Ask Graeme?

All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10148
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:58 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Jack Worsley wrote:Graeme, could you please post a table off all old 15 octochamps' estimated totals in the new 15 using the following formula:
(average points scored per numbers round - average points scored per letters round) x 8, + original total, then rounded to the nearest whole number?

How much the new format changes someone's projected score depends on how good they are at letters and numbers. I'm interested to see how many people would have a lower projected score in the new format (I think there will be a few but mostly at the lower end of the octochamp totals). Could you also include a column which compares each octochamp's position in the table to the old 15? For example, if the sixth highest scoring octochamp in the old 15 has the fourth highest projected new 15 total, there could be a column which reads "+2" or something like that. Cheers
I make it this:

Code: Select all

                                         OLD      NEW              RANK
                                       TOTAL    TOTAL      +/-      +/-
       1. Jack Hurst                     946      963      +17       +0
       2. Andrew Hulme                   930      943      +13       +0
       3. Kirk Bevins                    925      940      +15       +0
       4. Julian Fell                    924      930       +6       +0
       5. Craig Beevers                  907      928      +21       +0
       6. Adam Gillard                   903      921      +18       +0
       7. Eoin Monaghan                  898      919      +21       +0
       7. Edward McCullagh               896      919      +23       +1
       9. Conor Travers                  890      905      +15       +1
      10. Chris Davies                   892      900       +8       -1
      11. David O'Donnell                880      899      +19       +0
      12. Chris Wills                    875      893      +18       +0
      13. Chris Cummins                  858      884      +26       +2
      14. Stewart Holden                 870      874       +4       -1
      15. Jon Corby                      856      873      +17       +1
      16. Innis Carson                   861      871      +10       -2
      17. Tom Hargreaves                 850      868      +18       +0
      18. Jonathan Rawlinson             850      867      +17       -1
      19. Steven Briers                  843      866      +23       +2
      20. Paul Gallen                    846      863      +17       +0
      21. Matthew Shore                  850      855       +5       -4
      22. Mark Deeks                     824      850      +26       +5
      22. Jack Welsby                    831      850      +19       +3
      24. Marcus Hares                   834      849      +15       +0
      24. James Hurrell                  838      849      +11       -1
      26. Jack Worsley                   818      848      +30       +6
      27. Daniel Pati                    840      843       +3       -5
      28. Richard Brittain               820      840      +20       +2
      29. Grace Page                     829      838       +9       -3
      30. Paul Howe                      815      837      +22       +5
      31. Scott Gillies                  810      835      +25       +8
      32. John Brackstone                822      833      +11       -4
      32. Graeme Cole                    813      833      +20       +4
      34. Charlie Reams                  820      831      +11       -4
      34. Tom Barnes                     822      831       +9       -6
      34. Jon O'Neill                    804      831      +27       +9
      37. George Greenhough              817      827      +10       -3
      38. Mark Tournoff                  809      825      +16       +2
      39. Lee Hartley                    811      824      +13       -2
      40. Stuart Earl                    807      823      +16       +2
      41. Martin Bishop                  809      822      +13       -1
      42. Oliver Garner                  802      820      +18       +2
      43. Junaid Mubeen                  790      817      +27       +7
      44. Ryan Taylor                    792      816      +24       +5
      45. Jeffrey Hansford               818      813       -5      -13
      46. John Hunt                      788      811      +23       +5
      47. John Mayhew                    811      810       -1      -10
      48. Richard Heald                  795      808      +13       -1
      49. Peter Lee                      801      805       +4       -4
      49. Stuart Solomons                796      805       +9       -3
      51. Paul James                     794      799       +5       -3
      52. Cate Henderson                 782      798      +16       +1
      53. Tom Rowell                     774      796      +22       +5
      54. John Davies                    766      794      +28      +10
      55. Keith Maynard                  785      793       +8       -3
      56. Jimmy Gough                    782      791       +9       -3
      57. Rupert Stokoe                  776      788      +12       +0
      57. Aaron Webber                   773      788      +15       +2
      59. David Barnard                  771      787      +16       +2
      60. Jim Bentley                    756      783      +27      +10
      60. Mike Pullin                    756      783      +27      +10
      60. Kevin Thurlow                  769      783      +14       +2
      63. Wendy Roe                      781      782       +1       -8
      64. Tim Reypert                    773      778       +5       -5
      65. Neil Zussman                   768      776       +8       -2
      65. Shane Roberts                  766      776      +10       -1
      67. Steven Moir                    763      775      +12       +0
      68. Danny Hamilton                 761      773      +12       +0
      69. John Gray                      757      772      +15       +0
      70. Michael Macdonald-Cooper       780      771       -9      -14
      71. Sweyn Kirkness                 765      770       +5       -5
      72. Kai Laddiman                   756      765       +9       -2
      73. Paul Keane                     744      762      +18       +5
      73. Michael Bowden                 739      762      +23       +8
      75. David Edwards                  737      760      +23       +8
      75. Gary Male                      750      760      +10       -2
      77. Stu Horsey                     732      759      +27       +9
      77. Nik Von Uexkull                749      759      +10       -3
      79. Richard Pay                    732      758      +26       +7
      80. Martin Gardner                 746      757      +11       -5
      81. Brian Selway                   746      756      +10       -6
      81. James Roberts                  736      756      +20       +4
      83. Nick Wainwright                726      754      +28       +5
      84. Heather Styles                 737      753      +16       -1
      85. Jonathan Coles                 746      752       +6      -10
      86. Jean Webby                     738      751      +13       -4
      86. Ross Allatt                    741      751      +10       -6
      88. Julia Wilkinson                744      737       -7      -10
      89. David Von Geyer                724      734      +10       +0
      90. Amey Deshpande                 718      729      +11       +0
      91. James Doohan                   702      728      +26       +7
      92. Liam Shaw                      708      723      +15       +1
      93. Tony Warren                    712      721       +9       -1
      93. Jayne Wisniewski               705      721      +16       +3
      93. Brenda Jolley                  718      721       +3       -3
      96. Carl Williams                  708      720      +12       -3
      97. Rose Boyle                     701      717      +16       +3
      98. David Thirlwall                704      714      +10       -1
      99. Andy McGurn                    702      712      +10       -1
     100. Judith Young                   707      709       +2       -5
     101. Dave Taylor                    691      707      +16       +1
     102. Chris Marshall                 682      704      +22       +3
     103. Tia Corkish                    697      702       +5       -2
     104. Suzi Purcell                   686      695       +9       -1
     105. Jeffrey Burgin                 685      691       +6       -1
     106. Steve Wood                     675      688      +13       +0
     107. Ned Pendleton                  664      684      +20       +1
     108. Joe Zubaidi                    665      672       +7       -1
     109. Chris McHenry                  643      654      +11       +0
     110. Danny Pledger                  635      650      +15       +0
The "average points scored per letters round" and "average points scored per numbers round" refer to the average points scored in the appropriate type of round by that player in their heat games only. This average only counts points that were actually scored in the game, not raw scores, so if a player got an eight-letter word but was beaten by their opponent's nine, their score for that round still counts as zero.
I was just looking at this. So the translation of someone's old score into their new format score is Letters*10/11 + Numbers*4/3 + Conundrum. (Jack's description is horrendous.)

For the top 10 on the list, the average increase in score over the octorun is 15.7, for the top 20, it's 16.3, for the top 30 it's 16.2, and for the top 40 it's 16.1. I'm quite happy to say that the average difference is 16, so as a standard translation, the new system is worth 2 points a game.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by JackHurst » Sun Dec 08, 2013 8:35 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
sean d wrote:Forgive me if this has been dealt with already- I know it was discussed before but I can't find it.

My question relates to the relative difficulty of Countdown and Apterous. Do we have figures for average max particularly for letters rounds, as I suspect letters rounds are considerably 'nicer' on the show.
For all letters rounds for which the max is known, up to 1st March 2013...
3: 0.0042% (2)
4: 0.0933% (44)
5: 1.7800% (839)
6: 14.4985% (6834)
7: 43.4360% (20474)
8: 34.5723% (16296)
9: 5.6156% (2647)

For all 15-round games up to that date...
3: 0.0035% (1)
4: 0.0315% (9)
5: 1.2257% (350)
6: 12.5263% (3577)
7: 42.5795% (12159)
8: 37.2496% (10637)
9: 6.3839% (1823)

Since 2010...
3: 0.0128% (1)
4: 0.0511% (4)
5: 1.6471% (129)
6: 14.2237% (1114)
7: 43.4755% (3405)
8: 34.8059% (2726)
9: 5.7840% (453)

I don't see any particularly strong deviation from the apterous figures Andy's given. Note that the wiki, and therefore the database from which these figures are derived, gives letters maxes according to ODE3 for games since S64, and ODE2r for all earlier series. This means the letters maxes for series which used earlier editions (series 54 and earlier) might be wrong. A bit.
JackHurst wrote:Good analysis Graeme, but could you improve it by comparing to apterous when taking into account number of vowels picked (i.e compare the figures for 3, 4 and 5 vowel selections separately)? I feel like the average max on the show is lowered somewhat by the number of contestants going 3 vowel all of the time.

I don't think this question of mine was answered. The consensus from the information given seemed to be that letters rounds on the show yield a slightly larger max on average. I think if we looked at the data in the way that I suggested then we'd see a bigger difference.

sean d
Acolyte
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by sean d » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:38 pm

On the Apto v Countdown thing, I'd be interested to see how many letters rounds feature 9 different letters in each format I expect it's considerably higher on the show.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:27 pm

Hey everyone, I'm back. Now I'm going to reply to posts that are nearly a month old.
sean d wrote:Thanks Graeme. That's a big and increasing average margin of victory. A couple of factors, I suppose, are the increase in the number of really good top end players and possibly a drop off in the quality at the other end.... certainly they seem to be finding it harder to find the 200+ contestants required per year.
I'm not sure there's necessarily been a drop-off in contestant quality. The new-15 stats are only based on about four months' worth of shows, as they only go up to the end of series 68. Also, I think the greater average margin in the new format, if that does carry on into series 69 and beyond, is probably more to do with the extra numbers round. In a numbers round you've got a good chance of gaining 10 points over your opponent. If you're a 4-large expert against an average opponent, for example, the chance is quite high that you'll win the round 10-0.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:01 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote:Here's the first bit - 15 round octochamps ordered by the number of maxes out of 120 in heat games. A maxed round is where the player got the most points available. Tiebreaks aren't counted.

The 9-rounder one is going to need a bit more thought to exclude people who had more than one run, so I'll come back to that one another day.

Code: Select all

     1. Edward McCullagh                  95
     2. Julian Fell                       94
     3. Jack Hurst                        91
     4. Craig Beevers                     89
     4. Jonathan Rawlinson                89
     6. Stewart Holden                    86
     7. Kirk Bevins                       85
     8. Chris Davies                      84
     9. David O'Donnell                   82
    10. Eoin Monaghan                     81
    11. Conor Travers                     80
    12. Chris Wills                       79
    12. Graeme Cole                       79
    14. Adam Gillard                      78
    14. George Greenhough                 78
    14. John Mayhew                       78
    14. Oliver Garner                     78
    14. Paul Gallen                       78
    19. Jack Welsby                       77
    20. Andrew Hulme                      76
    20. Innis Carson                      76
    20. Paul Howe                         76
    23. Peter Lee                         75
    24. Daniel Pati                       74
    25. Marcus Hares                      73
    26. Jimmy Gough                       72
    26. Martin Bishop                     72
    28. Chris Cummins                     71
    28. Ryan Taylor                       71
    28. Tom Barnes                        71
    31. Aaron Webber                      70
    31. David Barnard                     70
    31. Grace Page                        70
    34. Jon Corby                         69
    34. Richard Heald                     69
    36. Lee Hartley                       68
    36. Matthew Shore                     68
    38. Charlie Reams                     67
    38. Mark Deeks                        67
    38. Mark Tournoff                     67
    38. Neil Zussman                      67
    38. Paul James                        67
    38. Steven Briers                     67
    44. Jack Worsley                      66
    45. Andy McGurn                       65
    45. James Hurrell                     65
    45. Jeffrey Hansford                  65
    45. John Brackstone                   65
    45. Tom Rowell                        65
    50. Stuart Earl                       64
    50. Tom Hargreaves                    64
    52. John Hunt                         63
    52. Kevin Thurlow                     63
    52. Scott Gillies                     63
    55. John Davies                       62
    55. Junaid Mubeen                     62
    55. Stuart Solomons                   62
    55. Wendy Roe                         62
    59. Jean Webby                        61
    59. Jon O'Neill                       61
    59. Martin Gardner                    61
    62. Richard Brittain                  60
    62. Shane Roberts                     60
    64. Cate Henderson                    59
    64. John Gray                         59
    64. Jonathan Coles                    59
    64. Michael Bowden                    59
    64. Ross Allatt                       59
    64. Steven Moir                       59
    70. Brian Selway                      58
    70. David Edwards                     58
    70. Mike Pullin                       58
    70. Stu Horsey                        58
    74. Danny Hamilton                    57
    74. Jim Bentley                       57
    74. Keith Maynard                     57
    74. Liam Shaw                         57
    74. Rose Boyle                        57
    79. Nik Von Uexkull                   56
    80. Richard Pay                       55
    80. Rupert Stokoe                     55
    82. David Von Geyer                   54
    82. Jeffrey Burgin                    54
    82. Sweyn Kirkness                    54
    82. Tim Reypert                       54
    86. James Roberts                     53
    86. Kai Laddiman                      53
    86. Nick Wainwright                   53
    86. Paul Keane                        53
    90. Amey Deshpande                    52
    90. Jayne Wisniewski                  52
    90. Ned Pendleton                     52
    93. Carl Williams                     51
    93. Dave Taylor                       51
    93. Heather Styles                    51
    93. Michael Macdonald-Cooper          51
    97. Gary Male                         50
    97. Judith Young                      50
    97. Julia Wilkinson                   50
   100. Danny Pledger                     49
   101. Tony Warren                       48
   102. James Doohan                      46
   103. Joe Zubaidi                       44
   104. Brenda Jolley                     43
   104. Tia Corkish                       43
   106. Chris Marshall                    42
   106. David Thirlwall                   42
   108. Chris McHenry                     37
   108. Steve Wood                        37
   108. Suzi Purcell                      37
Edited to include Rose Boyle, David Barnard and Heather Styles from series 67, and Kevin Thurlow and Richard Pay who weren't in the list due to muppetry on my part.
Sorry for asking for an update, but I'd love to see this one up-to-date. Also if possible with what series they were from or what date they debuted :ugeek:
I'll post an update of this table after I've put series 69 into the database, which will be after the end of series 69. The executive summary is that Dylan and Jen now top the table, in that order.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:31 pm

JackHurst wrote:Which contestant who played all of their games in the old format would have the biggest difference between their total score then, and their total score converted into new money (ie their numbers score multiplied by 4/3 and their letters score multiplied by 10/11)?
Jack Worsley. He got 818 points in eight games, which comprised 541 letters points, 237 numbers points and 40 conundrum points. With your formula, this would translate to 847.8 under the new format.

Full list, ordered by points gained by multiplying letters score by 11/10 and numbers score by 4/3:

Code: Select all

                                    OLD      NEW    DIFF
     1. Jack Worsley                818   847.82  +29.82
     2. John Davies                 766   793.76  +27.76
     3. Nick Wainwright             726   753.52  +27.52
     4. Mike Pullin                 756   783.45  +27.45
     5. Jon O'Neill                 804   831.39  +27.39
     6. Junaid Mubeen               790   817.03  +27.03
     7. Jim Bentley                 756   782.61  +26.61
     7. Stu Horsey                  732   758.61  +26.61
     9. Chris Cummins               858   884.36  +26.36
     9. Mark Deeks                  824   850.36  +26.36
    11. Richard Pay                 732   757.88  +25.88
    11. James Doohan                692   717.88  +25.88
    13. Scott Gillies               810   834.55  +24.55
    14. Ryan Taylor                 792   816.36  +24.36
    15. John Hunt                   778   801.27  +23.27
    15. Edward McCullagh            896   919.27  +23.27
    17. David Edwards               737   760.24  +23.24
    18. Michael Bowden              739   761.88  +22.88
    19. Steven Briers               843   865.58  +22.58
    20. Tom Rowell                  774   796.30  +22.30
    21. Chris Marshall              682   704.18  +22.18
    22. Paul Howe                   815   836.67  +21.67
    23. Eoin Monaghan               898   918.97  +20.97
    24. Craig Beevers               907   927.64  +20.64
    25. Ned Pendleton               664   684.30  +20.30
    26. Graeme Cole                 813   833.03  +20.03
    27. Richard Brittain            820   839.76  +19.76
    28. James Roberts               736   755.52  +19.52
    29. Jack Welsby                 831   850.30  +19.30
    30. David O'Donnell             880   898.79  +18.79
    31. Adam Gillard                903   921.03  +18.03
    32. Paul Keane                  744   762.00  +18.00
    33. Tom Hargreaves              850   867.64  +17.64
    33. Oliver Garner               802   819.64  +17.64
    35. Chris Wills                 875   892.61  +17.61
    36. Jack Hurst                  946   963.45  +17.45
    37. Paul Gallen                 846   863.15  +17.15
    38. Jonathan Rawlinson          850   866.97  +16.97
    39. Jon Corby                   856   872.73  +16.73
    40. Cate Henderson              782   798.24  +16.24
    41. Dave Taylor                 691   707.21  +16.21
    41. Jayne Wisniewski            705   721.21  +16.21
    41. Rose Boyle                  701   717.21  +16.21
    44. Stuart Earl                 807   823.15  +16.15
    45. Mark Tournoff               809   824.97  +15.97
    46. Heather Styles              737   752.91  +15.91
    47. David Barnard               771   786.85  +15.85
    48. Marcus Hares                834   849.33  +15.33
    49. Aaron Webber                773   788.30  +15.30
    50. Kirk Bevins                 925   940.12  +15.12
    51. John Gray                   757   772.00  +15.00
    52. Conor Travers               890   904.97  +14.97
    53. Danny Pledger               635   649.94  +14.94
    54. Liam Shaw                   708   722.79  +14.79
    55. Kevin Thurlow               769   782.85  +13.85
    56. Jean Webby                  738   751.45  +13.45
    57. Richard Heald               795   808.24  +13.24
    58. Steve Wood                  675   688.12  +13.12
    59. Martin Bishop               809   821.88  +12.88
    60. Lee Hartley                 811   823.82  +12.82
    61. Andrew Hulme                930   942.61  +12.61
    62. Danny Hamilton              761   772.85  +11.85
    63. Carl Williams               708   719.76  +11.76
    64. Rupert Stokoe               776   787.64  +11.64
    65. Steven Moir                 763   774.61  +11.61
    66. Martin Gardner              746   757.33  +11.33
    67. John Brackstone             822   833.21  +11.21
    67. James Hurrell               838   849.21  +11.21
    69. Charlie Reams               820   831.03  +11.03
    70. Chris McHenry               643   653.88  +10.88
    71. Amey Deshpande              718   728.55  +10.55
    72. Nik Von Uexkull             749   759.33  +10.33
    73. David Thirlwall             704   714.12  +10.12
    74. Shane Roberts               766   776.06  +10.06
    75. Gary Male                   750   760.00  +10.00
    76. Innis Carson                861   870.97   +9.97
    77. Andy McGurn                 702   711.76   +9.76
    78. George Greenhough           817   826.73   +9.73
    79. Brian Selway                746   755.70   +9.70
    80. Ross Allatt                 741   750.67   +9.67
    81. David Von Geyer             724   733.64   +9.64
    82. Suzi Purcell                686   695.27   +9.27
    83. Kai Laddiman                756   764.97   +8.97
    84. Grace Page                  829   837.94   +8.94
    85. Stuart Solomons             796   804.85   +8.85
    86. Jimmy Gough                 782   790.79   +8.79
    87. Tom Barnes                  822   830.73   +8.73
    88. Tony Warren                 712   720.67   +8.67
    89. Chris Davies                892   900.42   +8.42
    90. Neil Zussman                758   766.24   +8.24
    91. Keith Maynard               785   792.79   +7.79
    92. Joe Zubaidi                 665   672.24   +7.24
    93. Jeffrey Burgin              685   690.67   +5.67
    94. Julian Fell                 924   929.58   +5.58
    95. Jonathan Coles              746   751.52   +5.52
    96. Sweyn Kirkness              765   770.36   +5.36
    97. Paul James                  794   799.33   +5.33
    98. Matthew Shore               850   854.91   +4.91
    99. Tim Reypert                 773   777.76   +4.76
    99. Tia Corkish                 697   701.76   +4.76
   101. Stewart Holden              870   874.48   +4.48
   102. Peter Lee                   801   805.33   +4.33
   103. Daniel Pati                 840   843.45   +3.45
   104. Brenda Jolley               718   721.39   +3.39
   105. Judith Young                707   708.85   +1.85
   106. Wendy Roe                   781   782.06   +1.06
   107. John Mayhew                 811   810.24   -0.76
   108. Jeffrey Hansford            818   812.79   -5.21
   109. Julia Wilkinson             744   737.21   -6.79
   110. Michael Macdonald-Cooper    780   771.27   -8.73

Dave Preece
Devotee
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Dave Preece » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:24 am

I'm assuming the bottom few are very good conundrum/average numbers round contestants???

Dave Preece
Devotee
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Dave Preece » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:25 am

The top few are average conundrum and top, top numbers round players compared to letter rounds???

Dave Preece
Devotee
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Dave Preece » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:26 am

This would explain why Conor is in the middle, a jack of no trades and a master of all???

Dave Preece
Devotee
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Dave Preece » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:28 am

I am surprised Jack is 36th on this list... Neither near top, middle or bottom???

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7991
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Jon Corby » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:40 am

Dave Preece wrote:I am surprised Jack is 36th on this list... Neither near top, middle or bottom???
A Conor of no trades and a master of all?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10148
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:43 am

Dave Preece wrote:I'm assuming the bottom few are very good conundrum/average numbers round contestants???
Conundrums don't make a difference. But yeah, more likely to be people who are shit at numbers.

Fred Mumford
Enthusiast
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Fred Mumford » Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:39 pm

Has a player ever missed out on a finals place as a result of winning the final preliminary game of a series? (eg. player finishes series x with several wins, but loses the first game of series y and misses the series y finals, when losing the last game in series x would have got them into the series x finals).

Dave Preece
Devotee
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Dave Preece » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:24 pm

Fred Mumford wrote:Has a player ever missed out on a finals place as a result of winning the final preliminary game of a series? (eg. player finishes series x with several wins, but loses the first game of series y and misses the series y finals, when losing the last game in series x would have got them into the series x finals).
I doubt it.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1236
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:31 pm

Had one of the top 8 been unable to play in the Series 65 finals, that would've happened (Phyl Styles would've played instead of Matt Croy, having lost to some no-hoper called Jack Worsley who we never heard of again in the final prelim of the series). Dunno if it's happened properly but it wouldn't surprise me. Assuming of course that this isn't including people who've become octochamps in the last prelim of the series, but on accumulated wins and points were already in the top 8 prior to that game - if it is, then this would be the case in series 66, among others.
"There's leaders, and there's followers, but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower" - Aristotle

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10148
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:31 pm

Dave Preece wrote:
Fred Mumford wrote:Has a player ever missed out on a finals place as a result of winning the final preliminary game of a series? (eg. player finishes series x with several wins, but loses the first game of series y and misses the series y finals, when losing the last game in series x would have got them into the series x finals).
I doubt it.
I think it would have come up in discussions because that sort of thing has been discussed.

Fred Mumford
Enthusiast
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Fred Mumford » Sat Dec 14, 2013 7:59 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Assuming of course that this isn't including people who've become octochamps in the last prelim of the series
Thanks Jen. Correct assumption - I was specifically wondering about contestants who straddled series, not octochamps who completed their run at the very end of a series.

Martin Thompson
Acolyte
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Thompson » Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:12 pm

You could win the last 6 games of a series to put you 8th in the list, but then lose the first in the next series and come 9th in the rankings. But if you hadn't won that 6th game you wouldn't have qualified anyway. So really it would have to be 7 wins and losing the next one, but you must surely always qualify with that?

Dave Preece
Devotee
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Dave Preece » Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:25 pm

As I said... I doubt it!

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10148
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:53 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Had one of the top 8 been unable to play in the Series 65 finals, that would've happened (Phyl Styles would've played instead of Matt Croy, having lost to some no-hoper called Jack Worsley who we never heard of again in the final prelim of the series). Dunno if it's happened properly but it wouldn't surprise me. Assuming of course that this isn't including people who've become octochamps in the last prelim of the series, but on accumulated wins and points were already in the top 8 prior to that game - if it is, then this would be the case in series 66, among others.
I'm not sure I follow. So who would have missed out on the basis of winning a game?

Dave Preece
Devotee
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Dave Preece » Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:05 pm

Oops!

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:43 pm

Martin Sinclair wrote:I've just done some research on something which I'm sure many will have briefly thought about doing (apologies if it already has and I'm an idiot). It's the calculation for what your score would've been if your opponent maxed every single round throughout. So, the way to do this is by taking all the rounds which you did score on (but didn't max on), and subtract the score which got in those rounds from your overall total. You can ignore any rounds which you failed to score on altogether. Also, I feel all the points which you scored on in the conundrum rounds need to be subtracted from the total, as your opponent could've hansforded you each time. Harsh, but true. I've looked up a few impressive octoruns, and here's how it currently stands.

1) Dylan Taylor, 823 (151 points lost). Octorun maximum: 1050
2) Jen Steadman, 786 (166 points lost). Octorun maximum: 1024
3) Giles Hutchings, 748 (217 points lost). Octorun maximum: 1060
4) Edward McCullagh, 744 (152 points lost). Octorun maximum: 979
5) Julian Fell, 737 (187 point lost). Octorun maximum:

However, some octoruns obviously have higher scores available in theirs than others, so perhaps it would be best to judge it by the lowest amount of points lost. As you can see, Dylan's still top. Another good way would be to measure the percentage achieved from your maximum with your new "impossible to get lower" score. With this, here's the new leaderboard:

1) Dylan Taylor: 78.380952381%
2) Jen Steadman: 76.7578125%
3) Edward McCullagh: 75.9959141982%
4) Jack Hurst: 71.4839961203%
5) Julian Fell: 71.4285714286%
Martin, as a staunch Dylan supporter, do you feel that perhaps this analysis of his performance, which selectively ignores conundrums, is perhaps biased in his favour, given that he was the weakest conundrum player of the list? This ultimately proved to be his undoing and I would be interested to see how you incorporate this.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:36 pm

You are right, I am a big fan of Dylan. Still, that has nothing to do with the conundrum rounds being eliminated altogether, as the thing with the timing of them makes it extremely difficult to measure. And, I did do a leaderboard (I think) of what the "impossible to get lower than" scores would have been if conundrums were included, and he's still top.

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:39 pm

... Or he was for his octorun. I'll have to do the further calculations now.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:08 pm

I appreciate that, yet it seems like an arbitrary distinction. Indeed, the entire metric seems somewhat arbitrary. From this end, it seems like a convoluted means of finding ways to list Dylan at the top of something, via what ever criteria are necessary. Therefore, in light of all that which your formulae have uncovered, as well being mindful of the outcome of series 69, Martin, how would you construct a Dave Preece-like list of the best players of all time?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Zarte Siempre
Series 78 Champion
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Zarte Siempre » Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:19 pm

Mark Deeks wrote:I appreciate that, yet it seems like an arbitrary distinction. Indeed, the entire metric seems somewhat arbitrary. From this end, it seems like a convoluted means of finding ways to list Dylan at the top of something, via what ever criteria are necessary. Therefore, in light of all that which your formulae have uncovered, as well being mindful of the outcome of series 69, Martin, how would you construct a Dave Preece-like list of the best players of all time?
I'm really enjoying your style, Mark :)
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:28 pm

My top 3 would be:

1) Conor Travers
2) Dylan Taylor
3) Jack Hurst

I feel that winning a series doesn't mean much, as Dylan has better statistics than any other winner of a regular series, but did he win it? No. Just look, he has the highest amount of maxes from a series by some way - 140/65, and the second best is 131/165. But, he was far from the best conundrum player, and Conor's CoC performance was just out of this world. He has two more trophies than him, so is #1 in my eyes. Jack's #3 because I feel he has the 2nd best statistics in a regular series, and he won his.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:51 pm

Again though, Martin, that feels strongly like a contrived metric. To say that Dylan's 140 out of 165 is of more importance than winning a series in determining greatness is to say that meeting the threshold of an arbitrary, strained, artifical measurement is more valuable than beating the opponent. The maxes count is relevant only to those who choose to measure it, not to the field in which performance is measured, which is solely that of winning games. Therefore, if greatness is measured by achievement, then surely that which the game itself ascribes as the ultimate achievement - winning the bugger - should be the most valuable determination of all?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark James » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:01 pm

Martin Sinclair wrote: I feel that winning a series doesn't mean much,
This is the kind of stupid thing Liverpool haters (I'm not a Liverpool fan btw) were saying in 2005. "Sure they won the competition but they weren't the best team in it". Well they were. That's what winning the thing means. As someone who participated in this years series all I cared about was getting my name on the trophy. I wasn't worried about max games or points totals.

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:10 pm

Well, this brings me to another point of mine - eras. If Dylan, or Jen, had been on a few years ago at the same standard now, then they'd have won their series, for sure. So they're unlucky that they were both in a solid series. Also, I've found the perfect reason as to why collection of maxes is a better way of measuring than % of max, but this is getting a bit off-topic, unless if you want me to say why that method's better?

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:14 pm

Don't be afraid. Post it. I'd like to hear it!
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:37 pm

Example: two people play an octorun which has exactly the same maximum, in this case, it's 1000. Player 1 scores 964 and gets 118/120 maxes. Player 2 scores 965 and gets 85/120 maxes. As you can see, the only way in which Player 1 could have dropped 36 points from two rounds is if he/she had failed to score in both of those rounds, and that there was a nine available both times. However, Player 2 can be let of the hook much more easily. He/she could've afforded to drop maxes on 35 rounds and still get a higher score than Player 1, and therefore a higher % of max, with the maxes both being the same. So, Player 1 did better in 35 more rounds but still ended up on the losing side to the best % of max.

... And that's why maxes total is a better way of measuring.

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:38 pm

and therefore have a higher % of max*

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:39 pm

Why's Dylan not the best ever, then?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Zarte Siempre
Series 78 Champion
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Zarte Siempre » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:41 pm

Martin Sinclair wrote:Example: two people play an octorun which has exactly the same maximum, in this case, it's 1000. Player 1 scores 964 and gets 118/120 maxes. Player 2 scores 965 and gets 85/120 maxes. As you can see, the only way in which Player 1 could have dropped 36 points from two rounds is if he/she had failed to score in both of those rounds, and that there was a nine available both times. However, Player 2 can be let of the hook much more easily. He/she could've afforded to drop maxes on 35 rounds and still get a higher score than Player 1, and therefore a higher % of max, with the maxes both being the same. So, Player 1 did better in 35 more rounds but still ended up on the losing side to the best % of max.

... And that's why maxes total is a better way of measuring.
I feel like I've heard this argument somewhere before... I can't QUITE put my finger on it though...
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:42 pm

Because he was trophyless (I don't feel that's the #1 factor) and just look at Conor's amount of maxes. I think it was 86/90, which overshadows the rest. Amazing.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:46 pm

So what makes Jack Hurst third? Giles Hutchings, for example, recorded 94 maxes and won the series. Edward McCullagh recorded 95 and won his series. Why do you feel as though Jack Hurst had the second best statistics? Where do your yardsticks lie here, Martin?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:49 pm

Because he did better in the CoC than Edward, and Giles probably shouldn't have won his series final, statistically.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:50 pm

Giles probably shouldn't have won his series final, statistically.
Why do you say that, Martin?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Zarte Siempre
Series 78 Champion
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Zarte Siempre » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:54 pm

Mark Deeks wrote:So what makes Jack Hurst third? Giles Hutchings, for example, recorded 94 maxes and won the series. Edward McCullagh recorded 95 and won his series. Why do you feel as though Jack Hurst had the second best statistics? Where do your yardsticks lie here, Martin?
Yeah, that's a good question. See, to me, people remember Giles and Ed and Jack. I feel that whilst people on here would remember Dylan for breaking the all-time points record, the average-joe at home who just enjoys watching along probably wouldn't remember anyone who hadn't won a series for more than the next series or so. They might remember "That guy who lost in the final of the series where there were massive upsets" but that's about as much as he's likely to get I think.

I've got the highest score of series 69, but am I deluded enough to think anyone outside the kind of person likely to hang around this forum would know that or care in the slightest beyond the couple of weeks of attention it got me on Twitter at the time? Not at all.

So yeah, in essence I disagree with your logic Martin (though I respect your opinions and the work you've clearly put in).
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:55 pm

Andy was very unlucky that ODORIZER wasn't in. It used to be and is set to be added again next year. He only got 11 maxes in his final, Jack H got 14. Also, I don't class a numbers game where you get 7/5 points but a better 7/5 points is available, and I know Giles had a few of these in his octorun.

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:57 pm

7/5 points is available as a max*

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:03 pm

But yeah, I can totally understand why some of you don't feel Dylan should be #1. It's just like the seeding system with Countdown - more wins first, then points.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:06 pm

Martin Sinclair wrote:But yeah, I can totally understand why some of you don't feel Dylan should be #1.
Nor do you, by the sounds of it, Martin.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:07 pm

From the neutral's point of view, there's no way he'd me remembered for being the best. From the person who knows much more about Countdown (Apterites etc.), they may see where I'm coming from and agree with me, perhaps. Just remember, if Dylan had been in any regular series before his time, he'd have almost certainly have won it, statistically (this is related to my point about eras).

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:10 pm

Anyway, we're posting all of this in the wrong thread! It's wasting space so if you'd like to keep debating, I'd suggest putting all future posts in the "Best ever contestants" thread.

Zarte Siempre
Series 78 Champion
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Zarte Siempre » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:10 pm

I wish it was easy to agree with you Martin, cause I'd quite like to have only lost to the "greatest player ever" or somewhere close to it, but after losing his final, I don't even know if you could put him in the top 10. I think (though I'm sure someone would disagree with me) as well, that if someone was to make a definitive list of the "greatest" in any field, personality WILL always come into it. Take boxing. Muhammad Ali is regarded as probably the greatest boxer ever. But he actually lost 5 of his fights, a record that puts his nowhere near the best. People loved him and rated him as much for his personality as his skill. Now I don't know Dylan particularly well, but on TV at least he was... bland at best and a personality vacuum at worst. For him to be forever remembered by the ordinary fans of the show out there, I think he'd need to have made them warm to him as well.

But as I say, I'm sure people will disagree with that :)
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:10 pm

See, to me, people remember Giles and Ed and Jack.
Beautiful people, too. Certainly amongst the most attractive contestants of all time, if not the most.

Martin, Giles did all that he had to do to win. He outscored his opponent in the final, Martin. It doesn't matter, Martin, that he didn't outscore Jack's opponent. Remember also, Martin, that not all missed maxes are created equal. There's a difference between missing TOASTED and missing NAPROXEN, Martin. Do your max-centric analyses, Martin, account for this?

Also, Martin, your citing of the "eras" is interesting. Different eras, Martin, produce different quality players. But they do so in part, Martin, because of the means available for the contestants to practice. Martin, look at another all-time great, Kirk Bevins. Kirk was on twice, remember Martin - first in 2004, and then in 2009. Does his three max loss change his subsequent greatness in your eyes, Martin?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Zarte Siempre
Series 78 Champion
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Zarte Siempre » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:16 pm

Mark Deeks wrote:
See, to me, people remember Giles and Ed and Jack.
Beautiful people, too.
Absolutely.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by JackHurst » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:12 pm

FUCK YES I AM #3

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:30 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote:Here's the first bit - 15 round octochamps ordered by the number of maxes out of 120 in heat games. A maxed round is where the player got the most points available. Tiebreaks aren't counted.
Sorry for asking for an update, but I'd love to see this one up-to-date. Also if possible with what series they were from or what date they debuted :ugeek:
I'll post an update of this table after I've put series 69 into the database, which will be after the end of series 69. The executive summary is that Dylan and Jen now top the table, in that order.
Updated to series 69...

Code: Select all

                                  SERIES  DEBUT      MAXES
     1. Dylan Taylor                  69  2013-08-06   101
     2. Jen Steadman                  69  2013-08-30    99
     3. Edward McCullagh              64  2011-02-02    95
     4. Julian Fell                   48  2002-10-16    94
     5. Giles Hutchings               68  2013-04-03    93
     6. Jack Hurst                    63  2010-10-13    91
     7. Craig Beevers                 57  2007-10-23    89
     7. Jonathan Rawlinson            66  2012-06-11    89
     9. Andy Platt                    68  2013-03-19    87
    10. Stewart Holden                51  2004-02-23    86
    11. Kirk Bevins                   60  2009-03-02    85
    12. Chris Davies                  61  2009-08-28    84
    12. Glen Webb                     69  2013-06-05    84
    14. David O'Donnell               58  2008-01-24    82
    14. Bradley Cates                 69  2013-10-18    82
    16. Eoin Monaghan                 63  2010-09-15    81
    17. Conor Travers                 54  2005-11-23    80
    18. Chris Wills                   47  2002-01-14    79
    18. Graeme Cole                   65  2011-06-07    79
    20. George Greenhough             48  2002-11-01    78
    20. Paul Gallen                   52  2004-08-31    78
    20. John Mayhew                   53  2005-02-17    78
    20. Oliver Garner                 62  2010-01-12    78
    20. Adam Gillard                  64  2011-01-12    78
    25. Jack Welsby                   52  2004-07-21    77
    26. Paul Howe                     54  2006-02-04    76
    26. Innis Carson                  61  2009-06-25    76
    26. Andrew Hulme                  61  2009-07-09    76
    29. Peter Lee                     66  2012-02-20    75
    30. Daniel Pati                   63  2010-09-03    74
    31. Marcus Hares                  63  2010-11-01    73
    32. Martin Bishop                 59  2008-11-04    72
    33. Chris Cummins                 50  2003-07-21    71
    33. Jimmy Gough                   60  2009-05-11    71
    33. Ryan Taylor                   61  2009-11-05    71
    33. Tom Barnes                    64  2011-05-10    71
    37. Grace Page                    48  2002-07-02    70
    37. Aaron Webber                  56  2007-04-23    70
    37. David Barnard                 67  2012-11-20    70
    40. Richard Heald                 53  2005-06-02    69
    40. Jon Corby                     54  2006-04-28    69
    42. Lee Hartley                   47  2002-02-18    68
    42. Matthew Shore                 54  2006-02-17    68
    44. Mark Tournoff                 52  2004-11-15    67
    44. Steven Briers                 55  2006-11-03    67
    44. Charlie Reams                 59  2008-10-15    67
    44. Neil Zussman                  60  2009-02-16    67
    44. Mark Deeks                    65  2011-07-12    67
    44. Paul James                    67  2012-07-06    67
    50. Jack Worsley                  66  2011-12-07    66
    51. John Brackstone               53  2005-05-12    65
    51. James Hurrell                 57  2007-06-07    65
    51. Jeffrey Hansford              57  2007-08-27    65
    51. Tom Rowell                    63  2010-07-22    65
    51. Andy McGurn                   64  2011-03-08    65
    56. Tom Hargreaves                47  2001-12-26    64
    56. Stuart Earl                   50  2003-11-14    64
    58. Kevin Thurlow                 47  2002-01-28    63
    58. John Hunt                     52  2004-10-14    63
    58. Scott Gillies                 63  2010-06-03    63
    58. Alex Fish                     69  2013-09-13    63
    62. Wendy Roe                     47  2002-04-23    62
    62. John Davies                   49  2003-05-02    62
    62. Stuart Solomons               50  2003-10-28    62
    62. Junaid Mubeen                 59  2008-09-22    62
    66. Martin Gardner                49  2003-05-14    61
    66. Jon O'Neill                   53  2005-04-01    61
    66. Jean Webby                    56  2007-02-26    61
    69. Richard Brittain              55  2006-09-11    60
    69. Shane Roberts                 60  2009-04-09    60
    71. John Gray                     52  2004-09-27    59
    71. Steven Moir                   52  2004-11-03    59
    71. Michael Bowden                54  2006-01-25    59
    71. Jonathan Coles                58  2008-05-27    59
    71. Cate Henderson                60  2009-03-23    59
    76. Mike Pullin                   47  2002-05-10    58
    76. Ross Allatt                   53  2005-04-14    58
    76. Stu Horsey                    55  2006-10-05    58
    76. David Edwards                 57  2007-07-13    58
    76. Brian Selway                  61  2009-10-19    58
    76. Eileen Taylor                 68  2013-04-24    58
    82. Danny Hamilton                48  2002-07-24    57
    82. Jim Bentley                   50  2003-08-28    57
    82. Keith Maynard                 54  2006-01-16    57
    82. Liam Shaw                     67  2012-09-17    57
    82. Rose Boyle                    67  2012-10-15    57
    87. Nik Von Uexkull               51  2004-04-21    56
    88. Rupert Stokoe                 47  2002-03-25    55
    88. Richard Pay                   51  2004-02-06    55
    90. Sweyn Kirkness                51  2004-05-05    54
    90. David Von Geyer               57  2007-09-17    54
    90. Tim Reypert                   58  2008-02-08    54
    90. Jeffrey Burgin                61  2009-09-16    54
    94. Nick Wainwright               56  2007-05-07    53
    94. James Roberts                 57  2007-11-21    53
    94. Kai Laddiman                  59  2008-10-02    53
    94. Paul Keane                    65  2011-11-10    53
    94. Jonathan Liew                 69  2013-11-21    53
    99. Amey Deshpande                56  2007-01-16    52
    99. Ned Pendleton                 64  2011-02-17    52
    99. Jayne Wisniewski              65  2011-09-23    52
   102. Michael Macdonald-Cooper      58  2008-01-08    51
   102. Dave Taylor                   65  2011-08-23    51
   102. Carl Williams                 65  2011-09-06    51
   102. Heather Styles                67  2012-11-07    51
   106. Julia Wilkinson               48  2002-06-06    50
   106. Gary Male                     51  2004-03-23    50
   106. Judith Young                  53  2005-01-21    50
   106. Joe McGonigle                 68  2013-05-13    50
   110. Danny Pledger                 62  2010-05-14    49
   111. Tony Warren                   55  2006-05-10    48
   112. James Doohan                  60  2009-05-22    46
   113. Joe Zubaidi                   48  2002-11-21    44
   114. Brenda Jolley                 47  2002-03-01    43
   114. Tia Corkish                   67  2012-10-03    43
   116. David Thirlwall               52  2004-06-08    42
   116. Chris Marshall                67  2012-07-18    42
   118. Chris McHenry                 55  2006-11-22    37
   118. Steve Wood                    61  2009-10-06    37
   118. Suzi Purcell                  66  2012-05-24    37
As before, a maxed round is where the player got the maximum points available in that round. So if in a numbers round the best possible was 1 away, and you got 2 away, it's still a max. This is how apterous defines a max now.

"Debut" is the date of the first game in the player's octorun, and because some players had already appeared before, this might not be the same as their actual debut. The "series" column is the series in which their last heat game fell - in other words, which finals they qualified for.

Martin Sinclair
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Martin Sinclair » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:33 pm

I feel the numbers where you got 2 away but you could have got away as a max is up to opinion, as I know a few people don't think it should be classed as a max (I'm one of them).

Zarte Siempre
Series 78 Champion
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Zarte Siempre » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:46 pm

Martin Sinclair wrote:I feel the numbers where you got 2 away but you could have got away as a max is up to opinion, as I know a few people don't think it should be classed as a max (I'm one of them).
You're wrong.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10148
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:53 pm

Martin Sinclair wrote:I feel the numbers where you got 2 away but you could have got away as a max is up to opinion, as I know a few people don't think it should be classed as a max (I'm one of them).
I think Graeme does it that way because it's easier for him to calculate.

User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Michael Wallace » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:19 pm

I've been having a think about the high scores 'record' thing, as it's a moderately interesting problem. Obviously the basic conclusion is "Jack has the old-15 record, Dylan has the new-15 one", because a straight comparison is always going to involve some subjectivity. However, I thought a moderately neat (and crucially, easy) way to do a direct comparison would be to take Jack's octorun and say "what if one of his letters rounds was replaced by a numbers round in each of his shows?".

To do this I generated a bunch of 'pseudo' octoruns where in each game a randomly chosen letters round was replaced by a score picked from Jack's numbers round scores on the show (i.e. assuming his performance on these hypothetical rounds match his performance on the ones that actually happened). Unfortunately (although predictably) this proves inconclusive; Dylan and Jack are inseparable from a statistical perspective using this approach as it spits out a likely range for Jack's estimated octotal of 942-980, which comfortably includes Dylan's 974. (For the more statistically minded, that's a 95% confidence interval.)

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 10148
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:26 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:I've been having a think about the high scores 'record' thing, as it's a moderately interesting problem. Obviously the basic conclusion is "Jack has the old-15 record, Dylan has the new-15 one", because a straight comparison is always going to involve some subjectivity. However, I thought a moderately neat (and crucially, easy) way to do a direct comparison would be to take Jack's octorun and say "what if one of his letters rounds was replaced by a numbers round in each of his shows?".

To do this I generated a bunch of 'pseudo' octoruns where in each game a randomly chosen letters round was replaced by a score picked from Jack's numbers round scores on the show (i.e. assuming his performance on these hypothetical rounds match his performance on the ones that actually happened). Unfortunately (although predictably) this proves inconclusive; Dylan and Jack are inseparable from a statistical perspective using this approach as it spits out a likely range for Jack's estimated octotal from 942-980, which comfortably includes Dylan's 974. (For the more statistically minded, that's a 95% confidence interval.)
That is quite interesting. Normally I'd say do the letters*10/11 + numbers*4/3 + conundrum score to convert from old to new, or do the add two points per game rule of thumb. But if we're looking at confidence intervals, perhaps we should really do this for everyone. Jack's score converts to slightly less than Dylan's using the methods I've suggested. But once that's done, the problem here isn't old v new - it's statistical variation, so people scoring close to Dylan and indeed Dylan himself could be given confidence intervals treatment.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:29 pm

JackHurst wrote:
JackHurst wrote:Good analysis Graeme, but could you improve it by comparing to apterous when taking into account number of vowels picked (i.e compare the figures for 3, 4 and 5 vowel selections separately)? I feel like the average max on the show is lowered somewhat by the number of contestants going 3 vowel all of the time.
I don't think this question of mine was answered. The consensus from the information given seemed to be that letters rounds on the show yield a slightly larger max on average. I think if we looked at the data in the way that I suggested then we'd see a bigger difference.

Code: Select all

All-time

MAX           3 VOWELS             4 VOWELS           5 VOWELS
  3           1 (0.004%)           1 (0.004%)         0
  4          19 (0.081%)          23 (0.095%)         1 (0.082%)
  5         363 (1.549%)         440 (1.825%)        44 (3.601%)
  6        3220 (13.74%)        3482 (14.45%)       295 (24.14%)
  7       10716 (45.74%)        9915 (41.14$)       515 (42.14%)
  8        8098 (34.56%)        8528 (35.38%)       328 (26.84%)
  9        1011 (4.315%)        1714 (7.111%)        39 (3.191%)

TOTAL     23428                24103               1222


Since 2010

MAX           3 VOWELS             4 VOWELS           5 VOWELS
  3           0                    1 (0.017%)         0
  4           2 (0.060%)           2 (0.034%)         1 (0.224%)
  5          42 (1.254%)          95 (1.613%)        12 (2.691%)
  6         443 (13.23%)         797 (13.54%)       103 (23.09%)
  7        1535 (45.84%)        2474 (42.02%)       188 (42.15%)
  8        1188 (35.47%)        2100 (35.67%)       128 (28.70%)
  9         139 (4.150%)         419 (7.116%)        14 (3.139%)

TOTAL      3349                 5888                446
As before, the maxes are given by the wiki, and this was given by the recap writer, which doesn't know about dictionaries prior to ODE2r. So for series before the introduction of the ODE2r, the maxes might be slightly wrong.

Can anyone find the statland page on apterous that gives the max breakdown of each vowel pick? I can't.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:38 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Martin Sinclair wrote:I feel the numbers where you got 2 away but you could have got away as a max is up to opinion, as I know a few people don't think it should be classed as a max (I'm one of them).
I think Graeme does it that way because it's easier for him to calculate.
It used to be for that reason, but I've got a column in a table now that tells me what the best possible declaration in a numbers game was. Now apterous defines a numbers max the "easy" way, I'll do that here as well. However, it being easier is still part of the reason. When writing a database query, saying "it's a max if score = max score" is still easier than saying "if it was a numbers round, it's a max if abs(contestant's declaration - target) = abs(best declaration - target) and it wasn't disallowed, or if the max was 0; if it wasn't a numbers round, then it's a max if score = max score".

User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Michael Wallace » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:42 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:That is quite interesting. Normally I'd say do the letters*10/11 + numbers*4/3 + conundrum score to convert from old to new, or do the add two points per game rule of thumb. But if we're looking at confidence intervals, perhaps we should really do this for everyone. Jack's score converts to slightly less than Dylan's using the methods I've suggested. But once that's done, the problem here isn't old v new - it's statistical variation, so people scoring close to Dylan and indeed Dylan himself could be given confidence intervals treatment.
Yeah, the basic problem is that to do any sort of comparison you're going to have to make assumptions to deal with the 'what if?', which necessarily come with some kind of uncertainty. With relatively few data (you can only really use on-screen scores, imo) I'm sceptical there's any reasonable approach that wouldn't find any difference in estimated scores between Jack and Dylan could likely just be attributed to chance.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:16 am

For the record, Martin Sinclair was Dylan posting under a false name.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests