c4countdown

It's a Good Friday so let's see if the episode of Countdown is as good.

Mary Adie is now on 440 points from 5 games, at an average of 88 ppg (points per game)

Who will be her challenger today?

Join Mike soon.

With the finals looming, I have completed my Predcitions suggesting EDWARD MCCULLAGH will win.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:With the finals looming, I have completed my Predcitions suggesting EDWARD MCCULLAGH will win.

Although your averages are slightly iffy, as they only count wins for the non-octochamps.

Fixed.

1st nums alt:

75 x 8 = 600
9 - 4 = 5
5 - 2 = 3
7 x 3 = 21
600 + 21 = 621.

Simples.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:With the finals looming, I have completed my Predcitions suggesting EDWARD MCCULLAGH will win.

I don't trust predictions from those who can't spell 'predictions'.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:1st nums alt:

75 x 8 = 600
9 - 4 = 5
5 - 2 = 3
7 x 3 = 21
600 + 21 = 621.

Simples.

or (4*7)-(9-2) or even Mary's way to make 616 + (9-4)...

Rhys Benjamin wrote:It's a Good Friday so let's see if the episode of Countdown is as good.

Mary Adie is now on 440 points from 5 games, at an average of 88 ppg (points per game)

Who will be her challenger today?

Join Mike soon.

If you include the double conundrum then she was on 450. Any reason why double conundrums are
not counted?

Please forward to James Robinson.

Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.

Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.

Yeah exactly.

I thought you'd stopped looking in spoiler threads!

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.

Yeah exactly.

I thought you'd stopped looking in spoiler threads!

I read every thread when I'm spending a bank holiday waiting for my numbers to crunch

Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.

Series 63 prelim 106 and 107 both add the extra points on to the player's score.
So the rules seem to have changed for series 64?

Erm............... no they didn't!

From The wiki:

Martin Gardner and Charlie Reams wrote:Since Series 39, players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count. Points from sudden death conundrums aren't counted, and players with the same number of wins and points are sorted by highest score.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably because it's not really fair to consider it part of someone's run, as it's giving someone another shot at an extra 10 points that other people wouldn't get.

Yeah exactly.

I thought you'd stopped looking in spoiler threads!

I read every thread when I'm spending a bank holiday waiting for my numbers to crunch

And I read every thread when I have some assignments to do. Ideally Charlie should ban me from c4c and apterous and facebook (I'm sure he has the power) so that I actually do write something. Been sat in this chair finding other things to do for about 6 days now and no words have been written. Someone just asked me to pub tonight too which I'm going to take them up on. Is there a thread on procrastination already?

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Erm............... no they didn't!

From The wiki:

Martin Gardner and Charlie Reams wrote:Since Series 39, players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count. Points from sudden death conundrums aren't counted, and players with the same number of wins and points are sorted by highest score.

In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.

Tony Atkins wrote:In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.

Unless I'm missing the point Tony, the scores do include the extra ten points, but those extra points aren't then carried forward when calculating the seedings (for reasons already explained).

Ryan Taylor wrote: And I read every thread when I have some assignments to do. Ideally Charlie should ban me from c4c and apterous and facebook (I'm sure he has the power) so that I actually do write something. Been sat in this chair finding other things to do for about 6 days now and no words have been written. Someone just asked me to pub tonight too which I'm going to take them up on. Is there a thread on procrastination already?

Tut tut Ryan. Going to the pub on Good Friday? Next you'll be telling me you ate meat.

I listen to Town upstairs kicking the s**t out of MK Dons , then just when I think the day can't get any hotter, Rachel appears in that leopard dress.

Very sad that Mary has gone for now, she must have had end of day nerves.

PIROGEN in round 3, NAVAID in round 7, INCITERS in round 8 and DIADEMS in round 11.

Mike Brown wrote:

Tony Atkins wrote:In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.

Unless I'm missing the point Tony, the scores do include the extra ten points, but those extra points aren't then carried forward when calculating the seedings (for reasons already explained).

The series 64 table http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=64 shows the game as 95-95.

Tony Atkins wrote:

Mike Brown wrote:

Tony Atkins wrote:In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.

Unless I'm missing the point Tony, the scores do include the extra ten points, but those extra points aren't then carried forward when calculating the seedings (for reasons already explained).

The series 64 table http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=64 shows the game as 95-95.

That's because Ryan accidentally forgot to change Mary's 95 to 105. The recap writer doesn't bring up extra conundrums, so the scores have to be done manually and Ryan accidentally messed up.

James Robinson wrote:That's because Ryan accidentally forgot to change Mary's 95 to 105. The recap writer doesn't bring up extra conundrums, so the scores have to be done manually and Ryan accidentally messed up.

Accidentally? Or accideliberately?!?!!!

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Robinson wrote:That's because Ryan accidentally forgot to change Mary's 95 to 105. The recap writer doesn't bring up extra conundrums, so the scores have to be done manually and Ryan accidentally messed up.

Accidentally? Or accideliberately?!?!!!

I was just testing James. Damn! He passed again.

Tony Atkins wrote:

Mike Brown wrote:

Tony Atkins wrote:In which case http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=63 is wrong as it shows them
winning by 10 and not drawing. Thanks for the explanation.

Unless I'm missing the point Tony, the scores do include the extra ten points, but those extra points aren't then carried forward when calculating the seedings (for reasons already explained).

The series 64 table http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=64 shows the game as 95-95.

OIC.

Ryan Taylor wrote:Is there a thread on procrastination already?

No, but I might start one tomorrow.

Keith Bennett wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:Is there a thread on procrastination already?

No, but I might start one tomorrow.

Like. (Charlie might also fix likes tomorrow. (I'm in trouble now))