c4countdown

The Rawson Express is still going strong, although I have found some weird similarities between our current champion and myself.

As well as being called James, in his 1st show, he scored 107 points, I scored 2 less in my first show. In his 2nd show, he scored 93, again 2 less than my second show.

In his first show he got the conundrum, as did I, and in the second, he didn't, as did I.

So, if this is some sort of spooky coincedence, then we might see our champion deposed today.

Surely not....

I'll see you for the recap later.

These 'similarities' are amazing. I never used to believe in all this sort of thing, but now i'm utterly convinced.

Stephanie to win big CBB

AUTUMN also for round 3.

Something else in common with you there James.

1st numbers:

((8 + 1) x 9) + 75 + 25

DIARISES also for 8.

2nd numbers:

((25 + 5) x 7 x 2) - 1

Also INSIDERS for round 8

Did BURPEE get a mention as i missed a bit.

3rd numbers:

(50 x 10) + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8

Round 7 -VICOMTES as a beater.

BEURRE was a sexy equaller for round 13 too.

James is looking in good form. Hope he becomes an octochamp.

It was good to hear about the GRIMOIRE, reminds me of the Golden Grimoire from the Dungeons and Dragons classic cartoon series.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Round 7 -VICOMTES as a beater.

Have a Countdown pencil.

EXORDIA in Round 2.

Alternative To 2nd Numbers:

25 x 3 = 75, 75 + 7 + 2 = 84, 84 x 5 = 420, 420 - 1 = 419

Niall Seymour wrote:Something else in common with you there James.

Nah, he just tried to make a complex letter and it wasn't even finished, leaving Rachel to make out my "C" formation instead.

James Robinson wrote: Nah, he just tried to make a complex letter and it wasn't even finished, leaving Rachel to make out my "C" formation instead.

I love it how the challenger said "I'll keep it simple, just 1 from the top please, Rachel." Sod this letter formation business.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I love it how the challenger said "I'll keep it simple, just 1 from the top please, Rachel." Sod this letter formation business.

Yeah, but look where that got him, Kirk! Whereas on the other hand, the "C" formation has a 100% success rate still.

This is why I never went 1 large. There is no safety net with going 1 large.

James Robinson wrote: There is no safety net with going 1 large.

I don't understand - what do you mean?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

James Robinson wrote: There is no safety net with going 1 large.

I don't understand - what do you mean?

People seem to think that going 1 large is the safe option in numbers games. I don't see how it's any easier compared to any other variant.

In a 1 large, you could easily have 25, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 and a target of 900+, which would more or less be no points, whereas in a 6 small for example you could easily get given 10, 8, 7, 3, 5, 6 and a target of 445, which can be achieved relatively easily.

There have been many occasions when 1 large has tripped players up, and opponents have taken full advantage, so I didn't use 1 large, because you're trying to make sure that your opponent doesn't take advantage. Granted it failed horribly, once.

1 large might seem easier, but I just don't see how it is.

James Robinson wrote:People seem to think that going 1 large is the safe option in numbers games. I don't see how it's any easier compared to any other variant.

In a 1 large, you could easily have 25, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 and a target of 900+, which would more or less be no points, whereas in a 6 small for example you could easily get given 10, 8, 7, 3, 5, 6 and a target of 445, which can be achieved relatively easily.

There have been many occasions when 1 large has tripped players up, and opponents have taken full advantage, so I didn't use 1 large, because you're trying to make sure that your opponent doesn't take advantage. Granted it failed horribly, once.

1 large might seem easier, but I just don't see how it is.

People seem to think that going 6 small is the hardest option in numbers games. I don't see how it's any harder compared to any other variant.

In a 6 small, you could easily have 6, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 and a target of 900+, which would more or less be no points, whereas in a 1 large for example you could easily get given 100, 8, 7, 3, 5, 6 and a target of 103, which can be achieved relatively easily.

There have been many occasions when 6 small has tripped players up, and opponents have taken full advantage, so I didn't use 6 small, because you're trying to make sure that your opponent doesn't take advantage. Granted it failed horribly, once.

6 small might seem harder, but I just don't see how it is.

Matt Morrison wrote:People seem to think that going 6 small is the hardest option in numbers games.

I don't recall saying 6 small was the hardest, I just said that 1 large is regarded as the safe option.

James Robinson wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:People seem to think that going 6 small is the hardest option in numbers games.

I don't recall saying 6 small was the hardest, I just said that 1 large is regarded as the safe option.

I don't recall saying that you did. I was clearly just taking the piss a bit, your examples were laughable in the very essence that you seriously used them as "this could happen" examples.
I'm pretty sure the stats have all been done on numbers success rates in other threads, and I recall one large did indeed come out 'best'.

Matt Morrison wrote:I'm pretty sure the stats have all been done on numbers success rates in other threads, and I recall one large did indeed come out 'best'.

Correct. 1 large is the most tractable in theory, and also the most successful for almost every player on whom we have statistics.

James - 1 large has a very algorithmical structure with solving including adding before you multiply (6 small on the other hand, you may need to factorise the high target, see if it divides by 9, or 8 or similar).

I went 1 large all the time because I was certain I'd solve it and therefore putting pressure on my opponent to either solve it (whereby the points make no difference and my word power would hopefully win the game) or they don't solve it (whereby I get 10 extra points to help myself to potential victory).

If I went 6 small and didn't spot a method (like using the x9 method when I tried x7 and x10 methods) then my opponent would gain 10 points on me. This wouldn't happen in 1 large, in my opinion.

My programme stats:

0 large: 0 times.
1 large: 25 times.
2 large: 6 times.
3 large: 0 times.
4 large: 2 times.

Of these, I was beaten on the numbers once...on a 2 large game. Not sure what these stats show but for me, certainly, 1 large is a pretty safe bet of securing points.

Kirk Bevins wrote: Not sure what these stats show ...

That you're a clever pain in the arse?

I'm actually concerned that you remembered all your selections etc and what you picked. It's all very disturbing.

D Eadie wrote: That you're a clever pain in the arse?

A pain in the arse, maybe, but I'm not clever.

Kirk, it's round 14. You're 12 points behind, you are playing me in the C of C Final. What do you pick?

Ian Dent wrote:Kirk, it's round 14. You're 12 points behind, you are playing me in the C of C Final. What do you pick?

6 small or 4 large probably...depending on your weakness. In this case, I'm trying to maximise the chance of me getting it but you must *not* get it. The only hope is for a hard numbers game and 6 small and 4 large are likely to give you that.

A very high standard game, good show the pair of you.