c4countdown

Post your spoilers here for this momentous game.

Ive got Junaid to win, mainly because he is so good on the numbers, time will tell

Starting to regret not working from home today. This deserves better than 4od...

I'm even slightly excited myself!

Wow Charlie, your hair has got alot longer in 2 days

(6x8x2) + 7 = 103
103 x (5+4)

Matthew Green wrote:(6x8x2) + 7 = 103
103 x 9

I was about to post the exact same answer.

FORMATE?

Des could have had PERUSALS for an equaller

Matthew Green wrote:(6x8x2) + 7 = 103
103 x (5+4)

Darn! Beaten to it!

That said, it did take me around 45 seconds to get it.

PeterMabey wrote:Des could have had PERUSALS for an equaller

Actually, PERUSAL's a mass noun, i.e. you can't pluralise it. Bad luck.

HOARDING for 8

hurry up Giles, I'm trying to see if you mention HOARDING or ADHERING as alternates for: HDGRAEION

first numbers 6 8 2 4 5 7 target 927

(6*8)-2=46
(4*5)=20

multiply to get 920 the +7 = 927

ChrisEdward wrote:(6*8)-2=48

good work - a nice first post! just a note to prevent confusion: you said (6*8)-2=48 whereas you meant 46.

Matt Morrison wrote:

ChrisEdward wrote:(6*8)-2=48

good work - a nice first post! just a note to prevent confusion: you said (6*8)-2=48 whereas you meant 46.

edit your post so i look like a fool will you?

unpieces

nscpieuea

I'd like to think I got my edit in first

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Matthew Green wrote:(6x8x2) + 7 = 103
103 x 9

I was about to post the exact same answer.

of course you was Kai

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Matthew Green wrote:(6x8x2) + 7 = 103
103 x 9

I was about to post the exact same answer.

But you saw this weeks ago!

<span style="jo-brand">i'm fairly sure that some evil movie baddie has at some point had a CRYOLAIR.
If not I guess that makes me a CRYOLIAR.</span>

So how come Giles is in DC anyway?

final numbers round: by going for 4 large numbers surely Charlie is shooting himself in the foot when he desperately needs to win this round 10-0?
With 4 large numbers, the combinations of maths they are open to is so much slimmer than 4 small numbers that it makes it ten times harder to beat Junaid?

Hi guys, first post

an alternative for numbers game #1:

8*4*6 = 192
192-7 = 185
185*5 = 925
925+2 = 927

Now can someone tell me what the ads I missed were?!

i think Charlie played it spot on.

Junaid is a 4 small specialist, and going for a 1 large is asking for trouble, if i was in charlies boat, i would have done the same thing

prizes: did Junaid get a cash prize? wasn't paying full attention. It was thankfully the least-cringeworthy EOS award ceremony I ever remember seeing!

ending: obviously sad, but really weird as well. would have liked to see someone stick an arm around Carol! The way it faded to credits from tears rather than from words and ended it there... poignant I guess... but odd, and cold.

Matt Morrison wrote:final numbers round: by going for 4 large numbers surely Charlie is shooting himself in the foot when he desperately needs to win this round 10-0?
With 4 large numbers, the combinations of maths they are open to is so much slimmer than 4 small numbers that it makes it ten times harder to beat Junaid?

No you're completely wrong, as he just needs 7 points, or even 5 providing Junaid doesn't get it. I quite like the 4 large option here, even more than I like the 6 small ones option.

Well done to both players - I didn't actually count the score but I think I would have lost to both players, even with me at home and them in the studio. ERACLOSES is certainly a fitting conundrum. It's not really a secret that I don't like Carol very much but I do think she's been an integral part of the show for 26 years, with many different looks, etc. I think she's done very well to be so loyal to the show which is not really a big-market show like some other ones she could have got a job on, so I admire her and I am sad she's leaving, even though I think it's probably the right time to have new blood on the show. So thank you Carol Vorderman, thank you.

Well played to both of you and congratulations to Junaid.

Looks like the risky ALIENER was a decisive point. If Charlie had gone for a safe 6, he'd have won the game by 2.

I personally would have preferred the runner-up prize of £1,000 rather than the books.

Well done to you both and I'm now looking forward to Series 60.

Matt Morrison wrote:final numbers round: by going for 4 large numbers surely Charlie is shooting himself in the foot when he desperately needs to win this round 10-0?
With 4 large numbers, the combinations of maths they are open to is so much slimmer than 4 small numbers that it makes it ten times harder to beat Junaid?

Not sure what you mean by 4 small. The point was that I needed to win the round, so I figured I'd pick something that would take Junaid out of his comfort zone of 6 small/1 large to create some volatility. Obviously it was a gamble and on this occasion it didn't pay off, but there you go.

Martin Gardner wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:final numbers round: by going for 4 large numbers surely Charlie is shooting himself in the foot when he desperately needs to win this round 10-0?
With 4 large numbers, the combinations of maths they are open to is so much slimmer than 4 small numbers that it makes it ten times harder to beat Junaid?

No you're completely wrong, as he just needs 7 points, or even 5 providing Junaid doesn't get it. I quite like the 4 large option here, even more than I like the 6 small ones option.

yeah that sounds about right, now that i think about it Charlie was 14 points behind right?
Anyway, my point was - if a 4-large can be done, Junaid will get it done. He might well be a 6-small specialist, but that certainly doesn't make him a non-specialist at 4-large.

The number of different things you can do with 4 small numbers (that can be anything between 1 and 10, plus include one number twice) outweighs by such a huge factor what can be done with 4 large numbers (whose denominations are not random at all - I wouldn't even be surprised if Junaid knows by heart every combination of those four numbers).
Therefore, it just made sense to me that the chances of someone with the maths ability of Junaid missing a 4-large/2-small solution is much much slimmer than him missing a 6-small solution.

Basically, the power of introducing a much larger set of combinations is greater than the power of taking Junaid 'out' of his comfort zone.

Philip Jarvis wrote:Well played to both of you and congratulations to Junaid.

Looks like the risky ALIENER was a decisive point. If Charlie had gone for a safe 6, he'd have won the game by 2.

I personally would have preferred the runner-up prize of £1,000 rather than the books.

Well done to you both and I'm now looking forward to Series 60.

Isn't it ALIENOR that's valid?

Charlie Reams wrote:Not sure what you mean by 4 small.

4 small numbers replacing the 4 large numbers chosen - ie. 6 small overall, instead of 4 large/2 small

Charlie Reams wrote:The point was that I needed to win the round, so I figured I'd pick something that would take Junaid out of his comfort zone of 6 small/1 large to create some volatility. Obviously it was a gamble and on this occasion it didn't pay off, but there you go.

Yeah, unlucky! In my opinion, I just don't think there's such a thing as taking Junaid out of his comfort zone when it comes to maths, and a better option would be to gamble in an entirely different manner by using 6 smalls.

Matt Morrison wrote:yeah that sounds about right, now that i think about it Charlie was 14 points behind right?
Anyway, my point was - if a 4-large can be done, Junaid will get it done. He might well be a 6-small specialist, but that certainly doesn't make him a non-specialist at 4-large.

The number of different things you can do with 4 small numbers (that can be anything between 1 and 10, plus include one number twice) outweighs by such a huge factor what can be done with 4 large numbers (whose denominations are not random at all - I wouldn't even be surprised if Junaid knows by heart every combination of those four numbers).
Therefore, it just made sense to me that the chances of someone with the maths ability of Junaid missing a 4-large/2-small solution is much much slimmer than him missing a 6-small solution.

Basically, the power of introducing a much larger set of combinations is greater than the power of taking Junaid 'out' of his comfort zone.

Hopefully someone will jump in with a careful counter-argument, because I'm too lazy, but you're completely wrong.

Charlie Reams wrote:Hopefully someone will jump in with a careful counter-argument, because I'm too lazy, but you're completely wrong.

Thankfully I'm more than used to being wrong on this forum. I was looking for opinion, not argument, viewpoints, not right and wrong.
I do look forward to an explanation, as I am genuinely interested in such tactics, and not being obstinate or annoying.

Matt Morrison wrote:I do look forward to an explanation, as I am genuinely interested in such tactics, and not being obstinate or annoying.

Needless to say that should have read "not trying to be obstinate or annoying".

I reckon 3 large would've been the way to go - 6 small seems suicidal when it's his bread and butter, but 3 large gives so many options that luck becomes a bigger factor (although I want to do some proper analysis of number games before I commit to this). From my experience of going the 4 large route, one generally finds both contestants get the same score (be it spot on or an easy n away), because there's not that much you can do before you start going crazy with the (100+6)*3*75 stuff (although if Charlie has studied that theory, then obviously the 4 large is the way to go).

Of course, this is just my experience, and we all know that the real reason Charlie lost was an act of charity to the poor guy who has to go to the Other Place for his 'education'.

Or something.

Philip Jarvis wrote: I personally would have preferred the runner-up prize of £1,000 rather than the books.

Interesting point. Back in Series 41 final in 1999, (when runners up prize was only £500 )I was talking about the prizes beforehand with Scott Mearns - he was a student and said he'd prefer the cash to the books; I'd promised my kids a weekend away if I won the money so we were saying beforehand that if whoever declared first went 'four', the other would declare 'three' . . . . (Can't really claim that the was the reason I lost though)

Great final, well done to Charlie and Junaid. For what its worth, I think Charlie was right to go for 4 large numbers, anything to change routine at that point was worth a go.

Well done Junaid. I had a feeling Junaid would win the series after reviewing his Apterous games. But Charlie put up a good fight, and lit up the series with his self-effacing humour and naughty words (WANKERS, ERECTIONS, WEEING, etc). And if I'd known he got a £1000 cheque, I would never have paid my Apterous fee .

Matt Morrison wrote:yeah that sounds about right, now that i think about it Charlie was 14 points behind right?
Anyway, my point was - if a 4-large can be done, Junaid will get it done. He might well be a 6-small specialist, but that certainly doesn't make him a non-specialist at 4-large.

The number of different things you can do with 4 small numbers (that can be anything between 1 and 10, plus include one number twice) outweighs by such a huge factor what can be done with 4 large numbers (whose denominations are not random at all - I wouldn't even be surprised if Junaid knows by heart every combination of those four numbers).
Therefore, it just made sense to me that the chances of someone with the maths ability of Junaid missing a 4-large/2-small solution is much much slimmer than him missing a 6-small solution.

Basically, the power of introducing a much larger set of combinations is greater than the power of taking Junaid 'out' of his comfort zone.

You're assuming that Charlie isn't better at doing 4 numbers than he is at doing 6 numbers. And there was always the chance that Junaid could've fluffed the numbers; the pressure was on him after all.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I do look forward to an explanation, as I am genuinely interested in such tactics, and not being obstinate or annoying.

Needless to say that should have read "not trying to be obstinate or annoying".

Haha yes, fair enough. My thought process was as follows:

I had never beaten Junaid on any numbers game (watching at home or in the studio.)
There are a large number of specialist 4-large tricks, which I'd done a bit of practice with.
Junaid may or may not be familiar with those tricks.
Objectively speaking, 4 large is about as hard as 6 small, but Junaid presumably prefers 6 small, so 4 large makes it more likely that he would miss a solution or mess up, giving me the points.
I had never seen Junaid face a 4 large game, so it might make him nervous.
If I mess up or miss a solution, I'm no worse off since I'll lose anyway.
Hence 4 large is a good choice.

In other words that decision is a result of a lot of experience, and I still think it was a good decision, even though it didn't really pay off.

Really good final.

Good job Charlie, you put up a great fight thats for sure, and we can all say what could have been done differently. But since I am probably not half as clever as you guys, I'd like to say it ended how it ended, and it ended very close. No need to discuss the variables there.

Let me make it clear that I did however get 'tinkered' in the team time teaser. So I maybe I was quick to say I am not half as clever as you guys!

Well done Junaid for your hard fought win against a very good opponent.A very exciting game with some good words.
A sad ending with Carol in tears.It,s hard to believe that we won,t see her in action again on Countdown.Good luck in whatever you do.

Kyle Barrett wrote:I'd like to say it ended how it ended, and it ended very close. No need to discuss the variables there.

Don't see why not, it's always valuable to discuss strategy.

Charlie Reams wrote:In other words that decision is a result of a lot of experience, and I still think it was a good decision, even though it didn't really pay off.

Thanks Charlie, that was the sort of explanation I was looking for. One day you'll trust me enough that I'll be able to get a nice response like that without having to be told off first.

The link to the four-large tactics was interesting (skim) reading. I do now understand why you went for the 4-large, regardless of whether I'd agree or not.
Perhaps one thing we can agree on is that one can try any special tactics that one likes against Junaid, but Junaid has to lose the round rather than one winning it!

From Charlie's perspective I think 3/4 large was the way to go. I think if you're really strong all-round at the numbers then 6 small would have been better.

Anyway have still only seen a bit of the final, so will watch all of it before passing more general comments.

Craig Beevers wrote:From Charlie's perspective I think 3/4 large was the way to go. I think if you're really strong all-round at the numbers then 6 small would have been better.

Yeah, I think a similar argument could be made for 3 large, but I have a personal habit of screwing those up so I resisted.

Craig Beevers wrote:I think if you're really strong all-round at the numbers then 6 small would have been better.

I agree without a doubt - making the numbers harder by using 6 small can effectively shut out a weaker player, apart from the occasional mickey mouse target number that is still easily reached.

I also agree with those who have said that choosing 4 large against someone who you know is better at maths is a good idea - in my eyes, less combinations possible with the four large = more chance to get 10 points each rather than to lose the round. It's a very defensive tactic in that it's more about keeping up than taking a lead, more about stopping your opponent from running away as opposed to trying to get one over on them.

It's for the same reason (less combinations possible) that I thought Charlie choosing 4 large was a bad idea. My original point was very much rooted in the specific circumstances of the round in question.
14 points behind with only 20 left, the focus has to change from defensive to offensive, the "10 points each please" that a 4-large round between two good players usually becomes would be no good.

Matt Morrison wrote: It's for the same reason (less combinations possible) that I thought Charlie choosing 4 large was a bad idea. My original point was very much rooted in the specific circumstances of the round in question.
14 points behind with only 20 left, the focus has to change from defensive to offensive, the "10 points each please" that a 4-large round between two good players usually becomes would be no good.

What's "offensive" about choosing 6 small against a guy who you've never beaten at 6 small in ten attempts?

Congratulations to both finalists. Junaid had the edge on the day, but it must have been difficult playing in the emotional atmosphere of Carol's
last game. I assume Junaid got the OED although it wasn't on the set at the end.
I was surprised Charlie missed a max in Round 6, even I got HOARDING. From then on it was an uphill fight.

Numbers game

2, 6, 8, 5, 7, 4 Target 927

(6x8)-2=46 x5x4=920 +7=927

Well done to Charlie and Junaid - excellent game.

Regards

Penny Downer

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kyle Barrett wrote:I'd like to say it ended how it ended, and it ended very close. No need to discuss the variables there.

Don't see why not, it's always valuable to discuss strategy.

I have a feeling I need to be on a less hardcore forum, I'll have to adjust for you argumentative sods then? I only said 'No need', feel free to continue .

I understand sharing words you got and how you worked out the numbers, but yeah. Thought that discussing strategies would be grating (for me at least), I clearly misjudged.

Charlie Reams wrote: What's "offensive" about choosing 6 small against a guy who you've never beaten at 6 small in ten attempts?

Agreed. 6 small would've been a disaster. The chance of you getting it and him not (assuming he wasn't wetting himself with nerves) were so small. Better to do anything different. Personally, my tactics would've involved 2 large and stealing his glasses.

Charlie Reams wrote:What's "offensive" about choosing 6 small against a guy who you've never beaten at 6 small in ten attempts?

I used 'offensive' purely for its status as an antonym of 'defensive' - 'courageous', 'brave', 'foolish', etc. all would have worked.

I just feel that in a points-desperate situation, going for 6 small against a good player might give you, say, a 5% chance of beating them, whereas choosing 4 large is likely to give them a 100% chance of them getting it right (or as close as possible), which leaves the result of the round out of your hands - to that extent it's offensive in that you're going out fighting if it goes wrong rather than just relinquishing 10 points.

Once again I'll state that I understand why you chose 4 large, Charlie, and sadly it's also probably in my best interests to make it clear that I didn't think you were relinquishing the round to Junaid.

Kai Laddiman wrote:Actually, PERUSAL's a mass noun, i.e. you can't pluralise it.

Really? I would have thought it was perfectly valid to say something like "After a couple of hasty perusals of the letters I spotted an 8".

Matt Morrison wrote: I just feel that in a points-desperate situation, going for 6 small against a good player might give you, say, a 5% chance of beating them, whereas choosing 4 large is likely to give them a 100% chance of them getting it right (or as close as possible), which leaves the result of the round out of your hands - to that extent it's offensive in that you're going out fighting if it goes wrong rather than just relinquishing 10 points.

Well, fair enough, but if you still think that after six years of practice then you can colour me surprised.

x = the probability of opponent not getting maximum points from a 4-large numbers round
y = the probability of opponent not getting the maximum from a 6-small numbers round, and for number-choosing player to do better and get the points

if x > y then it's a good idea to choose 4-large numbers, right?

My point is that when facing Junaid, the chance of y (beating him on 6 small) is undeniably tiny.
But undeniably tiny is always likely to be a slightly better option than x (him not getting maximum on 4-large), which is surely even closer to 0.

I've been forced to explain myself into the ground once again, there's nothing more that I can do so I hope that my viewpoint ('my viewpoint', not 'my correct answer') is clear enough now.

Note that I am assuming, and may well be wrong, that a 6-small is generally accepted to be the 'hardest' of number combinations.

Matt Morrison wrote: I just feel that in a points-desperate situation, going for 6 small against a good player might give you, say, a 5% chance of beating them, whereas choosing 4 large is likely to give them a 100% chance of them getting it right (or as close as possible), which leaves the result of the round out of your hands - to that extent it's offensive in that you're going out fighting if it goes wrong rather than just relinquishing 10 points.

Maybe you should spend tonight doing a few thousand 4 large numbers games. Given your logic, if you get less than 90% of them, then you are an idiot.

what the fuck? how many times do i have to say Junaid Junaid Junaid. I'm discussing the particular round, not a general comment on playing numbers games against good players.
Read the whole thread. And yes, I'd expect Junaid to get WELL over 90% of the maximums on several thousand 4-large numbers games, wouldn't you?

Just to put an end to this 4 large debate, he was doing it to annoy Carol.

Kai Laddiman wrote:Just to put an end to this 4 large debate, he was doing it to annoy Carol.

haha true, Kai, true! did make her laugh but it was a bit sad that it wasn't a really hard 6-small that she would have had to solve, thus going out on a high.

Matt Morrison wrote:And yes, I'd expect Junaid to get WELL over 90% of the maximums on several thousand 4-large numbers games, wouldn't you?

Firstly that's a number you've plucked out thin air and secondly that figure's nonsense anyway, 4 large is hard to do because with 4 large numbers there are several ways to get up to the total, meaning you waste time deciding which one(s) to use, there are only 2 small numbers to help you get up a target which is always below 1000 and there are plenty of 4 larges which you can only get by going up to ridiculous numbers in the tens of thousands and dividing back down, requiring you to some techniques which are pretty hard to do in less than 30 seconds. It's pretty unlikely you'd be able to get 95 out of 100 4 large numbers games, even if you did know all the techniques.

Anyway well done Charlie, a well-deserving second place, after having played you on apterous a few days ago I'm expecting even better things in the CoC.