c4countdown

Will Mr Costello be an octochamp? Can't wait to find out...

Thomas needs to relearn RELEARN+T...

Last numbers ((100/(75-25)+50)*10+6

Sean Fletcher wrote:Last numbers ((100/(75-25)+50)*10+6

Well done - the streaming jumped during that round so I only had about 5 seconds to get it in, thus I was surprised when Rachel missed it.

A few word beaters around too.

Congratulations to Dave, who is our new #5 seed, or #4 if the correct decision were made on PETTIES yesterday.

He was seeded above Tim in the finals.

JJ Smith wrote:He was seeded above Tim in the finals.

In that case, they must have caught the mistake with PETTIES, which I believe was his only administrative error. I'm going to update his total on the main Series 74 wiki page accordingly. (The only other way he could have got above Tim is if they've now started including points from tie-break conundrums in the totals, and I'm assuming a mostly pointless rule change would be less likely than a fair correction of an error.)

Thanks for the info!

Johnny Canuck wrote:

JJ Smith wrote:He was seeded above Tim in the finals.

In that case, they must have caught the mistake with PETTIES, which I believe was his only administrative error. I'm going to update his total on the main Series 74 wiki page accordingly. (The only other way he could have got above Tim is if they've now started including points from tie-break conundrums in the totals, and I'm assuming a mostly pointless rule change would be less likely than a fair correction of an error.)

Thanks for the info!

Actually, it was because the total he was given was 723 points, which means his tiebreak conundrum was added. It only occurred to me to double check after yesterday's show, as I was in the audience, so already knew his score from today.....

Whether or not it makes a difference to who he would've played in the finals, only time will tell....

James Robinson wrote:his tiebreak conundrum was added

Do you know whether this was by accident, or as the start of a new rule? And so PETTIES stayed disallowed?

I don't think tie-breaks should be included in cumulative scores or as part of the total game scores, and I doubt many people would. I don't even really like the ten points being added to the score to demonstrate who won, I think there should be some notation, like how a football scoreline won on penalties will be written as 2-2p.

Points from tiebreaks shouldn't count towards your octotototototal, and I believe that's been the rule for ages. Not only would it give the player an extra round that other players didn't have, but counting tiebreaks can lead to a perverse incentive I've talked about before.

However, in this case it seems it all worked out correctly in the end, even if it was by two opposing mistakes cancelling each other out.

(Incidentally, I have never seen a football scoreline won on penalties written like "2-2p".)

James Robinson wrote:

Johnny Canuck wrote:

JJ Smith wrote:He was seeded above Tim in the finals.

In that case, they must have caught the mistake with PETTIES, which I believe was his only administrative error. I'm going to update his total on the main Series 74 wiki page accordingly. (The only other way he could have got above Tim is if they've now started including points from tie-break conundrums in the totals, and I'm assuming a mostly pointless rule change would be less likely than a fair correction of an error.)

Thanks for the info!

Actually, it was because the total he was given was 723 points, which means his tiebreak conundrum was added. It only occurred to me to double check after yesterday's show, as I was in the audience, so already knew his score from today.....

Whether or not it makes a difference to who he would've played in the finals, only time will tell....

I'm guessing it was a mistake rather than a rule change that his total included the tie-break conundrum. I also think points totals shouldn't be changed retrospectively. Once the show's recorded, I think that should be it, because it's the score at the end of the show that determines the winner and loser. In football, a disallowed goal that is later shown to have been disallowed incorrectly isn't retrospectively added to scoreline or the team's goals total in the league table.

I do think I should have been seeded above Dave. Had I realised at the finals that they'd included his tie-break conundrum I might have said something rather than just muttering to myself about the possible injustice of having had OXTAILS disallowed. Of course, what I should really have done is write the letters down correctly every round and/or played a bit better during my run and avoided this whole thing.

Tony Atkins wrote:

Sean Fletcher wrote:Last numbers ((100/(75-25)+50)*10+6

Well done - the streaming jumped during that round so I only had about 5 seconds to get it in, thus I was surprised when Rachel missed it.

Me too. Wonder if she did it but it was editted out?
With the 536 I recalled CVs advice in those situations to (in this case) save the 11 and make the 7 with what's left.
Thus: 75 x ((8+6)/2) + 10 + 1 = 536

James Robinson wrote:

Johnny Canuck wrote:

JJ Smith wrote:He was seeded above Tim in the finals.

In that case, they must have caught the mistake with PETTIES, which I believe was his only administrative error. I'm going to update his total on the main Series 74 wiki page accordingly. (The only other way he could have got above Tim is if they've now started including points from tie-break conundrums in the totals, and I'm assuming a mostly pointless rule change would be less likely than a fair correction of an error.)

Thanks for the info!

Actually, it was because the total he was given was 723 points, which means his tiebreak conundrum was added. It only occurred to me to double check after yesterday's show, as I was in the audience, so already knew his score from today.....

Whether or not it makes a difference to who he would've played in the finals, only time will tell....

So how was it confirmed that his extra points were definitely from his tiebreak conundrum, and that his administrative error definitely was not ever fixed? Was he introduced by Nick as having 723 points in his QF (or, if he makes it, 723 + QFScore [+ SFScore] at a higher stage)? Or is there a chart listing the finalists' totals in the green room?

Johnny Canuck wrote:

James Robinson wrote: Actually, it was because the total he was given was 723 points, which means his tiebreak conundrum was added. It only occurred to me to double check after yesterday's show, as I was in the audience, so already knew his score from today.....

Whether or not it makes a difference to who he would've played in the finals, only time will tell....

So how was it confirmed that his extra points were definitely from his tiebreak conundrum, and that his administrative error definitely was not ever fixed? Was he introduced by Nick as having 723 points in his QF (or, if he makes it, 723 + QFScore [+ SFScore] at a higher stage)? Or is there a chart listing the finalists' totals in the green room?

Yes, Nick introduced him as having 723 points.

James Robinson wrote:

Johnny Canuck wrote:

James Robinson wrote: Actually, it was because the total he was given was 723 points, which means his tiebreak conundrum was added. It only occurred to me to double check after yesterday's show, as I was in the audience, so already knew his score from today.....

Whether or not it makes a difference to who he would've played in the finals, only time will tell....

So how was it confirmed that his extra points were definitely from his tiebreak conundrum, and that his administrative error definitely was not ever fixed? Was he introduced by Nick as having 723 points in his QF (or, if he makes it, 723 + QFScore [+ SFScore] at a higher stage)? Or is there a chart listing the finalists' totals in the green room?

Yes, Nick introduced him as having 723 points.

Cheers, thought so.