![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Mary Adie is now on 440 points from 5 games, at an average of 88 ppg (points per game)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Who will be her challenger today?
Join Mike soon.
Moderator: James Robinson
Although your averages are slightly iffy, as they only count wins for the non-octochamps.Rhys Benjamin wrote:With the finals looming, I have completed my Predcitions suggesting EDWARD MCCULLAGH will win.
I don't trust predictions from those who can't spell 'predictions'.Rhys Benjamin wrote:With the finals looming, I have completed my Predcitions suggesting EDWARD MCCULLAGH will win.
or (4*7)-(9-2) or even Mary's way to make 616 + (9-4)...Rhys Benjamin wrote:1st nums alt:
75 x 8 = 600
9 - 4 = 5
5 - 2 = 3
7 x 3 = 21
600 + 21 = 621.
Simples.
If you include the double conundrum then she was on 450. Any reason why double conundrums areRhys Benjamin wrote:It's a Good Friday so let's see if the episode of Countdown is as good.![]()
Mary Adie is now on 440 points from 5 games, at an average of 88 ppg (points per game)![]()
![]()
Who will be her challenger today?
Join Mike soon.
Yeah exactly.Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.
I read every thread when I'm spending a bank holiday waiting for my numbers to crunchRyan Taylor wrote:Yeah exactly.Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.
I thought you'd stopped looking in spoiler threads!
Series 63 prelim 106 and 107 both add the extra points on to the player's score.Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.
Martin Gardner and Charlie Reams wrote:Since Series 39, players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count. Points from sudden death conundrums aren't counted, and players with the same number of wins and points are sorted by highest score.
And I read every thread when I have some assignments to do. Ideally Charlie should ban me from c4c and apterous and facebook (I'm sure he has the power) so that I actually do write something. Been sat in this chair finding other things to do for about 6 days now and no words have been written. Someone just asked me to pub tonight too which I'm going to take them up on. Is there a thread on procrastination already?Michael Wallace wrote:I read every thread when I'm spending a bank holiday waiting for my numbers to crunchRyan Taylor wrote:Yeah exactly.Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.
I thought you'd stopped looking in spoiler threads!
In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows themRhys Benjamin wrote:Erm............... no they didn't!
From The wiki:
Martin Gardner and Charlie Reams wrote:Since Series 39, players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count. Points from sudden death conundrums aren't counted, and players with the same number of wins and points are sorted by highest score.
Unless I'm missing the point Tony, the scores do include the extra ten points, but those extra points aren't then carried forward when calculating the seedings (for reasons already explained).Tony Atkins wrote:In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.
Tut tut Ryan. Going to the pub on Good Friday? Next you'll be telling me you ate meat.Ryan Taylor wrote: And I read every thread when I have some assignments to do. Ideally Charlie should ban me from c4c and apterous and facebook (I'm sure he has the power) so that I actually do write something. Been sat in this chair finding other things to do for about 6 days now and no words have been written. Someone just asked me to pub tonight too which I'm going to take them up on. Is there a thread on procrastination already?
The series 64 table http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=64 shows the game as 95-95.Mike Brown wrote:Unless I'm missing the point Tony, the scores do include the extra ten points, but those extra points aren't then carried forward when calculating the seedings (for reasons already explained).Tony Atkins wrote:In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.
That's because Ryan accidentally forgot to change Mary's 95 to 105. The recap writer doesn't bring up extra conundrums, so the scores have to be done manually and Ryan accidentally messed up.Tony Atkins wrote:The series 64 table http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=64 shows the game as 95-95.Mike Brown wrote:Unless I'm missing the point Tony, the scores do include the extra ten points, but those extra points aren't then carried forward when calculating the seedings (for reasons already explained).Tony Atkins wrote:In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.
Accidentally? Or accideliberately?!?!!!James Robinson wrote:That's because Ryan accidentally forgot to change Mary's 95 to 105. The recap writer doesn't bring up extra conundrums, so the scores have to be done manually and Ryan accidentally messed up.
I was just testing James. Damn! He passed again.Michael Wallace wrote:Accidentally? Or accideliberately?!?!!!James Robinson wrote:That's because Ryan accidentally forgot to change Mary's 95 to 105. The recap writer doesn't bring up extra conundrums, so the scores have to be done manually and Ryan accidentally messed up.
OIC.Tony Atkins wrote:The series 64 table http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=64 shows the game as 95-95.Mike Brown wrote:Unless I'm missing the point Tony, the scores do include the extra ten points, but those extra points aren't then carried forward when calculating the seedings (for reasons already explained).Tony Atkins wrote:In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.
No, but I might start one tomorrow.Ryan Taylor wrote:Is there a thread on procrastination already?
Like. (Charlie might also fix likes tomorrow. (I'm in trouble now))Keith Bennett wrote:No, but I might start one tomorrow.Ryan Taylor wrote:Is there a thread on procrastination already?