c4countdown

Mark Davies is up to 4 wins, and is presently number 2 seed of the series thus far. Can he get a 5th win and further cement his position on the board?

Join James for the recap later.

Did anyone else notice some calculations magically appearing in the first numbers game?

MOANIEST must be a new word - MOANY not in ODE3.

25×(7-2)×(9-1)-3=997 for the standard method in round 6.

I wondered why Rachel was scribbling on her clipboard there until I saw her solution.
Obviously she missed the easy standard method.

BORNITE alt to EBONITE

Alt standard method in 3rd nos (100+25)x(9-3)-50-5

(7x5+2)x(25+1)=962, I think

A bit shaky from Mark today. He wouldn't be able to do that against Tricia Pay.

I think Mark was tired at the end of a long day's filming. Let's hope for him he slept well the following night.

I completely agree with Gavin. This wouldn't be anywhere near good enough in the finals. But as Tony very kindly says I was exhausted after a full days filming. I could barely think in this game.

mark b davies wrote:I completely agree with Gavin. This wouldn't be anywhere near good enough in the finals. But as Tony very kindly says I was exhausted after a full days filming. I could barely think in this game.

No surprise there mate, but well done for surviving.

I look forward to this great game you promised me on Twitter yesterday.

Tony Atkins wrote:MOANIEST must be a new word - MOANY not in ODE3.

Been mentioned already this series, Tony. Keep up.

Bradley Cates wrote:Did anyone else notice some calculations magically appearing in the first numbers game?

Yes I did, and to check we saw what we saw, played back the video.
Apparently 5 x 75= 375, 3 x 10 = 30, 30 - 2 = 28 and 375 - 28 equalled 347!!!
357 was the target.
So if Mark could spill the beans as to who submitted the wrong calculation.....

Mauro

I'm pretty sure it was an attempt by Rachel. She realised she'd messed up then got it during the break. I definitely didn't offer anything.

mark b davies wrote:I'm pretty sure it was an attempt by Rachel. She realised she'd messed up then got it during the break. I definitely didn't offer anything.

*Awaits tedious David Williams dig about Rachel being allowed to cover her mistakes in retakes but when Tricia does it blah blah blah*

mark b davies wrote:I'm pretty sure it was an attempt by Rachel. She realised she'd messed up then got it during the break. I definitely didn't offer anything.

*Awaits tedious Jon Corby dig about David Williams and what he might say about Rachel being allowed to cover her mistakes in retakes but when Tricia does it blah blah blah*

Oh wait...

Jon Corby wrote:

mark b davies wrote:I'm pretty sure it was an attempt by Rachel. She realised she'd messed up then got it during the break. I definitely didn't offer anything.

*Awaits tedious David Williams dig about Rachel being allowed to cover her mistakes in retakes but when Tricia does it blah blah blah*

Yeah, not sure that really works mate.

Jon Corby wrote:Yeah, not sure that really works mate.

Well, it does. It's probably too many levels of abstraction for your mind though.

Johnny Canuck wrote:SPICIFEED for SPECIFIED? Really???

Might want to put that in the right thread............

James Robinson wrote:

Johnny Canuck wrote:SPICIFEED for SPECIFIED? Really???

Might want to put that in the right thread............

Oh yeah, right.

Dag nab it, it's Friday now! Everyone quit arguing about yesterday's game already!

Callum Todd wrote:(7x5+2)x(25+1)=962, I think

Yes, that's how I did it - I like to factorise target