Octochamp stats

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:20 pm

Long-awaited update!

Updated with all octochamps since Chris Davies. It tells you something about the last series that there were 3 new entries into the top 8 octochamps by percentage...

James Doohan · Post by **James Doohan** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:27 pm

Even though it'll make pathetic reading, why am I not on the list? Also notice that Jimmy Gough is missing?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:28 pm

james doohan wrote:Even though it'll make pathetic reading, why am I not on the list? Also notice that Jimmy Gough is missing?

Good point. I'll do that at some point.

James Doohan · Post by **James Doohan** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:35 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
james doohan wrote:Even though it'll make pathetic reading, why am I not on the list? Also notice that Jimmy Gough is missing?
Good point. I'll do that at some point.

Was just wondering was there a reason why I wasn't on it, if its an oversight forget about it, would make poor reading anyway

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:06 pm

Quite a lot of Jeffrey Burgin's points seem to be missing, did James Robertson hack the page?

I like reading about lesser known octochamps, you find classy games like this one http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_3800 - I miss old people on Countdown

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:27 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:Quite a lot of Jeffrey Burgin's points seem to be missing, did James Robertson hack the page?

I like reading about lesser known octochamps, you find classy games like this one http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_3800 - I miss old people on Countdown

He was a quality player, sick at 6 small I seem to recall.

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:43 pm

Cheers for the update Charlie, I think we all have to agree that ratio is the best indication of a player's quality.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:09 pm

David O'Donnell wrote:Cheers for the update Charlie, I think we all have to agree that ratio is the best indication of a player's quality.

It's pretty good. Personally I'd prefer number of maxes, but that data isn't (currently) so easily available.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:38 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:Quite a lot of Jeffrey Burgin's points seem to be missing, did James Robertson hack the page?

Yeah, His max is listed as 928 which would make it the lowest, but it should be 1048, which would make it one of the highest.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:17 pm

I've added the two Jameses. Please let me know of any further mistakes.

Oh and please could all the octochamps with missing ages let me know your age (at recording, rather than broadcast, if it matters).

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:05 am

18 when it was filmed and broadcast.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:32 am

Ryan Taylor wrote:18 when it was filmed and broadcast.

Shut up.

Innis Carson · Post by **Innis Carson** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:14 am

I was actually 17 at the time, not that it matters hugely.

Chris Davies · Post by **Chris Davies** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:31 am

Well, I was 20 when I filmed my first game, and turned 21 before my second game.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:50 am

Charlie Reams wrote:It tells you something about the last series that there were 3 new entries into the top 8 octochamps by percentage...

I was 51. And I think you mean top 9.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:52 am

David Williams wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:It tells you something about the last series that there were 3 new entries into the top 8 octochamps by percentage...
I was 51. And I think you mean top 9.

I make it top 8. That's out of those for whom the maximum is known.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:11 pm

Howard Somerset wrote:
David Williams wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:It tells you something about the last series that there were 3 new entries into the top 8 octochamps by percentage...
I was 51. And I think you mean top 9.
I make it top 8. That's out of those for whom the maximum is known.

I think David is doing a funny joke about how his percentage maximum is higher, although he was playing a different number of rounds in a different format.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:37 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:18 when it was filmed and broadcast.
Shut up.

Jealous of my youth old timer?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:38 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote: Jealous of my youth old timer?

Yeah....didn't realise you were so young.

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:11 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote: Jealous of my youth old timer?
Yeah....didn't realise you were so young.

You can all fuck right off.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:59 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:I think David is doing a funny joke about how his percentage maximum is higher, although he was playing a different number of rounds in a different format.

Not quite sure why the number of rounds affects percentages, nor how the format differs. Maybe it's similar to the way that football didn't exist before the Premier League started.

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:54 pm

David Williams wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:I think David is doing a funny joke about how his percentage maximum is higher, although he was playing a different number of rounds in a different format.
Not quite sure why the number of rounds affects percentages, nor how the format differs. Maybe it's similar to the way that football didn't exist before the Premier League started.

Because the ratio of number to letter rounds was changed by the new format?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:24 pm

David Williams wrote:Not quite sure why the number of rounds affects percentages, nor how the format differs. Maybe it's similar to the way that football didn't exist before the Premier League started.

It's a different balance of L/N/C, as Gevin said, and also less statistically significant since you only played 72 rounds instead of 120. I'm sure your percentage was amongst the highest for 9-rounders, but it's not easily comparable to the 15-round days.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:19 pm

You realise that if the format ever changes again a new generation deems the new way the only way that counts, and all your stats go out of the window. (This all starts to sound a bit serious. Tongue still firmly in cheek here.)

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:23 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:your age (at recording, rather than broadcast, if it matters.

Does this mean that if I had won our Series it would go down as me being 11? It was filmed the day before my birthday, so I would have been 11 and 365 days

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:46 am

Updated with the latest batch of octochamps.

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:41 am

A few tweaks to mine, Charlie. I didn't have any crucials, i actually got 1/2 nines and i was 24 when I filmed it.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:36 am

There seems to be a bit of a glitch in the 9 round stats. Scott Mearns was top-notch, but I don't think he scored 93.5%, and I know he didn't get 648 points in his run. That would be pretty good going even by today's standards!

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:22 am

I think a xicount stats page would be interesting too.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:26 pm

Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.

Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:00 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.

Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.

I believe this was the 100,000th post. It made my dinner time a whole lot more exciting.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:02 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.

Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.
I believe this was the 100,000th post. It made my dinner time a whole lot more exciting.

Is this a joke I don't get? 99040 on my homepage.

EDIT: [Rhys Benjamin]99041[/Rhys Benjamin]

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:05 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.

Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.
I believe this was the 100,000th post. It made my dinner time a whole lot more exciting.
Is this a joke I don't get? 99040 on my homepage.

EDIT: [Rhys Benjamin]99041[/Rhys Benjamin]

You're like over 900 posts behind the times, Matt.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:16 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.

Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.
I believe this was the 100,000th post. It made my dinner time a whole lot more exciting.
Is this a joke I don't get? 99040 on my homepage.

EDIT: [Rhys Benjamin]99041[/Rhys Benjamin]

What number comes up for the url of that post for you?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:24 pm

Ian Volante wrote:What number comes up for the url of that post for you?

Apologies to everyone that I'm not sad enough to check the URL of every post that is made. So what happened to the missing 1000 posts? Deleted shortly after posting I guess.
Unless I'm not picking up on something obvious, or forgetting something vital that has been discussed in the 100,000 posts thread, I'd call it 99000 posts so far then, not 100000.

EDIT: Yup, this is (by your method) post #100011, after I posted it as #100010 and then deleted it and posted again. Opens a new line of discussion then, but in my opinion we're still not close to 100,000. Suck it.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:33 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:What number comes up for the url of that post for you?
Apologies to everyone that I'm not sad enough to check the URL of every post that is made. So what happened to the missing 1000 posts? Deleted shortly after posting I guess.
Unless I'm not picking up on something obvious, or forgetting something vital that has been discussed in the 100,000 posts thread, I'd call it 99000 posts so far then, not 100000.

EDIT: Yup, this is (by your method) post #100011, after I posted it as #100010 and then deleted it and posted again. Opens a new line of discussion then, but in my opinion we're still not close to 100,000. Suck it.

Ha! How do you find out your total then? I simply typed 100000 into the URL...

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 6:24 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:What number comes up for the url of that post for you?
Apologies to everyone that I'm not sad enough to check the URL of every post that is made. So what happened to the missing 1000 posts? Deleted shortly after posting I guess.
Unless I'm not picking up on something obvious, or forgetting something vital that has been discussed in the 100,000 posts thread, I'd call it 99000 posts so far then, not 100000.

EDIT: Yup, this is (by your method) post #100011, after I posted it as #100010 and then deleted it and posted again. Opens a new line of discussion then, but in my opinion we're still not close to 100,000. Suck it.
Ha! How do you find out your total then? I simply typed 100000 into the URL...

Bottom of front page:

Statistics
Total posts 99074 • Total topics 5018 • Total members 1171 • Our newest member LeeHarvey *

To be fair, the 100,000 thread thing says "the 100,000th post" as opposed to "100,000 posts" so my speaking up might (or might not) be accurate but isn't massively relevant.

* Obviously can't vouch for differences for anyone using a shit skin.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 6:38 pm

I'm claiming the 100,000th post.

Eoin Monaghan · Post by **Eoin Monaghan** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:24 pm

tomrowell wrote:A few tweaks to mine, Charlie. I didn't have any crucials, i actually got 1/2 nines and i was 24 when I filmed it.

It's cool to see my name up with all the greats, but I was actually 14 when it was recorded.