A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Ah, accuse Kirk of cheating. That should escalate the discussion!Julie T wrote:I still also find it deeply suspicious that some people get within a couple of points off the max in a really tricky format.
Ha - I was discussing this last night. I didn't risk COATIS in one round because I couldn't remember if all the letters were there so played safe. I was pleased to have such a high score in a 5 second blind duel - especially the conundrum spots.Charlie Reams wrote:Ah, accuse Kirk of cheating. That should escalate the discussion!Julie T wrote:I still also find it deeply suspicious that some people get within a couple of points off the max in a really tricky format.
I'll happily take Kirk on in real-life blind 3-second rounds. In fact, don't worry about telling us the letters, we'll play 1-second rounds without them.Charlie Reams wrote:Ah, accuse Kirk of cheating. That should escalate the discussion!Julie T wrote:I still also find it deeply suspicious that some people get within a couple of points off the max in a really tricky format.
Errr...mate...it was the numbers game.Jon O'Neill wrote:I'll happily take Kirk on in real-life blind 3-second rounds. In fact, don't worry about telling us the letters, we'll play 1-second rounds without them.Charlie Reams wrote:Ah, accuse Kirk of cheating. That should escalate the discussion!Julie T wrote:I still also find it deeply suspicious that some people get within a couple of points off the max in a really tricky format.
I've got EXOPHORIC. You?
That would be a great variant. Maybe some of the letters could be printed on red balls too.Jon O'Neill wrote:we'll play 1-second rounds without them.
) but it is quite a nice way of getting used to the different formats before playing a full game of them.Jon O'Neill wrote: I'll happily take Kirk on in real-life blind 3-second rounds. In fact, don't worry about telling us the letters, we'll play 1-second rounds without them.
I've got EXOPHORIC. You?
Hmm interesting that I was the only one to get the 8 in round 1 when PLUMERIAS was a 9 in COGST IIRC.Charlie Reams wrote:Interesting results today; two unmaxed rounds, as no one got TEETHE or CETACEANS, and a first win for Joseph Bolas.
I definitely wasn't expecting to see that. If there was a numbers game in there, then I most definitely wouldn't have won that duel, so I was lucky yesterday.Charlie Reams wrote:Interesting results today; two unmaxed rounds, as no one got TEETHE or CETACEANS, and a first win for Joseph Bolas.
Yep, more like that please.Martin Gardner wrote:I liked today's numbers duel though; I won't make any further comment on it.
I actually second this. The format of today's duel was fun indeedGavin Chipper wrote:Yep, more like that please.Martin Gardner wrote:I liked today's numbers duel though; I won't make any further comment on it.
I didn't like it too much- too many people are going to get similar scores.Joseph Bolas wrote:I actually second this. The format of today's duel was fun indeedGavin Chipper wrote:Yep, more like that please.Martin Gardner wrote:I liked today's numbers duel though; I won't make any further comment on it.
Another great prediction from Mystic Bevins! With scores ranging from 24 to 94 of a possible 100, it's one of the widest spreads we've ever had... Interestingly enough, no one beat Kirk in any round.Kirk Bevins wrote:I didn't like it too much- too many people are going to get similar scores.
OK, I admit I was wrong. If you're going to have numbers rounds in duels then, make them challenging so you do indeed get a large standard deviation.Charlie Reams wrote:Another great prediction from Mystic Bevins! With scores ranging from 24 to 94 of a possible 100, it's one of the widest spreads we've ever had... Interestingly enough, no one beat Kirk in any round.Kirk Bevins wrote:I didn't like it too much- too many people are going to get similar scores.
Ha - bitter? In fact looking at POTPOURRI in the dictionary and the example they give with it, they state it as POT-POURRI! Make your mind up ODE2r...Jon O'Neill wrote:I don't see the point in having a numbers based duel and then spoiling it with a shitty conundrum. I know they all end in conundrums, but this one annoyed me.
I didn't get this, I wouldn't even have known it was one word. I was pissed off about the 967 as well because I got it just as the time was ending, and couldn't type in '967' in the box. Still...Kirk Bevins wrote:Ha - bitter? In fact looking at POTPOURRI in the dictionary and the example they give with it, they state it as POT-POURRI! Make your mind up ODE2r...Jon O'Neill wrote:I don't see the point in having a numbers based duel and then spoiling it with a shitty conundrum. I know they all end in conundrums, but this one annoyed me.
If you got the target exact, you did know you can just click the target to declare it?Martin Gardner wrote:I didn't get this, I wouldn't even have known it was one word. I was pissed off about the 967 as well because I got it just as the time was ending, and couldn't type in '967' in the box. Still...Kirk Bevins wrote:Ha - bitter? In fact looking at POTPOURRI in the dictionary and the example they give with it, they state it as POT-POURRI! Make your mind up ODE2r...Jon O'Neill wrote:I don't see the point in having a numbers based duel and then spoiling it with a shitty conundrum. I know they all end in conundrums, but this one annoyed me.
Damn.Kirk Bevins wrote:If you got the target exact, you did know you can just click the target to declare it?
I agree. They all currently end in conundrums, but there's no need for that to always be the case.Jon O'Neill wrote:I don't see the point in having a numbers based duel and then spoiling it with a shitty conundrum. I know they all end in conundrums, but this one annoyed me.
I like numbers rounds (just not only one round!Gavin Chipper wrote:Yep, more like that please.Martin Gardner wrote:I liked today's numbers duel though; I won't make any further comment on it.
)
I was quite pleased with that spot, one of the later ones too.Martin Gardner wrote:Only I and Ian Volante got STOPGAP as well. I thought it was the hardest letters duel I've ever done. I liked today's numbers duel though; I won't make any further comment on it.
BAYONETED is a really top-notch spot, so respect to those of you who got that. Oddly enough only 5 people didn't get BOOKSHELF; Frank, and the 4 people who finished bottom. Funny game.I got it at the last moment having only been able to see FLESHBOOK for about 28 secs. Which probably tells you more about me than is good for you to know.Charlie Reams wrote:Oddly enough only 5 people didn't get BOOKSHELF
How sad is it, that I am still upset about missing that one? (I actually even made a comment about it, when I finished the game.)Charlie Reams wrote:A first win for Frank
I saw BOOKSHELF just as the clock ran outIan Volante wrote:I was stuck with BOOKFLESH for about 20 seconds...
Thanks FrankFrank Rodolf wrote:I do think Ben Hunter deserves extra praise for being the only one to get SURPASS in round 18, when no one else even got the 6 that - according to CountMAX - was also available!
I don't suppose you are up to doing a themed month for December, where every game is of a particular variation, for example, have a month where all games are of Goatdown variation, etc?Charlie Reams wrote:Looks like Apterous Bevins will sweep this month's top spot with ease, although the battle for second and third places is still on. Kirk is one of only three players (with Martin Gardner and Gareth Mitchell) to have played every Duel this month.
There is something fun lined up for December, but you'll have to play to find out whatJoseph Bolas wrote: I don't suppose you are up to doing a themed month for December, where every game is of a particular variation, for example, have a month where all games are of Goatdown variation, etc?
Sounds exciting, I can't waitCharlie Reams wrote:There is something fun lined up for December, but you'll have to play to find out whatJoseph Bolas wrote: I don't suppose you are up to doing a themed month for December, where every game is of a particular variation, for example, have a month where all games are of Goatdown variation, etc?
Yep, very nice find indeed!Charlie Reams wrote:I was quite pleased to be one of only 3 people who got MICTURATE, even if I was also one of 3 people to go for DEFINITES*.
.I had a total nightmare yesterday. Went for UNMAILED early on, even though I had a nasty feeling that I'd had it disallowed before, then I saw REDEPOSIT but decided it was too risky, then completely missed MICTURATE despite knowing the word. So, when DEFINITES came up I was determined not to miss another 9 - but it wasn't in.Frank Rodolf wrote:I was surprised that only one other person (Joseph) got redeposit. Guess there are not a lot of online poker players or gamblers on here.
I then managed to top it all off by missing the piss-easy BARITONES/OBTAINERS Only if you forget your numbers.jimbentley wrote:Not played today's Duel yet but it can't possibly go as badly as that. Can it?
Surprising DEFINITES isn't in.Charlie Reams wrote:I was quite pleased to be one of only 3 people who got MICTURATE, even if I was also one of 3 people to go for DEFINITES*.
Probably in the wrong thread nowKai Laddiman wrote:Is today's meant to be a time challenge or what?
Admittedly I only did this one 'cos it was a numbers attack. Pretty sure this perfect record would not exist if I'd tried any of the others. Always happy to receive praise though, even if it's undue, so keep it coming!Charlie Reams wrote: And a final hats off to Junaid whose records for the month reads: 1 entry, 1 win!
There probably should be, but not currently.Julie T wrote:Is there a link to the final November rankings? I can't find one.