Thanks for the praise, but a tad harsh on the criticism, @napoleon. I'll agree that some previous hints had been too confusing to help even a single person -- I should have at least stuck with my initial hint of "45 of 63" for MJM #159 rather than linking the box score -- but given that several people were able to solve this one, I feel great about this past one.

I'm a daily devotee to the NY Times crossword puzzle during the hour or so of free time I have between work and studying for actuarial exams, and while the Monday/Tuesday puzzles make me feel great about myself, it's just instant gratification. When I'm able to solve a Friday/Saturday puzzle in under two hours with no outside assistance, it's a far more satisfying feeling of accomplishment. Same goes for pub trivia -- those early questions that illicit crickets when the answer is revealed aren't nearly as exciting to get correct as the ones toward the end when people are either slapping themselves on the forehead for not figuring out the cryptic way it was asked, or screaming at the host that no one could possibly know it.

If my hint was more along the lines of "this is a Stash jam played prior to 1995," and one of you inevitably gets it right within the hour, then I'd feel the hint was terrible. The hint for MJM #159 was in hindsight terrible as well, but given that 13 single-jam MJMs had passed without stumping you all, I was still convinced it would be quickly solved. Hell, MJM #137 was a ONE-SECOND clip and MJM #148 was a 30-second clip of a SILENT JAM, and those were solved sans hint. The attempt to match the level of difficulty in the clip and hint versus the level of skill exhibited by the contestants is not an easy balance to achieve, but I think it's imperative to at least make the attempt if we want this to continue to be an entertaining game worthy of everyone's time.