Spoilers For Wednesday September 23rd 2009

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:26 pm

Right, Jeffrey is now a pentachamp (that certainly will never catch on), or for the rest of you, a 5-time winner.

His average is only 86 points currently, so if that continues, he'd get less than 700 points for his octochamp score

If he gets there that is. Not that we're complaining. Let's see if he can carry on.

Let's also hope that Rachel carries on displaying her new exciting wardrobe that seems to be getting everyone talking at the moment.

Jeffrey Burgin · Post by **Jeffrey Burgin** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:28 pm

James Robinson wrote:His average is only 86 points currently, so if that continues, he'd get less than 700 points for his octochamp score

Meh. I'd say 86 is the average score for anyone who wins more than one game, and I'd consider myself closer in standard to these people rather than Octochamps such as Hulme, Davies, Carson etc.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:
James Robinson wrote:His average is only 86 points currently, so if that continues, he'd get less than 700 points for his octochamp score
Meh. I'd say 86 is the average score for anyone who wins more than one game, and I'd consider myself closer in standard to these people rather than Octochamps such as Hulme, Davies, Carson etc.

Well at least you're honest about it, Jeffrey. I was pointing out that if you did become an octo, you'd be pretty low down in the charts if you maintained your average.

E.g. Andrew won 8 games with 930 points, you currently have 430 points from 5 games. That's a difference of 500 points in 3 games. Quite a big leap forward if you're to get anywhere near that.

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:36 pm

Leave Jeff alone. Thanks.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:39 pm

Funny that Charlie joked about Jeffrey reading Neil Zussman earlier, as I had been thinking about how his average was fairly low, and then he went on to shock everybody by showing how he could perform at his best (against Kirk). I think Neil's average was 96, so it would be nice to think that Jeffrey is heading for a similar fate, and is going to make the finals a little more unpredictable when competing against those 3 aforementioned big guns.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:41 pm

I averaged 87 over my brief 4 game run. I'm sure with the advantage of Apto-practice in the big break between Jeffrey's games he'll reach Octo no problem unless he comes across someone with extreme skillz.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:42 pm

I only had a 3 game run and I somehow managed an average of 94, so I suppose big averages don't get you everywhere all the time.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:04 pm

James Robinson wrote:I only had a 3 game run and I somehow managed an average of 94, so I suppose big averages don't get you everywhere all the time.

Oh, so 94 is a big average, but 86 is a small one? I'm confused now, so I'm going to shut up. <Insert cheer icon>

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:06 pm

James Robinson wrote:I only had a 3 game run and I somehow managed an average of 94, so I suppose big averages don't get you everywhere all the time.

Course they don't - it's based on your opponent. Sometimes I see scorelines of 95-60 when I'd beat the winner like 115-35. On Countdown you have to beat your opponent - you do that every round and you get a big score and you win. Some opponents might not miss many maximums and it's in these cases that you might score a lower points total but, flat scoring, you're still a 95-average kinda person.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:37 pm

Pay close attention to today's first TTT.

Lesley Jeavons · Post by **Lesley Jeavons** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:38 pm

alt numbers (2x10) + 9 + 100 = 129
8-5 = 3

129 x 3 = 387 (got in time)

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:43 pm

Unnecessarily complicated alt numbers 100/2 - (10 -8 +5) = 43 x 9

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:44 pm

Pretty quiet so far, except for the plethora of 6's not mentioned in round 1.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:49 pm

My telecoms background caused me to spend most of the 30 seconds in round 6 wondering if INTERLANS would be in and then suddenly realised as the time ran out that it has a rather obvious anagram.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:50 pm

RIGORS - round 8

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:51 pm

D Eadie wrote:Pay close attention to today's first TTT.

I was having a shower - someone tell all please?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:52 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:I was having a shower - someone tell all please?

Well, first you took all your clothes off, and then you turned on the water, waited for it to warm up, stepped underneath, soaped yourself all over and... oh god...

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:54 pm

4*50 = 200

9+6 / 3 = 5

200+5 = 205

205 * 4 = 820

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:55 pm

2nd Numbers (In Time Too)

50 x 3 = 150

9 x 6 = 54

150 + 54 = 204

204 x 4 = 816

816 + 4 = 820

Ray Folwell · Post by **Ray Folwell** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:56 pm

Alternative 2nd numbers : (50-9) x (6x4-4)

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:57 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
D Eadie wrote:Pay close attention to today's first TTT.

I was having a shower - someone tell all please?

The teaser was THECRISP and the clue was "You'll never go thirsty with these large jugs."

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:00 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
D Eadie wrote:Pay close attention to today's first TTT.

I was having a shower - someone tell all please?
The teaser was THECRISP and the clue was "You'll never go thirsty with these large jugs."

I don't get it

what was so special? Am i being slow?

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:01 pm

DEVIATORS - round 11. Hurray a 9!

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:02 pm

DEVIATORS

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:02 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
James Robinson wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote: I was having a shower - someone tell all please?
The teaser was THECRISP and the clue was "You'll never go thirsty with these large jugs."
I don't get it what was so special? Am i being slow?

Dunno. Maybe it's a reference to Chris "Crispy" Philpot, Chris "Crispeater" Wills, or Sue Sanders.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:06 pm

8/2 = 4
100 - 1 = 99
99 x 4 = 396, +75 = 471

Just getting in before Rachel inevitably does.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:06 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
D Eadie wrote:Pay close attention to today's first TTT.

The teaser was THECRISP and the clue was "You'll never go thirsty with these large jugs."
I don't get it what was so special? Am i being slow?

Well, you can make MELONS in this round so Damian must be besides himself in the gallery!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:07 pm

Was that a piece of hot in the front row for the conundrum shot?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:10 pm

My my you've improved a lot in a weekend, Jeffrey! Some really nice spots there, especially OBLIGED from a round which I was certain would be max 6 (and OB- words are notoriously difficult). Can definitely see you heading for octodom on today's evidence. 95 must be one of the highest scores ever for a player with no non-letters maxes.

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:I was having a shower - someone tell all please?
Well, first you took all your clothes off, and then you turned on the water, waited for it to warm up, stepped underneath, soaped yourself all over and... oh god...

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:12 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Was that a piece of hot in the front row for the conundrum shot?

Mhairi was behind the woman who got the conundrum. Glad I got my daily fix of her again.

The audience were loving the first TTT and you could hear them burst into laughter. I don't think Jeff repeated the clue and they thrust into the commercials. mmm

Oh, ASSONATE as a Rachel-equaller for round 9.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:16 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
James Robinson wrote: I was having a shower - someone tell all please?
The teaser was THECRISP and the clue was "You'll never go thirsty with these large jugs."
Dunno. Maybe it's a reference to Chris "Crispy" Philpot, Chris "Crispeater" Wills, or Sue Sanders.

Derek - I would never have send you those photos if I knew you were going to say that.

Jeffrey Burgin · Post by **Jeffrey Burgin** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:23 pm

The whole point with THECRISP was the fact that Jeff had to retake about 5 times as he couldn't bring himself to say big jugs.

On the last numbers as well, I was going down the 99x4 route but then got confused working out 99x4 (yes, I know it's easy!), then when doing a last second job I couldn't remember where I'd used the 1, hence me hesitating when saying the 475 declaration, then kicking myself for having not taken 1 away like Martin. Also, I took loooooong declaring my 9 because I got it just as Jeff was asking me, having been set to declare TRANNIES as a hilarious 8!

Out of interest, was TAMBORINE valid in the BARITONE round?

And cheers Charlie, although the only one of my 8s I probably learnt over the summer was BARITONE, as AMNIOTES/OBLIGED/ASTEROID (third variation!) are obviously either higher frequency or not as rarely used. I was hoping for an E off the final letter of AMNIOTES for MILESTONE, plus during the ASTEROID round I thought I was going to get DOVETAILS for a while as a nice 9.

Ralph Gillions · Post by **Ralph Gillions** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:54 pm

Another entertaining performance Jeffrey.
Well done!

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:17 pm

Just finished watching on 4+1,another good performance Jeffrey. I am surprised DC missed DEVIATORS. All the stems I've remembered payed off in todays game, helping me to get 2 nines, and the conundrum in a quick time. I sucked at the number emmencely(sp?) though. I imagine 6 wins will be enough to get Jeffrey through to the finals now, which is good news.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:18 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Was that a piece of hot in the front row for the conundrum shot?

I noticed that, the blonde one?

Good stuff today Jeffrey, and yes I did get ASTEROID.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:20 pm

Darren Carter wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Was that a piece of hot in the front row for the conundrum shot?
I noticed that, the blonde one?

That's the one. I didn't get as far up as the face, and don' t have Sky+

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:26 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Darren Carter wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Was that a piece of hot in the front row for the conundrum shot?
I noticed that, the blonde one?
That's the one. I didn't get as far up as the face, and don' t have Sky+

Is 'conundrum shot' a euphemism?

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:28 pm

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:Out of interest, was TAMBORINE valid in the BARITONE round?

Well done again, Jeffrey. No, it's TAMBOURINE. No alternative spelling, well not one that's allowed anyway.

You definitely seemed to be more calm and focused, certainly compared when you played Darren and Phil, when I was in the audience. Very good performance. Nearly there now.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:26 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Darren Carter wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Was that a piece of hot in the front row for the conundrum shot?
I noticed that, the blonde one?
That's the one. I didn't get as far up as the face, and don' t have Sky+

Wow, I've never done that before - it's much easier than I thought!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:43 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:
Wow, I've never done that before - it's much easier than I thought!

I can't see James Robinson.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:57 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:
Wow, I've never done that before - it's much easier than I thought!
I can't see James Robinson.

I actually look for James everytime they go to an audience shot. It sort of reminds me of the great days when I used to look for Wally in the Where's Wally books.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:14 pm

Darren Carter wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:
Wow, I've never done that before - it's much easier than I thought!
I can't see James Robinson.
I actually look for James everytime they go to an audience spot. It sort of reminds me of the great days when I used to look for Wally in the Where's Wally books.

Funniest post ever.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:46 pm

Following on from the banter at the top of this thread, it's just possible that someone might like to know that since the start of the 15 round format, the average score for a multichamp (more than one win but fewer than 8) is about 83.

This is the average of players' averages, thereby weighting each player equally regardless of how many games were played. A player's final losing score (if any) is included, but any scores from finals or a CoC are not. Players appearing twice are usually treated as 2 separate people.

FWIW the equivalent numbers for non-winners, monochamps and octochamps are 60, 75 and 99 respectively.

This is extracted from something I set up a while ago intending to post at the end of this series, and I can't remember exactly how I dealt with the viscounts from series 46. They are a pain though.

As has already been said, there are many reasons why comparing an individual with the average doesn't prove much, but I guess anyone would prefer to be above average than not. But following the trends between series is much more interesting.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:48 pm

Clive Brooker wrote:the average score for a multichamp (more than one win but fewer than 8) is about 83 [...] the equivalent numbers for non-winners, monochamps and octochamps are 60, 75 and 99 respectively.

I found this rather interesting. Probably just because I like statistics. Thanks Clive. I wonder how many more series of apterites are required to push the all-time octochamp average up to 100.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:51 pm

Darren Carter wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:
Wow, I've never done that before - it's much easier than I thought!
I can't see James Robinson.
I actually look for James everytime they go to an audience spot. It sort of reminds me of the great days when I used to look for Wally in the Where's Wally books.

I seem to recall saying I wasn't there that day. I don't go to the Monday recordings, because it's hard to get a train back to Dewsbury since it finishes late on Mondays, unlike Tuesdays or Wednesdays, when it finishes much earlier.

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:05 pm

Jeffrey Burgin · Post by **Jeffrey Burgin** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:07 pm

James Robinson wrote:You definitely seemed to be more calm and focused, certainly compared when you played Darren and Phil, when I was in the audience.

Once I'd got to 5 wins, I knew I should be reasonably safe for the finals, so I'm not surprised I seemed more relaxed today.

Clive Brooker wrote:Following on from the banter at the top of this thread, it's just possible that someone might like to know that since the start of the 15 round format, the average score for a multichamp (more than one win but fewer than 8) is about 83.

It seems I was about right then when I said was closer to oligochamps than octochamps.

Didn't see the blonde babe in the front row either, although my mate did on the audience sweep. Must have been distracted putting a plaster on my grazed chin, due to my jaw hitting the floor again with Rachel's third stunning dress in a row!

Philip Jarvis · Post by **Philip Jarvis** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:39 am

James Robinson wrote:
Darren Carter wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote: I can't see James Robinson.
I actually look for James everytime they go to an audience spot. It sort of reminds me of the great days when I used to look for Wally in the Where's Wally books.
I seem to recall saying I wasn't there that day. I don't go to the Monday recordings, because it's hard to get a train back to Dewsbury since it finishes late on Mondays, unlike Tuesdays or Wednesdays, when it finishes much earlier.

What do you do if Town are playing on a Tuesday or Wednesday? I guess it's a difficult choice on which season ticket to use?

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:34 pm

Philip Jarvis wrote:What do you do if Town are playing on a Tuesday or Wednesday? I guess it's a difficult choice on which season ticket to use?

Luckily, every time I've been Town have either been away or have had no game. Luckily they don't play any games on Wednesdays (not at home anyway).

I have missed games for more trivial things. I will definitely not reveal what, not even if every member on this forum came to my house and begged on the front door

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:48 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
D Eadie wrote:Pay close attention to today's first TTT.

I was having a shower - someone tell all please?
I don't get it what was so special? Am i being slow?

I guess it was the laughs when the clue had been read out, presumably from a few in the studio audience, which didn't get edited out, to which Damian is referring.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:54 pm

Howard Somerset wrote:I guess it was the laughs when the clue had been read out, presumably from a few in the studio audience, which didn't get edited out, to which Damian is referring.

Yup, cheers Howard! I'd accepted that was all it was - I think I just have a much higher

requirement than other people (years of dodgy Internet and TV viewing will do that to you I guess). Besides, if I remember rightly Countdown isn't particular short of sniggering euphemism moments anyway?