c4countdown

Since when could 100 be a target again????

(9x8) + (4x7) =100, just be awkward

James Laverty wrote:Since when could 100 be a target again????

Shame that when it Did appear, the 100 itself wasn't drawn!

James Laverty wrote:Since when could 100 be a target again????

The probability of getting 100 (or any specified number) as the target after N rounds is 1- ((899/900)^N).

So after 20 numbers games ~(1 normal week), we are talking of a 2.2% chance.
It would take 624 games for a 50/50 chance of 100 having turned up.

This is still a random process though - past results have no bearing on future ones.

As Philip Wilson said in the previous post, that round could have been even more trivial if one of the large numbers had actually been 100 !

Very sorry to have been a "no call, no show" in Recapland today. Note to self: Never drastically and recklessly configure your computer's registry keys again, especially less than an hour before 3:10pm. Thanks to JR for this unscheduled mission.

Shame I missed this one. Seriously though, that target in Round 6 was 100% uncalled for. The possibility of being able to solve a numbers game by declaring a number without any operators attached to it is just ugly, in my opinion (even if it didn't happen this time, it did once).

DATIONS was a beater in round 2.

On the 100, I think most people were under the impression that 100 couldn't be a target, even if it was the case in the past. Because of this, Apterous doesn't allow it, nor would most people allow it at CO-events. Out of interest, the new CECIL first made an appearance in episode 5625, and this was episode 6405. That's less than 900, so without bothering to do any calculations, it's certainly not a freak event, and 100 could have been possible all along with the new CECIL.

Interestingly, on Apterous Charlie is of the view that at least one calculation should be done, so if the target number is in the selection, you'd still have to do at least one calculation. I wonder if the "Countdown takes precedence over our opinions" rule of thumb would have overruled this had 100 been in the selection and someone made the target out of just the 100.

Could I request that recaps are done immediately in weeks where Gyles Brandreth is in Dictionary Corner. I just can't watch him at all.

The 100 was definitely a mistake, unless the rules have changed in a way I wouldn't expect. The rules document I was given, albeit a few years ago now, says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999". It also says that the contestants' working "may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers", which implies that if the 100 had appeared in the selection, you couldn't just use it on its own.

Graeme Cole wrote:The 100 was definitely a mistake, unless the rules have changed in a way I wouldn't expect. The rules document I was given, albeit a few years ago now, says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999". It also says that the contestants' working "may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers", which implies that if the 100 had appeared in the selection, you couldn't just use it on its own.

Interesting. Thanks for that. But I think it would be generally useful for this sort of thing to come out more often. Often people allude to these guidelines but when asked for more information, like a quote, it never seems to come and these people disappear back into the woodwork.

Graeme Cole wrote:The 100 was definitely a mistake, unless the rules have changed in a way I wouldn't expect. The rules document I was given, albeit a few years ago now, says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999". It also says that the contestants' working "may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers", which implies that if the 100 had appeared in the selection, you couldn't just use it on its own.

Ok, but if the lowest possible target is 101 then there is no way of using less than two of the selected numbers to reach the target, so in that case the 2nd rule is automatic.
If the above is rewritten to include 100 in the target range, then maybe the 2nd part would be omitted.

Assuming that 100 is not a possible target but it is the nearest a contestant can get to the actual target, would they be able to use it on its own then?

Philip Wilson wrote:Assuming that 100 is not a possible target but it is the nearest a contestant can get to the actual target, would they be able to use it on its own then?

I don't think this can ever happen, because regardless of how few small numbers there are -- even only two of them --, it will always be possible to apply some set of operators on them to generate a number between 1 and 5 which when added to the starting 100 would produce a total that is nearer to the target than 100 alone.

Johnny Canuck wrote:

Philip Wilson wrote:Assuming that 100 is not a possible target but it is the nearest a contestant can get to the actual target, would they be able to use it on its own then?

I don't think this can ever happen, because regardless of how few small numbers there are -- even only two of them --, it will always be possible to apply some set of operators on them to generate a number between 1 and 5 which when added to the starting 100 would produce a total that is nearer to the target than 100 alone.

Contestants don't always find the best solution.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Johnny Canuck wrote:

Philip Wilson wrote:Assuming that 100 is not a possible target but it is the nearest a contestant can get to the actual target, would they be able to use it on its own then?

I don't think this can ever happen, because regardless of how few small numbers there are -- even only two of them --, it will always be possible to apply some set of operators on them to generate a number between 1 and 5 which when added to the starting 100 would produce a total that is nearer to the target than 100 alone.

Contestants don't always find the best solution.

Of course they don't, but still, I think it would be extremely unlikely for even the densest of contestants to be completely unable to use even one of the other starting numbers in a circumstance where the target was below 110 and there was a 100 in the selection.

If someone did try 100 = 100 for a target in the 101-110 range, I don't think they would be flat-out denied the points, but I do believe this breach of etiquette/Contestant Guidelines would cause them to not air the round. IMO, they would probably just reshoot it and tell the person to declare 100 + 2 or whatever instead. I see this as the numbers-game equivalent of someone declaring a dirty word -- when this happens, the round is reshot and the contestants are told to say different words of the same length.