c4countdown

Well, good old (not too literal, there) Bob has become a half-octochamp.

Can he carry his winning streak all the way till the end of the week

Interestingly, all his scores have been in the 80's so far, can he break the 90's or even get a century

Is it becoming increasingly annoying that I use the all the time

Probably, YES

What's happening James? No one got anything to say? I thought the challenger threw it away some silly risks, but that's just my impression. I haven't analysed the score.

Joyce Phillips wrote:No one got anything to say?

Maybe that's because the show hasn't been transmitted yet.

Today's challenger appears to be under the impression that he's entered a Damian Eadie lookalike contest.

MOTLIER as a DC-equaller in round 13.

(7x3) - (9/9) = 20 x 5 x 7 = 700

for one away in the first numbers game.

(9+7)*5*9-7*3 does the first numbers, but it took me a few minutes.

Jacqueline Baker is now in some danger

Edit: sorry, I miscounted. Bob probably needs another win to take 4th. Good luck!

Clive Brooker wrote:(9+7)*5*9-7*3 does the first numbers, but it took me a few minutes.

Jacqueline Baker is now in some danger

Edit: sorry, I miscounted. Bob probably needs another win to take 4th. Good luck!

There's still a long way to go in this series yet! But yes Jacqueline and Bob would have to be pretty unlucky to not make the finals.

Phil Reynolds wrote:MOTLIER as a DC-equaller in round 13.

I nearly always spot that one, along with MOTELIER (shame it's still not in the dictionary).

Oops. Got my days wrong! That's what too much Apterous does to the brain.

I managed the first numbers just in time - 5*(3*7*7 - 9) + 9 (yes, it's an alt, but I felt pleased damnit). Not entirely sure why Bob keeps picking 6 small, but then again if memory serves he keeps nabbing a cheeky 5 or 7 so maybe it's worthwhile from a winning perspective if not a scoring big one.

I really enjoy Susie's reactions to Jo Brand's words, even if I'm just imagining she detests them as much as I do.

Michael Wallace wrote:I really enjoy Susie's reactions to Jo Brand's words, even if I'm just imagining she detests them as much as I do.

Some of them make me chuckle, like yesterday's FAGPLUME. Also yesterday, without Jo we wouldn't have had the uniquely joyous experience of hearing Jeff saying: "Susie, have you got anything to match PUSSIEROT?"

Sallied for an equaller round 1

Thanks Clive and Michael for the first numbers solution.
Did anyone manage the third? 1.5.5.6.75.100 - 218

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Thanks Clive and Michael for the first numbers solution.
Did anyone manage the third? 1.5.5.6.75.100 - 218

After trying for a bit I gave up, turns out it's unsolvable. The best you can manage is 1 away.

Michael Wallace wrote:After trying for a bit I gave up, turns out it's unsolvable. The best you can manage is 1 away.

Thanks. I'll give up, like I did with the first then.

To continue Susie's negatives without a positive theme - C4C is ruthless, because it has no Ruth.

I'd started the right method for one away on the third but didn't have time to follow it through. (100-75)*(5+5-1)-6

I wish I hadn't kept picking six small! I thought it would give me an edge in a tight game as I'd practised a lot, but I didn't exactly maximise my points potential on them.

Bob De Caux wrote:I wish I hadn't kept picking six small! I thought it would give me an edge in a tight game as I'd practised a lot, but I didn't exactly maximise my points potential on them.

Don't fret about the 6 small, Bob. At least your opponents never took advantage of 6 small either.

If only I had that luck when on my 3rd show, things might have been a bit different.

Yeh, 1 away Rd14 (75 + 6) x (5 - 1) - 100 - 5

Kai Laddiman wrote:Yeh, 1 away Rd14 (75 + 6) x (5 - 1) - 100 - 5

Or

(100+75+5)x6 = 1080

1080/5 = 216

+1 = 217