tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post270670375918574933..comments2023-06-02T12:22:11.624+10:00Comments on Playing Letters and Numbers: Ep 445 [M1] [QF2]: Sam Gaffney, Jeremy Schiftan (June 20, 2012)Geoff Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150696891132723600noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-41687519174678634732015-12-16T06:00:26.298+11:002015-12-16T06:00:26.298+11:00Watched this repeat last night. My only real achi...Watched this repeat last night. My only real achievement was getting DECLAIMS in round one. Interesting insights from Sam. Mike Backhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265408052872463790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-34594339852470700562012-06-21T18:29:25.447+10:002012-06-21T18:29:25.447+10:00Thanks for your comments, Sam.Thanks for your comments, Sam.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-18581473779314054262012-06-21T12:59:59.075+10:002012-06-21T12:59:59.075+10:00Hi Mark,
With respect to Andrew (most of the foll...Hi Mark,<br /><br />With respect to Andrew (most of the following applies to Naween as well), he would have trounced me on the letter mixes in the Series #1 Grand Final. In a game like that, if I wasn't able to pick up points on the numbers or conundrum, he could seriously embarrass me. Conversely, I would expect to win some games where he declared invalid Scrabble words, as he did in his Series #1 quarter-final.<br /><br />If I played Andrew a hundred times, I don't know that I would win more conundrums or overall games than him (my feeling going into the Masters was that I wouldn't), but I like to think I'd get at least a respectable percentage of both.<br /><br />The numbers rounds would be key - I think that he and Jeremy may have been out-of-practice going into the Masters, and didn't have enough weeks of notice to get back to their usual standard. The Series #4 finals were recorded just a fortnight before the Masters, so Toby and I were already more-or-less battle-ready; we also had the advantage of being unknown quantities, as we had not had any of our episodes televised yet.<br /><br /><br />Side notes that I forgot to mention in my earlier comment:<br /><br />* My L&N experience was much shorter than TV might suggest, I had just three months between seeing the Brisbane audition notice and recording my last Masters episode. This gave me a healthy amount of time to practise and learn words, but not an eternity.<br /><br />* I am not sure why I was asked if I had been recognised on the street after winning Series #4, L&N should have known that none of my episodes had been on TV yet. I didn't know what to answer at first, so what went to air was a second take.<br /><br />* Sharp-eyed viewers may notice that I am not wearing my wedding band in the Masters Series, this was due to me forgetting to put it back on after showering in Brisbane, rather than any marital deterioration in the fortnight after the Series #4 finals were shot.Sam Gaffneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-78017112759521163392012-06-21T12:52:44.933+10:002012-06-21T12:52:44.933+10:00Some good answers from you, Mark -- particularly M...Some good answers from you, Mark -- particularly MEDICALS and AUCTIONS. I would certainly have preferred to declare one of AUCTIONS / CAUTIONS, but I simply did not see them. I think I have a bit of a blind spot with the AU vowel pair.<br /><br />Sam: I didn't take those looks of frustration as obnoxious (and apologies if my post made it seem so); it was clear that you could sense that the better options were out there, and I was reacting the same way at home myself. *chuckles*<br /><br />I hadn't realised that you'd found DECLAIMS within time -- ouch. Like EXCLAIM and PROCLAIM, to DECLAIM is to speak in a certain fashion (particularly appropriate to theatre). I wish I had seen it within time!<br /><br />I totally agree about the riskiness of round 3, although I will note that the second solution is a modification of the approach that you have practiced so much: The target is 3*283, which is 6*283/2... so rather than dividing by 25 you divide by 50. It's a pretty big modification, though, and no wonder at all that it was not found within time. At least you got the signs right!<br /><br />I agree with Mark -- it did not come across as unsporting to me, just sound play. Things could have still gone Jeremy's way even without a full monty.Geoff Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11150696891132723600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-13973486419650937042012-06-21T11:56:00.874+10:002012-06-21T11:56:00.874+10:00Your "no full monty" comment didn't ...Your "no full monty" comment didn't seem at all unsporting to me, Sam.<br /><br />On another topic, how do you think you would go against Andrew?Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-16928909747177865062012-06-21T08:39:16.883+10:002012-06-21T08:39:16.883+10:00Thanks Geoff & Mark, and some good answers.
I...Thanks Geoff & Mark, and some good answers.<br /><br />I wasn't entirely surprsied that Jeremy and I had the same answers on 3.5 words, I often found that he thought along similar lines to me when I watched his episodes.<br /><br />I can't complain about the result, but I was close to doing better with letters on a few rounds here, hence the continual obnoxious looks of frustration.<br /><br />1. I actually found DECLAIMS well within time, but thought "that's not a word". Afterwards, Richard was explaining to me what it means (though I always forget the definition). It made me think that he often knows a bit more than he lets on while playing the role of genial innocuous host!<br /><br />2. I got TROUBLE a little bit after time here.<br /><br />3. I was never going to get 849 in thirty seconds, neither solution was part of my toolbox. I think Toby Baldwin got Lily's solution in the audience before she did, she then taunted me by saying that she would have thought I'd solve that one. My fancy division answer from Ep398 was a well-rehearsed technique, however - I can't think of anything more risky than experimenting with new ways of multiplying into the thousands under pressure, you are likely to come up with nothing at the end of your thirty seconds.<br /><br />4. I didn't think there was an eight here.<br /><br />5. I don't remember CHROMATE being a big part of my lexicon at the time, I doubt that I was close to getting this.<br /><br />6. I think Jeremy was going for 3*124, from what he said afterwards.<br /><br />7. I cringed after watching myself ask Lily for no full monty, it sounded dreadfully unsporting. One of my prepared words nearly came up here, with CANOEIST+S, but the U came up rather than an E. Last night I wondered if SOUCIANTS could be a word, but you can't drop the prefix from INSOUCIANT, or pluralise it.<br /><br />8. This is my second-favourite solve of episodes I played in (that have aired). It was still "game on" at this point, but I got a nice intermediate tweak in there and finished relatively early.<br /><br />9. Good read, Geoff: I spotted and said "PERPETUAL" about two seconds before it was revealed. One of the cameramen suggested that this might make it to air, but alas, it did not.Sam Gaffneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-53358104656748001002012-06-21T05:05:08.460+10:002012-06-21T05:05:08.460+10:00Congratulations Sam.
My answers:
MEDICALS
OUTAGE
...Congratulations Sam.<br /><br />My answers:<br />MEDICALS<br />OUTAGE<br />850 = (6+6)*75 - 50<br />SUDDEN<br />REMATCH<br />372 = 3*100 + 9*8<br />AUCTIONS<br />927 = (6+4-1)*(25+75+3)<br />-Marknoreply@blogger.com