Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Moderator: James Robinson
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
The Rawson Express is still going strong, although I have found some weird similarities between our current champion and myself.
As well as being called James, in his 1st show, he scored 107 points, I scored 2 less in my first show. In his 2nd show, he scored 93, again 2 less than my second show.
In his first show he got the conundrum, as did I, and in the second, he didn't, as did I.
So, if this is some sort of spooky coincedence, then we might see our champion deposed today.
Surely not....
I'll see you for the recap later.
As well as being called James, in his 1st show, he scored 107 points, I scored 2 less in my first show. In his 2nd show, he scored 93, again 2 less than my second show.
In his first show he got the conundrum, as did I, and in the second, he didn't, as did I.
So, if this is some sort of spooky coincedence, then we might see our champion deposed today.
Surely not....
I'll see you for the recap later.
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
These 'similarities' are amazing. I never used to believe in all this sort of thing, but now i'm utterly convinced.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6311
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Stephanie to win big CBB
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6311
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
AUTUMN also for round 3.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 8:10 pm
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Something else in common with you there James.
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
1st numbers:
((8 + 1) x 9) + 75 + 25
((8 + 1) x 9) + 75 + 25
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6311
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
DIARISES also for 8.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
2nd numbers:
((25 + 5) x 7 x 2) - 1
Also INSIDERS for round 8
((25 + 5) x 7 x 2) - 1
Also INSIDERS for round 8
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6311
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Did BURPEE get a mention as i missed a bit.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
3rd numbers:
(50 x 10) + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8
(50 x 10) + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Round 7 -VICOMTES as a beater.
BEURRE was a sexy equaller for round 13 too.
James is looking in good form. Hope he becomes an octochamp.
BEURRE was a sexy equaller for round 13 too.
James is looking in good form. Hope he becomes an octochamp.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:29 am
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
It was good to hear about the GRIMOIRE, reminds me of the Golden Grimoire from the Dungeons and Dragons classic cartoon series.
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Kirk Bevins wrote:Round 7 -VICOMTES as a beater.
Have a Countdown pencil.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
EXORDIA in Round 2.
Alternative To 2nd Numbers:
25 x 3 = 75, 75 + 7 + 2 = 84, 84 x 5 = 420, 420 - 1 = 419
Alternative To 2nd Numbers:
25 x 3 = 75, 75 + 7 + 2 = 84, 84 x 5 = 420, 420 - 1 = 419
Nah, he just tried to make a complex letter and it wasn't even finished, leaving Rachel to make out my "C" formation instead.Niall Seymour wrote:Something else in common with you there James.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
I love it how the challenger said "I'll keep it simple, just 1 from the top please, Rachel." Sod this letter formation business.James Robinson wrote: Nah, he just tried to make a complex letter and it wasn't even finished, leaving Rachel to make out my "C" formation instead.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Yeah, but look where that got him, Kirk! Whereas on the other hand, the "C" formation has a 100% success rate still.Kirk Bevins wrote:I love it how the challenger said "I'll keep it simple, just 1 from the top please, Rachel." Sod this letter formation business.
This is why I never went 1 large. There is no safety net with going 1 large.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
I don't understand - what do you mean?James Robinson wrote: There is no safety net with going 1 large.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
People seem to think that going 1 large is the safe option in numbers games. I don't see how it's any easier compared to any other variant.Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't understand - what do you mean?James Robinson wrote: There is no safety net with going 1 large.
In a 1 large, you could easily have 25, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 and a target of 900+, which would more or less be no points, whereas in a 6 small for example you could easily get given 10, 8, 7, 3, 5, 6 and a target of 445, which can be achieved relatively easily.
There have been many occasions when 1 large has tripped players up, and opponents have taken full advantage, so I didn't use 1 large, because you're trying to make sure that your opponent doesn't take advantage. Granted it failed horribly, once.
1 large might seem easier, but I just don't see how it is.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
People seem to think that going 6 small is the hardest option in numbers games. I don't see how it's any harder compared to any other variant.James Robinson wrote:People seem to think that going 1 large is the safe option in numbers games. I don't see how it's any easier compared to any other variant.
In a 1 large, you could easily have 25, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 and a target of 900+, which would more or less be no points, whereas in a 6 small for example you could easily get given 10, 8, 7, 3, 5, 6 and a target of 445, which can be achieved relatively easily.
There have been many occasions when 1 large has tripped players up, and opponents have taken full advantage, so I didn't use 1 large, because you're trying to make sure that your opponent doesn't take advantage. Granted it failed horribly, once.
1 large might seem easier, but I just don't see how it is.
In a 6 small, you could easily have 6, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 and a target of 900+, which would more or less be no points, whereas in a 1 large for example you could easily get given 100, 8, 7, 3, 5, 6 and a target of 103, which can be achieved relatively easily.
There have been many occasions when 6 small has tripped players up, and opponents have taken full advantage, so I didn't use 6 small, because you're trying to make sure that your opponent doesn't take advantage. Granted it failed horribly, once.
6 small might seem harder, but I just don't see how it is.
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
I don't recall saying 6 small was the hardest, I just said that 1 large is regarded as the safe option.Matt Morrison wrote:People seem to think that going 6 small is the hardest option in numbers games.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
I don't recall saying that you did. I was clearly just taking the piss a bit, your examples were laughable in the very essence that you seriously used them as "this could happen" examples.James Robinson wrote:I don't recall saying 6 small was the hardest, I just said that 1 large is regarded as the safe option.Matt Morrison wrote:People seem to think that going 6 small is the hardest option in numbers games.
I'm pretty sure the stats have all been done on numbers success rates in other threads, and I recall one large did indeed come out 'best'.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Correct. 1 large is the most tractable in theory, and also the most successful for almost every player on whom we have statistics.Matt Morrison wrote:I'm pretty sure the stats have all been done on numbers success rates in other threads, and I recall one large did indeed come out 'best'.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
James - 1 large has a very algorithmical structure with solving including adding before you multiply (6 small on the other hand, you may need to factorise the high target, see if it divides by 9, or 8 or similar).
I went 1 large all the time because I was certain I'd solve it and therefore putting pressure on my opponent to either solve it (whereby the points make no difference and my word power would hopefully win the game) or they don't solve it (whereby I get 10 extra points to help myself to potential victory).
If I went 6 small and didn't spot a method (like using the x9 method when I tried x7 and x10 methods) then my opponent would gain 10 points on me. This wouldn't happen in 1 large, in my opinion.
My programme stats:
0 large: 0 times.
1 large: 25 times.
2 large: 6 times.
3 large: 0 times.
4 large: 2 times.
Of these, I was beaten on the numbers once...on a 2 large game. Not sure what these stats show but for me, certainly, 1 large is a pretty safe bet of securing points.
I went 1 large all the time because I was certain I'd solve it and therefore putting pressure on my opponent to either solve it (whereby the points make no difference and my word power would hopefully win the game) or they don't solve it (whereby I get 10 extra points to help myself to potential victory).
If I went 6 small and didn't spot a method (like using the x9 method when I tried x7 and x10 methods) then my opponent would gain 10 points on me. This wouldn't happen in 1 large, in my opinion.
My programme stats:
0 large: 0 times.
1 large: 25 times.
2 large: 6 times.
3 large: 0 times.
4 large: 2 times.
Of these, I was beaten on the numbers once...on a 2 large game. Not sure what these stats show but for me, certainly, 1 large is a pretty safe bet of securing points.
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
That you're a clever pain in the arse?Kirk Bevins wrote: Not sure what these stats show ...
I'm actually concerned that you remembered all your selections etc and what you picked. It's all very disturbing.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
A pain in the arse, maybe, but I'm not clever.D Eadie wrote: That you're a clever pain in the arse?
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
Kirk, it's round 14. You're 12 points behind, you are playing me in the C of C Final. What do you pick?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
6 small or 4 large probably...depending on your weakness. In this case, I'm trying to maximise the chance of me getting it but you must *not* get it. The only hope is for a hard numbers game and 6 small and 4 large are likely to give you that.Ian Dent wrote:Kirk, it's round 14. You're 12 points behind, you are playing me in the C of C Final. What do you pick?
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers For Wednesday January 27th 2010
A very high standard game, good show the pair of you.