c4countdown

Out of interest and a bit of fun, what are everyone's PBs with regards to their highest Countdown score (whether as an actual contestant or playing at home against the contestants on the tv show) also what is the most number of consecutive wins you have had (draws can be discounted in the equation)?

As stated in my introductory post my high score pb is 140(with two nines) and most number of consecutive wins is 32 (with draws discounted).

I would think for the champs/greats their pb is close to the 160 high score mark and near to 100 consecutive wins?

Jojo Apollo wrote:I would think for the champs/greats their pb is close to the 160 high score mark and near to 100 consecutive wins?

Hmmm. Probably about 120, with, um, 20 games in a row. Does that mean I suck?

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:I would think for the champs/greats their pb is close to the 160 high score mark and near to 100 consecutive wins?

Hmmm. Probably about 120, with, um, 20 games in a row. Does that mean I suck?

Nah course not. Like Conor and the likes of Alan Saldanah (sp?), Matthew Perry etc. you will improve with age.

When I was your age (many moons ago) I would probably be lucky to win two in a row and probably would have a high score of 40 .

Erm 30 odd views and only one reply

C'mon folks don't be bashful or too modest - put up your pbs, or am I the only one sad enough to bother keeping pbs records???

I have no idea

Jojo Apollo wrote:Erm 30 odd views and only one reply

C'mon folks don't be bashful or too modest - put up your pbs, or am I the only one sad enough to bother keeping pbs records???

THat could well be the case, but not necessarily a sad one

I'm not very good but I got 128 once and that was missing a commonish 9.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:Erm 30 odd views and only one reply

C'mon folks don't be bashful or too modest - put up your pbs, or am I the only one sad enough to bother keeping pbs records???

THat could well be the case, but not necessarily a sad one

Yeah just adds another target when watching the show. I used to be sad enough to note down words which I used to beat the dictionary corner with or numbers I beat Carol at.

I don't know if others use the same technique when playing along at home, I draw a column for my scores (M) on a piece of paper next to the columns of the contestants (A and B) then I do a fourth column for the best score that could be achieved for those particular letters and numbers (MAX). I am yet to equal the maximum score for any show.

Jojo Apollo wrote:I don't know if others use the same technique when playing along at home, I draw a column for my scores (M) on a piece of paper next to the columns of the contestants (A and B)

How do you do the scoring with 3 players?

Jon Corby wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:I don't know if others use the same technique when playing along at home, I draw a column for my scores (M) on a piece of paper next to the columns of the contestants (A and B)

How do you do the scoring with 3 players?

Well eg. if in the first letters round I have an eight letter word and the contestants have a seven, I put my mark as 8 points their mark as zero and vice-versa, if we all have 8 then I put 8 in each column. Same with who gets closest to the numbers ( 7 or 5 points) or if we all get it, 10 points each etc. I also keep a running tally during the game of whether I am ahead of A or B eg ( A +7, if I am ahead of contestant A by seven , or say B -12, if I am trailing contestant B by twelve points etc)

I try to be at least 11 points ahead by the conundrum as I am very poor at it. Also try to average at least 34 points per half to get through the 100 mark.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:I don't know if others use the same technique when playing along at home, I draw a column for my scores (M) on a piece of paper next to the columns of the contestants (A and B)

How do you do the scoring with 3 players?

Speaking purely for myself (I know you weren't asking me but I'm butting in anyway), I write down the contestants' scores as they are on the game, and whenever I equal the top contestant, I obviously score those points, and when I beat them I score the relevant points and put -6 or whatever above the score of the contestant(s) that scored. This is a cumulative total so a couple of rounds later it might be -13 if they got a 7 and I beat them with an 8. Then at the end I compare my score with their scores with the minuses taken off.

To me this is the most intuitive way of playing against contestants. Scoring against them individually seems like a lot more hassle having to keep separate scores and you run into problems when the losing player in a numbers round doesn't have to go through their solution.

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Scoring against them individually seems like a lot more hassle having to keep separate scores and you run into problems when the losing player in a numbers round doesn't have to go through their solution.

Don't quite follow you on that point, the losing player in a numbers game would get zero poins, if you are closer than the winning contestant, you score the winning contestant's points as zero also, for that round and give yourself ( 5, 7 or 10 depending how closer you are or if spot on) and vice-versa.

Yeah sorry I get what you mean now, scoring against them individually. No you just treat it as if you are are in a 3 way battle with both simultaneously as described above.

I've twice got 128 and on both occasions got 2 nines in the same game and I've won about 18 games in a row- my record

Jojo Apollo wrote:Yeah sorry I get what you mean now, scoring against them individually. No you just treat it as if you are are in a 3 way battle with both simultaneously as described above.

I do the same thing. The only problem is that you can't easily regulate how you'd adapt your declarations to what the contestants declare. In one round today, I stuck with a safe 7, but only after both contestants had declared 6. If I'd been playing in real life, I may have had to go first and may have risked and failed with an 8. Still, it's the best method I have.

Before I went on the show last year, I'd been on a long unbeaten run for at least a couple of months (this included digging up some old forgotten episodes from the Bishop video library to get me through the summer break). Then Junaid appeared on my screen a couple of days before filming.

Martin Bishop wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:Yeah sorry I get what you mean now, scoring against them individually. No you just treat it as if you are are in a 3 way battle with both simultaneously as described above.

I do the same thing. The only problem is that you can't easily regulate how you'd adapt your declarations to what the contestants declare. In one round today, I stuck with a safe 7, but only after both contestants had declared 6. If I'd been playing in real life, I may have had to go first and may have risked and failed with an 8. Still, it's the best method I have.

Before I went on the show last year, I'd been on a long unbeaten run for at least a couple of months (this included digging up some old forgotten episodes from the Bishop video library to get me through the summer break). Then Junaid appeared on my screen a couple of days before filming.

Yeah suppose could take it in turn to declare, when you are a challenger you declare third, when you are the "current champ" you declare first etc.

Incidentally was a bit surprised/ disappointed to see you weren't on the Champion of Champions shows, other commitments I suppose like Craig etc?

Easy way to cope with tactical declarations - just declare 2nd (out of 3 players) every round. So you're declaring 2nd against one of the opponents, 1st against the other. Which may mean you declare different words against the two opponents.

You just have to assume the losing player in numbers round has got it right.

David Roe wrote:Easy way to cope with tactical declarations - just declare 2nd (out of 3 players) every round. So you're declaring 2nd against one of the opponents, 1st against the other. Which may mean you declare different words against the two opponents.

You just have to assume the losing player in numbers round has got it right.

The problem with declaring is that if you're unsure the other declarations will just happen anyway without waiting for you to decide. I suppose it's up to you to be decisive though. Unless you watch it on tape I suppose - I've never considered pausing a game so I can get my declaration in before a contestant's though.

Highest score 191 (7 nines), and I haven't lost a round since Jeffrey Hansford got PARQUETRY.

I got 8 perfect games in a row during Jono's octochamp run, but haven't won a round since.

(Mild spoiler)

It's really not that simple, because the contestants in the studio don't know what you're declaring at home. Craig Beevers who used to declare seven a lot if his opponent declared six, but in reality he'd have risked an eight if his opponent had done the same. If I'm at home and I see a risky eight and I "risk it", but the first contestant declares six, there's very little incentive for the second player to go for a risky eight if they have a very safe seven. The recent example was Steven Briers, who looked like he was gonna declare NITRITE or another seven, but when Debbi declared five, he went for a six.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Highest score 191 (7 nines), and I haven't lost a round since Jeffrey Hansford got PARQUETRY.

I seem to think in one game, I was "unofficially" not far off Julian's 146, it was the Stuart Solomons game that had 4 nines in it, all of them (I think) missed by both players.

Martin Gardner wrote:(Mild spoiler)

It's really not that simple, because the contestants in the studio don't know what you're declaring at home. Craig Beevers who used to declare seven a lot if his opponent declared six, but in reality he'd have risked an eight if his opponent had done the same. If I'm at home and I see a risky eight and I "risk it", but the first contestant declares six, there's very little incentive for the second player to go for a risky eight if they have a very safe seven. The recent example was Steven Briers, who looked like he was gonna declare NITRITE or another seven, but when Debbi declared five, he went for a six.

Could there therefore be a case for hidden/unspoken declarations (after the 30 seconds are up) you press in a numbered key for what length word you have and it shows up on a monitor in front of your name (which your opponent can't see), therefore no "advantage" of declaring second in a tv studio based game between two players, you then say what word you had as before?

ps. Apologies if this has all been covered before, I'm not a troublemaker (honest!)

Martin Gardner wrote:
I seem to think in one game, I was "unofficially" not far off Julian's 146, it was the Stuart Solomons game that had 4 nines in it, all of them (I think) missed by both players.

I think there was another game another than the Julian record game where there were 4 nines, I think the lexicographer was the Irish(?) lady who did a few shows ( apologies can't recall her name) I think the max score there could have been 160 or 162 if I recall correctly.

Jojo Apollo wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:(Mild spoiler)

It's really not that simple, because the contestants in the studio don't know what you're declaring at home. Craig Beevers who used to declare seven a lot if his opponent declared six, but in reality he'd have risked an eight if his opponent had done the same. If I'm at home and I see a risky eight and I "risk it", but the first contestant declares six, there's very little incentive for the second player to go for a risky eight if they have a very safe seven. The recent example was Steven Briers, who looked like he was gonna declare NITRITE or another seven, but when Debbi declared five, he went for a six.

Could there therefore be a case for hidden/unspoken declarations (after the 30 seconds are up) you press in a numbered key for what length word you have and it shows up on a monitor in front of your name (which your opponent can't see), therefore no "advantage" of declaring second in a tv studio based game between two players, you then say what word you had as before?

ps. Apologies if this has all been covered before, I'm not a troublemaker (honest!)

This removes a bit of the tactical play from the game though. You could then argue for numbers rounds and letters rounds to be randomly generated instead.

I think the quality of games in the three CoCs since the 15-round format speak for themselves.

Jon O'Neill wrote: This removes a bit of the tactical play from the game though. You could then argue for numbers rounds and letters rounds to be randomly generated instead.

Yeah good point, the tactical side is what makes it such a great game.

Jojo Apollo wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote: This removes a bit of the tactical play from the game though. You could then argue for numbers rounds and letters rounds to be randomly generated instead.

Yeah good point, the tactical side is what makes it such a great game.

I think the tactics of choosing selections are a different kettle of fish from declaring first. I'm not too bothered either way about it, but more often than not I think people are fairly clear over what word they are going to declare, whether they go first or second. This tactical situation may only arise once in a game, or even twice but with the advantage going the same way, so I don't see it as crucial to the game, and if anything gives luck a greater role.

Jojo Apollo wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:
I seem to think in one game, I was "unofficially" not far off Julian's 146, it was the Stuart Solomons game that had 4 nines in it, all of them (I think) missed by both players.

I think there was another game another than the Julian record game where there were 4 nines, I think the lexicographer was the Irish(?) lady who did a few shows ( apologies can't recall her name) I think the max score there could have been 160 or 162 if I recall correctly.

That was Julian's 146, you're talking about the same game lol. For the Solomons-Timmons game, see here.