Fruit Machine Chat

Have managed a 7100 on this, when brave enough to refuse the low-hanging fruit. The game comes up with some right stinkers at this level: five gold chests interchanging at PWP speed; a screenful of almost identical pink patterns to pair up; division involving fractions aplenty. God knows what it might be holding back for the jackpot hinterlands.

Not seen any scores above 4000 (not that I've been travelling much of late).

[quote="roberto la vigna"]Have managed a 7100 on this, when brave enough to refuse the low-hanging fruit. The game comes up with some right stinkers at this level: five gold chests interchanging at PWP speed]

I think I got a 4xxx or maybe even a 5xxx, more by luck than judgement. I'd be interested to see what scores are out there on this - the standards on, say, Whose Got The Biggest Brain on Facebook are notably high, so there's obviously a fair few people out there with aptitude on brain-training stuff. But will they discover it on the Itbox, and will they be prepared to pay to practise at it?

grecian wrote:

roberto la vigna wrote:Have managed a 7100 on this, when brave enough to refuse the low-hanging fruit. The game comes up with some right stinkers at this level: five gold chests interchanging at PWP speed]

I think I got a 4xxx or maybe even a 5xxx, more by luck than judgement. I'd be interested to see what scores are out there on this - the standards on, say, Whose Got The Biggest Brain on Facebook are notably high, so there's obviously a fair few people out there with aptitude on brain-training stuff. But will they discover it on the Itbox, and will they be prepared to pay to practise at it?

I guess that practise would get you somewhere with the arithmetic, as most people are unused to dealing with fractions.

I've started experimenting on this, my IQ is pretty high and without trying to big myself up, if there was solely a numbers version of Countdown, I'd definitely enter and expect to do pretty well.

Not too good at the picture stuff though (working out quickly which picture has more/less of etc or the music note game too) but I'm pretty sure if I teamed up with someone who was good at that stuff and I focused on the calculations/memory parts we could achieve some pretty good scores.

However, considering a) How hard it is to even win a prize and b) How far away people are from getting the jackpot, it might well be that it wouldn't be that profitable for time invested anyway...

sir ratholer wrote:if there was solely a numbers version of Countdown, I'd definitely enter and expect to do pretty well.

I'd do well as a premiership footballer if the only skill required were keepie-uppies.

grecian wrote:I'd be interested to see what scores are out there on this - the standards on, say, Whose Got The Biggest Brain on Facebook are notably high, so there's obviously a fair few people out there with aptitude on brain-training stuff. But will they discover it on the Itbox, and will they be prepared to pay to practise at it?

I think a confounding factor with quiz machine games is the physical element - I would imagine that there are plenty of people with quick minds that would be hampered by poor hand-eye coordination and motor speed.

i played this brain thing today on titbox, most of it seems easy enough but i still manage to screw up on pretty basic arithmetic. looked at the leaderboard and i'm the only bastard who has played it.
seems that the front screen billing really does make a big difference to throughput and this is a busy pub pretty near a mainline terminus.

re facebook's WHTBB (perhaps this just highlights my inadequacy but) i suspect there is a certain amount of cheating going on with the toppest scores. a cursory youtube scan shows some very suspicious behaviour. i have no doubt that people who have proven themselves in tangible endeavours can hit astonishing scores, but some techie guy whose CV is just acronyms getting 99% perfect scores: hmm.

re. Bob's speed of thought comment: i guess it comes easily to most of the people who read this. who hasn't scanned a Q, known the answer and pressed before tutting about inaccuracy before realising the question has "not" somewhere?

equally i'd imagine we all get frustrated at slow gameplay but casual punters want a few seconds to think. personally, if a Q comes up which i know i don't know, i'll just press blindly.

re. Bob's speed of thought comment: i guess it comes easily to most of the people who read this. who hasn't scanned a Q, known the answer and pressed before tutting about inaccuracy before realising the question has "not" somewhere?

I've certainly done that. I think when we were playing PWP, i was responsible for one 'Nottism' miss.

...but some techie guy whose CV is just acronyms getting 99% perfect scores: hmm.

Heh-heh!

Istenem wrote: re facebook's WHTBB (perhaps this just highlights my inadequacy but) i suspect there is a certain amount of cheating going on with the toppest scores. a cursory youtube scan shows some very suspicious behaviour. i have no doubt that people who have proven themselves in tangible endeavours can hit astonishing scores, but some techie guy whose CV is just acronyms getting 99% perfect scores: hmm.

Yes, there are bots available on the Net which will play WGTBB for you and get a big score. The telltale is someone with a big score who has played only a handful of games - the other indicator is their average score being similar to their top score, indicating that the ordinary process of improvement over time (with maximum therefore being well in excess of average) has not taken place. But none the less I think there are some exceptionally able players out there on it who are not resorting to bots.

On t'Internet anything is possible - on the old Scrabulous application in Facebook there were people who played against themselves solely in order to build up ridiculously artificial boards in order to then play seven letters in the gaps across the top that made some Italian word that was worth 2500 points on its own. Clearly some imagination and patience goes into any such endeavour but you do have to ask yourself - What the **** is the point of that?!

Nil Satis wrote:On t'Internet anything is possible - on the old Scrabulous application in Facebook there were people who played against themselves solely in order to build up ridiculously artificial boards in order to then play seven letters in the gaps across the top that made some Italian word that was worth 2500 points on its own.

Wasn't the word BENZOXYCAMPHORS (one for Bob there on WU)?

No, it was some Italian word with two Z's (using one of the blanks) - you could view the top scoring games via the main menu and that was how they achieved it. As I said, impressive in an utterly pointless way!

Got 9296 on this yesterday, hitting 'Rock Hard' level

Ha ha ha ha ha ha hhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh...