Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Moderator: James Robinson
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Jerry Springer.
Last edited by Ben Hunter on Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Ray Folwell
- Acolyte
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: Spoilers for Monday, April 1st
Monday ???
MILEAGE & EPILATE in R4
MILEAGE & EPILATE in R4
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Monday, April 1st
I'm losing my mind.Ray Folwell wrote:Monday ???
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
JERRY JERRY JERRY
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday, April 1st
I'm glad it was a mistake Ben, I'd thought for a moment it was an ill-conceived April Fool's 'joke'Ben Hunter wrote:I'm losing my mind.Ray Folwell wrote:Monday ???
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
BRINIER for round 9.
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Simpler round 10:
(4 x 25 + 10 - 7) x 9
(4 x 25 + 10 - 7) x 9
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Impressive stuff from Cate. One of the best female players in recent memory, just behind Grace Page perhaps.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Jeff said that she's currently the number 3 seed, but I'm pretty sure she's number 2 seed, can anyone confirm?
- Ray Folwell
- Acolyte
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Yes, she's overtaken Neil's 758.Ben Hunter wrote:Jeff said that she's currently the number 3 seed, but I'm pretty sure she's number 2 seed, can anyone confirm?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Yeah, I saw this game in the studio and Jeff said number 3 seed and last night I looked at the tables and realised she'd be #2 seed and thought they'd edit out Jeff's comment but they didn't. You never know, if Mr Gough does well and slips into #2 seed, then Cate may finish as #3 seed and Jeff would be correct!Ray Folwell wrote:Yes, she's overtaken Neil's 758.Ben Hunter wrote:Jeff said that she's currently the number 3 seed, but I'm pretty sure she's number 2 seed, can anyone confirm?
Also, Tom, we did chant JERRY JERRY JERRY when he walked into the studios!
I had a DC beater in round 3 with AMYLASE and a beater with EPIGEAL in round 4.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:59 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Congratulations Cate, great performance. I look forward to seeing you again in the finals. Didn't anyone spot TOOTLED in round 7?
- Ian Fitzpatrick
- Devotee
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:23 pm
- Location: Wimborne, Dorset
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
An excellent string of games by Cate, and all using pretty standard words rather than the obscure that we have become used to.
I like the way she said she suddenly became competitive! Look out in the finals, boys
I like the way she said she suddenly became competitive! Look out in the finals, boys
I thought I was good at Countdown until I joined this forum
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
What's wrong with obscure words?Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:An excellent string of games by Cate, and all using pretty standard words rather than the obscure that we have become used to.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:11 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
I did!Kathleen Batlle wrote:Congratulations Cate, great performance. I look forward to seeing you again in the finals. Didn't anyone spot TOOTLED in round 7?
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Ha. Love the way you imply its inconceivable he could be #1 seedKirk Bevins wrote:You never know, if Mr Gough does well and slips into #2 seed...
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Also how shoddy were the letters today? Think there was only one 8 in the entire game. Wouldn't be surprised if a few people armchair-maxed that as I had 13 maxes. Thought I was on for a max game but then bottled it and missed ANIONS (Although unbeknown to me I'd already missed BRINIER) Still I was happy to prevent Cate from scoring until round 5
- Ian Fitzpatrick
- Devotee
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:23 pm
- Location: Wimborne, Dorset
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Nothing wrong with them at all, it just feels better to have been beaten by a word I should have seen rather than one I've never heard of.Kirk Bevins wrote:What's wrong with obscure words?Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:An excellent string of games by Cate, and all using pretty standard words rather than the obscure that we have become used to.
I thought I was good at Countdown until I joined this forum
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Not only is she number 2 seed, but she's guaranteed a top eight spot and a place in the finals. There are only 55 games left before the finals start and it would take a minimum of 56 for her to be overtaken into 9th place.Ben Hunter wrote:Jeff said that she's currently the number 3 seed, but I'm pretty sure she's number 2 seed, can anyone confirm?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Does it? Hmmm. I was wondering about this when I went on - do I offer a word like REARMOST which might get my opponent kicking themselves as they knew the word, or do I offer ROTAMERS which might scare my opponent. I spent ages deciding what to do until a few people said that most people *can* get REARMOST so if you've put the effort in to learn ROTAMERS then offer that instead, so that's what I did - always offered the more obscure word if I could. I had to be 100% sure it was in else I wouldn't offer it - it nearly burnt my back when I had HEDARIM initially disallowed.Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:
Nothing wrong with them at all, it just feels better to have been beaten by a word I should have seen rather than one I've never heard of.
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
I've not given it much thought, but I reckon the best way to sting your opponent is to declare 'normal' words when you've beaten them, and declare obscure words when you've equalled them (I'm going off doing this on Apterous now though, for various reasons). I know from playing Apterous that when I get beaten by (or if DC declares) an obscure word then I simply think, "oh well, I'll know that for next time," but if it's a word I know then I kick myself throughout the rest of the game, which hurts my performance.Kirk Bevins wrote:Does it? Hmmm. I was wondering about this when I went on - do I offer a word like REARMOST which might get my opponent kicking themselves as they knew the word, or do I offer ROTAMERS which might scare my opponent. I spent ages deciding what to do until a few people said that most people *can* get REARMOST so if you've put the effort in to learn ROTAMERS then offer that instead, so that's what I did - always offered the more obscure word if I could. I had to be 100% sure it was in else I wouldn't offer it - it nearly burnt my back when I had HEDARIM initially disallowed.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, April 1st
Interesting point. I think the same psychology would work on a lot of other players too, although personally I get equally annoyed (or not) when I miss stuff regardless of what my opponent does. But maybe that's just because I only play for fun now so I'm not particularly competitive about it, I just like seeing the words in bold.Ben Hunter wrote:I've not given it much thought, but I reckon the best way to sting your opponent is to declare 'normal' words when you've beaten them, and declare obscure words when you've equalled them (I'm going off doing this on Apterous now though, for various reasons). I know from playing Apterous that when I get beaten by (or if DC declares) an obscure word then I simply think, "oh well, I'll know that for next time," but if it's a word I know then I kick myself throughout the rest of the game, which hurts my performance.
My experience is that people at different levels of ability have different ideas of what's good. The only word I got in all 15 of my appearances that impressed my dad was NARCOTISE, which any decent player would spot instantly, but obscure nines are more superficially impressive than darrenic sixes. On the other hand I got TEKTITE against Kirk the other day, which impressed him because it's super-low probability (and because he had a 4.) So if you're going for maximum intimidation of the opponent, you have to adjust to how good you think they are, too.