Spoilers for Wednesday 29th November 2023 (Series 88, Heat 109)

[Philip A]

R5: BUPKIS (American word meaning ‘nothing at all’)

[Johnny Canuck]

Dammit Jim! 100 is a large, not a target.

[Gavin Chipper]

100 has come up several times as a target. The whole 101 thing is a myth.

[Johnny Canuck]

I know it has but overlap between targets and starting numbers makes my teeth itch. The 20 --> 20 solutions in Unlimited Jr. are even worse.

[Graeme Cole]

100 has come up several times as a target. The whole 101 thing is a myth.

Only a really long time ago and in relatively recent history. Here are all the times 100 has appeared as a target...

https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_877 (1989)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_1268 (1992)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_1504 (1994)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_1854 (1996)

Then it was absent for 20 years before it popped up again...

https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_6405 (2016)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_7356 (2020)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_8159 (this episode)

It appears 100 has been removed and re-added to the target's range over the years.

Episode 1504 is the only time 100 has been both a target and a starting number. This opens the question of whether a method of just "100" would be a valid solution. The rules in the contestant agreement I was sent in 2011 say "... the contestants should attempt to devise an arithmetic sum using the numbers selected to reach the target. The sum may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers." This suggests a solution which only uses one number is invalid, but the same document also says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999", so I guess this is out of date anyway. Perhaps someone who went on the show more recently can confirm what it says now?

[Philip A]

100 has come up several times as a target. The whole 101 thing is a myth.

Only a really long time ago and in relatively recent history. Here are all the times 100 has appeared as a target...

https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_877 (1989)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_1268 (1992)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_1504 (1994)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_1854 (1996)

Then it was absent for 20 years before it popped up again...

https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_6405 (2016)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_7356 (2020)
https://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_8159 (this episode)

It appears 100 has been removed and re-added to the target's range over the years.

Episode 1504 is the only time 100 has been both a target and a starting number. This opens the question of whether a method of just "100" would be a valid solution. The rules in the contestant agreement I was sent in 2011 say "... the contestants should attempt to devise an arithmetic sum using the numbers selected to reach the target. The sum may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers." This suggests a solution which only uses one number is invalid, but the same document also says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999", so I guess this is out of date anyway. Perhaps someone who went on the show more recently can confirm what it says now?

Think they now re-take the recording if target and a drawn number are both 100 – same cards but different target after CECIL is pressed again and then they carry on as normal.

I do think 101 should be the smallest possible target though.

[David Williams]

Is there an Ask Graeme here?

When there were two numbers games per show you'd expect it to come up every 450 shows on average - and up to 1996 it did. Now you'd expect it to come up every 225 shows, and it doesn't. Not even close.

[Graeme Cole]

Is there an Ask Graeme here?

When there were two numbers games per show you'd expect it to come up every 450 shows on average - and up to 1996 it did. Now you'd expect it to come up every 225 shows, and it doesn't. Not even close.

If we look at all episodes since 100 appeared as a target in 2016, there are 1,755 episodes between episode 6405 and 8159 inclusive. This is 7,020 numbers games.

Assuming the target distribution is uniform and random between 100 and 999, the probability of 100 appearing no more than three times in 7,020 numbers rounds is about 4.8%, so it's not too implausible. Even if you allow for the fact that we could have done this calculation the previous day, when it had only appeared twice, it's still 1.6%.

Then you have to consider that there are 900 possible targets this could have happened with. There are 49 targets which have appeared three times or fewer since episode 6405, and 100 just happens to be one of them. 12 targets have appeared exactly twice in that time, and two (129 and 557) have appeared only once. 989 hasn't appeared at all in that time, its last appearance being in 2015.

Furthermore, if what Philip says is true, then when 100 does come up, there's a decent chance it doesn't make it to air (25% for 1 large, higher for anything other than 6 small), so it wouldn't be surprising that it's down the lower end of the frequency graph.

[Gavin Chipper]

Did its reintroduction coincide with the new numbers generator?

[Graeme Cole]

Did its reintroduction coincide with the new numbers generator?

If you mean the "new" display, that came after the old 7-segment one, no. That was introduced at the same time Countdown moved from Granada to MediaCity in 2013. It's possible that 100 became a valid target at this point and it just took three years to appear for the first time, but we can't know for sure.

Of course, the display isn't what chooses the target, so whatever computer software sits behind it could have been updated any number of times since then.

[Steve Hyde]

Episode 1504 is the only time 100 has been both a target and a starting number. This opens the question of whether a method of just "100" would be a valid solution. The rules in the contestant agreement I was sent in 2011 say "... the contestants should attempt to devise an arithmetic sum using the numbers selected to reach the target. The sum may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers." This suggests a solution which only uses one number is invalid, but the same document also says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999", so I guess this is out of date anyway. Perhaps someone who went on the show more recently can confirm what it says now?

COCXVI Contestant agreement doesn't say anything about the range of numbers; everything to do with numbers is stated below. I believe 100 has been a target and a number on Catsdown quite recently, but obviously that isn't canon

With regard to the numbers game, you can only use the 4 basic mathematical principles of adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying in order to reach the required target. You are only allowed to use whole numbers during the calculation. For example - 10 divided by 4 multiplied by 10 would give an answer of 25. However, this would not count as a legal solution and you would not receive any points.



You do not have to use all the numbers to attain the target, but each number may only be used once. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BRING ANYTHING ON TO THE SET WITH YOU THAT MAY ASSIST YOU DURING THE GAME. NO WORD LISTS, TIMES-TABLES LISTS OR ANYTHING ELSE.

Please do not try to confuse Rachel with complicated numbers selections, e.g. “one from each of the penultimate ends of the middle rows”. Remember that Rachel is selecting from upside down and her left is not your left, so the simpler the selection the better.

It is advisable to write down the solution to the numbers game though it is not absolutely necessary. If you have not written down the solution you must say so when making your declaration to the presenter. This applies to both numbers and words.

[David Williams]

Did its reintroduction coincide with the new numbers generator?

If you mean the "new" display, that came after the old 7-segment one, no. That was introduced at the same time Countdown moved from Granada to MediaCity in 2013. It's possible that 100 became a valid target at this point and it just took three years to appear for the first time, but we can't know for sure.

Of course, the display isn't what chooses the target, so whatever computer software sits behind it could have been updated any number of times since then.

We may not know for sure, but 2013 is perhaps more likely than assuming 2016. We know it wasn't later than 2016, but there's no particular reason to assume the first instance was immediately it became possible again.