Watched a Pointless from a few days ago on catch-up last night, to witness what Richard Osman said was probably his favourite answer ever. Picture question in the H2H round, five images supposed to indicate signs of the zodiac. One pair of contestants opted for the picture of old-fashioned balancing scales, and did some slightly too-subtle thinking. Brilliant.
I've just done the "When it it good tactics to deliberately mess up your first go in hope that the jackpot goes up?" calculation. The answer is that it depends on the size of the jackpot, how confident you are of getting to the final and how often jackpots get won. If you're 50% certain or less of getting to the final it's never in your interests to play that trick, but if you're more than 50% certain it can be, depending on those three factors. The tactic is favoured by low jackpots, low jackpot winning frequencies and high confidence of getting to the final.
A few weeks back there was a round of "Fictional Mothers" - name any offspring of any of the characters from this list. A round where there are few enough correct answers for Richard to read each one out along with the score it would have got, all except my answer of Hugo Simpson, evil conjoined twin of Bart.
They were good, yeah, but at the same time it's a bit of a know-it-or-you-don't thing, isn't it? You either say "who's Henrik Ibsen?", or you say "ummm I only know Hedda Gabler, Peer Gynt and A Doll's House", or you actually know about Ibsen, in which case almost any of his other plays will be pointless. Happy to see them win, rather than the copper, though.