|Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 04:40 am: |
I've told you once before to increase the medication. This time I'm not fucking joking!
OK, OK, I know how anti-drugs you are Al so maybe the concept of a pharmaceutical intervention is anathema to you. Here's a helpful Alternative Medicine tip:
STOP WATCHING LATE NIGHT TV. It's bad for you from the top of your head to the bottom of your soul. BBC4 maybe, but in moderation and never on an empty stomach.
That'll be £350 for the consultation (VAT not included).
|Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 05:27 am: |
Yeah, Bazza, but can you tell me how the big fat fuckin cheats get their figures to add up? Can you? Can you? Huh? Huh?
Didn't think so. Hah!
|Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 08:08 am: |
You know, when the analog signal goes offline, you're one of the few people I can think of who'll actually benefit from not being able to get a tv reception.
|Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 05:03 am: |
Of course I know how they got their figures. Your mistake was in assuming these people are normal. In fact they're mutants without a full share of fingers. Think arithmetic in Base 9.
By the way I did the 'What city are you questionnaire' and came out as Denver.
I've been there a few times and its a boring city.
(incidentally those desert winds coming in from Sonoma make San Francisco a hot and sweaty place so don't get smug)
|Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 05:55 am: |
I like hot and sweaty. Desert winds? Sounds good to me.
But, right. So you're saying the real answer (in Base 10) is 1582? I don't believe you. I still say they're BIG FAT FUCKIN CHEATS!
Anyway, if ye can get me a prescription I'll increase the meds, but only if it's something cool and exciting... a nice opiate or the like. Come on, Doc. I'm huuuuuuurting, man. They're screwing with my mind, these big fat fuckin cheats; I just need a little something to take the edge off.
|Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 08:39 am: |
It is with great reluctance that I get sucked into your madness further but here goes:
It's not about how many drinks they have.
It's about something else.
One suggestion is the number of 'r' s in each line. There are two in the first line, one in the second, four in the third. This breaks down on the fourth where there are only two (unless 'stars' has some connotation with five).
My point is it's about something really stupid like that AND NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING DRINKS
|Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 08:57 am: |
Sorry, Bazza. The question actually given after recitation of the "riddle" was: "How many drinks?"
Imagine wittering presenter:
"Hello, if you've just tuned in you're watching Big Game TV... blah blah blah... and this is the question... blah blah blah... 30 drinks... blah blah blah... 30 bars... blah blah blah... so what we want to know is how many drinks did Jim and Kim have?"
To which, I insist, the correct answer is clearly "Ya big fat fuckin cheats!"
|Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 09:10 am: |
Of course, from the Terms & Conditions on the website of aforesaid big fat fuckin cheats:
"16. The Broadcaster is under no obligation to release information relating to Competition answers or methods of solution, other than the information given by the Presenter at the on-screen conclusion of each Competition. Any such information subsequently released is released entirely at the Broadcaster's absolute discretion."
Which is to say, if the method of solution is, uh, random fuckin guesswork, hey, we don't even have to tell ya that we just screwed ya, buddy. Now, to me, well, the words "method" and "solution" kinda sorta imply, uh, logic or, uh, mathematics. Ya know... like in a syllogism or an equation? But clearly not in the minds of these BIG FAT FUCKIN CHEATS!
|Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 05:12 am: |
Incredible as this may seem, you are not alone. Some distressingly fluffy Japanese girl has the same problem about something called 'Game TV' and came out with the same tortured arithmetic (or to be more accurate her mother had to do it for her which, if you check out her website, will come as no surprise). Her address is:
The bit about 2147 is difficult to find as it is buried under copious quantities of relentlessly girly shit. Try 'Google cache' as that got me closer.
Why not write to her and share the pain?
|Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 09:00 am: |
Heh. Man, if yer delving into fluffy girly Anime fan sites in an obsessive quest to prove me wrong by Googling down the weird and convoluted mathematics by which all of this is not just a simple matter of these Big Game TV buggers being BIG FAT FUCKIN CHEATS then, well, Bazza, I think ye might wanna be upping those meds yerself.
I mean, I'm not aiming to start a campaign against them here, with, like, protest marches and banners and shit. All's I'm saying is that they're BIG FAT FUCKIN CHEATS. That seems like a perfectly rational and reasoned observation to me (albeit not really one of earth-shattering import).
Or to paraphrase Cartman from South Park...
Big Game are cheats,
Fuckin big fat cheats!
They're the biggest cheats in the whole wide world!
Big Game are cheats,
Fuckin big fat cheats!
They're cheats to all the boys and girls!
|Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 04:36 pm: |
You're absolutely, positively, one hundred percent, dead certain sure they cocked it up? And that they did so with malice aforethought?
A hundred and fifty thousand percent certain ...? (I'd check the numbers myself, but I can't be arsed)
ps, bazza ... you know about phil's thing on friday, right?
|Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 06:36 pm: |
I'm two thousand one hundred and forty seven percent certain.
I mean, man, I was flicking channels the other night and they had the same shite on... a different riddle (it was about bricks!) but in the same basic format, a little bit vague but straight arithmetic apart from the ambiguity. Anyhoo, I was watching something on the other side, but there's no ticking time limit on this game, so out of curiosity I check the time on the clock and start flicking back during the ad breaks to see how long they're on the same question, how long they're taking premium rate phone calls without giving away a dime. Over half an hour later, they were still on that riddle.
Now... I didn't see what the answer was to this one (on account of I'm not quite crazy enough to waste time on that shite unless a little bit squiffy, extremely bored, or some combination of the two) but I'd lay even money that it was equally nonsensical.
See, it's a simple con. You throw out a dumb-ass easy question first (a picture of a fish; a name-tag that says "Wanda"; name the movie?) offering piss-ant prize money of a measly few hundred quid. You're giving that away cause it's small change. It's just the bait that tells the viewers, "look, see, people win things here", like with Find The Lady, where you let the mark win the first time so that everyone "knows" it's possible to win. Man, it's standard grifter procedure. Then you up the stakes -- double them, triple them, whatever. And you rake in the money as the marks line up to place their bets on where that Queen is. Except they're never gonna find her cause she ain't even on the table.
In this case they go on to much bigger money with a question that's just "a little bit trickier". Schmuck after schmuck lays down their money on the phoneline, sure that they know the right answer, they can follow the hand movements of the con man, they can follow the maths, they know where that Queen is, they know the solution... even if the last dumbshit got it wrong, and the dumbshit before them, and the dumbshit before them and so on for the last half hour. If the solution can't actually be reached from the riddle, man, that's just like yer conman standing there with the Queen up his sleeve and smiling like a snake as he takes yer money.
And with this con, hell, you'll get dumbshits who've just tuned in trying the same obvious answer that was given ten minutes ago, and as long as you throw in one of the low money, easy answer questions when the calls start drying up, you keep the marks thinking they've got a chance. Sweet. Fuck it, I almost admire them for having the balls to run an honest-to-god shell game on national television. But at the end of the day they are, without a doubt, I have to say, BIG FAT FUCKIN CHEATS.
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 01:54 am: |
Al, this is a hell of a he-doth-protest-too-much smokescreen, bud. Just admit you're not smart enough to work the difficult puzzles out!
Now, as we've discussed elsewhere, I don't watch BigGameTV, so I can't comment on their games, but on QuizCall, which I have been known to watch (slightly sozzled, bored and sleepless) until 2am (in the company of the chatty and enchanting Alex), I can tell you that their "really hard"="big money" quizzes are virtually impossible to work out cold. So what you have to realise is : it's a different kind of a game, and it does get easier over elapsed game time.
Here's the rules:
1. At this level, it's not a quizz. Not really. They don't give you enough information to work it out. It's a gambling game. It's statistical. Once you appreciate this, can you really say they are cheating any more than the people that put on horse races (use your skill and judgement to study form, going, weather conditions to work out who's going to win)?
2. It is however a game of intelligence, and it is a game where you are competing against the other players. So. Watch the whole game. Don't just flip over every half and mutter "Is this still on? BIG FAT FUCKIN CHEATS!" Go in for the long haul and write down all of the wrong answers. Don't feel bad for the shmucks that are phoning in with the same wrong answer again and again. Hey, it's their 60p, let them spend it as they will. You're not their mummy. Besides the more of them that call in with different answers the closer you will get to the right answer.
3. Eventually you'll have a small ballpark to aim for. It's still a gamble but the odds are greatly in your favour. However, don't phone in. It's only a bloody game, and you don't need the money that badly. This is a point of principal - it's working out how the game works, or at least eliminating all the ways the game doesn't work. You're gonna show 'em, the BFFCs.
4. Eventually someone will stumble on the right answer. There'll be flashing lights and a half-hearted recorded cheer. Make a note of the right answer (hey, you've done this already). You probably won't be able to work it out even now, but don't worry. Watch again the next night and the one after that, and each time a puzzle of this sort comes up, do the same thing. If they keep using the same compiler you'll get a feel for his style, you'll think like he does, perhaps you'll end up stalking him for a bit, but one day ... ONE DAY ... you'll see one of these puzzles and know what the answer is.
And you'll wonder why you ever called them cheats.
All of this I advise you to do to remove the bug out of your arse, the monkey off of your back and the herd of rhinos of righteous indignation out of the trampled, flattened velt they seem to be making of your brain!
If you do however feel that you simply have to call in and win some money - remember you're taking a punt. It's a gamble. It's not cheating, it's just up to you use your intelligence to limit the odds as much as you can.
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 05:01 am: |
Al, this is a hell of a he-doth-protest-too-much smokescreen, bud.
All I'm doing is defending my position, Neil. Why the hell everyone else is jumping to the defence of these grifters frankly baffles me, but as long as there's folks throwing horseshit and hoo-ha at me here, d'ye really expect me to back down? All I did was call the grifters on their con. All I'm doing now is calling the grifters' amateur defence attorneys on their baloney. I mean, let's have a lookee at the thread...
Bazza: Yer a loon!
Me: True but irrelevant. No argument against them being cheats.
Gary: You need to watch less telly.
Me: Equally true but equally irrelevant. Still no argument against them being cheats.
Bazza: They're using Base 9.
Me: Very droll, indeed, my good man. Most amusing. But utter bollocks as an argument against them being cheats.
Bazza: The drinks are misdirection. It's actually about some other aspect of the riddle.
Me: False. The question posed in relation to the riddle is, specifically, "How many drinks?"
Me: I mean, look. They point blank refuse to show their sums. But they do clearly imply that it's more than just a guessing game.
Bazza: Hey this Anime fan agrees with you. Why don't you set up a support group?
Me: I'm not the one doing the Google searches on this, mate. I'm not the one obsessing here. I don't really give a fuck. I'd just like to see a remotely rational argument against them being cheats.
Gary: Are you sure they're cheats.
Me: Duh, dat's what I been saying, George. This is a con. This is how the con works. It's a bit like this other con. Actually, it's a lot like this other con. Frankly, I admire their balls. But they are cheats.
Neil: 1. It's random guesswork. 2. You can rule out wrong answers. 3. You can put the odds in your favour. 4. Someone will "stumble on the right answer eventually"
Well, at least it's an actual argument. However...
Me: 1. True but irrelevant. It's presented as a quiz. See above comments vis-a-vis "method" and "solution". 2. True but irrelevant. Ruling out wrong answers does not help you pin down the right one in any meaningful way. See following comments vis-a-vis "odds in your favour". 3. False. Even if you ruled out every wrong answer bar one, the odds of you guessing the right number would be, at most 50/50. The odds will only be "in your favour" when there's only one answer left. How long do you think the show would have to be for that to happen? 4. See above comments vis-a-vis "odds in your favour". How long do you reckon that "eventually" will be?
I have no bug up my arse, monkey on my back, rhinos in my brain, bee in my bonnet, or sodding aardvark under my duvet about this. I repeat, for the benefit of the hard of understanding:
I do not give a flying fuck for the marks being rooked.
I do find it a tad surprising that they can run this scam on national telly (though I'm finding it much less surprising after this thread).
In point of fact, I actually almost admire the gumption of the grifters in getting away with it at this level.
Ya know... what I'm really surprised by is everyone else here jumping to the defence of these grifters when it's patently fucking obvious what's going on. My flabber is way more gasted at youse kids continuing to throw jibes and flummery at me in defence of the big fat fuckin cheats than I ever was about the actual con itself.
But at least I know who to play Find The Lady with now, if I can perfect the ole shuffle-and-switch. Quid a shot, eh?
Go on. It's a fair game, honest it is.
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 05:58 am: |
Al, to be honest I was just looking for a good wee argument, but I'm in turn surprised that you're taking the whole thing so darned seriously. You do too have an aardvark under your duvet - either that or by the shape of your bed clothes you need to see a doctor immediately.
You know I was going to take issue with your frankly hairsplitting dismissals of my points, but I don't have enough hair to be bothered with that. So, bottom line - I'm not leaping to the defence of anyone here. Like you (apparently) I don't care if people are getting ripped off (although I have witnessed people actually winning this money, so obviously *someone* worked it out or got lucky). But do I think they putting out something they call a puzzle and assigning a random figure as the answer (to which there is no clear logical route), purely so that people will give them lots of money? No, not exactly.
I mean obviously the whole thing is stacked (easy games for wee cash, different speeds at which calls are taken, uptempo music and activity followed by quiet periods of contemplation during which the computer is letting no-one through (actually it's almost as much fun working out how the strings are being pulled as it is doing the puzzles themselves)) to give them as much phone in cash as possible, but here's what their Players' Charter says:
"The Content Team ensure that our games are:-
Consistent: for our more complex questions, we always use the same method of calculation. If you can crack our method, you can win every time!
Logical:the answer is always arrived at as logically as possible. Our highly-trained team make every effort to check the processes of calculation and ensure that questions and answers make perfect sense.
Have one Answer:before beginning the game, the Producer will enter an answer into our computer system. Once the game begins the answer is locked in and cannot be changed.
Not obscure: we aim to make our questions widely understandable and relevant. For example, a Big Personality will be a widely known sportsperson, singer, actor or politician – not the grandma of a member of the Content Team (sorry Grandma).
Visually plain:You won’t need a 28 metre IMAX screen to work out our puzzles. There are no tiny, hidden details which you will need to be able to win: everything you need to know to get your hands on the cash is clearly visible."
I'd have to say that if from the sounds of it you'd take issue with some of the wording (eg "as logically as possible" and "not obscure"), I certainly would if I were to apply the same definitions to QuizCall. But on the whole I would trust that they DO set a puzzle with an answer that is arrived at by SOME logic. So, on that score I don't think they're cheating.
The Players' Charter also says they are regulated by OFCOM and the telephone games authority. So, if you seriously believe that they're dealing illegally these are the people to take the case to.
Otherwise I don't think they're being much more iniquitous than many other "phone in" operations. Especially the ones aimed at children.
Hey you know this would be so much more fun if we did it face to face over a pint or two. You could show me your aardvark, and I'd try not to laugh.
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 06:07 am: |
Al, having followed this thread with delight, I think you're taking this way too hard. My read is that you are not so much getting a defense of the BFFC, but a "let's see what Al will say when I say X because, after all, he's bound to come up with something even more brilliant and amusing in response."
Sit back. Raise a glass. You are, of course, right. And since now you are officially San Francisco, I have a bridge you might be interested in...
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 08:12 am: |
Hmm, must try not to post until *after* second cigarette of the day in future. Clearly my bitter and twisted dark side sneaks out under cover of nicotine deficiency. But, hey, if I'm gonna get called a telly-addled obsessive wingbat who needs some more lithium in his bloodstream (in so many words)... well... turn about's fair play.
But okay then. I'll play nice.
Neil: I have witnessed people actually winning this money, so obviously *someone* worked it out or got lucky.
Or maybe it was both. Maybe they "got lucky" because this time they "worked it out" and the big fat fuckin cheats had used an actual logical feckin process to generate their solution rather than adding up the combined number of brain cells in their contestants' heads and multiplying by 2147. As I say, ye gotta keep the punters in the game by giving away a few hundred quid here or there; that's part of the con.
Ah, but no, I hear you say. That would be against the Charter's "we always use the same method of calculation" rule. Feh. They're already in breach of their own charter. Fuck, if they can get 2147 from that riddle by any "logical" method at all then, by Dobbs, I'd like to know what definition of "logical" they're going by. 2147? Aye, right. That's got to be as far from being "arrived at as logically as possible" as you can conceivably get.
I'd have to say that if from the sounds of it you'd take issue with some of the wording...
Hmmmm. Then again...
...for our more complex questions, we always use the same method of calculation. If you can crack our method, you can win every time!
Translation: We always calculate a value from the riddle by the straightforward process explicated in the riddle (e.g. 2100). We then pick the number we want to add to it (e.g. 47). We then alternately add and subtract the results of a random number generation function which works according to a standard algorithm. If you can figure out the algorithm (which, like all such algorithms, is ordered and hence cannot actually result in *truly* random numbers) then all you have to do is repeat the process and phone us with each result until you hit the right one.
...the answer is always arrived at as logically as possible. Our highly-trained team make every effort to check the processes of calculation and ensure that questions and answers make perfect sense.
Translation: we make no guarantees that the answer we give is the *most* logical answer, or that our process in reaching it is *entirely* logical, only that it is as logical as it can possibly be... given that we're using a random number generation function an unspecified number of times. Oh!... and we check our sums with a calculator.
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 09:51 am: |
Al, I'm with you on questioning the wording of their Charter. I'm disappointed - they could quite easily have been worded more ambiguously - just like their puzzles in fact!
>if they can get 2147 from that riddle by any "logical" method at all then, by Dobbs, I'd like to know what definition of "logical" they're going by
**Heh, so would we all but if they tell us how to do it, we'll be able to grab the cash next time they run up a puzzle like that.
>Translation: We always calculate a value from the riddle by the straightforward process explicated in the riddle (e.g. 2100). We then pick the number we want to add to it (e.g. 47).
**Quite possibly, but the route between 2100 and 2147 has to be implicit in the second pair of lines in the riddle, doesn't it? I can get to 2137 myself but can't scrape up that extra 10. Go figure.
>Translation: we make no guarantees that the answer we give is the *most* logical answer
Hey, yeah, spot on. I'd have been happy if the charter had said: "the answer may very well NOT be the most logical one, but there will be an identifiable chain of logic that arrives at it, we promise".
Anyway I'm not going to argue about it any more. Your aadvark is well enough fed as it is.
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
"Jim and Kim drank 30 drinks
And 5 shots in 30 bars
For every drink they had a drink
Then they were seeing stars"
1. Okay, so I count like you: 30 + 5 drinks each in 30 bars = 70 x 30 = 2,100
2. Then they need a drink for every drink. There's the 30 drinks and the 5 shots. That's an additional 35.
3. The words "drink" also appear, in various formats--twice in each of the first three lines ("drank", "drinks", "shots", "bars"--this one is a stretch, "drink", and "drink"). Since both Jim and Kim had a drink for each drink this becomes 6 x 2 = 12.
Total it up: 2,100 + 35 + 12 = 2,147
Does it make sense? No. There's an inherant illogic since in my second step I should count really 35 x 2 = 70, since that would be more consistent with steps one and three -- but since they are BFFCs, there you go.
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
Clarification in step 3: The word "drink" or a word that connotes "drink" appears twice in each of the first three line. Not that this isn't twisted logic...
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
Uh "lines"... (Can we puh-leeze get an edit key on these boards?)
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
Now, so I can actually get some work done, no more riddles? Please?
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
See Alice, that was very close to my thinking - although I didn't count "bars" and I didn't count them twice. Or something like that.
But there *is* an almost plausible logic to it.
Al, of course, is free to quibble.
|Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
Al, all I have to say is, why are you surprised to find scams on TV? TV is full of them. All those ads and late night infomercials. The news. Shows that insult our intelligence. Politicians are the ultimate scamers. Bush has scammed half of America. Clinton did the same thing, only he was less abrasive and better at doing it and getting away with it. The world is full of it.
|Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 08:18 am: |
Ah, but politics is a Long Con, Steven -- much more subtle, long-term, slow build-up then *bang*, suddenly all your money has been emptied from your pockets and put into Halliburton's. That's a different kinda scam altogether.
Anyhoo, I've figured it all out now so, don't worry. I mean, I've clearly been a schmuck when it should have been fucking obvious. Jim and Kim each have (30 + 5) drinks in 30 bars which makes 2100 in total. Now, for every drink they have a drink. But this doesn't mean you double 2100 because, hell, after they had their first drink they had another, and after the second they had another... and so on, up to that 2100. But when they get to the last drink well, they have to have another, don't they?
So... 2100 + 1 = 2101
But for that 2101th drink they have to have another!
So... 2101 + 1 = 2102
But for that 2102nd drink they have to have another!
So... 2102 + 1 = 2103
And so on up to 2147. At which point we stop because, um... um... OH! OH! I know! I know! Because "then they were seeing stars" and couldn't drink anymore.
No! No! Wait a minute. I've got another way. Right, see, ye've got the blah blah blah 2100, right? Then ye've got 5 shots each (i.e. times 2) which equals 10, these being drunk between 30 bars, which is 3 "drinks". Now, they have 30 drinks between the two of them, which is 15 each, and since 3 times 15 is 45, we add that to the 2100 to get 2145, but since they each had a drink for every drink, they need to have a drink for the last drink which is all on it's tod, whereas all the other drinks were followed by drinks. So ye add 2 drinks and, Hey Presto! Ye've got 2147.
By fuck! I say. By my Jesus-munching, cock-smoking, whore-son-siring, fuck fuck fuckety FUCK! How could I have been so motherfuckin blind. It's all so fucking logical now. Makes perfect sense. Here's me thinking that these low-down chiselling goat-fluffers are "big fat fucking cheats", muttering under me breath about syphilitic cunts and pustulent aresholes, when, in fact, it's all as clear as day!
I take it all back, every word of it. I have been a veritable fool, and am ashamed of myself.
Now, who was it was offering that bridge for sale?
|Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 08:46 am: |
Sorry not to have got back sooner but I had that Life thingy to attend to.
The 'obsessive quest to prove me wrong by Googling down the weird and convoluted mathematics' actually only required putting the last line of the riddle into Google. I was trying to find a solution for you so your mind could focus on something a little more productive. From its search of the zillions and zillions of web pages Google found only two hits, one of them from a strange Japanese girl, the other from you.
There's a subtext there, Al. Strive for it.
|Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 09:07 am: |
Will that be in small, medium, or large?
|Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 09:07 am: |
Al - "chiselling goat fluffers"? I'm impressed, even by your standards.
Glad you came to some sort of a conclusion in the end though.
See ya at the dancin' the night.
|Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 09:28 pm: |
So, um, Al, how's INK comin' along
|Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 04:43 am: |
Don't worry. Only reason I'm posting here is: it seems some poor sods with a very similar URL to the BFFC's have been getting irate emails from punters who're truly incensed about it (way more incensed than me, clearly, and presumably doing web searches for any info). So... since I may well have *ahem* contributed to this on that blog entry, I thought I'd do these other guys the favour of pointing out to any passing punters that the BFFC's are NOT, repeat NOT, the Big Game TV people with the ".com" URL.
As you were.
(And, Minz... we're cooking with gas, right now, cooking with gas)
|Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:40 am: |
I hate to say I told you so...
...but I will.