you can see a different view of the latest SSC results including what the results would be if unwinnable doesn't end the streak here cellmate's SSC report
scroll up to see other interesting stuff
Skirts, thanks. I didn’t play a ton but know I lost at least one winnable, prob more. Someone mentioned before on here that they play whilst watching tv. I can’t play at all well unless I’m totally focused. Idk how folks multitask with FC. It’s almost as challenging to avoid distractions as it is to play. In fact, I’ve made that a separate game- trying to con animals into rest while I feed my FC addiction, lol. (Srsly, what’s the deal with animals and computers? I have 2 who, instant I pull out tablet, start begging for attention. I put it away, they want to be left alone.)
smelly, you’re joking abt animal thing right? Deals aren’t decided by humans, right?
I’d never guess these have so many UW’s. Not that 27 isn’t impressive record, I just wouldn’t have known that’s a high for these had you not mentioned, but guess I’ve not played em a lot. That’s cool Hops on 26 then! Congrats Hop! And also xyz for player of week!
Do ppl have any tricks (real or imaginary) that supposedly help avoid unwinnables? Like I usually like playing fast. Was the fact the cat slowed me down possibly helpful w/ deals? Or that just superstition?
Ps-thnx for link cellmate
That 27 is the daily record. dade36 had a "streak" of 28, and Bible had one of 27 separately from that daily record. And yes............people have "tricks". Look into SirPape's "methodology".
And it is a well-known "fact" 🙄 that the dealer very often will punish you for taking a break when you're on a good run.
"That’s cool Hops on 26 then! Congrats Hop!"
Thanks. I took my chances for one game. After winning it, I didn't want to play (or didn't feel like playing) another game.
Yea, that seems stressy, Hop. Good for you giving it a go under pressure. I need to pay attention to streak records more, prob been missing lots of cool stuff y’all do.
TN, yeah I’ve shared in that superstition or fact or whatever. But then, like I said, I did manage to pause a few times on the 15 when cat nearly broke stuff. And was idle other times trying to get her settled. Still still had winnables after in both cases, so maybe it’s not so easily predictable and we may just be reading into it. I also thought playing fast helps w that, now I’m not so sure. But I’ll look at sir pape’s stuff in a bit to see the word on it.
Oh cool, I just looked at my scores and I didn’t lose a winnable after all. Just assumed it was because I got distracted and lost so was annoyed. Usually on ssc stuff I lose a ton of winnables tho so that’s not the norm for me. And TN is right that all mine were climate 5 or 6. Most had decent win percentages too, only a handful were more rarely won. I do have an easier time with zeroes and most wides tho, idk why.
I’m playing today’s but I rlly don’t like lots of cells and a narrow board. My mind just can’t picture moves the same. Trying to improve w them tho so need to practice, and these don’t seem as bad as some other narrows I guess.
I like to try to see how many time wasting activities I can do simultaneously 😁
Favorite is tv in the pool 😁
The (main) story of SirPape:
https://www.freecell.net/f/c/disctopic.html?code=5327&replies=48
There's more scattered around, but that's where "it" all started.
Non-tournament players would not have noticed that SirPape is proving to be pretty handy at them, finishing high up and even winning some of the tougher ones lately.
For more: SSC Home Page
Woah Hop, casually dropping in today to set another All-Time record - congrats! 🍾
Yes, I'm done for today. Until next 11x0, me awaits...
Whoa! That's like, uh, impressive!! And thanks for bringing that to our attention, Uberman.
Takes a bit of karma to get this. That two hour break sure didn't seem to help things. I was going to post this after 4. Good thing I waited.
| 1/4 | 18:41 | 11x0 12632-5 | Streak | 0:45 | Lost | 0% | 4980 | 0 | 31 |
| 1/4 | 18:37 | 11x0 12899-5 | Streak | 5:26 | Lost | 0% | 4980 | 0 | 40 |
| 1/4 | 18:31 | 11x0 15054-5 | Streak | 1:12 | Lost | 0% | 4980 | 0 | 36 |
| 1/4 | 18:29 | 11x0 11192-5 | Streak | 4:57 | Lost | 0% | 4980 | 0 | 34 |
| 1/4 | 16:24 | 11x0 25087-5 | Streak | 3:00 | Lost | 0% | 4980 | 0 | 32 |
Winner of the Week:
Hey Cellmate, your misc report page gives a blank screen, i tried on several navigators and devices
it should be there now. weird problem since i upgraded curl a few weeks ago
For more: SSC Home Page
I win a game, then the next game dealt is 30/0 - 40/0 - 39/0. Three times in a row that I recall without looking at recently played games. I am starting to see a pattern! Are you?
Okay I checked recent play and that is exactly what happened my last 6 games. Except it was 32/0 not 30/0.
Took a break. Came back and had a streak of 4. Next 3 games dealt are 35/0 - 35/0 - 34/0.
I do see a pattern, resembling something akin to karma or possibly yin or maybe yang.
......Or it bespeaks of someone who hasn't yet fully embraced the deal-selection philosophy/technique of SirPape -- which *may* (or more likely may not) be related to that yin/yang stuff.
Winner of the Week:
Can't something be done to control my master on these competitions?! He worked me (almost) like never before today. I was afraid my wax coating was gonna melt! I'm not super keen on telling time on those round clocks on the wall, but since before I was turned into cards, I was a Zurich phone book...........I'm pretty familiar with digits - and he was going WAY over an hour on multiple attempts at numerous deals today. My edges sure are sore!!
I cracked the code in a different way. And I bet no one can figure out how I did it!
If "no one can figure out how [you] did it".............how can they tell me??
A lot of unwinnables in 11x0
you can see a different view of the latest SSC results including what the results would be if unwinnable doesn't end the streak here cellmate's SSC report
scroll up to see other interesting stuff
So outskirts "cracked the code", yet still racked up 20 losses. Hmmm.........interesting.
It's not that something's rigged, but old randomizers have latent "traits" of analog.
Hint: it's so simple it's ridiculous. But I won't tell.