c4countdown

Please post any word round equalisers/beaters and any alternative number solutions here

EDIT: 1st Numbers ((100 + (6 / 2)) x 7) + 1 + 1

6/2=3
100+3=103
103X7=721
721+1+1=723

2nd Numbers

(100 + 3 x 6) x 8 + 8/4 = 946

100 + (6x3)
118 x 8 = 944 (i hope)
8/4 = 2
944 + 2 = 946

2nd numbers:

100 - 8 - 6 = 86; 86 x (8 + 3) = 946

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:2nd Numbers

(100 + 3 x 6) x 8 + 8/4 = 946

Got it the same way but it was about the same time as Carol was saying she only got 945 so I don't think that counts .

R13 : REFACES I think is alright (equaller for 7)?

John Douglas wrote:R13 : REFACES I think is alright (equaller for 7)?

I am fairly sure that's fine.

I was beginning to think Andy Compton was another 'goodie' until I got STATIONED and he didn't! Sorry Andy, but if it's any consolation, I didn't do a well as you in anything else....

kathleen batlle wrote:I was beginning to think Andy Compton was another 'goodie' until I got STATIONED and he didn't! Sorry Andy, but if it's any consolation, I didn't do a well as you in anything else....

I got STATIONED/ANTIDOTES straight away because it came up in a recent Goatdown game against Kirk

Looking at this thread, there doesn't seem to be any DC beaters mentioned, so I assume the contestants and DC maxed out on the word rounds?

I had a nice seven in round 3 in ABELIAN and didn't risk FINDABLE, but it was in. TONEME was a nice equaller in round 7 and DOPINESS in round 9. Apart from that (and the quite straightforward first numbers) I have no other things to add. I only had 11 maximums, missing the 3 words DC mentioned (FINDABLE, LAZARET, TAPROOM) and the tricky 946 so yes, DC and contestants maxed all the words rounds, just Carol failed to do her bit!

Kirk Bevins wrote: ... (and the quite straightforward first numbers) ...... and the tricky 946 ...

I thought that the 946 was more straightforward than the 723 (first numbers), but DanV beat me to post.
When you are within 2 with 8 & 4 left it's easier to see than using 6 & 2 to make 3 as part of the first step.
It's obviously down to what you look for first, and Carol found them both tricky!

David Gunn wrote:I thought that the 946 was more straightforward than the 723 (first numbers), but DanV beat me to post. When you are within 2 with 8 & 4 left it's easier to see than using 6 & 2 to make 3 as part of the first step. It's obviously down to what you look for first, and Carol found them both tricky!

Oh behave! 118 x 8 is hardly the obvious calculation to go for, whereas clearly most people have instantly homed in on 103 x 7.

Jon Corby wrote: Oh behave! 118 x 8 is hardly the obvious calculation to go for, whereas clearly most people have instantly homed in on 103 x 7.

Perhaps it's just me, but after trying 103x7 and having 6 & 1 left I looked for options of (100+n)x6.
In the same way, as soon as 100x(6+3) didn't get there I looked for (100+n)x8, which worked.
That's why I found 946 easier than 723; my mistake was moving away from 103x7 too quickly.

David Gunn wrote:Perhaps it's just me, but after trying 103x7 and having 6 & 1 left I looked for options of (100+n)x6.
In the same way, as soon as 100x(6+3) didn't get there I looked for (100+n)x8, which worked.
That's why I found 946 easier than 723; my mistake was moving away from 103x7 too quickly.

I do agree the 723 wasn't obvious, but I personally tend to get a bit flustered if I'm trying to work out how many times 8 goes into the remainder of 146. I guess actually it should have been easy to work back from 160. Thanks for identifying a possible area of training for me

You live quite near me too

Jon Corby wrote: I do agree the 723 wasn't obvious, but I personally tend to get a bit flustered if I'm trying to work out how many times 8 goes into the remainder of 146. I guess actually it should have been easy to work back from 160. Thanks for identifying a possible area of training for me

You live quite near me too

Glad to be of help!
I realise that I do move away from obvious answers too quickly, but if I hadn't in the second numbers yesterday I wouldn't have got 946 in time.
You win some, you lose some!

How near?

David Gunn wrote:How near?

Farnborough. Remember to root for the local lad in CoC!

Jon Corby wrote:

David Gunn wrote:How near?

Farnborough. Remember to root for the local lad in CoC!

That's as good a reason as any.
Good luck.

David Gunn wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote: ... (and the quite straightforward first numbers) ...... and the tricky 946 ...

I thought that the 946 was more straightforward than the 723 (first numbers), but DanV beat me to post.
When you are within 2 with 8 & 4 left it's easier to see than using 6 & 2 to make 3 as part of the first step.
It's obviously down to what you look for first, and Carol found them both tricky!

The 723 one was very obvious in comparison to the 946 solution. Once you decide you need to make a 3 and a 2 while keeping the 7 the answer jumps out at you. I got the other one way over the time (about 2 minutes later) and I think most would agree with me - you are wired wrongly, matey.

David Gunn wrote:That's as good a reason as any.
Good luck.

I got DOPINESS in round 9, and scored in all the numbers rounds, but otherwise I played rather badly.
I'm blaming it on watching it at full volume with next door having workmen in drilling!
I tend to tune out my kids' noise as I'm used to it, but other noise I loathe.