c4countdown

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:01 pm**

James S Roper wrote:Sorry if it's unanswerable from your database or if it's already been answered - who's the oldest contestant to ever go on the show?

Contestant ages aren't in the database because they don't (usually) appear on the wiki, and it's rare that a contestant's age gets mentioned anyway.

However, the occasions when a contestant's age does get mentioned tend to be if it's particularly noteworthy, like when they're among the oldest contestants to have appeared. And sometimes this does get put on the wiki. So I searched the wiki for "oldest contestant" and found Bertha Bourne (87) and Geoffrey Green (89). Does anyone know of any contestants older than that?

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:31 pm**

Graeme, as a more light hearted question, who makes your top 5 for sexiest contestants?

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:46 pm**

Andy Platt wrote:Graeme, as a more light hearted question, who makes your top 5 for sexiest contestants?

Code: Select all

sqlite> select name, sexiness from players order by sexiness desc limit 5;
name         sexiness
Andy Platt   10
Andy Platt   10
Andy Platt   10
Andy Platt   10
Andy Platt   10
sqlite>

Andy, I've told you to stop messing about with the database.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:45 pm**

I'm sure there was a 90 year-old on the show?

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:26 pm**

Dave Preece wrote:I'm sure there was a 90 year-old on the show?

Each to their own.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:55 pm**

Graeme, among people who have won their first game, what percentage win their second game too? What percentage of 2-time winners go on to win a third game? And so forth.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:35 pm**

What's the longest number of games between crucial conundrums?
What's the longest consecutive run of crucial conundrums?

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:13 pm**

Chris Marshall wrote:What's the longest number of games between crucial conundrums?
What's the longest consecutive run of crucial conundrums?

I'll get to Johnny Canuck's question later this week, but for now I'll skip ahead to this one because it's one I can answer quickly... here.

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:10 pm**

What is most 'back and forth' game ever? IE: where the lead changed the most times?

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:48 pm**

Tough one this – hope it's doable – starting right at episode 1 and running through all episodes in order, is it possible to produce an all-time contestant ranking list using the 'Glicko-2 system' used on Apterous?

Would be VERY interesting to see, don't you think?

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:02 pm**

Dave Preece wrote:Tough one this – hope it's doable – starting right at episode 1 and running through all episodes in order, is it possible to produce an all-time contestant ranking list using the 'Glicko-2 system' used on Apterous?

Would be VERY interesting to see, don't you think?

Don't think it would be possible to add those who lost their first game, on top of the fact that I think merely attempting to program the Glicko system to include all those would destroy people's minds.

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:11 pm**

Johnny Canuck wrote:Graeme, among people who have won their first game, what percentage win their second game too? What percentage of 2-time winners go on to win a third game? And so forth.

Number of preliminaries won in a row, with the count of the number of times it was done:

Code: Select all

Draws don't count on this table, but they don't break someone's run either. Everyone up to the end of series 68 is counted, except Glen Webb who hadn't finished his run by then, and some very early games for which the scores are not known aren't counted. Some players had two runs, in which case they're both counted.
Clive Freedman actually won nine prelims in a row, but due to a silly rule at the time his first game didn't count because it was in a different series.

So we've got 1683 instances of someone winning their first game.
Of those, 1066 (63.3%) won their second game.
Of those, 717 (67.3%) won their third game.
Of those, 495 (69.0%) won their fourth game.
Of those, 360 (72.7%) won their fifth game.
Of those, 273 (75.8%) won their sixth game.
Of those, 208 (76.2%) won their seventh game.
Of those, 169 (81.3%) won their eighth game.
And of those, one person had to play a ninth game and won that as well.

3500 of 5183 contestants (67.5%) lost their first game. Again, for the purposes of this statistic, if someone had more than one run, each run is counted separately as if it's a different contestant.

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:04 am**

James S Roper wrote:
Dave Preece wrote:Tough one this – hope it's doable – starting right at episode 1 and running through all episodes in order, is it possible to produce an all-time contestant ranking list using the 'Glicko-2 system' used on Apterous?

Would be VERY interesting to see, don't you think?
Don't think it would be possible to add those who lost their first game, on top of the fact that I think merely attempting to program the Glicko system to include all those would destroy people's minds.

I disagree!

It's been done all over the place.

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:41 pm**

Dave Preece wrote:
James S Roper wrote:
Dave Preece wrote:Tough one this – hope it's doable – starting right at episode 1 and running through all episodes in order, is it possible to produce an all-time contestant ranking list using the 'Glicko-2 system' used on Apterous?

Would be VERY interesting to see, don't you think?
Don't think it would be possible to add those who lost their first game, on top of the fact that I think merely attempting to program the Glicko system to include all those would destroy people's minds.
I disagree!

It's been done all over the place.

Most people appear on the show only once, so the only sensible way to deal with these is to apply either a generic rating or a rating proportional to their score. But it's a pain in the arse to do. Also, doesn't Glicko need stuff like ratings periods to be defined? I wonder how Charlie's coded it on Apterous.

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:07 pm**

You can't do a sensible rating system. On Apterous people play each other hundreds of times and the players are ranked accordingly. Nothing like that exists for normal Countdown. Obviously you can come up with your own all-time ranking list but the Glicko 2 system wouldn't be close to appropriate.

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:20 pm**

If all players start at 1500, then play for 10% each of their current points, winning and losing points, surely a pretty accurate rank will be displayed AND an interesting historic one too... This is of course is a VERY basic way ot the system... Very!

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:14 am**

Dave Preece wrote:If all players start at 1500, then play for 10% each of their current points, winning and losing points, surely a pretty accurate rank will be displayed AND an interesting historic one too... This is of course is a VERY basic way ot the system... Very!

As Gev implies, there just isn't enough information to make it useful. Even for people who've appeared a dozen times or more, that's only scraping to the minimum amount of information to make such ratings useful, and given that at least 50% of their opponents will have completely uninformative ratings, you're statistically pissing in the wind sadly.

There are systems to extract and amplify information based on scant data, but again, a lot of work for little value.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:24 am**

Who was the first contestant to appear for the second time (on a separate 'run')?

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:47 am**

And who is the 'best' former contestant to get a second bite at the cherry, ie most wins/furthest progress on first appearance? (ignoring CofC, specials etc!) Maybe Glen Webb who I believe won 2/3 games and played in a series qf??

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:53 pm**

May I first say "Thanks a million" to your answer to the previous question. It was enlightening. So there is indeed a strongly correlated upward trend in your chances of winning. I expected this result but didn't think the trend would be as clear as it is.

Now, back to business (if you don't mind):
Of CECIL's 900 possible targets (including 100), which was the last to appear for the first time, and how long did it take for this target to come up (i.e. on what date did it appear)?

Posted: **Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:06 pm**

Dave Preece wrote:Who was the first contestant to appear for the second time (on a separate 'run')?

Darryl Francis.

Posted: **Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:52 pm**

sean d wrote:And who is the 'best' former contestant to get a second bite at the cherry, ie most wins/furthest progress on first appearance? (ignoring CofC, specials etc!) Maybe Glen Webb who I believe won 2/3 games and played in a series qf??

Yes, I'd say it's Glen Webb. No other contestant that I can see has qualified for the finals in one series and been invited back for another. However, in series 1, Helen Grayson beat eventual champion Joyce Cansfield in a prelim. Helen Grayson then appeared again in series 6.

Some people won their series on their second run: Darryl Francis, Junaid Mubeen, Kirk Bevins and Paul James.

Less well known is that Jack Worsley appeared on the show in 1983 under the pseudonym Mark Nyman.

Posted: **Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:16 pm**

Graeme Cole wrote:
sean d wrote:And who is the 'best' former contestant to get a second bite at the cherry, ie most wins/furthest progress on first appearance? (ignoring CofC, specials etc!) Maybe Glen Webb who I believe won 2/3 games and played in a series qf??
Yes, I'd say it's Glen Webb. No other contestant that I can see has qualified for the finals in one series and been invited back for another. However, in series 1, Helen Grayson beat eventual champion Joyce Cansfield in a prelim. Helen Grayson then appeared again in series 6.

Helen Grayson also "retired" from her run in series 1 rather than got beaten. I'm not sure if it was anything like Frank Mulvey's retirement though...

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:59 am**

Graeme Cole wrote: Less well known is that Jack Worsley appeared on the show in 1983 under the pseudonym Mark Nyman.

Wow, I have aged well since then!

At -9 years of age, does that make me the youngest contestant ever?

Posted: **Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:47 am**

Graeme Cole wrote:Zarte won five games, smashing the record aggregate score for a five-time winner

I feel like this must have been covered before, but I hereby Ask Graeme: what are the highest aggregates for a one-time, two-time, ..., eight-time winner? (Ideally split for 9/old 15/new 15 formats.)

Posted: **Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:27 pm**

Good question!

Posted: **Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:05 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote:Zarte won five games, smashing the record aggregate score for a five-time winner
I feel like this must have been covered before, but I hereby Ask Graeme: what are the highest aggregates for a one-time, two-time, ..., eight-time winner? (Ideally split for 9/old 15/new 15 formats.)

There was a sort of attempt at this about ten years ago but it's clearly well out of date now.

Edit - Oh did you mean people who lost after 1, 2, 3 games? I'll leave it there anyway.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:11 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:Edit - Oh did you mean people who lost after 1, 2, 3 games? I'll leave it there anyway.

I did, but thanks for the dose of nostalgia nonetheless.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:24 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote:Zarte won five games, smashing the record aggregate score for a five-time winner
I feel like this must have been covered before, but I hereby Ask Graeme: what are the highest aggregates for a one-time, two-time, ..., eight-time winner? (Ideally split for 9/old 15/new 15 formats.)

If someone had more than one run on the show, each is counted separately. I've counted everyone's totals in the same way: winning and losing scores count, but not drawing ones. Tiebreaks don't add points to a total. Note this might not match how a contestant's total was calculated at the time they appeared. The wiki indicates that in some early series draws counted towards your total but losses didn't, but this is obviously silly so I've ignored it.

9 rounder:
0 wins: Stuart Schofield (70)
1 win: Ray Johnstone, George Gruner (123)
2 wins: Jonathan Storey (188)
3 wins: Susan Shilton (253)
4 wins: Andrew Bull (310)
5 wins: Darren Shacklady (389)
6 wins: Chris Rogers (427)
7 wins: Rodney Marrison (455)
8 wins: David Williams (535)

Old 15 rounder:
0 wins: Terry Rattle (107)
1 win: Tim Charlton (193)
2 wins: Graham Dugdale (306)
3 wins: Matthew Coates (389)
4 wins: Roy Thearle (489)
5 wins: Marie Hayden (593)
6 wins: Chris Hunt (715)
7 wins: Steve Baines (758)
8 wins: Jack Hurst (946)

Although I haven't added series 69 to my main database yet, by means of a quick hack I've included all games up to today. So in case anyone hasn't seen recent games, I've spoiler-coloured it.

New 15 rounder:

0 wins: Alan Flanagan, Ross Lander (82)
1 win: Jean Wright (151)
2 wins: Peter Fenton (262)
3 wins: Jill Hayward (374)
4 wins: Margaret Lawless (359)
5 wins: Zarte Siempre (656)
6 wins: Gemma Church (602)
7 wins: Callum Todd (747)
8 wins: Dylan Taylor (974)

Zarte's 656 is not only the highest five-win total, but it's higher than the highest six-win total for the new 15 rounder, and higher than all but four of the 23 six-win totals in the old 15 rounder.

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:19 pm**

Awesome, thanks! Quite a few memorable names in that list.

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:07 pm**

Couple of things regarding the stat of a contestant's raw score compared to their maximum (We'll call this the R-M% stat):

*By R-M% stat, would any of say the last 6 finals leaderboards have changed if that was the criteria? What would they look like if that were the factor (with the same group of people, just by different standards)
*Again, by R-M% stat, who was the best contestant to never make the finals? To make life easier, I'll also add the criteria of at least 5 games won.

Also, of anyone who made their Countdown debut and lost, who got the most maxes?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:50 am**

How many people have offered their own name (can be first name or surname) on the show?

I think it happened in the James Martin 952 episode but have there been any more cases? Thanks.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm**

Who are the best players, say top five, not to make a series finals. Going by the current finals qualification rules IE players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count.

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:40 am**

What's the highest ever 15 round score without a 9?

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:57 am**

http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5750

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:10 pm**

sean d wrote:EDITED

Spoilers ffs. Shall I not bother reading the recap today then?

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:03 pm**

Apols Ian. Original post edited fwiw. You might want to edit yours to save others a similar fate

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:01 pm**

sean d wrote:Apols Ian. Original post edited fwiw. You might want to edit yours to save others a similar fate

Cheers

I shouldn't get grumpy about such stuff, I don't care that much really!

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:33 pm**

sean d wrote:What's the highest ever 15 round score without a 9?

Of course, there are two records for this, since there's no way that the two 15-round formats are remotely comparable for things like this.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:39 am**

Has anyone ever declared a numbers solution of over 1,000? There are at least a couple of combinations that yield a 'max' solution of just over 1,000 for a high target just under 1,000 (eg 1 3 4 4 7 7 -- 999. Best solution is 1,001)

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:32 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:
sean d wrote:What's the highest ever 15 round score without a 9?
Of course, there are two records for this, since there's no way that the two 15-round formats are remotely comparable for things like this.

I know all about the record for the old 15.

http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5649

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:35 pm**

What's the latest in the game that the first E has appeared? Today (massive spoiler), I think the first E appeared as the last letter of the third letters round, so the 27th letter. Are there any that beat that?

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:03 pm**

Is Graeme still playing with us???

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:21 pm**

Dave Preece wrote:Is Graeme still playing with us???

He's a busy man, give him all the time he needs.

Posted: **Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:32 pm**

Soz mate!

Posted: **Sat Nov 02, 2013 9:53 pm**

Dave Preece wrote:Soz mate!

Haha, 'tis cool.

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:04 am**

Yes, I know I've been neglecting this thread recently. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about it.

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:56 am**

One other interesting question that I thought of just a minute ago.

Has anyone ever done what I'll refer to as a reverse Peter Lee/Philip Jarvis? In other words, has anyone ever been on the show in an initial appearance where they won at least one game, and then came back in another series and lost in their first(and only) appearance? For fairly obvious reasons I'm ruling out anyone who lost their first game in the Supreme Championship or 30th Birthday Championship.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:22 am**

I'm sure there was one in this series?

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:33 am**

No maybe not... I was thinking of Ray Tate.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:59 am**

James S Roper wrote:
Dave Preece wrote:Is Graeme still playing with us???

He's a busy man, give him all the time he needs.

At the time Dave posted his message, Graeme was in the pub discussing this thread and saying how he needed to answer people's questions

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:11 pm**

See, I'm now glad I got him thinking about it a little more

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:13 pm**

Heh, my implication was that he hadn't seen your post - he was thinking about the thread anyway.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:18 pm**

Heh, my implication was that I have the powers to make people think things; it's a gift I've had now for a number of years Jennifer!

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:38 am**

Jordan F wrote:Couple of things regarding the stat of a contestant's raw score compared to their maximum (We'll call this the R-M% stat):

*By R-M% stat, would any of say the last 6 finals leaderboards have changed if that was the criteria? What would they look like if that were the factor (with the same group of people, just by different standards)

Definitely. Some people who lost their first game but got a high raw score compared to their maximum would have qualified for the finals.

In these stats, "raw score" is defined pretty much how it is on apterous. If you offer a valid word that's beaten by your opponent you still get points for it. Disallowed words or numbers declarations are still zero. I've assumed that all numbers declarations where the player was not asked for their method because their opponent was closer were correct as declared. Conundrum scoring is the same as normal, since in general we can't know if someone would have got a conundrum had they not been beaten on it.

Code: Select all

Series 63              R/M%
Jack Hurst            93.02
Eoin Monaghan         89.14
Daniel Pati           85.81
Stuart Smith          84.30
Stephen Parnell       84.21
Marcus Hares          83.87
Tom Rowell            82.90
Greg Hayhurst         81.81

Series 64
Edward McCullagh      93.36     
Adam Gillard          88.31     
Andrew Mossford       84.48     
Barbara Grice         84.17     
Tom Barnes            82.70
Matthew Barrett       82.35     
John Cornforth        81.97     
Mark Gavin            81.63     

Series 65
Suzanne Osen          88.98
Graeme Cole           86.22
Mark Deeks            85.27
Ophelie Humphrey      84.17
Jayshree Patel        83.62
Gary Hendricks        82.76
John Maguire          81.67
Matt Croy             81.56 

Series 66
Jonathan Rawlinson    90.43
Ryan Carlsen          84.55
Chris Butler          83.71
Peter Lee             83.57
Jack Worsley          83.20
Rob Gibney            80.62
Megan Jephson         80.43
Jocelyn Menyhart      79.45

Series 67
Cerianne Lovell       90.00
Brian McGee           81.82
Ian Williams          81.03
Paul James            80.55
David Barnard         79.33
Natalie Taylor        79.17
Andrew Koffman        77.69
Liam Shaw             77.25

Series 68
Giles Hutchings       92.74
Glen Webb             87.69
Andy Platt            87.55
Alex Newton           82.68
Jill Hayward          81.20
Rachael Moran         79.37
Peter Fenton          78.31
Joe McGonigle         77.54

If we say that you have to win at least one prelim to be considered for the top 8, the quarter final line-ups would have looked like this:

Code: Select all

Series 63
Jack Hurst            93.02
Eoin Monaghan         89.14
Daniel Pati           85.81
Marcus Hares          83.87
Tom Rowell            82.90
Greg Hayhurst         81.81
Scott Gillies         81.26
David O'Flanagan      80.65

Series 64
Edward McCullagh      93.36
Adam Gillard          88.31
Tom Barnes            82.70
Mark Gavin            81.63
Tony Atkins           79.80
Dave Dyer             78.59
Scott Robson          77.39
Jody Sparrow          75.82

Series 65
Graeme Cole           86.22
Mark Deeks            85.27
Matt Croy             81.56
Phyllis Styles        81.05
Kirsten Thompson      80.17
Paul Keane            79.62
Russell Tompkins      78.61
Jon Elmer             77.94

Series 66
Jonathan Rawlinson    90.43
Chris Butler          83.71
Peter Lee             83.57
Jack Worsley          83.20
Rob Gibney            80.62
Megan Jephson         80.43
Jocelyn Menyhart      79.45
Victoria James        76.83

Series 67
Paul James            80.55
David Barnard         79.33
Liam Shaw             77.25
Grant Waters          77.12
Chris Marshall        76.73
Rose Boyle            76.38
Sohail Virdi          76.20
Andy Rossall          75.91

Series 68
Giles Hutchings       92.74
Glen Webb             87.69
Andy Platt            87.55
Jill Hayward          81.20
Rachael Moran         79.37
Peter Fenton          78.31
Joe McGonigle         77.54
Eileen Taylor         77.34

If we use only the actual quarter-finalists (that is, players who played in a quarter-final in that series, regardless of whether they were in the top 8 or were promoted into the top 8 because someone dropped out) and rank them in order by R/M%, we get this:

Code: Select all

Series 63
Jack Hurst            93.02
Eoin Monaghan         89.14
Daniel Pati           85.81
Marcus Hares          83.87
Tom Rowell            82.90
Scott Gillies         81.26
Niall Young           78.76
Peter Godwin          77.44

Series 64
Edward McCullagh      93.36
Adam Gillard          88.31
Tom Barnes            82.70
Mary Adie             75.49
Andy McGurn           75.32
Andrew McNamara       73.63
Ned Pendleton         72.43
Michelle Nevitt       70.03

Series 65
Graeme Cole           86.22
Mark Deeks            85.27
Paul Keane            79.62
Jayne Wisniewski      77.59
Carl Williams         74.40 
Dave Taylor           71.80
Nikki Roberts         71.24
David Butcher         70.32

Series 66
Jonathan Rawlinson    90.43
Peter Lee             83.57
Jack Worsley          83.20
Rob Gibney            80.62
Victoria James        76.83
Suzi Purcell          73.27
Nick Hall             71.27
Mark Murphy           70.84

Series 67
Paul James            80.55
David Barnard         79.33
Liam Shaw             77.25
Grant Waters          77.12
Chris Marshall        76.73
Rose Boyle            76.38
Heather Styles        75.85
Tia Corkish           73.71

Series 68
Giles Hutchings       92.74
Andy Platt            87.55
Jill Hayward          81.20
Peter Fenton          78.31
Joe McGonigle         77.54
Eileen Taylor         77.34
Chris Ball            76.18
Sam McElhinney        71.45

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:15 pm**

Johnny Canuck wrote:Of CECIL's 900 possible targets (including 100), which was the last to appear for the first time, and how long did it take for this target to come up (i.e. on what date did it appear)?

Completely missed this one.

745 was the last target to turn up. Its first appearance was on 30th May 2000.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:51 pm**

It took 17 years for 745 to be a target?!?! Fuck a duck.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:53 pm**

Zarte Siempre wrote:It took 17 years for 745 to be a target?!?! Fuck a duck.

The chance of there being some target which took that long is about 1 in 6 (according to my back-of-envelope maths), so you shouldn't be too surprised. Although the duck might be.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:12 pm**

Graeme Cole wrote:I've assumed that all numbers declarations where the player was not asked for their method because their opponent was closer were correct as declared.

Five.....................six.............................................eight, I hope but I'm probably wrong. Not written down.

Countdown tools says 568 is impossible. Assume he/she got it.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:51 pm**

Dave Preece wrote:Who are the best players, say top five, not to make a series finals. Going by the current finals qualification rules IE players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count.

I'm gonna get my foil hat out and bang on about conspiracies if you don't answers this Graerme, LOL... Please?

c4countdown

Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?

Re: Ask Graeme?