tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post6901293873744915517..comments2023-06-02T12:22:11.624+10:00Comments on Playing Letters and Numbers: Ep 265: Rachel Furness, Anushan Jegatheeswaran (February 20, 2015; originally aired September 2, 2011)Geoff Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150696891132723600noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-28204075532185773652015-02-23T10:57:59.375+11:002015-02-23T10:57:59.375+11:00Mike, I believe that consistency on the numbers ga...Mike, I believe that consistency on the numbers game is based on the ability to crunch several possibilities in the (roughly) twenty seconds you have before pen must hit paper. I'll reject several dead-end approaches in a given round. The number of these attempts that a player can accurately process might be the key metric of their number round strength. When I'm out of practice, I find this is where I fall away.<br /><br />Was Rachel's number round inconsistency due to getting fixated on a fruitless path sometimes? She came up with several brilliant solutions, but was way off target on other rounds.<br /><br />1. ENLARGES/MANGLERS<br />2. FRUIT<br />3. 265 = (100 + 5*6)*2 + 5<br />4. ROACHES<br />5. x ENMIRED. As in: ENMESHED.<br />6. 793 = 4*(100 + 75 + 25) - 5 - 2<br />7. SAPIENT/PANTIES<br />8. 819 = (6 + 2)*(100 + 1) + 10 + 1<br />9. CAPTIONED - 2.9sSam Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11974226775029093087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-40090009290775086262015-02-21T11:25:19.049+11:002015-02-21T11:25:19.049+11:00Thanks Geoff. With more time I would have revised ...Thanks Geoff. With more time I would have revised my numbers games, but sometimes 30s is not enough (for me again). Rachel pulled another one out of the hat with round 6. Wow. But did not have the consistency with the other two that you and Sam tend to have. Mike Backhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265408052872463790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-45075172943823709592015-02-21T11:05:48.905+11:002015-02-21T11:05:48.905+11:00MELANGES is a lovely find in round 1, Mike! And t...MELANGES is a lovely find in round 1, Mike! And that's three quite good numbers rounds from you, with just some small adjustments required to make two of them better. Nicely done!<br /><br />(As for what you were thinking in round 3, I think it's clear that you were focused on getting as close as possible with the tweak before looking at the adjustment. Unfortunate in this instance, but very understandable.)Geoff Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11150696891132723600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571384408188974384.post-16715429782380245462015-02-21T10:32:19.627+11:002015-02-21T10:32:19.627+11:00Good game Geoff as ever.
MELANGES
CUTER
2*(100...Good game Geoff as ever. <br /><br />MELANGES<br />CUTER<br />2*(100+1+5*6)+5=267 (2 off, and that +1, what was I thinking?)<br />COASTER<br />PRIMED<br />4*2*100-(5+75/25)=792 (1 away)<br />PAINTS<br />(6+2)*(100+1)+10=818 (1 away, then noticed after time I had not used remaining 1. Grrrr!) <br />xMike Backhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265408052872463790noreply@blogger.com