c4countdown

1st numbers alt:

((50 x (5 - 1) - 7 ) x 3

3rd Numbers Game

(9 + 1) x 10 = 100

100 + 2 = 102

102 x 8 = 816

816 - 1 - 815

Mike Brailsford wrote:3rd Numbers Game

(9 + 1) x 10 = 100

100 + 2 = 102

102 x 8 = 816

816 - 1 - 815

Beat me to it

Rich Priest wrote:

Mike Brailsford wrote:3rd Numbers Game

(9 + 1) x 10 = 100

100 + 2 = 102

102 x 8 = 816

816 - 1 - 815

Beat me to it

Likewise.

Well done, Jimmy. By my reckoning, that's exactly the score you needed to make number 2 seed. (subject to anyone else coming along, of course)

Looking forward to seeing you in the finals now.

Well done Jimmy on becoming an Octochamp and number 3 seed. Gonna be some classic quarter finals I reckon.

I bet Jimmy won't risk buzzing in the event of a crucial Conundrum with the hope of it coming to him in the 3 seconds until Jeff asks for the answer. A habit that could cost him !

I've now just watched the end of the programme, and see that Jeff says you're number 3 seed, Jimmy. I've checked, and still think you're number 2. Same eight programme total as Cate - 782. But you come above her as your highest, 116, beats hers, 113.

Howard Somerset wrote:I've now just watched the end of the programme, and see that Jeff says you're number 3 seed, Jimmy. I've checked, and still think you're number 2. Same eight programme total as Cate - 782. But you come above her as your highest, 116, beats hers, 113.

I think it's conundrum spots that are the first tie-breaker.

Edit: Although countdownwiki says otherwise, so I'm not sure where I got that idea from...

Michael Wallace wrote:

Howard Somerset wrote:I've now just watched the end of the programme, and see that Jeff says you're number 3 seed, Jimmy. I've checked, and still think you're number 2. Same eight programme total as Cate - 782. But you come above her as your highest, 116, beats hers, 113.

I think it's conundrum spots that are the first tie-breaker.

Edit: Although countdownwiki says otherwise, so I'm not sure where I got that idea from...

Mike Brown's Coundown Page also says otherwise, which is where I got it from.

But if you're right, and it's conundrum spots, then Cate is 6 - 2 ahead of Jimmy.

It's definitely conundrum spots that decided it - Damian told us at the finals. Jimmy only got 2 conundrums so dropped into number 3 seed.

A nice equaller in round 2 in PORTIERE and in round 3 CORONAE. I was surprised Rachel missed the 102x8-1 for the last numbers game too.

I also find it funny when a contestant has 28 seconds to themselves to get the conundrum but buzz in really quickly only to realise they've made an error. One of my opponents did this in my heats.

Well done Jimmy for becoming an octochamp - roll on the finals!

Kirk Bevins wrote:It's definitely conundrum spots that decided it - Damian told us at the finals. Jimmy only got 2 conundrums so dropped into number 3 seed.

Thanks Kirk. Wiki leaderboard changed

Kirk Bevins wrote:I also find it funny when a contestant has 28 seconds to themselves to get the conundrum but buzz in really quickly only to realise they've made an error. One of my opponents did this in my heat.

Yes, that is interesting. What would you say the balance is between the kudos of getting the conundrum as quickly as possible, or sitting back and relaxing for the remaining time, but at least more probably getting it right?

MiNGIEST in R8
2nd numbers (50+4)*(9+2)-1=593
3rd numbers as already mentioned above

I must admit, I would have buzzed in immediately and said ARBITRARY.

Kai Laddiman wrote:I must admit, I would have buzzed in immediately and said ARBITRARY.

Same here.

Innis Carson wrote:

Kai Laddiman wrote:I must admit, I would have buzzed in immediately and said ARBITRARY.

Same here.

And me (I did, mentally I mean)

The 'conundrum spots' is new to this series as far as I know. Or Mike Brown's just been wrong for a long time, which is really really unlikely.

There was a rumour from one of the contestants that Chris Rogers beat that the only conundrum he got right was against her (1) but I can't verify it. There's certainly no concrete evidence that I know of of anyone getting less than two conundrums in eight heat games.

Martin Gardner wrote: The 'conundrum spots' is new to this series as far as I know. Or Mike Brown's just been wrong for a long time, which is really really unlikely.

When I was involved in series 58 the leaderboard listed the seeds by wins, points and number of conundrums spotted so I assume the rule's applied at least since then.

Innis Carson wrote:

Kai Laddiman wrote:I must admit, I would have buzzed in immediately and said ARBITRARY.

Same here.

Having just read the recap - me too.

And me!

Martin Gardner wrote: The 'conundrum spots' is new to this series as far as I know. Or Mike Brown's just been wrong for a long time, which is really really unlikely.

Just been looking into this and have established the following: I'm sure it was highest scores that were the deciding factor in Series 16, 32 and 34 (even if conundrum results coincide, which I haven't checked). In the next series containing a tie (Series 46), our very own Ben Wilson was number one seed by virtue of a highest score, although he spotted the same number of conundrums as Phil Wass (5) so perhaps we can't be 100% sure. Damian was co-producer by then and I suspect he may have been responsible for the change. We haven't had another tie until now, so as to when the change happened, I'm not sure, but I seem to recall Mr Eadie mentioning it in the past. Care to comment, Damian?