Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:07 pm
I'll post something inside you.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
Like!JackHurst wrote:I can confirm that the buzzers are activated once Nick presses the button to start the clock. This means you can buzz whenever the clock is going (so in any round), but not when the clock isnt going.
Whilst waiting to play our final, Conor and I asked the floor manager (Jay) about this, and he started the clock for us and let us mess around with the buzzers. It was great fun.
The letter distribution has changed quite a few times over the years. To start with, let's look at series 66 only.Chris Marshall wrote:Is it possible to get a letter distribution frequency for each letter over the data you have?
Code: Select all
VOWELS
A 1081
E 1444
I 943
O 963
U 506
CONSONANTS
B 178
C 272
D 531
F 183
G 348
H 186
J 91
K 98
L 445
M 351
N 718
P 359
Q 86
R 781
S 795
T 799
V 175
W 185
X 91
Y 90
Z 82
Code: Select all
B 2.0
C 3.1
D 6.0
F 2.1
G 3.9
H 2.1
J 1.0
K 1.1
L 5.0
M 4.0
N 8.1
P 4.1
Q 1.0
R 8.8
S 9.0
T 9.0
V 2.0
W 2.1
X 1.0
Y 1.0
Z 0.9
Code: Select all
B 2
C 3
D 6
F 2
G 4
H 2
J 1
K 1
L 5
M 4
N 8
P 4
Q 1
R 9
S 9
T 9
V 2
W 2
X 1
Y 1
Z 1
Code: Select all
SERIES B C D F G H J K L M N P Q R S T V W X Y Z
46 2 4 8 3 6 3 1 1 7 4 7 4 1 10 10 10 2 1 1 2 1
47 2 5 8 4 6 3 1 1 8 6 7 5 1 10 10 10 2 1 1 1 1
48 1 5 7 3 6 2 1 1 7 6 7 5 1 10 10 10 2 1 1 1 1
49 2 4 7 2 4 3 1 1 6 5 7 5 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
50 2 5 7 2 4 2 1 1 7 6 7 5 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
51 4 7 10 4 5 4 1 2 10 9 10 7 1 13 13 13 2 2 1 2 1
52 3 6 9 3 5 3 1 2 9 7 9 6 1 12 12 12 2 2 1 2 1
53 2 4 7 2 4 2 1 1 6 5 9 5 1 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1
54 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
55 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
56 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
57 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
58 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 10 9 1 1 1 1 1
59 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
60 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
61 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
62 2 4 7 2 4 2 1 1 6 4 9 4 1 10 10 10 2 2 1 2 1
63 2 3 7 2 4 2 1 1 6 4 9 4 1 10 10 10 2 2 1 1 1
64 2 3 7 2 4 2 1 1 6 5 9 5 1 10 10 10 2 2 1 1 1
65 2 3 6 2 4 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 2 2 1 1 1
66 2 3 6 2 4 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 2 2 1 1 1
67 2 4 7 2 4 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 10 10 11 2 2 1 1 1
Remember the Gotcha where 'Richard Max' buzzed in on one of later rounds claiming he thought it was the conundrum... I'm surprised to learn that could actually happen. What's to stop someone buzzing in half-way through for any reason ("I can only find four letter words, can we start again?" or "I'm going to be sick!" for instance)?JackHurst wrote:I can confirm that the buzzers are activated once Nick presses the button to start the clock. This means you can buzz whenever the clock is going (so in any round), but not when the clock isnt going.
Whilst waiting to play our final, Conor and I asked the floor manager (Jay) about this, and he started the clock for us and let us mess around with the buzzers. It was great fun.
True. I've had a look at series 51 and 52 and I don't see any evidence that there was more than one K. However, the frequency of K for those two series was still significantly greater than the frequency of Q, X, Z and J.Clive Brooker wrote:The one concern I have with Graeme's numbers is the suggestion that there were 2 Ks in series 51 and 52. In the 15-round era we have only seen 2 Ks 8 times, 5 during a 2-week period in series 46, and the other 3 in a single week in series 49. If there were 2 Ks available for a prolonged period at any other time I think it's stretching credibility to suggest they wouldn't both have been seen in most of the games during that period.
Code: Select all
SERIES A E I O U B C D F G H J K L M N P Q R S T V W X Y Z
49 876 1173 833 802 355 170 353 523 168 284 197 70 91 511 424 520 357 68 695 691 699 88 87 87 84 90
50 880 1173 848 827 328 184 340 508 182 263 170 69 98 504 424 517 352 64 691 667 676 84 92 85 91 80
51 964 1282 908 904 401 214 396 575 204 298 215 55 102 569 487 572 388 52 765 759 748 99 106 61 103 59
52 961 1295 909 850 406 217 372 556 200 295 188 64 105 532 460 584 372 56 747 726 756 101 110 67 97 62
53 1000 1476 926 877 354 195 295 575 195 300 193 92 99 492 406 776 395 80 862 861 869 99 98 83 103 80
The Countdown board game I have (the new flashy blue Jeff and Rachel one which I think is the newest edition) uses that, but with an extra B and F (3 of each).Graeme wrote:
To start with, let's look at series 66 only.
Code: Select all
B 2 C 3 D 6 F 2 G 4 H 2 J 1 K 1 L 5 M 4 N 8 P 4 Q 1 R 9 S 9 T 9 V 2 W 2 X 1 Y 1 Z 1
By my reckoning the full picture is this, both for series 66 and all 15-rounders to the end of the 30th championship, but excluding S-prefix specials:Jack Worsley wrote:Great work both but I really don't think there are that many U's. I'd say six at the most, possibly even five. How many games in Series 66 saw more than five U's appear?
I know it's often been pointed out that we don't seem to get enough triple or quadruple vowels in individual rounds. No doubt that can be tested with the data now available. However, conclusive evidence is more easily found: between games 3636 in series 51 and 3780 in series 52 there seems to have been a policy whereby either the J and the Z or the Q and the X were excluded (or put at the bottom of the pack) on alternate days.David Williams wrote:What evidence is there that letters are manually sorted, rather than shuffled?
Round 3 in this episode seems to be the only round I can find: http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5555Chris Philpot wrote:A quick question that occurred to me last night (I've only just rediscovered the Post-it note with it scribbled down on):
Susie Dent's contribution to Countdown history has been acknowledged via the conundrums SUSISDENT and SUSIEDANT. But given her nine letter name, made of up a valid selection of common letters, has a letters round ever produced a perfect scramble of SUSIEDENT?
I do realise that this is "Ask Graeme", so if it's me giving the answers, just think of me, but with Jools Holland's voice.Chris Philpot wrote:Who needs a database when you have James Robinson?
Although I'm not Graeme, I think when scores were converted from the 9-round games to the 15-round games, a score of about 61 was equivalent to 100. So proportionally more numbers (and conundrums for that matter) seemed to lead to higher scores, but not by much.Andy Platt wrote:How do you reckon previous octochamps' totals in the classic 15 rounder format convert into the new 10-letter, 4-number 15 rounder format? Much difference? Maybe a few points a game on average? This will be interesting to see over the next few series
Not quite the record, but you're a close second.Jack Worsley wrote:Is it possible to work out the most consecutive letters rounds an individual contestant has gone without having a nine available? I've gone 95 and counting and I was wondering if this was close to a record.
Code: Select all
ROUNDS FROM DATE EP RND
Richard Heald 98 2005-06-03 3939 2
Jack Worsley 95 2012-01-13 5403 6
Darryl Francis 94 1985-01-21 245 1
Andrew Tatham 86 2003-03-10 3435 3
Joe Zubaidi 81 2002-11-25 3370 3
Andrew McNamara 77 2011-03-30 5231 1
Hilary Hopper 74 1987-07-08 607 5
Richard Campbell 74 1994-03-02 1500 1
Richard Priest 71 2008-03-26 4565 7
Code: Select all
GAMES 15s 14s 13s
Conor Travers 20 3 2 2
Kirk Bevins 15 2 0 3
etc.
Surprisingly it appears that the change to 10/4/1 actually increases the chance of a 146+ max being available.Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah, I'd say it would increase average scores, but decrease the chances of a 146 or 146-beater. However, 146 can be beaten with three 9s, so essentially there's only a 3/11 chance that by reducing the letters rounds to 10 you'd actually take away one of your nines. So the extra numbers could still boost your score even in this case.
Yes. No game besides that one had eight or more five-vowel letters rounds, although this one had seven.Conor wrote:I suspect Series 68 might break the record. In the semifinal between Jack Hurst and Jonathan Rawlinson there were 5-vowel picks in 8 out of 11 letters rounds. Is this the most five-vowel-tastic game ever?Graeme Cole wrote: Series 66 had the highest proportion of five-vowel picks of any series since 1985, because Jonathan Rawlinson was in it. (No, really - 43 of the 82 five-vowel letters rounds in that series were in his games.)
In 15 rounders, both contestants scored the maximum numbers round points available in 170 out of 2596 games, which is about 6.5%. Both contestants scored 30/30 on numbers in 154 games, or 5.9%.Gavin Chipper wrote:In what proportion of games (separately for 9 and 15 rounders) are all the numbers games rendered "worthless", by both contestants maxing them all? Actually I know you can only go by points rather than true maxes so yo uwon't be able to get whether a 7 is the true max. So maybe two separate stats - one for all max scores (erring on the side of inclusivity), and one for all 10s (erring on the side of exclusivity).
Speaking of numbers of vowels, has it always been an official rule that you had to pick between 3 and 5 vowels? Was it ever mentioned on-screen, as nobody (other than contestants) seemed to be aware of it. Also, are there any anomalies - I'm positive I remember a 2-vowel letters round slipping through in the last few years.
Nope, wasn't always a rule. Not only did Andy Cusworth pick 6 vowels every time against Shacklady, in round 1 he picked the 6 vowels straight off the bat. Utterly shameless.Jon Corby wrote:Speaking of numbers of vowels, has it always been an official rule that you had to pick between 3 and 5 vowels? Was it ever mentioned on-screen, as nobody (other than contestants) seemed to be aware of it. Also, are there any anomalies - I'm positive I remember a 2-vowel letters round slipping through in the last few years.
Ha, mental stuff. Are there any other anomalous rounds other than the 2-vowel round I mentioned (anyone find that?) since the rule was introduced? I'm sure it was brought up and Damian said they spotted it, but allowed the round to continue because it was a decent selection anyway.Conor wrote:Nope, wasn't always a rule. Not only did Andy Cusworth pick 6 vowels every time against Shacklady, in round 1 he picked the 6 vowels straight off the bat. Utterly shameless.Jon Corby wrote:Speaking of numbers of vowels, has it always been an official rule that you had to pick between 3 and 5 vowels? Was it ever mentioned on-screen, as nobody (other than contestants) seemed to be aware of it. Also, are there any anomalies - I'm positive I remember a 2-vowel letters round slipping through in the last few years.
Likely that once you'd got CCCCCC and asked for another C, Rachel would tell you that you need 3 vowels now, so the first 6 letters, however bad, wouldn't change. We'd just resume the recording with you picking your 7th letter as a vowel.Andy Platt wrote:Presumably they'd just stick the same bad consonants at the top again, rendering the exploitation fruitless, and give you a warning? Still probably worth a try!
I don't think they necessarily always do a retake. Multiple times I've seen a contestant pick a seventh consonant as their ninth letter, and Rachel just reminds them they need three vowels and gives them a vowel.Andy Platt wrote:In a related theme, in the guidelines I noticed that it said (and I wish I had the exact words in front of me, but I don't) that a failure to conform to these rules (and I remember they are official rules), would result in the round being scrapped and the contestant having to pick them all again.
Now seen as though I almost always go CCCC to start every round, what if I got the consonants QZJW, and decided "hey, you know what, I don't really fancy this" and just kept picking consonants? I never really asked Jay or Damian or anyone about it, nor did I consider doing it when I filmed, but the guidelines do leave the exploitation open and it would be interesting to see what the production team would do about it. Presumably they'd just stick the same bad consonants at the top again, rendering the exploitation fruitless, and give you a warning? Still probably worth a try!
Yeah nice one that makes more sense - thought I remembered reading the words 'round would be scrapped' somewhere along the wayCountdown Team wrote:Likely that once you'd got CCCCCC and asked for another C, Rachel would tell you that you need 3 vowels now, so the first 6 letters, however bad, wouldn't change. We'd just resume the recording with you picking your 7th letter as a vowel.Andy Platt wrote:Presumably they'd just stick the same bad consonants at the top again, rendering the exploitation fruitless, and give you a warning? Still probably worth a try!
Sometimes you ask Rachel for a consonant and she gives you an E even though she chose it from the correct pile.Graeme wrote:I don't think they necessarily always do a retake. Multiple times I've seen a contestant pick a seventh consonant as their ninth letter, and Rachel just reminds them they need three vowels and gives them a vowel.
The always-unsolvable selection 1 1 2 2 3 3 has never happened, but 1 2 3 3 4 4 has happened once.Gavin Chipper wrote:Can we do - what's the lowest highest number that's come out in a selection? So in 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, the highest is 3, and that would be the lowest possible.
Six numbers between 1 and 5 last happened in round 5 of this recent championship game, when I pre-emptively answered this question.Gavin Chipper wrote:Or, how often has no number been higher than 5?
113 by Bernie Corrigan.Mark Ivey wrote:Great thread, very interesting to see all these facts and figures. Ok, here's a question:
What is the highest winning score posted by a challenger who's gone on to lose in their second game?
The short answer is "no".Dave Preece wrote:Is there a link between some of the great players playing in final stages to the distribution of 'nice' letters for the production to ensure big scores for pulicity purposes?
Code: Select all
EP TYPE MEAN LETTERS MAX COUNT
----------------------------------
30BGF 109.0000 1
CQF 89.4167 12
30B1 87.4375 16
S 87.3235 34
P 87.2962 2323
CSF 86.8333 6
CP 86.6667 24
SF 86.4091 44
QF 86.0000 88
30B2 84.1250 8
30BP 83.7778 9
30BSF 83.0000 2
30BQF 82.0000 4
GF 81.9545 22
CGF 79.0000 3
No letter has been unseen for more consecutive rounds than J. It appeared in the series 46 final on Christmas Day 2001. Two months, 44 games and 480 rounds then passed with no J before it was seen again on 25th February 2002.David Williams wrote:Maybe ten years ago there was a suggestion that for a couple of months one of the letters (possibly J) never appeared once, suggesting it had been mislaid. Is this true, and if so was the length of absence statistically significant?
We've seen that there's no evidence that the letters are deliberately arranged to produce longer words or higher scores. However, it's a certainty that the order of the vowel pile is not entirely random. It gets tinkered with to remove consecutive occurrences of the same letter.David Williams wrote:What evidence is there that letters are manually sorted, rather than shuffled?
Graeme Cole wrote:The short answer is "no".Dave Preece wrote:Is there a link between some of the great players playing in final stages to the distribution of 'nice' letters for the production to ensure big scores for pulicity purposes?
Here's a table of average max letters scores by episode type, for all 15-rounders. Only letters rounds are counted, in order to eliminate any variation caused by finalists opting for more challenging numbers picks.
As you can see, "big" matches do not, in general, have favourable letters compared with ordinary series games (episode type P). So I see no evidence that the letters are, or have ever been, deliberately arranged to give high maxes. If anything, with the exception of CQF (CoC quarter-finals), the average max for the higher-profile games is lower than in ordinary series games. Not sure why. Also not sure if the difference is even statistically significant. I'm sure there are equations that can help with this, but I'm not Michael Wallace so I don't really know what I'm doing.Code: Select all
EP TYPE MEAN LETTERS MAX COUNT ---------------------------------- 30BGF 109.0000 1 CQF 89.4167 12 30B1 87.4375 16 S 87.3235 34 P 87.2962 2323 CSF 86.8333 6 CP 86.6667 24 SF 86.4091 44 QF 86.0000 88 30B2 84.1250 8 30BP 83.7778 9 30BSF 83.0000 2 30BQF 82.0000 4 GF 81.9545 22 CGF 79.0000 3
A note on the limitations of what this analysis can tell us: if the production team were to deliberately arrange the letters for a high max in just one or two games ever (and I should stress that I've never seen any evidence to suggest this has happened), this table wouldn't show it up. Short of catching someone in the act of messing about with the letters, I don't think you could ever know, as it could be explainable by chance. However, if they routinely did it for certain classes of game as the question suggests, it would show up, and it doesn't.
The one outlier in all this is the final of the 30th birthday championship, with its three nines and letters max of 109. Since the sample size is 1, this isn't evidence of anything untoward. Of the 2,596 15-round games in the database, 69 of them had 109 or more points available from letters. This is about 1 in 38. So if anyone thinks the 30th birthday championship final is evidence of deliberate manipulation of the pack, that's roughly equivalent to rolling two dice once, getting two sixes, then claiming that's evidence the dice are loaded.
So there'll be no need for the tinfoil hats today.
If we list all the games in order of their letters max, quite a few games are on joint 99th with 103. So we'll include all 15 rounders with a letters max of 103 or more, which is 136 games.Dave Preece wrote:What are the top – say – 100, mean letter max games, and at what stage in what comp were they please?
http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4287Jon Corby wrote:Are there any other anomalous rounds other than the 2-vowel round I mentioned (anyone find that?) since the rule was introduced? I'm sure it was brought up and Damian said they spotted it, but allowed the round to continue because it was a decent selection anyway.
Isn't it that there is evidence, but no evidence that it's done for particular games over others?Graeme Cole wrote:We've seen that there's no evidence that the letters are deliberately arranged to produce longer words or higher scores.
How do you mean? The only thing I can see evidence for is that clusters of identical letters in the pile are redistributed, not that the letters are deliberately arranged to make longer words available. Or are you saying that doing this increases the max?Gavin Chipper wrote:Isn't it that there is evidence, but no evidence that it's done for particular games over others?Graeme Cole wrote:We've seen that there's no evidence that the letters are deliberately arranged to produce longer words or higher scores.
Yeah, I mean I doubt they plant words or anything, but reducing loads of consecutive letters presumably increases the average max.Graeme Cole wrote:How do you mean? The only thing I can see evidence for is that clusters of identical letters in the pile are redistributed, not that the letters are deliberately arranged to make longer words available. Or are you saying that doing this increases the max?Gavin Chipper wrote:Isn't it that there is evidence, but no evidence that it's done for particular games over others?Graeme Cole wrote:We've seen that there's no evidence that the letters are deliberately arranged to produce longer words or higher scores.
There is certainly a precedent, because in my very first game 10 years ago, me and my opponent were informed before the game started that the J and Q had been removed, and lo and behold, they didn't turn up.Countdown Team wrote:Okay, we once 'lost' the J and V for a few months. This was , i think, because we had conundrums with J and V in, so we needed 2 of each letter, one for the reveal, one for the solution. I seem to recall that there was a shortage of such letters, so we pinched J and V from the normal letters piles to compile the conundrums, and they were not put back afterwards.
Beyond that, everything is shuffled like a pack of cards, nothing is ever messed with, we get what we get.
The answer is 6: Series 5 (John Wallace), Series 21 (Lew Schwarz), Series 24 (Norman Christian), Series 30 (Graham Cross), Series 44 (Kevin McMahon) & Series 55 (Steven Briers).Giles wrote:In how many series has the number 1 seed lost the quarter-final against the number 8 seed?
On a semi-related note, what are the average margins of victory in each individual finals match? (i.e.: On average, by how many points does the #1 seed beat the #8 seed in the first quarter final? For series in which the #8 seed won the first QF, this value would be negative; for instance, Phil Watson beat Steve Briers 83 - 73, so you'd use -10.)James Robinson wrote:The answer is 6: Series 5 (John Wallace), Series 21 (Lew Schwarz), Series 24 (Norman Christian), Series 30 (Graham Cross), Series 44 (Kevin McMahon) & Series 55 (Steven Briers).Giles wrote:In how many series has the number 1 seed lost the quarter-final against the number 8 seed?
As I said a bit further up, there was a run of almost 150 games not so long ago when either the Q and the X or the J and the Z turned up on alternate days (occasionally one of the pair would fail to reach the top of the pile). That didn't happen by chance.James Robinson wrote:There is certainly a precedent, because in my very first game 10 years ago, me and my opponent were informed before the game started that the J and Q had been removed, and lo and behold, they didn't turn up.Countdown Team wrote:Beyond that, everything is shuffled like a pack of cards, nothing is ever messed with, we get what we get.
Yes, it was quite striking at the time how often we got pairs (or triples) of the same vowel coming out. I liked it and theoretically it opened up some new areas of the dictionary. I seem to remember that most of the top players disliked it as it would tend to bring down maxes.Clive Brooker wrote:
Does anyone remember that during COC13 (the first games with Jeff and Rachel) we all noticed immediately that the "shuffling" seemed different. This was swiftly confirmed by Kate Horton (and denied by Mr Team). Would that set of games (165 letters rounds) provide enough data to test whether the observed letters sequence corresponded more closely to random selection than it has in the rest of Countdown history?
Thomas Carey wrote:Graeme, not sure how hard this would be to do but could you make a list of all players who've had at least one 13+ max game, and their amounts of 15, 14 and 13 max games?
Code: Select all
15s 14s 13s
Conor Travers 3 2 2
Kirk Bevins 2 0 3
Jon O'Neill 1 0 2
Jonathan Rawlinson 0 3 0
Paul Gallen 0 2 3
Edward McCullagh 0 2 2
Craig Beevers 0 2 1
Jack Hurst 0 2 1
Grace Page 0 1 0
Chris Davies 0 0 3
Jack Worsley 0 0 3
Innis Carson 0 0 2
Julian Fell 0 0 2
Adam Gillard 0 0 1
Adam Laws 0 0 1
Chris Wills 0 0 1
Daniel Pati 0 0 1
David O'Donnell 0 0 1
Eoin Monaghan 0 0 1
Graeme Cole 0 0 1
Harshan Lamabadusuriya 0 0 1
John Mayhew 0 0 1
Mark Tournoff 0 0 1
Matthew Shore 0 0 1
Oliver Garner 0 0 1
Paul Howe 0 0 1
Stewart Holden 0 0 1
The distribution of letters has been tweaked over the years. If someone decided that even one Q in the pack over-represents its frequency in the language and there should effectively be "half a Q" in the pack, that's how you'd do it. The only alternative would be to double the frequencies of all the other letters, and then you'd find they don't all fit in the consonant box.Clive Brooker wrote:As I said a bit further up, there was a run of almost 150 games not so long ago when either the Q and the X or the J and the Z turned up on alternate days (occasionally one of the pair would fail to reach the top of the pile). That didn't happen by chance.James Robinson wrote:There is certainly a precedent, because in my very first game 10 years ago, me and my opponent were informed before the game started that the J and Q had been removed, and lo and behold, they didn't turn up.Countdown Team wrote:Beyond that, everything is shuffled like a pack of cards, nothing is ever messed with, we get what we get.
We can infer what the vowel and consonant piles looked like at the start of every game for which we have round details, as far into the pile as the number of each category we see. This isn't 100% infallible, as very occasionally they have reason to give up halfway through a round and throw the letters away, but this sort of thing is rare enough that it shouldn't matter. Anyway, the point is that having inferred what the vowel pile looked like at the start of the game (or at least the first N letters, where N is the number of vowels that came out in that game), we can look through it for clusters of identical letters.Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone remember that during COC13 (the first games with Jeff and Rachel) we all noticed immediately that the "shuffling" seemed different. This was swiftly confirmed by Kate Horton (and denied by Mr Team). Would that set of games (165 letters rounds) provide enough data to test whether the observed letters sequence corresponded more closely to random selection than it has in the rest of Countdown history?
Code: Select all
All 15R CoC13
AAA 10 4
EEE 30 5
III 5 4
OOO 7 3
I'm sure you know this anyway, but for the avoidance of doubt, if anything I'm coming up with in this thread sounds like a dig at you or the show, it isn't. I'll repeat that I'm not suggesting any impropriety or any deliberate attempt to manipulate what words come out - in fact we've already seen that any suggestion of that kind is rubbish.Countdown Team wrote:Okay, we once 'lost' the J and V for a few months. This was , i think, because we had conundrums with J and V in, so we needed 2 of each letter, one for the reveal, one for the solution. I seem to recall that there was a shortage of such letters, so we pinched J and V from the normal letters piles to compile the conundrums, and they were not put back afterwards.
Beyond that, everything is shuffled like a pack of cards, nothing is ever messed with, we get what we get.
I couldn't even begin to work out what the exact probability is, but three consecutive letters rounds in the same game having a nine available has happened six times. There have never been four or more consecutive rounds with nines available.Dave Preece wrote:On the subject of shuffling face-up - What - Statistically are the chances of getting THREE available nine letter max rounds in a row?
How often has this happened and has there ever been more?
Graeme Cole wrote: Incidentally, this game surprisingly had no Ls in it, and is the only such 15-rounder.
Putting these two together makes me wonder if they couldn't find the Ls for the conundrum letters in this episode, so they had to pinch 4 of them from the letters pack.Countdown Team wrote:Okay, we once 'lost' the J and V for a few months. This was , i think, because we had conundrums with J and V in, so we needed 2 of each letter, one for the reveal, one for the solution. I seem to recall that there was a shortage of such letters, so we pinched J and V from the normal letters piles to compile the conundrums, and they were not put back afterwards.
Beyond that, everything is shuffled like a pack of cards, nothing is ever messed with, we get what we get.