c4countdown

Deeks, Deeks, good for the heart....

But is 6 wins feasible? Find out at a 3:10 on Channel 4.

SPOILER ALERT - I don't think there are going to be any more accidental allusions to seminal gay porn websites today. Unlike the SCATMEN debacle.

Mark Deeks wrote:SPOILER ALERT - I don't think there are going to be any more accidental allusions to seminal gay porn websites today. Unlike the SCATMEN debacle.

SCATWOMEN was there for nine.

TRAINMEN in Round 1

R1: TRAINMEN - Curse you, Rhys for posting while I was looking in Lexplorer

Peter Mabey wrote:R1: TRAINMEN

Beat you to it!

First nums alts:
(100 - 75) x 25
(50 + 75 - 100) x 25

Rhys Benjamin wrote:First nums alts:
(100 - 75) x 25
(50 + 75 - 100) x 25

The 625 rule is the new 937.5 rule.

In my defense, I missed these words because I'd never heard of them.

Second numbers alt: (25+6)x(3x10-1)

Joseph Krol wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:First nums alts:
(100 - 75) x 25
(50 + 75 - 100) x 25

The 625 rule is the new 937.5 rule.

As well as my favourite numbers method, my favourite part of a castle came up today.

The subtitles are incredibly annoying.

(MARK D) Amazing.

WHICH MARK D!?

I don't think Susie's example of "easy as" really counts as a new definition of "as". It's part of a wider trend of just leaving off the end of sentences. End of.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't think Susie's example of "easy as" really counts as a new definition of "as". It's part of a wider trend of just leaving off the end of sentences. End of.

But it is a new usage, not just the same old same old.

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't think Susie's example of "easy as" really counts as a new definition of "as". It's part of a wider trend of just leaving off the end of sentences. End of.

But it is a new usage, not just the same old same old.

But not really of the word "as" but of general sentence construction. Although there would only be certain words that could end sentences in this way - prepositions generally I'd say. Some words can, some can't, so I suppose it's horse for.

MAINTOP and RAMPION in round 2 and SOUTHED in round 11.

1st Numbers Alt.: (50 + 75) x ((100 / 25) + 1) = 625
3rd Numbers Alt.: ((25 x (7 - 3)) - 6) x 10 = 940

I haven't seen this episode yet, but I can already declare that Linda Muchmore deserves the award for "Name of the Year!"

Jason Larsen wrote:I haven't seen this episode yet, but I can already declare that Linda Muchmore deserves the award for "Name of the Year!"

Name of the year - is that all? I think she deserves a lot more than that.

Ok, then I'd like to consider "much more" a membership on Apterous!

Can someone please ask the Producers how anyone who does not know that 625 is 25 x 25 can ever be allowed near the show?

OK nerves kick in. Understood. But are they really that short of plausible contestants?

Keith Bennett wrote:Can someone please ask the Producers how anyone who does not know that 625 is 25 x 25 can ever be allowed near the show?

OK nerves kick in. Understood. But are they really that short of plausible contestants?

A lot of people that go on aren't very good at numbers. I think that they're less bothered about numbers skill at the auditions. To be fair there are only three numbers rounds (should be four of course though).

FWIW I read the spoilers today and then about half hour ago I decided to read the recap and "play along". When I came to the 625 numbers I just couldn't see a way to get there and it was only when I remembered Joseph's post something about "625" that I finally twigged on. And yes I do know that 625 is 25 squared but in that numbers game for some reason it just didn't register. I also failed to solve the last numbers game and did every other way but the one to get to 740. Sometimes, it just doesn't happen for whatever reason. Just adding a bit of balance to the "OMG these contestants are so thick I can't even look at them" even if I am sometimes the worst offender.

What is so difficult to understand about that and why was Keith confused?

The fact is that most people look to times a big number by a small number, and they don't think to make the multiple from other big numbers. It's not because they're dumb; rather, it's because you only have 30 seconds so you stick to what you know. This is the advantage of picking 4 large, which is why I did it. Linda was a smart lady and would've known 25 times 25 was 625, but she wouldn't have thought to make the 25 from the other three large. Pressure can be a bitch like that. Hell, I didn't think of it for half of the clock.

That'd be like saying, "why the hell didn't Mark see SHOUTED in round whatever it was?", despite how obvious of a word it was. Well, cos I didn't see it. There were cameras pointed at me. It effs you up. You miss stuff.

Additionally, Linda was a good spotter who by her own admission couldn't do the numbers as well. Such people will always get on Countdown, and rightly so. There are way more letters rounds for a reason.

Ryan Taylor wrote:I also failed to solve the last numbers game and did every other way but the one to get to 740.

No wonder, you were supposed to get 940.

What are you people ridiculing others for?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Keith Bennett wrote:Can someone please ask the Producers how anyone who does not know that 625 is 25 x 25 can ever be allowed near the show?

OK nerves kick in. Understood. But are they really that short of plausible contestants?

A lot of people that go on aren't very good at numbers. I think that they're less bothered about numbers skill at the auditions. To be fair there are only three numbers rounds (should be four of course though).

Exactly. My criticism is not of the contestant herself; I would never criticise anyone for not knowing something, I'm not that kind of guy at all.

I do though criticise the Producers who allow too many people on the show that can not do even straightforward numbers games. My impression is that it happens too often that a contestant who is otherwise capable of giving players as good as Mark or Graeme a close game blows it on relatively simple numbers. There are far too few really close games these days and that is surely down to how the contestants are selected and allocated.

For 2+ large numbers games, multiplying 25 by itself or multiplying 50 by (25-[small]) to get middling or big targets is not seen even by solid numbers players a lot, and so is the result of a lot of missed numbers rounds. Of course the 100 75 50 25 X X -> 625 is the most simplified example of the 25*25 trick, but it's not an intuitive way for most people to do numbers. I mean, if it's 25 9 5 4 4 1 -> 625 the very people who will miss that 4 large game will still get ((5*4)+4+1)*25 for that game -- hence why a lot of contestants choose one large. It's just large*large is more easily missed, mainly because it's a case you don't see in a ton of numbers games.

Keith Bennett wrote: There are far too few really close games these days and that is surely down to how the contestants are selected and allocated.

Not entirely. I think Apterous might have to share some of the blame for this.

That's nothing against Damian as a person.

Where is Lara when I need her?