Am I the only sad muppet trying to puzzle out how on earth I can get my code down to 176 bytes?

nope I am at 234 and know a 206 char version, but I have absolutely no Idea how to shrink it another 30 chars :>
I bet there are many golf tricks I don't know. I would like to hack this site and get all code. :(

I don't see any reason why the site would need to store the code.

Maybe it could be up to the poster if the site would post the code if it is the winning post.

There is also the issue of readability. Small code is nice, but clean code is better. I can get down to 300 bytes without using compression schemes or code packing in to an eval (perl). I think the 176 was using a string compression of the code.

SplinterFL:

I think the 176 was using a string compression of the code

To set the record straight, this is wild speculation by someone with zero golf experience; at least I don't see SplinterFL mentioned on any game board. Notice that the 176 has subsequently been whittled to 165. Though I can't comment on 0xF's 165 and I'm sorry to disappoint SplinterFL, I'm happy to reveal that my 168 uses just a humble sub and a lowly print statement inside a simple for loop ... and does not use any "compression schemes or code packing in to an eval" :-).

i would like to see more ruby entries for this challenge :-) i submitted a working solution at 215 bytes, at which i'm currently stuck. i wish there was more ways to compare code and learn from others.

I've been able to get my Perl code down to 180 bytes but I just can't see how to trim it down any further. It's quite frustrating.

Why not try another challenge instead, and maybe revisit the beer bottles later?
If you decide to avoid any other challenge before you get into the top 10 for 99 Bottles Of Beer, you won't get far as a codegolfer.

The 'beers challenge seems to attract newcomers by the truckload.
And they never even try one of the other 27 challenges.

Btw, I think there is a 174 bytes perl version published on the net somewhere :-)

just managed to get my ruby solution down to 180! but 173 - how is it possible!???