that 1 large is easy, and already a few times in this series, it has proven not to be so.
The point isn't that it's 'easy' per se, it's that generally it narrows down the routes method-wise, and so you're less likely to be out-thought by your opponent. You basically look for what you can multiply the large number by to get close to the target, and go from there. By even picking two large, you've now got two large numbers to do this with, or you could be adding them together before multiplying, or adding one after the multiplication - you've just opened up dozens of new avenues. And you're risking your opponent seeing one that you don't. Nobody's claiming that 1 large is an easy ten points, but it's clearly the safe option for this reason.
craig
Rookie
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by craig »

Jon Corby wrote:
James Robinson wrote:My main point is that people keep on hammering home that 1 large is easy, and already a few times in this series, it has proven not to be so.
The point isn't that it's 'easy' per se, it's that generally it narrows down the routes method-wise, and so you're less likely to be out-thought by your opponent. You basically look for what you can multiply the large number by to get close to the target, and go from there. By even picking two large, you've now got two large numbers to do this with, or you could be adding them together before multiplying, or adding one after the multiplication - you've just opened up dozens of new avenues. And you're risking your opponent seeing one that you don't. Nobody's claiming that 1 large is an easy ten points, but it's clearly the safe option for this reason.

I agree. I was talking to Jan Parker before and she said that when there's more than one large number she tends to get confused about which one to use or which method to make. 1 large seems the safest bet, whether it actually gives the most possible solutions or not, people are calmer? when using it. As you're already nervy enough up there, you don't want to panic yourself by not even being able to get near the target. This is why I like being a dick and picking 6 small. Basically, I'm a bad egg.
craig
Rookie
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by craig »

Oh, I forgot to say thanks for the kind recaps James :D :mrgreen: . Was dreading my recaps more than anything else!
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by David O'Donnell »

Ian Dent wrote:1 large is the safest option.
2 large generates the highest number of solvable problems.
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10573
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by James Robinson »

craig wrote:Oh, I forgot to say thanks for the kind recaps James :D :mrgreen: . Was dreading my recaps more than anything else!
Not a problem, Craig. ;) You just keep on winning, so I can recap your 8th show on Wednesday. ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-) :lol:
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Jon Corby »

David O'Donnell wrote:
Ian Dent wrote:1 large is the safest option.
2 large generates the highest number of solvable problems.
Irrelevant unless you're a computer. As already explained, the "safety" aspect is in minimising the chance that your opponent will beat you, not maximising the chance of ten points being attainable.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Kirk Bevins »

James Robinson wrote: And to pick up on that point, the best thing to do is to choose the option that makes it the most likely that you will get 10 points, and your opponent gets nothing.
Wrong. If you're say 4 behind, it's going to be a crucial conundrum under any circumstance unless one thing happens: You don't get the numbers and they do (or they get 7 points). The chance of this happening increases with harder numbers games, or, more strictly, numbers games with more avenues to explore, as Jon says. Going 6 small here would be stupid (especially against Craig). I'd love to have seen you 4 behind James, go 6 small against Craig and you miss it and Craig gets it, and now you're 14 behind and you don't win a teapot. Oh, and you get the conundrum and you lose by 4 points. You'll be kicking yourself no end.

Your tactic on your first show...you were like 14 ahead with 2 rounds to play. All you have to do is make sure you get this numbers game (irrelevant what your opponent now gets) and you've won. You have to make the game as easy as possible. I couldn't believe it when you asked for "6 small" and described it as tactics!!! Bad tactics by anyone's book.
User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Clive Brooker »

I quite understand the reasoning that says pick 1 large to give yourself the best chance of not going more than 10 behind after R14, but there are plenty of reasons why a player might decide it is not the best play.

Before yesterday, Craig's television conundrum record was (I think) 0/3, so there was a realistic chance he wouldn't get yesterday's. If, like me, you regard the conundrum as a 10-point handicap, I would want to do all I could to get my nose in front going into the conundrum. Picking 6 small against Craig would be a bit perverse, and I wouldn't trust him not to be a student of 4 large, so 2 large, hoping for one of those easy-once-you've-seen-it combinations would be my personal choice.

What I find most dispiriting when watching the show is seeing a player unthinkingly pick 1 large for R14 when between 11 and 20 behind.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Good points, Clive.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Marc Meakin »

Clive Brooker wrote:I quite understand the reasoning that says pick 1 large to give yourself the best chance of not going more than 10 behind after R14, but there are plenty of reasons why a player might decide it is not the best play.

Before yesterday, Craig's television conundrum record was (I think) 0/3, so there was a realistic chance he wouldn't get yesterday's. If, like me, you regard the conundrum as a 10-point handicap, I would want to do all I could to get my nose in front going into the conundrum. Picking 6 small against Craig would be a bit perverse, and I wouldn't trust him not to be a student of 4 large, so 2 large, hoping for one of those easy-once-you've-seen-it combinations would be my personal choice.

What I find most dispiriting when watching the show is seeing a player unthinkingly pick 1 large for R14 when between 11 and 20 behind.
I guess there are still some people who play just for the experience, rather than to win.
I know this sounds sexist but it is usually women.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Marc Meakin wrote: I guess there are still some people who play just for the experience, rather than to win.
I know this sounds sexist but it is usually women.
Hmm, tread carefully. Yes, men tend to be more competitive, but I think ample men go on the show and don't mind losing as they've enjoyed their day.
User avatar
Ian Dent
Devotee
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Ian Dent »

Yeah good post.

A lot does depend on your conundrum confidence. In a game that wasn't a series finals I'd back myself to get it rather than try something fancy on the numbers.
Especially against a player like Craig, who is clearly a numbers King.
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10573
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by James Robinson »

Kirk Bevins wrote:Your tactic on your first show...you were like 14 ahead with 2 rounds to play. All you have to do is make sure you get this numbers game (irrelevant what your opponent now gets) and you've won. You have to make the game as easy as possible. I couldn't believe it when you asked for "6 small" and described it as tactics!!! Bad tactics by anyone's book.
Maybe so, but it worked. I'm not a straightforward person, Kirk, as you probably guessed. The main reason I didn't go 1 large that time was because of the possibility that there could easily have been a decidly tricky one like yesterday's 1 large, for example.

My "method to my madness", if you like, was to try and make it as difficult for my opponent as possible, hence I tried 2 large for my first numbers pick rather than 6 small, which brought up a straightforward solution, so my method was to do something that could make my opponent more unstable, and what better than 6 small. I was very confident in my abilities, so I thought to myself, "Let's give it a go", and lo and behold, it paid off.

Let's put it this way, I'm not completely conventional, but my methods do pay off,.... some of the time.

I just like doing things my way. It might not be the best, but it works for me.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Jon Corby »

Marc Meakin wrote:I guess there are still some people who play just for the experience, rather than to win.
I know this sounds sexist but it is usually women.
I don't think it's particularly sexist if what you mean is that blokes seem much more likely to obsessively practice such things. That seems fairly evident, every series finals now has several young-males-who-have-clearly-spent-a-shitload-of-time-studying-the-dictionary. I'm sure Catherine was still "playing to win", but hadn't let it take over her life...
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Marc Meakin »

Jon Corby wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:I guess there are still some people who play just for the experience, rather than to win.
I know this sounds sexist but it is usually women.
I don't think it's particularly sexist if what you mean is that blokes seem much more likely to obsessively practice such things. That seems fairly evident, every series finals now has several young-males-who-have-clearly-spent-a-shitload-of-time-studying-the-dictionary. I'm sure Catherine was still "playing to win", but hadn't let it take over her life...
I think Maria Martin or Susan Morton, from Apterous, should audition, as I cannot remember the last female series winner.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10573
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by James Robinson »

Marc Meakin wrote:I think Maria Martin or Susan Morton, from Apterous, should audition, as I cannot remember the last female series winner.
It was Kate Ogilvie, back in 1999, I think something like Series 39.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Marc Meakin »

James Robinson wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:I think Maria Martin or Susan Morton, from Apterous, should audition, as I cannot remember the last female series winner.
It was Kate Ogilvie, back in 1999, I think something like Series 39.
Blimey, when was the last female Octochamp then?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Charlie Reams »

Cate "Psycho" Henderson in March 2009, but she is the only one in the last three years.
User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by D Eadie »

Jon Corby wrote: ...............every series finals now has several young-males-who-have-clearly-spent-a-shitload-of-time-studying-the-dictionary.
We've always had control over who comes on the show and that will never change. If we decide we no longer want the production line of young male 'robots' then we'll do just that. I think some people are under the impression that they can apply to Countdown and then decide which series they want to take part in, based on which Apterous players they'd like to avoid clashing with, in order to maximise their chances of becoming a series winner. I predict one or two disappointments in the near future. :(
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Charlie Reams »

D Eadie wrote:If we decide we no longer want the production line of young male 'robots' then we'll do just that.
Which past contestants do you mean?
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6238
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Marc Meakin »

You seem to be a bit short of female contestants lately.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
D Eadie
Devotee
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Mars Hotel

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by D Eadie »

Charlie Reams wrote:
D Eadie wrote:If we decide we no longer want the production line of young male 'robots' then we'll do just that.
Which past contestants do you mean?

YOU !!
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Jon Corby »

Marc Meakin wrote:You seem to be a bit short of female contestants lately.
The very lovely Anna Woodward (who was at CoLin) is filming soon I believe.
User avatar
Ian Dent
Devotee
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Ian Dent »

Yeah and she's pretty good. Another 6 small specialist.
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Michael Wallace »

James Robinson wrote:Maybe so, but it worked. I'm not a straightforward person, Kirk, as you probably guessed. The main reason I didn't go 1 large that time was because of the possibility that there could easily have been a decidly tricky one like yesterday's 1 large, for example.
...which someone who was worse than you at the numbers round would surely be less likely than you to spot?

The only issue with less able players beating you on the numbers is volatility - something like 3 large is quite volatile because there are so many 'easy' routes to take it might just be down to luck whether you or your opponent tries that route first. 6 small is similar, but a bit harder. With 1 large there is very little that a casual player is going to do beyond trying to multiply the big number then going from there, maybe subtracting/adding to it first. Maybe I'll poke Charlie for the stats, and see how often a lower rated player beats a higher rated one on numbers, depending on the pick. Just because something worked once doesn't mean it's a good tactic (you may not have said that explicitly, but it is painfully implied).
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Charlie Reams »

I've generated some basic stats from apterous. L is the number of large numbers selected, D is the percentage of drawn rounds, and H is the percentage of rounds in which the higher-rated player wins or draws.

Code: Select all

L  D      H
0  53.1%  81.7%
1  62.7%  86.7%
2  56.8%  84.4%
3  53.4%  83.1%
4  52.0%  83.0%
This suggests that for typical players trying to avoid losing ground, 1 large is the best pick and 6 small the worst by some margin.

Some notes on this (statistics nerds can feel free to correct me):-
  • All data are from Standard, Goatdown or Unlimited games (which have the same rules for numbers) of 30 seconds between human players.
  • Each category has at least 10,000 data. 1 large has over 100,000 data.
  • I didn't take into account the size of the rating gap, only which player was more highly rated. Nor did I explicitly account for provisionally-ranked players. Allowing for these would presumably serve to differentiate the categories better, especially 3 and 4 large. It is unlikely that it would change the ordering of the other categories, since they are quite well separated even with this simple method.
  • Player rating is only loosely correlated with numbers ability. Again, using a specific numbers metric would allow better separation.
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Michael Wallace »

Charlie Reams wrote:Some notes on this (statistics nerds can feel free to correct me):-
  • All data is...
I suspect this is a deliberate ploy to provoke a reaction from me. Unfortunately for you, I am wise to your games ;)
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Charlie Reams »

Michael Wallace wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Some notes on this (statistics nerds can feel free to correct me):-
  • All data is...
I suspect this is a deliberate ploy to provoke a reaction from me. Unfortunately for you, I am wise to your games ;)
I deliberately rephrased all the other sentences to avoid taking a stance on this issue, but I forgot that one. I have decided to side with you today because I like your hair.

Edit: Way to add nothing to the discussion ;)
Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Ryan Taylor »

Jon Corby wrote:
The point isn't that it's 'easy' per se, it's that generally it narrows down the routes method-wise, and so you're less likely to be out-thought by your opponent. You basically look for what you can multiply the large number by to get close to the target, and go from there. By even picking two large, you've now got two large numbers to do this with, or you could be adding them together before multiplying, or adding one after the multiplication - you've just opened up dozens of new avenues. And you're risking your opponent seeing one that you don't. Nobody's claiming that 1 large is an easy ten points, but it's clearly the safe option for this reason.
EXACTLY this.
User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Clive Brooker »

My reading of Charlie's data is this (I could be wrong):

Drawn Stronger Weaker Stronger Weaker
wins wins doesn't doesn't
lose lose

0 53.1 28.6 18.3 81.7 71.4
1 62.7 24.0 13.3 86.7 76.0
2 56.8 27.6 15.6 84.4 72.4
3 53.4 29.7 16.9 83.1 70.3
4 52.0 31.0 17.0 83.0 69.0

So the weaker player wanting to avoid losing ground does worst by picking 4 large.

Unsurprisingly 1 large gives the best chance of a draw and the worst chance of a result. The weaker player's best chance of a result is 6 small.

The gaps are pretty small and could easily be outweighed by a player's perceived view of his own and his opponent's respective strengths and weaknesses. It also might be worth considering that 6 small gives the best chance of an impossible game.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Charlie Reams »

Clive Brooker wrote:The gaps are pretty small and could easily be outweighed by a player's perceived view of his own and his opponent's respective strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not sure about this. First, an unknown percentage of those games are ridiculously easy or impossibly hard, and therefore it hardly matters what your relative strengths are; this compresses the categories together and makes the gaps look smaller than they really are. Secondly, the gaps aren't so small when you consider the coarseness of the method. I might pass some data to a certain mammal later to see what more we can tease out.

Most players (even good ones) are bad at estimating their relative strengths, because humans are so poor at deducing probabilities from experience. A lot of newbies on apterous pick 2 large or whatever, adamant that this is their strength, but this is rarely reflected in the statistics. I guess my point (if any) is that your advice might well be correct but I would still hesitate to give it out, since it might do more harm than good.
User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Clive Brooker »

Charlie, I didn't quite get that last sentence right. I meant to imply that when making the decision of what to pick, a player who had looked at your data might not see a big enough difference to outweigh his perceived view of his own strength. That doesn't mean his view is anywhere near to being correct.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Charlie Reams wrote: A lot of newbies on apterous pick 2 large or whatever, adamant that this is their strength, but this is rarely reflected in the statistics.
Interesting that you've picked up on this. I've noticed a lot of poor contestants number-wise choose 2 large on Countdown and then proceed to score nothing from it. I've seen this happen a lot. I guess they think a 2:4 ratio of large:small is about right for achieving a high target but is actually harder than 1 large.
User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Clive Brooker »

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote: A lot of newbies on apterous pick 2 large or whatever, adamant that this is their strength, but this is rarely reflected in the statistics.
Interesting that you've picked up on this. I've noticed a lot of poor contestants number-wise choose 2 large on Countdown and then proceed to score nothing from it. I've seen this happen a lot. I guess they think a 2:4 ratio of large:small is about right for achieving a high target but is actually harder than 1 large.
That doesn't mean the strategy is wrong. I've always seen 2 large as a good option for someone who thinks they are outgunned but needs a result. It's a long shot but if it fails that doesn't make it the wrong option.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Clive Brooker wrote: That doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.
The cases I'm talking about are those that don't need a strategy...it's round 10 (or sometimes round 5 but usually it's the challenger) and they go 2 large. When you see contestants tackle the round 5 solution you have some idea how strong they might be at the numbers (with the confusion in their voice...slowness to speak etc). When I have an idea that a contestant may be weak at numbers, I think "I bet they go 2 large in round 10" and a lot of times I'm right. I'm not saying 2 large is the easiest or the hardest but some people seem to think going 2 large may be a safety net for them.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by David O'Donnell »

Jon Corby wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:
Ian Dent wrote:1 large is the safest option.
2 large generates the highest number of solvable problems.
Irrelevant unless you're a computer. As already explained, the "safety" aspect is in minimising the chance that your opponent will beat you, not maximising the chance of ten points being attainable.
Your argument is based on a conjecture, a sort of intuition. I wasn't making an argument at all.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Jon Corby »

David O'Donnell wrote:Your argument is based on a conjecture, a sort of intuition. I wasn't making an argument at all.
You're such a cunt since you started that Philosophy course.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by Charlie Reams »

Jon Corby wrote: You're such a cunt since you started that Philosophy course.
Correlation is not causation.
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Thursday 11th February 2010 (Series 62, Prelim 24)

Post by David Williams »

In the 30 minute era I don't think anyone thought much about this, or maybe there just weren't forums to discuss it. But there were fewer rounds, so more crucial conundrums, and the champion picked the final numbers, so the tactics could be quite important. I decided that one large was the option I was least likely to lose with, and six small was the one I was most likely to win with, but with a greater risk of losing. Worked like a charm in the preliminaries, drawing or winning with one large when I was already ten or more ahead, and a couple of times giving me a win with six small to take me clear.

In my series semi-final I was seven behind, picked one large, and blew it. In CoC I was eight behind, picked one large, and won the round - irrelevant, as the conundrum was still crucial, and I lost again. Tactics can help, but they only take you so far.
Post Reply