These episodes are far too fresh in my memory to play through again, but for anyone wanting to revisit them the individual post links are below:
Not that much longer until the Masters Series starts. I admit, I'm getting a bit impatient!
Showing posts with label Series 4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Series 4. Show all posts
Friday, 8 June 2012
Monday, 12 March 2012
My tussles with Sam
Regular readers of this blog -- I've been led to believe that such exist -- will have noticed that Sam Gaffney has been kind enough to post comments with his performance on the games, and various other snippets. It has been natural enough to compare results between us.
Sam was the only contestant to defeat me during the main part of the series (while I was playing from home, that is; obviously I lost against Brett while playing in the studio). Of the nine televised games that Sam has played, in the head-to-head comparison I have won five and Sam has won four. Close, and the aggregate scores are also pretty close (throughout this post, two values separated by a slash will comprise head-to-head score on the left and the corresponding solo score on the right):
Obviously a mere nine games with that degree of closeness can hardly be conclusive. Sam and I have been using the other games to stage a series of virtual matches between us, and it certainly serves as evidence for the suggestion that any single game is somewhat of a lottery. Below are some statistics arising from these games (episodes 348 to 390, since he was present at the filming of episodes outside that range).
(As a minor point of scoring: Sometimes we have been unable to tell who solved a conundrum first, usually with single-second solves. As a matter of expediency I have scored these as five points for each of us. Also, only the first conundrum is used for scoring even if a second was available; my recollection is that this costs Sam a little, but our games were not tied at that point so it is appropriate.)
Firstly, the games won:
That's a pretty compelling advantage to Sam, but let's look at the aggregates and averages. Averages are per-game for the "All" column, and per-round for the others.
My average solo game was a bit under a point less than Sam's, but that expanded to approximately a point and a half of difference in the head-to-head comparison. The individual round scores conform pretty much with expectations also: A slight average advantage to me on the letters, and more noticeable advantages to Sam on the other rounds, particularly the conundrum where Sam's greater solving speed is a factor.
There's something not apparent from the above, but which shows up clearly in the results organised by time: The three weeks leading up to the finals showed a marked shift in advantage to Sam. This time also corresponds to environmental changes for each of us: Sam had been away on holidays and was actually playing two episodes a night in order to catch up; and I was undergoing a period of disrupted sleep patterns. It is not at all clear if those factors effected results, or to what extent, but I certainly felt off my game for much of that period. There's a third factor as well, which I'll get to later.
So here are the same statistics again, but split into those two ranges: First the 28 episodes from 348 to 375, and then the 15 episodes from 376 to 390.
Games won (episodes 348 to 375 first, then episodes 376 to 390):
The shift occasioned by those three weeks is clear. (I want to stress that I did not cherry-pick those three weeks as the best splitting point, although they are close -- one game afterward would have made the difference more extreme -- but they do correspond to those external shifts as stated.) Here's the breakdown for the first period:
As can be seen, up until that point I was close to even (and actually slightly ahead on head-to-head aggregate, although just behind on solo aggregate). And here is the breakdown for those three weeks:
If we just look at my solo performance, then the situation seems rosy; I've gained not quite two points a game, and my numbers performance is significantly better, my letters and conundrum marginally so.
But looking at Sam's statistics shows that things have gone much better for him. Sam gained a bit over four points on solo game score, which translated into almost eight points in the head-to-head situation. His solo letters are almost a point better which stretched to a point and a half in the head-to-head comparison, and almost all of his gain can be attributed to that. Is this the benefits of the vacation, or perhaps of playing multiple games a day?
I think that some light can be shed on it by going back to a suggestion that Victor made in the comments to an earlier post about the finalists. The idea is to look at the number of "maximums" for each player -- times where they got the best possible result in a round. For the finalists there just was not enough data to be useful, but in this case we are starting to get there. A conundrum maximum is just a solution, and statistics for it can be found in the tables above. For the other rounds:
Note the very large drop in my average letters maximums -- over 20%. While Sam's maximum percentage also dropped a little, it was by nowhere near as much. This suggests that -- with all due respect to Sam's play -- the results are more reflective of a drop in my performance than a gain in his.
The as-yet-unmentioned but significant factor here is that those three weeks also happened to be extremely rich in full monties. There were 14 potential ones in that time, or almost one a game (although they were clustered rather more strongly). I had a particularly rough time with these; I found two of them, found a third but was unsure and did not risk it, found four (!) others either just as time was running out or just afterwards, and had another which would have been ruled invalid (DUALITIES). In that time I found just two full monties to Sam's five, a reversal of the earlier section which went five-two the other way.
Is this indicative that I struggle with full monties? Possibly yes -- certainly I'm not happy about my percentage of finding them within time. But it might be more accurate to say that the large numbers of them increased the effects of my poor performance during that period.
Is this all me making excuses? Perhaps! Make of it what you will. When all's said and done, Sam has gone away from these games 9 games ahead, a strong indicator of his level of performance. But I hope to do somewhat better next series; I hope you'll join in.
Sam was the only contestant to defeat me during the main part of the series (while I was playing from home, that is; obviously I lost against Brett while playing in the studio). Of the nine televised games that Sam has played, in the head-to-head comparison I have won five and Sam has won four. Close, and the aggregate scores are also pretty close (throughout this post, two values separated by a slash will comprise head-to-head score on the left and the corresponding solo score on the right):
| Points | Average | |
|---|---|---|
| Me | 516 / 601 | 57.33 / 66.78 |
| Sam | 505 / 586 | 56.11 / 65.00 |
Obviously a mere nine games with that degree of closeness can hardly be conclusive. Sam and I have been using the other games to stage a series of virtual matches between us, and it certainly serves as evidence for the suggestion that any single game is somewhat of a lottery. Below are some statistics arising from these games (episodes 348 to 390, since he was present at the filming of episodes outside that range).
(As a minor point of scoring: Sometimes we have been unable to tell who solved a conundrum first, usually with single-second solves. As a matter of expediency I have scored these as five points for each of us. Also, only the first conundrum is used for scoring even if a second was available; my recollection is that this costs Sam a little, but our games were not tied at that point so it is appropriate.)
Firstly, the games won:
| Me | 16 |
|---|---|
| Sam | 25 |
| Tied | 2 |
That's a pretty compelling advantage to Sam, but let's look at the aggregates and averages. Averages are per-game for the "All" column, and per-round for the others.
| All | L | N | C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me | 2574 / 3032 | 1361 / 1547 | 1058 / 1175 | 155 / 310 |
| 59.86 / 70.51 | 6.33 / 7.20 | 8.20 / 9.11 | 3.60 / 7.21 | |
| Sam | 2639 / 3070 | 1286 / 1525 | 1148 / 1205 | 205 / 340 |
| 61.37 / 71.40 | 5.98 / 7.09 | 8.90 / 9.34 | 4.77 / 7.91 |
My average solo game was a bit under a point less than Sam's, but that expanded to approximately a point and a half of difference in the head-to-head comparison. The individual round scores conform pretty much with expectations also: A slight average advantage to me on the letters, and more noticeable advantages to Sam on the other rounds, particularly the conundrum where Sam's greater solving speed is a factor.
There's something not apparent from the above, but which shows up clearly in the results organised by time: The three weeks leading up to the finals showed a marked shift in advantage to Sam. This time also corresponds to environmental changes for each of us: Sam had been away on holidays and was actually playing two episodes a night in order to catch up; and I was undergoing a period of disrupted sleep patterns. It is not at all clear if those factors effected results, or to what extent, but I certainly felt off my game for much of that period. There's a third factor as well, which I'll get to later.
So here are the same statistics again, but split into those two ranges: First the 28 episodes from 348 to 375, and then the 15 episodes from 376 to 390.
Games won (episodes 348 to 375 first, then episodes 376 to 390):
| Me | 12 | 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Sam | 14 | 11 |
| Tied | 2 | 0 |
The shift occasioned by those three weeks is clear. (I want to stress that I did not cherry-pick those three weeks as the best splitting point, although they are close -- one game afterward would have made the difference more extreme -- but they do correspond to those external shifts as stated.) Here's the breakdown for the first period:
| All | L | N | C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me | 1655 / 1958 | 884 / 1003 | 666 / 755 | 105 / 200 |
| 59.11 / 69.93 | 6.31 / 7.16 | 7.93 / 8.99 | 3.75 / 7.14 | |
| Sam | 1643 / 1959 | 765 / 951 | 743 / 788 | 135 / 220 |
| 58.68 / 69.96 | 5.46 / 6.79 | 8.85 / 9.38 | 4.82 / 7.86 |
As can be seen, up until that point I was close to even (and actually slightly ahead on head-to-head aggregate, although just behind on solo aggregate). And here is the breakdown for those three weeks:
| All | L | N | C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me | 919 / 1074 | 477 / 544 | 392 / 420 | 50 / 110 |
| 61.27 / 71.60 | 6.36 / 7.25 | 8.71 / 9.33 | 3.33 / 7.33 | |
| Sam | 996 / 1111 | 521 / 574 | 405 / 417 | 70 / 120 |
| 66.40 / 74.07 | 6.95 / 7.65 | 9.00 / 9.27 | 4.67 / 8.00 |
If we just look at my solo performance, then the situation seems rosy; I've gained not quite two points a game, and my numbers performance is significantly better, my letters and conundrum marginally so.
But looking at Sam's statistics shows that things have gone much better for him. Sam gained a bit over four points on solo game score, which translated into almost eight points in the head-to-head situation. His solo letters are almost a point better which stretched to a point and a half in the head-to-head comparison, and almost all of his gain can be attributed to that. Is this the benefits of the vacation, or perhaps of playing multiple games a day?
I think that some light can be shed on it by going back to a suggestion that Victor made in the comments to an earlier post about the finalists. The idea is to look at the number of "maximums" for each player -- times where they got the best possible result in a round. For the finalists there just was not enough data to be useful, but in this case we are starting to get there. A conundrum maximum is just a solution, and statistics for it can be found in the tables above. For the other rounds:
| Letters | Numbers | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me: 348–375 | 72 | 2.57 | 64 | 2.29 |
| 376–390 | 30 | 2.00 | 35 | 2.33 |
| Sam: 348–375 | 65 | 2.32 | 70 | 2.50 |
| 376–390 | 33 | 2.20 | 37 | 2.47 |
Note the very large drop in my average letters maximums -- over 20%. While Sam's maximum percentage also dropped a little, it was by nowhere near as much. This suggests that -- with all due respect to Sam's play -- the results are more reflective of a drop in my performance than a gain in his.
The as-yet-unmentioned but significant factor here is that those three weeks also happened to be extremely rich in full monties. There were 14 potential ones in that time, or almost one a game (although they were clustered rather more strongly). I had a particularly rough time with these; I found two of them, found a third but was unsure and did not risk it, found four (!) others either just as time was running out or just afterwards, and had another which would have been ruled invalid (DUALITIES). In that time I found just two full monties to Sam's five, a reversal of the earlier section which went five-two the other way.
Is this indicative that I struggle with full monties? Possibly yes -- certainly I'm not happy about my percentage of finding them within time. But it might be more accurate to say that the large numbers of them increased the effects of my poor performance during that period.
Is this all me making excuses? Perhaps! Make of it what you will. When all's said and done, Sam has gone away from these games 9 games ahead, a strong indicator of his level of performance. But I hope to do somewhat better next series; I hope you'll join in.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Series summary: Series 4 (Episodes 301 to 400)
And so the fourth series comes to a close, with a great finals series. In particular, all four quarterfinals were decided by the conundrum, so everyone involved really gave it their all. Great stuff! The grand final ended up being very close indeed, with Sam finally beaten on the conundrum but never on the numbers. A fine record, and congratulations to Sam and Alan for being great competitors throughout!
Series 4 champion: Sam Gaffney (577 points at an average of 64.11)
Series 4 runner-up: Alan Nash (508 points at an average of 56.44)
Now here's some aggregate statistics from the series. It seems to have been a slightly above average year in terms of full monties found by David, since the previous three series brought the total just over a hundred. There were more to be found, although some of the ones I have listed as missed might be dodgy so apologies to David if they are. (I'm thinking particularly of BLOATINGS with that caveat, but there may be others I have forgotten.)
That suggests that about one in ten letters rounds has the potential for a full monty, or one every two games. That's a bit more frequent than I would have thought; on the other hand, only three contestants managed to find one in play this series.
Only eight of the numbers rounds turned out to be impossible, which is also a little surprising given how many of the more difficult mixes were chosen this season. It's well within expected bounds, however. Lily found the best answer a bit over 92% of the time, which is a very enviable record.
Here's a scoring breakdown for the combined David/Lily team and myself (both solo and when competing, which I've slightly erroneously labelled HTH for head-to-head). As I have throughout the series, I am assuming that David always solves the conundrum and always matches a contestant's results in cases where he does not give a separate answer. Similarly, Lily is assumed to at least match contestants, and to have found at least a seven point answer in cases where she does not get to the target. (Assuming that this is possible; I have not re-checked this, although my recollection is that it always was, with the worst case being the 780 from episode 341.)
There's a couple of points of interest from their scores, I feel. Firstly, just look at those performances: Lily averages 9.69 points from each numbers game, and David a staggering 8.19 points per letters game -- the full monty bonus really shows up clearly. Fantastic solving from the pair of them!
Secondly, the game's weighting towards the letters is clearly shown up in the above. The letters outscore the numbers by a bit over four to three, or five to three if we group the conundrum with the letters as we probably should. At that ratio, we should throw in two more numbers rounds to make those two facets score equally. I admit that I'm a bit surprised by this, as I thought the ratio was somewhat closer. (I had thought five letters rounds to four numbers rounds, which would actually be pretty accurate if we ignored the conundrum.) That said, it's far from obviously desirable that the two facets score equally; messing around with the ratios is not something to be done lightly.
My letters make up approximately the same percentage of my score as for David (a touch over 50%). My conundrum percentage is much worse, of course (since I've assumed perfection from him), so my numbers make up the gap.
Some other statistics about my performance this series:
(The total of my game results is larger than 100 because in the first quarterfinal I lost to Sam and tied with Sebastian, while in the second semifinal I lost to both Alan and Toby.)
Back when I started this blog I was working on the claim that I would win 95% of games. I was on track until the finals series, where three losses pushed me down to 93%. Still, that was satisfactorily close, and I shall aim to improve it next series.
Series 4 champion: Sam Gaffney (577 points at an average of 64.11)
Series 4 runner-up: Alan Nash (508 points at an average of 56.44)
Now here's some aggregate statistics from the series. It seems to have been a slightly above average year in terms of full monties found by David, since the previous three series brought the total just over a hundred. There were more to be found, although some of the ones I have listed as missed might be dodgy so apologies to David if they are. (I'm thinking particularly of BLOATINGS with that caveat, but there may be others I have forgotten.)
| Full Monties | 38 |
|---|---|
| Missed Full Monties | 16 |
| Tough Numbers | 23 |
| Impossible Numbers | 8 |
That suggests that about one in ten letters rounds has the potential for a full monty, or one every two games. That's a bit more frequent than I would have thought; on the other hand, only three contestants managed to find one in play this series.
Only eight of the numbers rounds turned out to be impossible, which is also a little surprising given how many of the more difficult mixes were chosen this season. It's well within expected bounds, however. Lily found the best answer a bit over 92% of the time, which is a very enviable record.
Here's a scoring breakdown for the combined David/Lily team and myself (both solo and when competing, which I've slightly erroneously labelled HTH for head-to-head). As I have throughout the series, I am assuming that David always solves the conundrum and always matches a contestant's results in cases where he does not give a separate answer. Similarly, Lily is assumed to at least match contestants, and to have found at least a seven point answer in cases where she does not get to the target. (Assuming that this is possible; I have not re-checked this, although my recollection is that it always was, with the worst case being the 780 from episode 341.)
| All | L | N | C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| David + Lily | 8002 | 4095 | 2907 | 1000 |
| Me (solo) | 6888 | 3483 | 2705 | 700 |
| Me (HTH) | 6432 | 3231 | 2651 | 550 |
There's a couple of points of interest from their scores, I feel. Firstly, just look at those performances: Lily averages 9.69 points from each numbers game, and David a staggering 8.19 points per letters game -- the full monty bonus really shows up clearly. Fantastic solving from the pair of them!
Secondly, the game's weighting towards the letters is clearly shown up in the above. The letters outscore the numbers by a bit over four to three, or five to three if we group the conundrum with the letters as we probably should. At that ratio, we should throw in two more numbers rounds to make those two facets score equally. I admit that I'm a bit surprised by this, as I thought the ratio was somewhat closer. (I had thought five letters rounds to four numbers rounds, which would actually be pretty accurate if we ignored the conundrum.) That said, it's far from obviously desirable that the two facets score equally; messing around with the ratios is not something to be done lightly.
My letters make up approximately the same percentage of my score as for David (a touch over 50%). My conundrum percentage is much worse, of course (since I've assumed perfection from him), so my numbers make up the gap.
Some other statistics about my performance this series:
| Wins | 93 |
|---|---|
| Losses | 7 |
| Ties | 2 |
| Full Monties | 12 |
| Invalid Letters | 19 |
| Invalid Numbers | 1 |
| Invalid Conundrums | 6 |
(The total of my game results is larger than 100 because in the first quarterfinal I lost to Sam and tied with Sebastian, while in the second semifinal I lost to both Alan and Toby.)
Back when I started this blog I was working on the claim that I would win 95% of games. I was on track until the finals series, where three losses pushed me down to 93%. Still, that was satisfactorily close, and I shall aim to improve it next series.
Friday, 9 March 2012
Weekly summary: Episodes 396 to 400
It's been a week of excellent games to round out the final series, and greatly enjoyable viewing. I started out with three great games, then faltered badly in the last one to lose to both contestants and record my lowest total of the series. But I recovered on the Friday for the grand final, steered home by the conundrum for a very pleasant change.
I saw a full monty on Wednesday, which was the second high point of the week (first being beating both Sam and Alan to the conundrum on Friday). Thursday saw the first impossible numbers round for a while, and Friday was a big day, with a full monty, another obscure missed one, and a tough numbers round that really challenged the contestants.
Contestants averaging over 30 points a game:
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me | 74 | 61 | 67 | 37 | 55 |
| Champion | 20 | 14 | 52 | 40 | 48 |
| Challenger | 16 | 27 | 35 | 40 | 41 |
| David + Lily | 77 | 76 | 87 | 69 | 86 |
I saw a full monty on Wednesday, which was the second high point of the week (first being beating both Sam and Alan to the conundrum on Friday). Thursday saw the first impossible numbers round for a while, and Friday was a big day, with a full monty, another obscure missed one, and a tough numbers round that really challenged the contestants.
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Monties | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Missed Full Monties | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Tough Numbers | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Impossible Numbers | 1 | 1 |
Contestants averaging over 30 points a game:
| Total | Games | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Norm Do* | 67 | 1 | 67.00 |
| Sam Gaffney | 577 | 9 | 64.11 |
| Geoff Bailey | 247 | 4 | 61.75 |
| Jimmy Driscoll | 61 | 1 | 61.00 |
| Leanne Cox | 57 | 1 | 57.00 |
| Ryan Sutton | 57 | 1 | 57.00 |
| Alan Nash | 508 | 9 | 56.44 |
| Nick Terry | 217 | 4 | 54.25 |
| Geraldine Yam | 52 | 1 | 52.00 |
| Kerin White | 362 | 7 | 51.71 |
| Tim Clay | 51 | 1 | 51.00 |
| Peter Crop | 152 | 3 | 50.67 |
| Lainie Mercieca | 99 | 2 | 49.50 |
| Michael Vnuk | 49 | 1 | 49.00 |
| Susan Pickett | 97 | 2 | 48.50 |
| Colin Shnier | 144 | 3 | 48.00 |
| Matt Williams | 48 | 1 | 48.00 |
| Daniel Chua | 380 | 8 | 47.50 |
| Toby Baldwin | 379 | 8 | 47.38 |
| Sebastian Ham | 284 | 6 | 47.33 |
| Alice Wheeler | 189 | 4 | 47.25 |
| Rhonda Jefferson | 141 | 3 | 47.00 |
| Natasha Podesser | 47 | 1 | 47.00 |
| Brett Edwards | 139 | 3 | 46.33 |
| Cem Gurkan | 92 | 2 | 46.00 |
| Brian McEvoy | 46 | 1 | 46.00 |
| Shaun Ellis | 319 | 7 | 45.57 |
| Michael Nichols | 90 | 2 | 45.00 |
| Karla Treves | 90 | 2 | 45.00 |
| Sandy Clarke | 45 | 1 | 45.00 |
| James Godfrey | 45 | 1 | 45.00 |
| Roman Turkiewicz | 267 | 6 | 44.50 |
| Trevor Armstrong | 178 | 4 | 44.50 |
| Megan Marks | 133 | 3 | 44.33 |
| Maurie Williams | 176 | 4 | 44.00 |
| Nick Compton | 44 | 1 | 44.00 |
| Christopher Piggott-McKellar | 218 | 5 | 43.60 |
| Mark Arnold | 87 | 2 | 43.50 |
| John Day | 42 | 1 | 42.00 |
| Kathy Male | 42 | 1 | 42.00 |
| John O'Connor | 125 | 3 | 41.67 |
| Nathan Dixon | 41 | 1 | 41.00 |
| Nick Mann | 41 | 1 | 41.00 |
| Pam Fichtner | 39 | 1 | 39.00 |
| David Bradley | 77 | 2 | 38.50 |
| Alex van der Kooij | 153 | 4 | 38.25 |
| Adrian Lonigro | 38 | 1 | 38.00 |
| Richelle Patrick | 38 | 1 | 38.00 |
| Colin Jones | 111 | 3 | 37.00 |
| Cherie Brody | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Andrew Krein | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Colin Mallard | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Chris Miller | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Ann Vasconcelos | 73 | 2 | 36.50 |
| Ilona Coote | 36 | 1 | 36.00 |
| Angie Pearce | 71 | 2 | 35.50 |
| Katie Richer | 70 | 2 | 35.00 |
| Tiahn Hannaford | 35 | 1 | 35.00 |
| Craig Woodward | 35 | 1 | 35.00 |
| Kane Gross | 34 | 1 | 34.00 |
| Paul Merry | 67 | 2 | 33.50 |
| Linda Bennett | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Duncan Butler | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Mitchell Fly | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Cameron Tyson | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Hannah Marshall | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Hiep Do | 98 | 3 | 32.67 |
| Susan Cumming | 32 | 1 | 32.00 |
| Sushma Garudadwajan | 62 | 2 | 31.00 |
| David Armstrong | 31 | 1 | 31.00 |
| John Crone | 31 | 1 | 31.00 |
Ep 400: [GF] Sam Gaffney, Alan Nash (March 9, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
It's been a week of close finals that could have easily gone either way, and tonight is another. Alan finds a good word in the first round to take an early lead, but Sam takes it right back in the next round with another good word (that admittedly he was not completely sure about). The next three rounds are matched, and that brings in Alan's number choices. He goes for a single large number and turns up a surprisingly difficult result, with the contestants ending up five and four away. Sam has the better of it to take the lead at last, and then Alan risks an invalid word in the next round to drop behind by more than a conundrum. Alan stakes all on the choice of six small, but both contestants are equal to it and the game is decided before the conundrum. For once Sam is beaten to it as Alan solves it just over five seconds in, and Sam has a narrow 55 to 51 win.
I had a bit of a wobbly time myself, but all of us were level at the end of the fifth round. I saw a better option on the next numbers round to get a lead, only to concede back that lead and more in the last numbers round where I got completely lost. But I saw the conundrum solution faster than Alan to snatch victory at the last, and finish the series on a high note. It's been a rollercoaster!
As usual, details after the jump.
It's been a week of close finals that could have easily gone either way, and tonight is another. Alan finds a good word in the first round to take an early lead, but Sam takes it right back in the next round with another good word (that admittedly he was not completely sure about). The next three rounds are matched, and that brings in Alan's number choices. He goes for a single large number and turns up a surprisingly difficult result, with the contestants ending up five and four away. Sam has the better of it to take the lead at last, and then Alan risks an invalid word in the next round to drop behind by more than a conundrum. Alan stakes all on the choice of six small, but both contestants are equal to it and the game is decided before the conundrum. For once Sam is beaten to it as Alan solves it just over five seconds in, and Sam has a narrow 55 to 51 win.
I had a bit of a wobbly time myself, but all of us were level at the end of the fifth round. I saw a better option on the next numbers round to get a lead, only to concede back that lead and more in the last numbers round where I got completely lost. But I saw the conundrum solution faster than Alan to snatch victory at the last, and finish the series on a high note. It's been a rollercoaster!
As usual, details after the jump.
Ep 399: [SF1] Alan Nash, Toby Baldwin (March 8, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
A little banter worth noting in the pre-game chat tonight. Richard mentions the many conundrum showdowns in the series so far, and Alan claims that it is part of the contestants' efforts to boost ratings for the show. Alan adds that they'll do their best to get another one tonight. Spoiler alert for all of two paragraphs: They do.
Toby mentions that he can almost form a sentence from all the conundrums that he has solved: FRIVOLOUS AGITATION; CORPORATE PORCUPINE OVERJOYED.
The lead switches back and forth several times, with neither contestant able to get a decisive break. Alan starts off with an invalid word to give Toby the early lead, but Toby follows up with an invalid answer on the numbers to hand the lead back to Alan. A good word sees Toby take the lead again, only to give it back to Alan with another invalid numbers round. Then another good word gives him the lead again, and he finally gets a valid answer in the numbers to take a ten point lead into the conundrum. Alan solves the conundrum quickly to tie the scores and force a second one, and then solves that second one even faster to take the win, 50 to 40. Those two crucial conundrums make up for the lack of one last night.
Meanwhile, I was having an erratic and not very satisfactory effort. I started with a careless invalid word without a decent fallback, and arguably that cost me this game. My numbers could have been better but those were harder finds, and my invalid guess at the first conundrum sealed the loss. A disappointing result after three good games, and incidentally my worst result of the series. My two worst scores have come against Alan in the finals series; a worrying sign.
As usual, details after the jump.
A little banter worth noting in the pre-game chat tonight. Richard mentions the many conundrum showdowns in the series so far, and Alan claims that it is part of the contestants' efforts to boost ratings for the show. Alan adds that they'll do their best to get another one tonight. Spoiler alert for all of two paragraphs: They do.
Toby mentions that he can almost form a sentence from all the conundrums that he has solved: FRIVOLOUS AGITATION; CORPORATE PORCUPINE OVERJOYED.
The lead switches back and forth several times, with neither contestant able to get a decisive break. Alan starts off with an invalid word to give Toby the early lead, but Toby follows up with an invalid answer on the numbers to hand the lead back to Alan. A good word sees Toby take the lead again, only to give it back to Alan with another invalid numbers round. Then another good word gives him the lead again, and he finally gets a valid answer in the numbers to take a ten point lead into the conundrum. Alan solves the conundrum quickly to tie the scores and force a second one, and then solves that second one even faster to take the win, 50 to 40. Those two crucial conundrums make up for the lack of one last night.
Meanwhile, I was having an erratic and not very satisfactory effort. I started with a careless invalid word without a decent fallback, and arguably that cost me this game. My numbers could have been better but those were harder finds, and my invalid guess at the first conundrum sealed the loss. A disappointing result after three good games, and incidentally my worst result of the series. My two worst scores have come against Alan in the finals series; a worrying sign.
As usual, details after the jump.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Ep 398: [SF1] Sam Gaffney, Daniel Chua (March 7, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Whew, it's another great game. It's decided just a touch earlier, but it could easily have gone all the way down to the wire. Sam gets what proves to be a decisive 14 point lead from the first two letters rounds, and thereafter the contestants match each other all the way to the conundrum. Along the way Sam amazes everyone as he finally gets to demonstrate some of the intricacies that the four large mix can provide, and Daniel shows some great strategic thinking in the other two numbers rounds. The last one very nearly paid off, but not quite, and Sam was safe going into the conundrum. Once again he blitzed it, for a solid 72 to 48 win that was much closer than the scoreline would suggest.
I was fortunate to find the full monty in this game, and that was the eventual difference. I traded some letters results along the way and at the final numbers game was safe as long as Sam did not solve it (unless I did as well, of course). It proved too difficult for everyone except the ever-dazzling Lily, and that was game to me. For the third time this series I was only barely beaten to the conundrum, having paused the video before the buzzer went off but after Sam's name lit up. A close one!
As usual, details after the jump.
Whew, it's another great game. It's decided just a touch earlier, but it could easily have gone all the way down to the wire. Sam gets what proves to be a decisive 14 point lead from the first two letters rounds, and thereafter the contestants match each other all the way to the conundrum. Along the way Sam amazes everyone as he finally gets to demonstrate some of the intricacies that the four large mix can provide, and Daniel shows some great strategic thinking in the other two numbers rounds. The last one very nearly paid off, but not quite, and Sam was safe going into the conundrum. Once again he blitzed it, for a solid 72 to 48 win that was much closer than the scoreline would suggest.
I was fortunate to find the full monty in this game, and that was the eventual difference. I traded some letters results along the way and at the final numbers game was safe as long as Sam did not solve it (unless I did as well, of course). It proved too difficult for everyone except the ever-dazzling Lily, and that was game to me. For the third time this series I was only barely beaten to the conundrum, having paused the video before the buzzer went off but after Sam's name lit up. A close one!
As usual, details after the jump.
Ep 397: [QF4] Toby Baldwin, Shaun Ellis (March 6, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Again, not much to the chat although we do get to see Shaun's improved poker face. It's a little scary, to be honest.
Once more there's some good back-and-forth, but two of Shaun's words are invalid which gives Toby crucial points. Toby needs it, too, because he concedes a lot of ground on the numbers, and was behind by more than the conundrum going into the final numbers round. Shaun erred, I feel, by choosing a difficult numbers option, and Toby was just able to outdo Shaun in it. That brought the match down to the conundrum yet again, with Shaun leading but not safe. Toby held his nerve to spot the answer with five seconds left on the clock, and scrapes through into the finals, 43 to 39.
Another slightly mixed performance from me today, including an invalid declaration in the first round that was quite bizarre in retrospect. I'd correctly judged that it wasn't going to cost me points, at least. I did miss a longer word in another round, but aside from that it was smooth sailing. Just like last night, I solved the conundrum eight seconds in for what ended up being a fairly easy win.
As usual, details after the jump.
Again, not much to the chat although we do get to see Shaun's improved poker face. It's a little scary, to be honest.
Once more there's some good back-and-forth, but two of Shaun's words are invalid which gives Toby crucial points. Toby needs it, too, because he concedes a lot of ground on the numbers, and was behind by more than the conundrum going into the final numbers round. Shaun erred, I feel, by choosing a difficult numbers option, and Toby was just able to outdo Shaun in it. That brought the match down to the conundrum yet again, with Shaun leading but not safe. Toby held his nerve to spot the answer with five seconds left on the clock, and scrapes through into the finals, 43 to 39.
Another slightly mixed performance from me today, including an invalid declaration in the first round that was quite bizarre in retrospect. I'd correctly judged that it wasn't going to cost me points, at least. I did miss a longer word in another round, but aside from that it was smooth sailing. Just like last night, I solved the conundrum eight seconds in for what ended up being a fairly easy win.
As usual, details after the jump.
Monday, 5 March 2012
Ep 396: [QF3] Kerin White, Daniel Chua (March 5, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Still nothing much to the pre-game chat. I can't decide if the contestants have exhausted their interesting facts about themselves, or if the producers think that it's better to just get straight into the show.
This final is certainly a contrast to the previous two, and ends up being a somewhat low-scoring but close-fought affair. Aside from one good eight-letter word the longest is six, and an early invalid choice by Daniel has him trailing. Kerin simply can't get into the numbers, though, and that gives Daniel just enough leeway to take the lead, helped along by an invalid word from Kerin. Once again it is anyone's match on the conundrum, but tonight it eludes them both; Daniel gets through, 32 to 26.
I was feeling much better about things today. Although I missed a word that I should have seen and was slow at the conundrum yet again, the rest I'm fairly happy with. I'd say this was the result of being better rested, but my sleeping problems of the last few weeks have persisted. Oh, well.
As usual, details after the jump.
Still nothing much to the pre-game chat. I can't decide if the contestants have exhausted their interesting facts about themselves, or if the producers think that it's better to just get straight into the show.
This final is certainly a contrast to the previous two, and ends up being a somewhat low-scoring but close-fought affair. Aside from one good eight-letter word the longest is six, and an early invalid choice by Daniel has him trailing. Kerin simply can't get into the numbers, though, and that gives Daniel just enough leeway to take the lead, helped along by an invalid word from Kerin. Once again it is anyone's match on the conundrum, but tonight it eludes them both; Daniel gets through, 32 to 26.
I was feeling much better about things today. Although I missed a word that I should have seen and was slow at the conundrum yet again, the rest I'm fairly happy with. I'd say this was the result of being better rested, but my sleeping problems of the last few weeks have persisted. Oh, well.
As usual, details after the jump.
Friday, 2 March 2012
Weekly summary: Episodes 391 to 395
So much for my hope of taking momentum into the first week of finals! I've not felt comfortable all week, and some very basic misses throughout, but I seem to have saved the worst for the finals. Or perhaps it is simply that I haven't been able to get away with the lapses, as I have done in previous instances. That's probably a fairer assessment, but I do feel it's been a very substandard performance from me this week.
A lot of tough numbers this week, two of them coming from the otherwise fairly inocuous single large mix. David started on track for a grand slam of full monties, but the mixes didn't cooperate; he still found three, making it an above-average week.
Contestants averaging over 30 points a game:
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me | 57 | 68 | 62 | 53 | 38 |
| Champion | 40 | 32 | 5 | 70 | 56 |
| Challenger | 24 | 20 | 46 | 53 | 37 |
| David + Lily | 85 | 86 | 72 | 82 | 75 |
A lot of tough numbers this week, two of them coming from the otherwise fairly inocuous single large mix. David started on track for a grand slam of full monties, but the mixes didn't cooperate; he still found three, making it an above-average week.
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Monties | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||
| Missed Full Monties | 0 | |||||
| Tough Numbers | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| Impossible Numbers | 0 |
Contestants averaging over 30 points a game:
| Total | Games | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Norm Do* | 67 | 1 | 67.00 |
| Sam Gaffney* | 450 | 7 | 64.29 |
| Geoff Bailey | 247 | 4 | 61.75 |
| Jimmy Driscoll | 61 | 1 | 61.00 |
| Alan Nash* | 407 | 7 | 58.14 |
| Leanne Cox | 57 | 1 | 57.00 |
| Ryan Sutton | 57 | 1 | 57.00 |
| Kerin White* | 336 | 6 | 56.00 |
| Nick Terry | 217 | 4 | 54.25 |
| Geraldine Yam | 52 | 1 | 52.00 |
| Tim Clay | 51 | 1 | 51.00 |
| Peter Crop | 152 | 3 | 50.67 |
| Daniel Chua* | 300 | 6 | 50.00 |
| Lainie Mercieca | 99 | 2 | 49.50 |
| Toby Baldwin* | 296 | 6 | 49.33 |
| Michael Vnuk | 49 | 1 | 49.00 |
| Susan Pickett | 97 | 2 | 48.50 |
| Colin Shnier | 144 | 3 | 48.00 |
| Matt Williams | 48 | 1 | 48.00 |
| Sebastian Ham | 284 | 6 | 47.33 |
| Alice Wheeler | 189 | 4 | 47.25 |
| Rhonda Jefferson | 141 | 3 | 47.00 |
| Natasha Podesser | 47 | 1 | 47.00 |
| Shaun Ellis* | 280 | 6 | 46.67 |
| Brett Edwards | 139 | 3 | 46.33 |
| Cem Gurkan | 92 | 2 | 46.00 |
| Brian McEvoy | 46 | 1 | 46.00 |
| Michael Nichols | 90 | 2 | 45.00 |
| Karla Treves | 90 | 2 | 45.00 |
| Sandy Clarke | 45 | 1 | 45.00 |
| James Godfrey | 45 | 1 | 45.00 |
| Roman Turkiewicz | 267 | 6 | 44.50 |
| Trevor Armstrong | 178 | 4 | 44.50 |
| Megan Marks | 133 | 3 | 44.33 |
| Maurie Williams | 176 | 4 | 44.00 |
| Nick Compton | 44 | 1 | 44.00 |
| Christopher Piggott-McKellar | 218 | 5 | 43.60 |
| Mark Arnold | 87 | 2 | 43.50 |
| John Day | 42 | 1 | 42.00 |
| Kathy Male | 42 | 1 | 42.00 |
| John O'Connor | 125 | 3 | 41.67 |
| Nathan Dixon | 41 | 1 | 41.00 |
| Nick Mann | 41 | 1 | 41.00 |
| Pam Fichtner | 39 | 1 | 39.00 |
| David Bradley | 77 | 2 | 38.50 |
| Alex van der Kooij | 153 | 4 | 38.25 |
| Adrian Lonigro | 38 | 1 | 38.00 |
| Richelle Patrick | 38 | 1 | 38.00 |
| Colin Jones | 111 | 3 | 37.00 |
| Cherie Brody | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Andrew Krein | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Colin Mallard | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Chris Miller | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Ann Vasconcelos | 73 | 2 | 36.50 |
| Ilona Coote | 36 | 1 | 36.00 |
| Angie Pearce | 71 | 2 | 35.50 |
| Katie Richer | 70 | 2 | 35.00 |
| Tiahn Hannaford | 35 | 1 | 35.00 |
| Craig Woodward | 35 | 1 | 35.00 |
| Kane Gross | 34 | 1 | 34.00 |
| Paul Merry | 67 | 2 | 33.50 |
| Linda Bennett | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Duncan Butler | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Mitchell Fly | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Cameron Tyson | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Hannah Marshall | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Hiep Do | 98 | 3 | 32.67 |
| Susan Cumming | 32 | 1 | 32.00 |
| Sushma Garudadwajan | 62 | 2 | 31.00 |
| David Armstrong | 31 | 1 | 31.00 |
| John Crone | 31 | 1 | 31.00 |
Ep 395: [QF 2] Alan Nash, Roman Turkiewicz (March 2, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Not much more to today's contestant chat, either, although we learn that Alan would like to go to space.
Roman gets a jump in the first letters round, but thereafter the contestants are matched on the words. Indeed, there's only one non-optimal round on those today, which is great stuff. This game hinges on the numbers, with Alan getting most of that lost ground back with the four large mix, and then some more as Roman's preferred balanced mix turns out not to Roman's advantage. The final numbers round could have narrowed the gap, but some confusion on Roman's part results in an invalid answer. It's still possible for either to win at the conundrum, but Alan sees it at the 24 second mark and advances to the semifinals with a 56 to 37 win.
I... had what felt like the worst game for a long time. Not so much on the score (although I think it matches the least I've scored this series) but because of opportunities missed that I would have normally expected to take. I've been talking about the contestants having final nerves, but I think there's far more evidence for me having those right now. I just edged out Roman by a point, but that was only due to an invalid answer that may even not have been so (see round 8), and was comfortably beaten by Alan. Bother.
As usual, details after the jump.
Not much more to today's contestant chat, either, although we learn that Alan would like to go to space.
Roman gets a jump in the first letters round, but thereafter the contestants are matched on the words. Indeed, there's only one non-optimal round on those today, which is great stuff. This game hinges on the numbers, with Alan getting most of that lost ground back with the four large mix, and then some more as Roman's preferred balanced mix turns out not to Roman's advantage. The final numbers round could have narrowed the gap, but some confusion on Roman's part results in an invalid answer. It's still possible for either to win at the conundrum, but Alan sees it at the 24 second mark and advances to the semifinals with a 56 to 37 win.
I... had what felt like the worst game for a long time. Not so much on the score (although I think it matches the least I've scored this series) but because of opportunities missed that I would have normally expected to take. I've been talking about the contestants having final nerves, but I think there's far more evidence for me having those right now. I just edged out Roman by a point, but that was only due to an invalid answer that may even not have been so (see round 8), and was comfortably beaten by Alan. Bother.
As usual, details after the jump.
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Ep 394: [QF1] Sam Gaffney, Sebastian Ham (March 1, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
The finals are underway at last! But there's something a little odd: Sam is playing Sebastian, rather than Roman. I've checked the scores several times, and there's no doubt that Sebastian should have been in seventh position. That's rather unfortunate for him, and fortunate for Roman who presumably needed a break after his recent games.
The early chat just rehashes some of the things we've learned about the contestants during their earlier episodes.
It's a very close match tonight, with the contestants matched on the letters rounds. Sam gets a lead due to a good result on his favourite four large mix, but the rest offers little scope for advancement. It comes down to the conundrum, and Sam blitzes it for an emphatic win, 70 to 53.
I essentially matched Sebastian throughout, although there were two bad misses that on another day I may well have got. I wasn't remotely close to solving the conundrum within the allotted time, and finished tied with Sebastian. Sam hands me another loss, as somewhat expected. Great game from both contestants!
As usual, details after the jump.
The finals are underway at last! But there's something a little odd: Sam is playing Sebastian, rather than Roman. I've checked the scores several times, and there's no doubt that Sebastian should have been in seventh position. That's rather unfortunate for him, and fortunate for Roman who presumably needed a break after his recent games.
The early chat just rehashes some of the things we've learned about the contestants during their earlier episodes.
It's a very close match tonight, with the contestants matched on the letters rounds. Sam gets a lead due to a good result on his favourite four large mix, but the rest offers little scope for advancement. It comes down to the conundrum, and Sam blitzes it for an emphatic win, 70 to 53.
I essentially matched Sebastian throughout, although there were two bad misses that on another day I may well have got. I wasn't remotely close to solving the conundrum within the allotted time, and finished tied with Sebastian. Sam hands me another loss, as somewhat expected. Great game from both contestants!
As usual, details after the jump.
Finals preview (series 4): Letters, Numbers, Conundrums
Some of the finalists will be better at the letters, and some at the numbers. My feeling is that someone who is reliably better at the letters will beat someone who is reliably better at numbers, but it is a bit more finely balanced than I first thought. In any case, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how the contestants have performed in the various categories, and what their strengths or weaknesses seem to be.
First up, here are the average points scored by contestants in each of the appropriate rounds (not games), assuming no competition. (i.e., solo scores.) Naturally we would expect the letters to have a smoother distribution than the numbers, which would be much smoother than the conundrum. (The conundrum results are particularly unreliable since the other contestant sometimes solved it first.)
This does show some interesting results, in particular the large gap in numbers performance between the top five and the lower three.
How might this translate into results? Consider a game between Sam and Alan. Alan's average letters result is 0.2 better than Sam's, or an average of 1 better over the course of a game. That could mean finding an eight to Sam's seven, and an eight point gain overall. Similarly, the average numbers advantage is 1 to Sam, or 3 over the course of a game; that could translate to 10 vs. 7, or ten points to Sam. And the conundrum results are even, but only one contestant can score.
So the above results could be taken to suggest that a Sam vs. Alan match would have Sam leading by 2 points going into the conundrum, and a tossup as to who actually wins. (And yes, I know this is so far from being statistically valid that it is silly; I'm just playing around, really.)
Of course, as I mentioned in the previous post, solo scores do not take into account how difficult the rounds were (whether in terms of best possible result, or how feasible it was to find it). They also don't reflect well the nature of the scoring, where a single point difference in the letters could mean as much as an eighteen point difference in the scores.
The following doesn't adequately reflect that well on it either, but it's the datapoint that I have. Here are the average points won or lost by each contestant against me. This time it is average per game, rather than per round.
This reflects some larger differences. If we apply the results of this to that matchup between Sam and Alan, then we see about 3 points of difference in the letters, but a massive 16 points in the numbers -- that's a 19 point lead to Sam going into the conundrum, and a safe win even if Alan solves it.
Can we conclude much of anything from this? Not really, particularly as all of us are moving targets, ability-wise, and the game is too short to properly shake out variance. Fortunately tonight we will get some real data.
First up, here are the average points scored by contestants in each of the appropriate rounds (not games), assuming no competition. (i.e., solo scores.) Naturally we would expect the letters to have a smoother distribution than the numbers, which would be much smoother than the conundrum. (The conundrum results are particularly unreliable since the other contestant sometimes solved it first.)
| Letters | Numbers | Conundrum | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alan | 6.93 | Sam | 8.33 | Toby | 6.67 | ||
| Sam | 6.73 | Kerin | 8.17 | Roman | 6.00 | ||
| Kerin | 6.60 | Daniel | 7.39 | Sam | 5.00 | ||
| Toby | 6.43 | Alan | 7.33 | Alan | 5.00 | ||
| Roman | 6.08 | Sebastian | 7.20 | Kerin | 5.00 | ||
| Shaun | 6.05 | Roman | 5.60 | Sebastian | 4.00 | ||
| Daniel | 5.70 | Toby | 5.11 | Daniel | 3.33 | ||
| Sebastian | 5.48 | Shaun | 5.00 | Shaun | 2.50 | ||
This does show some interesting results, in particular the large gap in numbers performance between the top five and the lower three.
How might this translate into results? Consider a game between Sam and Alan. Alan's average letters result is 0.2 better than Sam's, or an average of 1 better over the course of a game. That could mean finding an eight to Sam's seven, and an eight point gain overall. Similarly, the average numbers advantage is 1 to Sam, or 3 over the course of a game; that could translate to 10 vs. 7, or ten points to Sam. And the conundrum results are even, but only one contestant can score.
So the above results could be taken to suggest that a Sam vs. Alan match would have Sam leading by 2 points going into the conundrum, and a tossup as to who actually wins. (And yes, I know this is so far from being statistically valid that it is silly; I'm just playing around, really.)
Of course, as I mentioned in the previous post, solo scores do not take into account how difficult the rounds were (whether in terms of best possible result, or how feasible it was to find it). They also don't reflect well the nature of the scoring, where a single point difference in the letters could mean as much as an eighteen point difference in the scores.
The following doesn't adequately reflect that well on it either, but it's the datapoint that I have. Here are the average points won or lost by each contestant against me. This time it is average per game, rather than per round.
| Letters | Numbers | Conundrum | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam | -1.83 | Sam | +0.83 | Alan | +1.67 | ||
| Alan | -4.67 | Kerin | -11.17 | Sam | 0.00 | ||
| Shaun | -10.25 | Daniel | -13.33 | Kerin | -1.67 | ||
| Kerin | -14.17 | Sebastian | -14.20 | Shaun | -2.50 | ||
| Toby | -15.33 | Roman | -14.83 | Roman | -4.00 | ||
| Roman | -18.80 | Alan | -15.17 | Sebastian | -6.00 | ||
| Daniel | -23.00 | Shaun | -15.50 | Toby | -6.67 | ||
| Sebastian | -25.20 | Toby | -21.00 | Daniel | -8.33 | ||
This reflects some larger differences. If we apply the results of this to that matchup between Sam and Alan, then we see about 3 points of difference in the letters, but a massive 16 points in the numbers -- that's a 19 point lead to Sam going into the conundrum, and a safe win even if Alan solves it.
Can we conclude much of anything from this? Not really, particularly as all of us are moving targets, ability-wise, and the game is too short to properly shake out variance. Fortunately tonight we will get some real data.
Finals preview (series 4): Rating the finalists
Now that the eight finalists are known -- although it came down to the very last game! -- I thought that I would review their performance and make some predictions about likely results in the finals. Very little should be read into this, since the game has high variability and the contestants are likely to have changed in ability in the meanwhile; I know that when I was told I might make it to the finals I put in some more practice, for instance. That was around the time that I started this blog, I think, and my consistency has certainly changed since then.
Note: Shaun Ellis's first two games were played last series, and I do not have a record of them. I could probably work something out, but it seemed simpler just to omit them from consideration. Also, Sam Gaffney's fourth game needed a second conundrum round during actual play. However, I am treating that game as stopping after the first conundrum in order to make the comparisons match up more sensibly.
To start with, here are the solo totals for each contestant, ordered by their average score per game. The solo total is what they would have scored for all their rounds if there were no opponent.
This shows a quite clear stratification, with the top three very close to each other, then the next four clustered further down, and then another gap to Shaun. I also find it interesting how consistent Daniel was, with only an eight point gap between his lowest and highest scores.
Of course, these figures don't tell us that much; the rounds in one game may have been much easier than the rounds in another. Below is the same table with my solo scores added for comparison; this time the table is sorted by the contestant's total score as a percentage of my total score. i.e., how close they were to my performance on the same games.
(It might be more objective to compare against the combined performance of David and Lily, but that makes judging the conundrums tricky; more importantly, they are too good. Suppose the contestant matches David with a seven-letter word. If the only one was GUANACO, then that's a fantastic result; if there were a couple including MAGPIES then it's a good result; and if there were many including TEARING then it is an average result. Loosely speaking, David is equally likely to find any of those, while I will be more towards the good end of the spectrum. Or so I would like to believe.)
On this basis there is further separation. If we make the unrealistic assumption that my performance is a suitable baseline of comparison, then the top three are the same but Sam has a much clearer lead over Kerin and Alan than the solo scores alone would suggest; Shaun's standing has improved greatly -- my average score was the lowest in his games -- but is still well behind the top three; and Roman has moved up a little also.
(As a curiosity, I note that my solo scores during Daniel's run were almost smoother than his -- his opponent in the last game solved the conundrum too quickly, otherwise there might have been just a three point gap between lowest and highest -- as I erroneously thought was the case at first, due to not checking that game well enough.)
Of course, solo scores do not reflect the scoring of the game, and in particular the cost of finding a weak answer when a better one was relatively easy to find. Finding RATING instead of TEARING might only show up as a single point loss, instead of the seven point loss that it should be in practice. So in an attempt to take this into consideration, here are the head-to-head results (as recorded in this blog) between each finalist and myself. (Note: There are some slight differences between numbers here and those posted, due to ignoring the other contestant in those games.)
This table is sorted by the contestant's total score as a percentage of my total score; I also show the average per-game difference between their scores and mine. Positive values would reflect that the difference favours them; negative values indicate a corresponding advantage to me.
On this metric the differences are massive. (Of course, it is of very dubious validity, but we'll see where it takes us anyway.) It's no surprise that Sam stays way on top, but the gap between him and Alan has stretched out greatly, as has that between Alan and Kerin. Shaun ends up pretty well separated from the remaining four, who are all very close to each other.
Based on this data, the first three quarter-finals should go with the higher-ranked seeds, but the fourth one has Shaun facing Toby. Toby is the higher seed (his total of 296 beating Shaun's total of 280), but Shaun's head-to-head percentage against me was much larger. Will this reflect what actually occurs? I guess we'll have to see!
Update: Commenter Victor suggested that the contestants be rated by their percentage of "maximums" -- times that they achieved the best possible results from the round. I have some doubts about this as a useful measure, as does commenter Mark, but here's a table anyway:
Note: Shaun Ellis's first two games were played last series, and I do not have a record of them. I could probably work something out, but it seemed simpler just to omit them from consideration. Also, Sam Gaffney's fourth game needed a second conundrum round during actual play. However, I am treating that game as stopping after the first conundrum in order to make the comparisons match up more sensibly.
To start with, here are the solo totals for each contestant, ordered by their average score per game. The solo total is what they would have scored for all their rounds if there were no opponent.
| Total | Average | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Gaffney | 51 | 81 | 67 | 64 | 64 | 55 | 382 | 63.67 |
| Kerin White | 68 | 63 | 59 | 63 | 71 | 51 | 375 | 62.50 |
| Alan Nash | 60 | 73 | 59 | 54 | 55 | 69 | 370 | 61.67 |
| Toby Baldwin | 65 | 48 | 60 | 48 | 54 | 50 | 325 | 54.17 |
| Daniel Chua | 51 | 59 | 56 | 53 | 53 | 52 | 324 | 54.00 |
| Roman Turkiewicz | 68 | 55 | 57 | 52 | 34 | 266 | 53.20 | |
| Sebastian Ham | 49 | 55 | 65 | 40 | 56 | 265 | 53.00 | |
| Shaun Ellis | 43 | 59 | 45 | 44 | 191 | 47.75 | ||
This shows a quite clear stratification, with the top three very close to each other, then the next four clustered further down, and then another gap to Shaun. I also find it interesting how consistent Daniel was, with only an eight point gap between his lowest and highest scores.
Of course, these figures don't tell us that much; the rounds in one game may have been much easier than the rounds in another. Below is the same table with my solo scores added for comparison; this time the table is sorted by the contestant's total score as a percentage of my total score. i.e., how close they were to my performance on the same games.
(It might be more objective to compare against the combined performance of David and Lily, but that makes judging the conundrums tricky; more importantly, they are too good. Suppose the contestant matches David with a seven-letter word. If the only one was GUANACO, then that's a fantastic result; if there were a couple including MAGPIES then it's a good result; and if there were many including TEARING then it is an average result. Loosely speaking, David is equally likely to find any of those, while I will be more towards the good end of the spectrum. Or so I would like to believe.)
| Total | Average | % | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Gaffney | 51 | 81 | 67 | 64 | 64 | 55 | 382 | 63.67 | 97.45% |
| Me | 63 | 57 | 68 | 77 | 64 | 61 | 390 | 65.00 | |
| Kerin White | 68 | 63 | 59 | 63 | 71 | 51 | 375 | 62.50 | 91.91% |
| Me | 75 | 59 | 65 | 65 | 77 | 67 | 408 | 68.00 | |
| Alan Nash | 60 | 73 | 59 | 54 | 55 | 69 | 370 | 61.67 | 89.16% |
| Me | 87 | 60 | 61 | 77 | 64 | 66 | 415 | 69.17 | |
| Shaun Ellis | 43 | 59 | 45 | 44 | 191 | 47.75 | 77.96% | ||
| Me | 53 | 66 | 58 | 68 | 245 | 61.25 | |||
| Roman Turkiewicz | 68 | 55 | 57 | 52 | 34 | 266 | 53.20 | 77.78% | |
| Me | 76 | 73 | 57 | 68 | 68 | 342 | 68.40 | ||
| Toby Baldwin | 65 | 48 | 60 | 48 | 54 | 50 | 325 | 54.17 | 74.88% |
| Me | 75 | 83 | 72 | 63 | 69 | 72 | 434 | 72.33 | |
| Daniel Chua | 51 | 59 | 56 | 53 | 53 | 52 | 324 | 54.00 | 72.81% |
| Me | 77 | 76 | 74 | 76 | 76 | 66 | 445 | 74.17 | |
| Sebastian Ham | 49 | 55 | 65 | 40 | 56 | 265 | 53.00 | 71.24% | |
| Me | 68 | 74 | 85 | 69 | 76 | 372 | 74.40 | ||
On this basis there is further separation. If we make the unrealistic assumption that my performance is a suitable baseline of comparison, then the top three are the same but Sam has a much clearer lead over Kerin and Alan than the solo scores alone would suggest; Shaun's standing has improved greatly -- my average score was the lowest in his games -- but is still well behind the top three; and Roman has moved up a little also.
(As a curiosity, I note that my solo scores during Daniel's run were almost smoother than his -- his opponent in the last game solved the conundrum too quickly, otherwise there might have been just a three point gap between lowest and highest -- as I erroneously thought was the case at first, due to not checking that game well enough.)
Of course, solo scores do not reflect the scoring of the game, and in particular the cost of finding a weak answer when a better one was relatively easy to find. Finding RATING instead of TEARING might only show up as a single point loss, instead of the seven point loss that it should be in practice. So in an attempt to take this into consideration, here are the head-to-head results (as recorded in this blog) between each finalist and myself. (Note: There are some slight differences between numbers here and those posted, due to ignoring the other contestant in those games.)
This table is sorted by the contestant's total score as a percentage of my total score; I also show the average per-game difference between their scores and mine. Positive values would reflect that the difference favours them; negative values indicate a corresponding advantage to me.
| Total | Avg Δ | % | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Gaffney | 38 | 81 | 57 | 52 | 64 | 43 | 335 | -1.00 | 98.24% |
| Me | 63 | 41 | 51 | 77 | 54 | 55 | 341 | ||
| Alan Nash | 46 | 59 | 45 | 34 | 43 | 57 | 284 | -18.17 | 72.26% |
| Me | 87 | 60 | 55 | 67 | 64 | 60 | 393 | ||
| Kerin White | 38 | 37 | 35 | 49 | 35 | 39 | 233 | -27.00 | 58.99% |
| Me | 75 | 59 | 52 | 65 | 77 | 67 | 395 | ||
| Shaun Ellis | 33 | 35 | 33 | 13 | 114 | -28.25 | 50.22% | ||
| Me | 48 | 59 | 52 | 68 | 227 | ||||
| Roman Turkiewicz | 30 | 21 | 40 | 32 | 11 | 134 | -41.60 | 39.18% | |
| Me | 76 | 73 | 57 | 68 | 68 | 342 | |||
| Sebastian Ham | 14 | 43 | 23 | 27 | 38 | 145 | -45.40 | 38.98% | |
| Me | 68 | 74 | 85 | 69 | 76 | 372 | |||
| Toby Baldwin | 23 | 21 | 33 | 31 | 36 | 14 | 158 | -43.00 | 37.98% |
| Me | 75 | 83 | 72 | 51 | 63 | 72 | 416 | ||
| Daniel Chua | 10 | 28 | 45 | 42 | 7 | 32 | 164 | -44.67 | 37.96% |
| Me | 77 | 69 | 68 | 76 | 76 | 66 | 432 | ||
On this metric the differences are massive. (Of course, it is of very dubious validity, but we'll see where it takes us anyway.) It's no surprise that Sam stays way on top, but the gap between him and Alan has stretched out greatly, as has that between Alan and Kerin. Shaun ends up pretty well separated from the remaining four, who are all very close to each other.
Based on this data, the first three quarter-finals should go with the higher-ranked seeds, but the fourth one has Shaun facing Toby. Toby is the higher seed (his total of 296 beating Shaun's total of 280), but Shaun's head-to-head percentage against me was much larger. Will this reflect what actually occurs? I guess we'll have to see!
Update: Commenter Victor suggested that the contestants be rated by their percentage of "maximums" -- times that they achieved the best possible results from the round. I have some doubts about this as a useful measure, as does commenter Mark, but here's a table anyway:
| Letters | Numbers | Conundrum | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam | 10 | 12 | 3 | 4.17 |
| Kerin | 11 | 9 | 3 | 3.83 |
| Alan | 8 | 8 | 3 | 3.17 |
| Daniel | 7 | 10 | 2 | 3.17 |
| Toby | 9 | 4 | 4 | 2.83 |
| Sebastian | 4 | 7 | 2 | 2.60 |
| Shaun | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2.00 |
| Roman | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1.60 |
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Finals preview (series 4): Rankings
It came down to the very last game of the series, but the finalists are sorted out. Roman just edged ahead of Christopher and even more barely remained behind Sebastian by a single point. The rankings:
With the exception of Roman, all of the other finalists would have had a fair amount of time to practice and get better. (I certainly did so when it looked like I would make it; I've lost some of that edge since then as has shown up in the numbers, but I've gained somewhat on the letters through constructing this blog.) I will be interested to see how they have progressed; I'm afraid that Roman will be at a big disadvantage due to that lack of practice, and I'd be highly surprised to see him advance to the semifinals.
| Sam Gaffney | 51 | 81 | 62 | 67 | 64 | 55 | 380 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alan Nash | 60 | 73 | 52 | 54 | 43 | 69 | 351 |
| Kerin White | 55 | 56 | 46 | 63 | 65 | 51 | 336 |
| Toby Baldwin | 59 | 48 | 54 | 43 | 48 | 44 | 296 |
| Shaun Ellis | 43 | 56 | 38 | 59 | 40 | 44 | 280 |
| Daniel Chua | 44 | 59 | 56 | 53 | 36 | 52 | 300 |
| Sebastian Ham | 39 | 49 | 58 | 40 | 45 | 231 | |
| Roman Turkiewicz | 68 | 44 | 57 | 45 | 16 | 230 |
With the exception of Roman, all of the other finalists would have had a fair amount of time to practice and get better. (I certainly did so when it looked like I would make it; I've lost some of that edge since then as has shown up in the numbers, but I've gained somewhat on the letters through constructing this blog.) I will be interested to see how they have progressed; I'm afraid that Roman will be at a big disadvantage due to that lack of practice, and I'd be highly surprised to see him advance to the semifinals.
Ep 393: Roman Turkiewicz, Norm Do (February 29, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Roman is learning to play the tabla (Indian drums). He says it is quite difficult, and there's actually a language associated with the drumming -- the beats have their own letters and phrases associated to them. (These are mentioned in the link above.)
Tonight's challenger is mathematician Norm Do. Richard asks what Norm is researching, and Norm doesn't really give an answer; he just says "pure mathematics". That's like an author being asked what they write and responding with "books". A more detailed answer (courtesy of his webpage) is that he studies geometry and topology, and in particular moduli spaces of curves. Not that this is necessarily more informative to the layperson, but I think he could have made a brief description of topology and that would have worked much better.
There's some tough mixes tonight, particularly in the letters. Norm starts out with a good word to get ahead, and extends his lead in each of the numbers rounds. Roman just isn't able to outdo him at all, and is beaten to the conundrum for a change. That gives Norm a comprehensive victory, 67 to 16.
I felt pretty poorly about my performance, starting out by falling behind in the first round. I managed to claw my way back to a lead but was never comfortable, and missed a couple of chances to seal it before the conundrum. In the end I got to it first, but it was a wobbly win.
As usual, details after the jump.
Roman is learning to play the tabla (Indian drums). He says it is quite difficult, and there's actually a language associated with the drumming -- the beats have their own letters and phrases associated to them. (These are mentioned in the link above.)
Tonight's challenger is mathematician Norm Do. Richard asks what Norm is researching, and Norm doesn't really give an answer; he just says "pure mathematics". That's like an author being asked what they write and responding with "books". A more detailed answer (courtesy of his webpage) is that he studies geometry and topology, and in particular moduli spaces of curves. Not that this is necessarily more informative to the layperson, but I think he could have made a brief description of topology and that would have worked much better.
There's some tough mixes tonight, particularly in the letters. Norm starts out with a good word to get ahead, and extends his lead in each of the numbers rounds. Roman just isn't able to outdo him at all, and is beaten to the conundrum for a change. That gives Norm a comprehensive victory, 67 to 16.
I felt pretty poorly about my performance, starting out by falling behind in the first round. I managed to claw my way back to a lead but was never comfortable, and missed a couple of chances to seal it before the conundrum. In the end I got to it first, but it was a wobbly win.
As usual, details after the jump.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Ep 392: Roman Turkiewicz, Linda Bennett (February 28, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
This is Roman's fourth night, and Richard asks him if he has any techniques for the game. Roman says that for the letters rounds he likes to start with a consonant and then try and space it out with vowels and consonants in equal measure. He finds that makes the words fall into place better for him.
Tonight's challenger is Linda Bennett, a senior business analyst at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Linda has learned to count cards when playing blackjack to the extent that she is quite restricted in what the Melbourne casinos allow her to do. (Minimum bet, only one box at a time.)
Roman finds some good words tonight, getting off to a flying start. Aided by an invalid word from Linda, his advantage grows to 22 points at the halfway mark. Linda manages to get some back in the next numbers round but thereafter they match, with neither solving the final numbers round or the conundrum; Roman wins again, 45 to 33.
I had a costly miss in the third letters round, and dropped the conundrum also -- it was a tough one tonight! Everything else went well, including solving a numbers round that eluded Lily, and I had a comfortable win. Just one match left before the finals start...
As usual, details after the jump.
This is Roman's fourth night, and Richard asks him if he has any techniques for the game. Roman says that for the letters rounds he likes to start with a consonant and then try and space it out with vowels and consonants in equal measure. He finds that makes the words fall into place better for him.
Tonight's challenger is Linda Bennett, a senior business analyst at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Linda has learned to count cards when playing blackjack to the extent that she is quite restricted in what the Melbourne casinos allow her to do. (Minimum bet, only one box at a time.)
Roman finds some good words tonight, getting off to a flying start. Aided by an invalid word from Linda, his advantage grows to 22 points at the halfway mark. Linda manages to get some back in the next numbers round but thereafter they match, with neither solving the final numbers round or the conundrum; Roman wins again, 45 to 33.
I had a costly miss in the third letters round, and dropped the conundrum also -- it was a tough one tonight! Everything else went well, including solving a numbers round that eluded Lily, and I had a comfortable win. Just one match left before the finals start...
As usual, details after the jump.
Ep 391: Roman Turkiewicz, Craig Woodward (February 27, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Richard mentions that Roman has a couple of big ambitions. The first is that Roman would like to be a chess champion one day. He's starting from basic levels, apparently, so I'd imagine it would take some time to get there. Roman's other ambition is to write a symphony.
Tonight's challenger is Craig Woodward, a mathematics and chemistry teacher. Before he was a teacher he was a religious minister. Richard describes this as quite a transition, but Craig notes that most of his focus as a minister was on youth and young adults, so he doesn't feel it was that big of a jump to high school teaching. The same sort of clientele, just teaching them different things.
Over the course of 2009, Craig was interviewed a few times for ABC radio about his teaching. You can listen to those conversations here.
There's some tricky letter mixes tonight; Roman manages slightly the better of them to gain twelve points there. Craig has a chance to get some of them back in the numbers rounds, but overlooks an easily-correctable mistake and cannot do so. Roman is safe going into the conundrum and solves it quickly to increase the margin, winning 57 to 35.
I felt out of form tonight, and made some poor decisions in both letters and numbers rounds. I was way off the pace on the conundrum, needing almost two minutes before I finally saw the answer. But I'd done enough to take the win, to my relief.
As usual, details after the jump.
Richard mentions that Roman has a couple of big ambitions. The first is that Roman would like to be a chess champion one day. He's starting from basic levels, apparently, so I'd imagine it would take some time to get there. Roman's other ambition is to write a symphony.
Tonight's challenger is Craig Woodward, a mathematics and chemistry teacher. Before he was a teacher he was a religious minister. Richard describes this as quite a transition, but Craig notes that most of his focus as a minister was on youth and young adults, so he doesn't feel it was that big of a jump to high school teaching. The same sort of clientele, just teaching them different things.
Over the course of 2009, Craig was interviewed a few times for ABC radio about his teaching. You can listen to those conversations here.
There's some tricky letter mixes tonight; Roman manages slightly the better of them to gain twelve points there. Craig has a chance to get some of them back in the numbers rounds, but overlooks an easily-correctable mistake and cannot do so. Roman is safe going into the conundrum and solves it quickly to increase the margin, winning 57 to 35.
I felt out of form tonight, and made some poor decisions in both letters and numbers rounds. I was way off the pace on the conundrum, needing almost two minutes before I finally saw the answer. But I'd done enough to take the win, to my relief.
As usual, details after the jump.
Friday, 24 February 2012
Weekly summary: Episodes 386 to 390
My scores varied quite a bit this week, but I finished with two good games that were very close to the David/Lily combined effort. Hopefully I can take that momentum into the next week and the finals series. I solved all the conundrums in regulation time, although twice I was beaten to the solution by a contestant.
Christopher managed to navigate his way through the fourth-game hurdle, knocking me out of contention at last. He takes over the eighth spot; there is a very small chance that Roman will displace him on the last game before the finals start. If not, he'll face Sam Gaffney first up.
Two more full monties this week, but two others that could have been had. On the numbers front, the balanced mix demonstrates its difficulty by serving up two games that eluded Lily within time.
Contestants averaging over 30 points a game:
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me | 65 | 84 | 59 | 76 | 73 |
| Champion | 36 | 40 | 17 | 17 | 21 |
| Challenger | 31 | 31 | 13 | 30 | 15 |
| David + Lily | 78 | 97 | 78 | 78 | 76 |
Christopher managed to navigate his way through the fourth-game hurdle, knocking me out of contention at last. He takes over the eighth spot; there is a very small chance that Roman will displace him on the last game before the finals start. If not, he'll face Sam Gaffney first up.
| Sam Gaffney | 51 | 81 | 62 | 67 | 64 | 55 | 380 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alan Nash | 60 | 73 | 52 | 54 | 43 | 69 | 351 |
| Kerin White | 55 | 56 | 46 | 63 | 65 | 51 | 336 |
| Toby Baldwin | 59 | 48 | 54 | 43 | 48 | 44 | 296 |
| Shaun Ellis | 43 | 56 | 38 | 59 | 40 | 44 | 280 |
| Daniel Chua | 44 | 59 | 56 | 53 | 36 | 52 | 300 |
| Sebastian Ham | 39 | 49 | 58 | 40 | 45 | 231 | |
| Christopher Piggott-McKellar | 45 | 36 | 54 | 53 | 30 | 218 |
Two more full monties this week, but two others that could have been had. On the numbers front, the balanced mix demonstrates its difficulty by serving up two games that eluded Lily within time.
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Monties | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Missed Full Monties | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Tough Numbers | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Impossible Numbers | 0 |
Contestants averaging over 30 points a game:
| Total | Games | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Gaffney | 380 | 6 | 63.33 |
| Geoff Bailey | 247 | 4 | 61.75 |
| Jimmy Driscoll | 61 | 1 | 61.00 |
| Alan Nash | 351 | 6 | 58.50 |
| Leanne Cox | 57 | 1 | 57.00 |
| Ryan Sutton | 57 | 1 | 57.00 |
| Kerin White | 336 | 6 | 56.00 |
| Roman Turkiewicz* | 112* | 2* | 56.00 |
| Nick Terry | 217 | 4 | 54.25 |
| Geraldine Yam | 52 | 1 | 52.00 |
| Tim Clay | 51 | 1 | 51.00 |
| Peter Crop | 152 | 3 | 50.67 |
| Daniel Chua | 300 | 6 | 50.00 |
| Lainie Mercieca | 99 | 2 | 49.50 |
| Toby Baldwin | 296 | 6 | 49.33 |
| Michael Vnuk | 49 | 1 | 49.00 |
| Susan Pickett | 97 | 2 | 48.50 |
| Colin Shnier | 144 | 3 | 48.00 |
| Matt Williams | 48 | 1 | 48.00 |
| Alice Wheeler | 189 | 4 | 47.25 |
| Rhonda Jefferson | 141 | 3 | 47.00 |
| Natasha Podesser | 47 | 1 | 47.00 |
| Shaun Ellis | 280 | 6 | 46.67 |
| Brett Edwards | 139 | 3 | 46.33 |
| Sebastian Ham | 231 | 5 | 46.20 |
| Cem Gurkan | 92 | 2 | 46.00 |
| Brian McEvoy | 46 | 1 | 46.00 |
| Michael Nichols | 90 | 2 | 45.00 |
| Karla Treves | 90 | 2 | 45.00 |
| Sandy Clarke | 45 | 1 | 45.00 |
| James Godfrey | 45 | 1 | 45.00 |
| Trevor Armstrong | 178 | 4 | 44.50 |
| Megan Marks | 133 | 3 | 44.33 |
| Maurie Williams | 176 | 4 | 44.00 |
| Nick Compton | 44 | 1 | 44.00 |
| Christopher Piggott-McKellar | 218 | 5 | 43.60 |
| Mark Arnold | 87 | 2 | 43.50 |
| John Day | 42 | 1 | 42.00 |
| Kathy Male | 42 | 1 | 42.00 |
| John O'Connor | 125 | 3 | 41.67 |
| Nathan Dixon | 41 | 1 | 41.00 |
| Nick Mann | 41 | 1 | 41.00 |
| Pam Fichtner | 39 | 1 | 39.00 |
| David Bradley | 77 | 2 | 38.50 |
| Alex van der Kooij | 153 | 4 | 38.25 |
| Adrian Lonigro | 38 | 1 | 38.00 |
| Richelle Patrick | 38 | 1 | 38.00 |
| Colin Jones | 111 | 3 | 37.00 |
| Cherie Brody | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Andrew Krein | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Colin Mallard | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Chris Miller | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Ann Vasconcelos | 73 | 2 | 36.50 |
| Ilona Coote | 36 | 1 | 36.00 |
| Angie Pearce | 71 | 2 | 35.50 |
| Katie Richer | 70 | 2 | 35.00 |
| Tiahn Hannaford | 35 | 1 | 35.00 |
| Kane Gross | 34 | 1 | 34.00 |
| Paul Merry | 67 | 2 | 33.50 |
| Duncan Butler | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Mitchell Fly | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Cameron Tyson | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Hannah Marshall | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Hiep Do | 98 | 3 | 32.67 |
| Susan Cumming | 32 | 1 | 32.00 |
| Sushma Garudadwajan | 62 | 2 | 31.00 |
| David Armstrong | 31 | 1 | 31.00 |
| John Crone | 31 | 1 | 31.00 |
Ep 390: Roman Turkiewicz, Natalie Simmons (February 24, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Richard asks Roman if he gets stage fright before his acting performances. Roman admits that he does a little, but he uses it to his advantage by channelling the energy into his character, enabling him to get off to a good start.
Tonight's challenger is Natalie Simmons, a horticulture student and keen gardener. She has loved gardens for her whole life, and has visited some great ones throughout the world. Natalie recently visited England and saw some National Trust gardens that she says were really beautiful; she also saw some lovely gardens in California last year, and New York. But a few of the gardens that she loves the most are in Melbourne, such as the Heide garden at the Heide Museum of Modern Art, or Rippon Lea.
There's some good back-and-forth from the contestants, together with a mutual invalid word that I have some sympathy for. Natalie has just the better of it, and takes a slender one point lead to the critical calculation. Unfortunately for her she is not able to take advantage of the opportunity presented, and Roman reclaims the lead. He seals the win with another very fast solution to the conundrum, winning 44 to 28.
I did reasonably well, although I ran out of time while trying to write down one eight and overlooked another that I should have seen. A tricky numbers round eluded everyone but I think it was findable; I'd half-tried the approach that Lily later came up with and just not paid enough attention. Bother. Against that, my conundrum speed was excellent tonight (and it needed to be in order to beat Roman to it), and I finished just three points behind the David and Lily combination.
As usual, details after the break.
Richard asks Roman if he gets stage fright before his acting performances. Roman admits that he does a little, but he uses it to his advantage by channelling the energy into his character, enabling him to get off to a good start.
Tonight's challenger is Natalie Simmons, a horticulture student and keen gardener. She has loved gardens for her whole life, and has visited some great ones throughout the world. Natalie recently visited England and saw some National Trust gardens that she says were really beautiful; she also saw some lovely gardens in California last year, and New York. But a few of the gardens that she loves the most are in Melbourne, such as the Heide garden at the Heide Museum of Modern Art, or Rippon Lea.
There's some good back-and-forth from the contestants, together with a mutual invalid word that I have some sympathy for. Natalie has just the better of it, and takes a slender one point lead to the critical calculation. Unfortunately for her she is not able to take advantage of the opportunity presented, and Roman reclaims the lead. He seals the win with another very fast solution to the conundrum, winning 44 to 28.
I did reasonably well, although I ran out of time while trying to write down one eight and overlooked another that I should have seen. A tricky numbers round eluded everyone but I think it was findable; I'd half-tried the approach that Lily later came up with and just not paid enough attention. Bother. Against that, my conundrum speed was excellent tonight (and it needed to be in order to beat Roman to it), and I finished just three points behind the David and Lily combination.
As usual, details after the break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)