Apterous League Tests

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sat May 30, 2009 9:30 pm

Thirteen players have agreed to take up the challenge of the newly formed Apterous League. There are two division tests for now, to see how feasible this all is, and if everyone plays most of their games I can extend this to the whole forum.

Division A:

1: Andrew Hulme (1864)
2: Oliver Garner (1642)
3: Ian Volante (1375)
4: Neil Zussman (1494)
5: Daniel O'Dowd (1440)
6: Tom Rowell (1391)
7: Aaron Higgs (1376)

Division B:

1: Mark Harrison (1302)
2: James Hall (1230)
3: Andrew Feist (1162)
4: J Levison (1126)
5: Niall Seymour (1041)
6: Ian Dent (961)
7: Steve Rogers (800)

The rules:

Each league will be played over two all-play-all cycles, one Standard 15, one Standard Goatdown (unless I receive plentiful antiGoaty objections). Two points will be awarded for a win after fifteen rounds, one for a draw, and 0 for a loss. In the event of a fifteen round tie, both players will receive 1 pt, and the tiebreak winner an extra 0.5. Both leagues have until Midnight of Tuesday 9 June to complete any six games, and Midnight of Friday 19 June to complete all. After the cutoff, players will be penalised 0.5pts for each game they are behind.

Please post all results with a link to the game here, any questions, problems or other things PM me any time. As far as availability, I am around most evenings from 9ish until about 2am, and daytimes most other days.

Good luck to all!

Niall Seymour · Post by **Niall Seymour** » Sat May 30, 2009 9:46 pm

Can we play whoever in our league, whenever or are fixtures going to be drawn like in sport?

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sat May 30, 2009 9:49 pm

Yeah, you just choose your own fixtures whenever is convenient

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Sat May 30, 2009 10:17 pm

Two defeats against Andrew
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 5274044332
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 2755630882

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sat May 30, 2009 11:05 pm

Ouch.

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Sat May 30, 2009 11:27 pm

Just a thought with the scoring system.

How about...?

4 points for a win
1 winning bonus point for winning without a crucial

1 losing bonus point for forcing a crucial

2 points each for a draw.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sat May 30, 2009 11:31 pm

No.

Four for a win is too much with so few games as to make it far less open a competition. Effectively in fact you've made it five, because some games will be won before the conundrum, so its way overinflationary. Games have started anyways, and I don't want to change the system partway through the process.

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Sat May 30, 2009 11:59 pm

Just a thought.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun May 31, 2009 11:29 am

I'm a bit surprised you've done it so that both leagues are roughly balanced. Are you envisioning more of a conference-style system, as opposed to leagues ordered by skill? If a league system is organised by balancing them all first, it'll take quite a while for the best players to get organised at the top.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sun May 31, 2009 1:17 pm

This is only a trial, and I don't understand what you mean at all by balancing. It is ordered by skill; you can clearly see every player is listed in rating order

The top players are in the top division, the next are in the second. When the real thing rolls out, invitations will be sent to however many players, with the top x comprising division 1, the next group division 2, etc, as now.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun May 31, 2009 1:50 pm

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:This is only a trial, and I don't understand what you mean at all by balancing. It is ordered by skill; you can clearly see every player is listed in rating order The top players are in the top division, the next are in the second. When the real thing rolls out, invitations will be sent to however many players, with the top x comprising division 1, the next group division 2, etc, as now.

I seem to have been utterly talking out of my behind today. Please ignore!

Aaron Higgs · Post by **Aaron Higgs** » Sun May 31, 2009 2:48 pm

Defeat to Andrew In Standard - http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=68809
and in Goatdown - http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=68822

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sun May 31, 2009 2:51 pm

No problem Ian

Thanks Aaron, oh dear; Andrew is now leading with 10 pts, but I have my Goatdown game against him still

Eoin Monaghan · Post by **Eoin Monaghan** » Sun May 31, 2009 7:25 pm

Guys, I'm really sorry I'm gonna have to drop out. I'll be quite busy these coming weeks and won't get much time on the computer. I'll pop in and out of apterous though but somebody will maybe take my place. Sorry if I've spoiled everything but there's nothing I can do about it.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sun May 31, 2009 7:46 pm

No problem; no spoilage. Mr Ian Volante, step forward

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Sun May 31, 2009 8:44 pm

1 win each here
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 6659675403
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 3760061652

Neil Zussman · Post by **Neil Zussman** » Sun May 31, 2009 9:48 pm

Two close games with Oli and another tight one here with Andrew: http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69051
At least he doesn't have a 100% record any more, since it was technically a tie.
Any chance of some league tables please Daniel?

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sun May 31, 2009 9:58 pm

Certainly

I'll be playing in a minute so these will be updated daily probably.

Division A:

1 Andrew Hulme (P6 W5 D1 Tiebreak 1 L0) Pts 11.5

2 Neil Zussman (P3 W1 D1 Tiebreak 0 L1) Pts 3

3 Oliver Garner (P4 W1 D0 L3) Pts 2

4 Aaron Higgs (P2 W0 D0 L2) Pts 0

5 Daniel O'Dowd (P1 W0 D0 L1) Pts 0

6 Ian Volante (P0) Pts 0

6 Tom Rowell (P0) Pts 0

Division B hasn't had any games played yet.

Andrew has a strong lead in his first cycle, but many players have lots of games left, so it isn't by any means over!

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Sun May 31, 2009 10:43 pm

Neil beat me http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69087

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sun May 31, 2009 11:17 pm

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69126
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69131

Two very very high quality games there in total, albeit my first game form was disappointing, 12 maxes ain't bad though between us!

Mark Harrison · Post by **Mark Harrison** » Sun May 31, 2009 11:17 pm

First Division B games to be played; both regular games:

Ian Dent 71-89 Mark Harrison
James Levison 71-82 Mark Harrison

J.Levison · Post by **J.Levison** » Sun May 31, 2009 11:51 pm

Me and Andrew have played both of our games in the second divison, Andrew winning the normal game, with myself taking the win in goatdown.

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69136
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69138

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sun May 31, 2009 11:54 pm

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69139

Agonising for Andrew, who had the target, but failed to declare. Agonising for me on so many other levels...updated tables coming after the current glut of B games.

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:07 am

Currently a 1.5-1 split against Ian Dent:
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69143

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:33 am

Division A:

1 Andrew Hulme (P7, W6, D1, Tiebreak 1, L0) 13.5

2 Neil Zussman (P4, W2, D1, Tiebreak 0, L1) 5

3 Oliver Garner (P4, W1, D0, L3) 2 (Pts Scored 339)

4 Daniel O'Dowd (P4, W1, D0, L3) 2 (Pts Scored 281)

5 Tom Rowell (P3, W1, D0, L2) 2 (Pts Scored 205)

6 Aaron Higgs (P2, W0, D0, L2) 0 (Pts Scored 143)

7 Ian Volante (P0) 0

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:47 am

A 2-2 split against Mark Harrison:
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69154 (regular)
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69158 (goat)

Mark Harrison · Post by **Mark Harrison** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:48 am

2 more games to report - a 1-1 split vs. Andrew Feist:

Regular: Mark Harrison 64-88 Andrew Feist
Goatdown: Andrew Feist 59-86 Mark Harrison

Edit: LOL

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:51 am

Division B:

1 Mark Harrison (P4, W3, D0, L1) 6

2 Andrew Feist (P5, W2, D1, Tiebreak 1, L2) 5.5

3 Ian Dent (P3, W1, D1, Tiebreak 0, L1) 3

4 J Levison (P4, W1, D0, L3) 2

5 James Hall (P0) 0

5 Niall Seymour (P0) 0

5 Steve Rogers (P0) 0

A very close division here, but with three non-starters we may yet see penalty points! Get playing guys

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:52 am

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69153

I managed a comeback victory over James in our standard match-up.

Neil Zussman · Post by **Neil Zussman** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:53 am

I beat Tom last night as well, but forgot to post it:
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69087

Phil Collinge · Post by **Phil Collinge** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:08 am

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:Division B:
A very close division here, but with three non-starters we may yet see penalty points!

I know it's only been a couple of days so far but I wonder if this is in part because 3 weeks seems a very long time to only have to play 12 games.

I would think that when this is officially launched a league of 12 players should easily be completed in a calendar month.

If anyone in Division B happened to withdraw I'd be happy to step in.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:41 am

Phil Collinge wrote:
Daniel O'Dowd wrote:Division B:
A very close division here, but with three non-starters we may yet see penalty points!
I know it's only been a couple of days so far but I wonder if this is in part because 3 weeks seems a very long time to only have to play 12 games.

I would think that when this is officially launched a league of 12 players should easily be completed in a calendar month.

If anyone in Division B happened to withdraw I'd be happy to step in.

Phil, it certainly seems that the leagues are being played quicker than all expectation so far! But a league of twelve players requires 22 games in a double cycle each, or 132 games overall; that's a fair expectation of gaming regularity. If just two people are unavailable for a period of time, it gets messy. I originally was going to say 7 days for 7 games, but wanted there to be leeway to avoid penalties, and also because some doubts were raised over the general feasibility of the league, but I would definitely shorten my times in future

Andrew Hulme, my good man, what ratings cutoff would you deem the limit of competitiveness against such stellars as yourself; I'm guessing 1600/1650? I'll use the info from this league when I define the ratings cutoffs next time.

Probably it will be 1600/1650+ for Div A, 1400-1600/50 for Div B, 1200-1400 Div C, and 1200- Div D. Of course all this assumes proper interest lol. This also with the added proviso that people near their higher rating cutoff can play up if they want to; certainly I'm currently hovering above and below 1400 so I know which one I'd go in

Neil, Tom already posted that result so no worries

Hopefully will catch you on server tonight for our games.

Neil Zussman · Post by **Neil Zussman** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:46 am

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:Probably it will be 1600/1650+ for Div A, 1400-1600/50 for Div B, 1200-1400 Div C, and 1200- Div D. Of course all this assumes proper interest lol.

Neil, Tom already posted that result so no worries Hopefully will catch you on server tonight for our games.

Ah yes, sorry, I knew there was a reason I didn't post it last night, but I forgot. Sorry to rub it in, Tom!

The trouble with taking the leagues straight from the rankings is that, for example, some people may be better at goatdown than standard, or vice versa. But I guess after a season or two, the creme de la creme will rise to the top anyway, so it's not really a big deal.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:50 am

Interestingly, that touches upon a point I was going to make in the suggestions thread, but which I was unsure about, namely of having separate ratings for each popular discipline, even if just total; standard individual, and goat, problem being only a few people I'm guessing play goat enough to maintain an accurate rating. Ratings themselves are indeed volatile, but the main thing to do is to ensure a spectrum of competition within a division without any one player running away with it...-points to the clouds of Div A-

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:19 am

I just got thrashed in the Goatdown game vs James Hall.

In our standard game though I played well and was leading most of the way. Lost by 3 points in the end. I get 0 points for this yet against Feisty I picked up a point by drawing. The fact that it was a draw was pure chance. Surely a close defeat should get some reward?

James Hall · Post by **James Hall** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:49 am

My games agains Ian:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69246
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69235

The 15-rounder was a particularly good match and I felt lucky to win it.

Just a thought - could there be a bonus point for getting a century in a game? A bit like points earned by rugby teams for lots of tries in the same match or something.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:17 pm

Daniel O'Dowd wrote: Probably it will be 1600/1650+ for Div A, 1400-1600/50 for Div B, 1200-1400 Div C, and 1200- Div D. Of course all this assumes proper interest lol. This also with the added proviso that people near their higher rating cutoff can play up if they want to; certainly I'm currently hovering above and below 1400 so I know which one I'd go in

Wouldn't it be better to have promotion/relegation instead of just restricting people by rating? That way, players who consistently compete above (EDIT from "about") their rating can stand out within a division, and there's added incentive to avoid the drop when you are in a league that's generally above one's level. I've beaten at least one 1800+ player, and I've lost to a 900 rated player, and I'd rather not lose the opportunity to play such matches if circumstances such as an unexpected promotion occur.

And by the way, I should be available this evening to knock off some games.

Mark Harrison · Post by **Mark Harrison** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:19 pm

Best I've played in a long time - regular:

Niall Seymour 53-107 Mark Harrison

Mark Harrison · Post by **Mark Harrison** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:20 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Daniel O'Dowd wrote: Probably it will be 1600/1650+ for Div A, 1400-1600/50 for Div B, 1200-1400 Div C, and 1200- Div D. Of course all this assumes proper interest lol. This also with the added proviso that people near their higher rating cutoff can play up if they want to; certainly I'm currently hovering above and below 1400 so I know which one I'd go in
Wouldn't it be better to have promotion/relegation instead of just restricting people by rating? That way, players who consistently compete about their rating can stand out within a division, and there's added incentive to avoid the drop when you are in a league that's generally above one's level. I've beaten at least one 1800+ player, and I've lost to a 900 rated player, and I'd rather not lose the opportunity to play such matches if circumstances such as an unexpected promotion occur.

And by the way, I should be available this evening to knock off some games.

Definitely, 100%. I'm excited about this because if I win the division I'd have the chance to be in with some very good players.

Niall Seymour · Post by **Niall Seymour** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:21 pm

Ignore Mark had already posted our game

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:26 pm

Ian Dent wrote:I just got thrashed in the Goatdown game vs James Hall.

In our standard game though I played well and was leading most of the way. Lost by 3 points in the end. I get 0 points for this yet against Feisty I picked up a point by drawing. The fact that it was a draw was pure chance. Surely a close defeat should get some reward?

I think that's going to be true about any kind of game, anywhere. Losing a soccer/football game 2-1 on a goal in the last minute is a close result, but doesn't get you any points, but losing 2-1 in extra time does. (I think based on my vague recollections of american MLS.) You get some tiebreaker advantages here, since total points is the first tiebreaker, but if you wanted "close" to count, then we should probably just be counting raw points and never mind wins/losses. (My opinion is more of the "horseshoes and hand grenades" mindset; the change I would actually like to see is a full 2 points for an OT win, the fact that I'm currently 0.5 points behind notwithstanding.)

While I'm yammering on, two questions: 1) what do people think about the tiebreakers? I'd be a little leery of total points, given that everybody has different draws; I'd prefer either a spread or a rounds won-drawn-lost percentage kind of thing. 2) What is promotion/relegation going to look like? One bad "season" and you're out, or do you have to have sustained brilliance/lack thereof to move?

James Hall · Post by **James Hall** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:07 pm

I squeaked past Niall:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69365

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:14 pm

I don't think you can compare countdown to football though Feisty.

The fact that our game was a draw and that James won by 3 points was ultimately fairly random. I think either remove the draw completely or reward a crucial conundrum with a bonus point or half a point.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:52 pm

Wow, lots of things to discuss

I'm muchly stoked this is generating so much interest

All those games have been processed on my spreadsheet, I'll update the tables tonight cos I'm going to be on later to have a few.

Ian Dent's suggestion that a close game should be rewarded is indeed countered by Andrew's point (which was part of my intention) that points scored in your games should compensate, especially since we're near certain to have ties somewhere down the line. If we did everything solely on spread, it would unnecessarily, I feel, change the inherent strategy to people playing a long game, simply scoring on every round, not risking properly the words they feel may be valid in discrete games, removing part of the philosophy of the game

A potential soln to this would be the idea of rounds won, or rather, superior rounds, or total spread score, but this would reward even a relatively poor five over an even poorer four, in some sense, or penalise those whose games have lower maxes. I won't go by maxes ever, that elitises the game. I am also loathe to introduce a bonus point for centuries, as, especially in the standard games, it cannot be guaranteed that a clasically easy century could be reached, thus disadvantaging people for no reason. I will certainly consider bumping the result up for drawn games to 1-1 and a full extra point, or even 2-2 and an extra half, since both players have technically won lol.

I don't feel that the result of your game, Ian and James, was fairly random: both of you I'm sure, chose certain letters or number combos at stages with the intent to outscore each other, and declared in the same strategic manner. I can understand that without flat scoring this high level of pissing about with mutually assured darren destruction can be annoying, but it is the game, and with twelve games in a league at the moment (which will probably, assuming enough interest, expand to nearer twenty), there are plenty of opportunities to point up

How does everyone feel about one cycle being goat, btw?

Ian Volante, I think I've crossed my wires in communicating what I meant about league formation, and promotion/relegation. I've been considering each league as a discrete tournament with multiple bands, as opposed to a continuous championship system (probably out of underconfidence about popularity or sustained feasibility) but I think we could combine the two; namely, initially use rating cutoffs as invites with the proviso of offer to play up one, and after that, promo/rele for the winners/losers; winners, with their division's consent, could even refuse promotion. That way, anyone who wants to join has a ratings reference for where to slot in initially as well.

[/ramblerambleramble]

Mark Harrison · Post by **Mark Harrison** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:04 pm

Ian Dent's suggestion that a close game should be rewarded is indeed countered by Andrew's point (which was part of my intention) that points scored in your games should compensate, especially since we're near certain to have ties somewhere down the line. If we did everything solely on spread, it would unnecessarily, I feel, change the inherent strategy to people playing a long game, simply scoring on every round, not risking properly the words they feel may be valid in discrete games, removing part of the philosophy of the game

I think it doesn't really matter - maybe for next season we could have bonus points for various things, because they're kind of fun and they reduce the risk of ties. But whatever the scoring system is, it's entirely transparent, and it's the job of people playing in the league to take account of that.

On the other hand, if anyone wants to award me a retrospective bonus point for my century, I'm quite happy with that

2-2 plus an extra half for a draw is a silly idea IMO, just because it encourages collusion.

A goat cycle is a great idea. I love goatdown.

Steve Rogers · Post by **Steve Rogers** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:14 pm

I'll be around this evening to play some games - probably after about 8ish.

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:16 pm

Well, football wasn't strictly necessary to my analogy -- this is true of just about any point-based game, so far as I can tell. The only real difference about this game, I suppose, is that you can't score one-point-at-a-time; but that doesn't change the real difference (I feel) of losing by a hair during regulation play and taking things to extra innings, which is what the extra point is for.

Phil Collinge · Post by **Phil Collinge** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:41 pm

3 points for an outright win, 0 for a loss.
2 for a win on tie-break, 1 for a loss on a tie break.
Points scored f/a to split equal league points.

That would be my suggestion.

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:49 pm

Anyway: games (against Steve Rogers). No longer winless on goatdown! (Sorry Steve.)
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69479
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69490

Steve Rogers · Post by **Steve Rogers** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:24 pm

Games against Mark Harrison

Regular : http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69501
Goatdown : http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69511

I had a technical problem with the last two rounds - the number entry screen and conundrum failed to show at my end. Didn't affect the overall result though (other than I've have got 10 points on the numbers)

Mark Harrison · Post by **Mark Harrison** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:25 pm

My 2 vs. Steve Rogers:

Regular: Mark Harrison 93-71 Steve Rogers
Goatdown: Steve Rogers 31-105 Mark Harrison

It should be noted that Steve had a problem with both the numbers and the conundrum at the end of the goatdown game - neither appeared for him. He definitely had the numbers, too, so it should probably go down as 105-41.

BTW, I definitely agree with the proposal of a bonus point for a century

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:39 pm

Good man for letting me know that Mark; it will go down as 41 for Steve certainly. I will be playing more games later, but I just subbed so I'm doing some classics atm and beating the heat

Niall Seymour · Post by **Niall Seymour** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:12 pm

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 9392882535

Ian Dent 69 - 94 Niall Seymour

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:23 pm

My first couple of results.

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69568
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69553

Aaron Higgs · Post by **Aaron Higgs** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:35 pm

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69471
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69576

2 games vs Daniel (figured I should still post them)

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:07 pm

This was okay for a while...

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69632

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:29 pm

Division A:

1 Andrew Hulme (P8, W7, D1 Tiebreak 1, L0) 15.5

2 Neil Zussman (P4, W2, D1 Tiebreak 0, L1) 5.0

3 Aaron Higgs (P4, W2, D0, L2) 4.0 (Pts Scored 326)

4 Ian Volante (P3, W2, D0, L1) 4.0 (Pts Scored 232)

5 Daniel O'Dowd (P8, W1, D0, L7) 2.0 (Pts Scored 531)

6 Oliver Garner (P4, W1, D0, L3) 2.0 (Pts Scored 339)

7 Tom Rowell (P3, W1, D0, L2) 2.0 (Pts Scored 205)

__________________________________________________________

Division B:

1 Mark Harrison (P7, W6, D0, L1) 12.0

2 Andrew Feist (P7, W4, D1 Tiebreak 1, L2) 9.5

3 James Hall (P3, W3, D0, L0) 6.0

4 Ian Dent (P6, W1, D1 Tiebreak 0, L4) 3.0

5 J Levison (P4, W1, D0, L3) 2.0 (Pts Scored 295)

6 Niall Seymour (P3, W1, D0, L2) 2.0 (Pts Scored 221)

7 Steve Rogers (P4, W0, D0, L4) 0.0

__________________________________________________________

The fight for the 2nd-through 7th places in Division A is still very tight; realistically I would need to win all my remaining games for a chance, but everyone else is quite evenly placed. In Division B, Ian continues to perform excellently, and James Hall being unbeaten, is looking the strongest challenger to Mark Harrison, who has hit a very purple patch

J.Levison · Post by **J.Levison** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:54 pm

Me and Niall have played both of our matches. I won the standard and Niall won the goatdown with a very nice last 4 rounds.

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69847
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69852

Niall Seymour · Post by **Niall Seymour** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:37 pm

I just did the double over Steve Rodgers:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 5022370790
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 3453914782

Andrew Hulme · Post by **Andrew Hulme** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:30 pm

Neil beat me 110-106, probably has to be in with a shout of LGOTW (league game of the week!).

Not a lot I could do... outplayed.

http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=69914