c4countdown

I think Damian's alluded to this so I thought I might bring it up. How much does the average viewer know about Countdown? I mean do they understand about points and wins and seedings and stuff like that? I'm not really sure, I think a lot of people just think that the winner stays on and then when he gets beaten he leaves and never comes back again.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:I think Damian's alluded to this so I thought I might bring it up. How much does the average viewer know about Countdown? I mean do they understand about points and wins and seedings and stuff like that? I'm not really sure, I think a lot of people just think that the winner stays on and then when he gets beaten he leaves and never comes back again.

Martin

I remember working out the seeds about halfway through the current series and I made quite a few mistakes with the scores. Benji today lost his 7th game so only has 6 wins, but does the 66 points he lost with today get added to his score?

Yes they do get added.

Martin

When I only watched the odd episode, I don't even notice that the winner stays on. I imagine the majority of viewers don't know or care about that stuff, let alone series finals, CoC, and all that. Which is good for the minority who do.

PS Up-to-date seed table.

Martin Gardner wrote:Yes they do get added.

Damn. JaCu told me they got added, but I didn't want to believe him .

But why is this. Surely it should only be the games that a contestant actually wins, that you get the points for.

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:Yes they do get added.

Damn. JaCu told me they got added, but I didn't want to believe him .

But why is this. Surely it should only be the games that a contestant actually wins, that you get the points for.

Does it really matter that much either way? Number of wins always takes precedence anyway, so I think it makes sense that for equal wins, you look at al the data you have (i.e. all games) for the most representative seeding. The point being that you don't gain anything by having the losing score added, as everyone else does too.

Martin Gardner wrote:I think Damian's alluded to this so I thought I might bring it up. How much does the average viewer know about Countdown? I mean do they understand about points and wins and seedings and stuff like that? I'm not really sure, I think a lot of people just think that the winner stays on and then when he gets beaten he leaves and never comes back again.

Martin

I've seen discussions about this on F1 forums as well, and it seems that some people equate casual viewer with retard. I'm sure they understand about points and wins at the very least, Martin. Also when someone wins eight, they always talk about seeing them back for the quarter finals.

Gevin-Gavin wrote: I've seen discussions about this on F1 forums as well, and it seems that some people equate casual viewers with retards.

That's a bit far isn't it? It's nothing to do with intelligence if people don't watch every day they probably don't understand the system. As you correctly point out, I don't watch Formula 1 and I don't know what system they use to do the ratings. Doesn't make me stupid, does it.

Martin

I know a lot because I do research.

That would make you more than a casual viewer then, wouldn't it, Jason!

Well, I've got a website called UK Nova.

Unfortunately, it took me a very long time to catch on to Countdown so I never saw that many full episodes with Richard Whiteley or Des Lynam.

But, Des O'Connor's stationary burst of energy coupled with Carol Vorderman's seniority and good cheer and Countdown's fanbase of all ages is enough to make me interested for a very long time.

Jason Larsen wrote:is enough to make me interested for a very long time.

Fuck.

Jason Larsen wrote:Carol Vorderman's seniority

Corby wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:is enough to make me interested for a very long time.

Fuck.

That's mean!

I think Damian's alluded to this so I thought I might bring it up.

FIsh pie with carrots?

Martin Gardner wrote:

Gevin-Gavin wrote: I've seen discussions about this on F1 forums as well, and it seems that some people equate casual viewers with retards.

That's a bit far isn't it? It's nothing to do with intelligence if people don't watch every day they probably don't understand the system. As you correctly point out, I don't watch Formula 1 and I don't know what system they use to do the ratings. Doesn't make me stupid, does it.

Martin

What they don't understand may not be anything to do with their intelligence, but what some people consider that they would not understand would make them retarded if that was really the case. I'm not just talking about the system they use to do the ratings. When you said about understanding about points - I took that to mean about how points work in a game, but did you just mean in reference to how they are seeded?

Also, casual viewer covers a wide spectrum. Anyone who watches more than a few episodes across their lifetime and pays attention would soon realise that there is a seeding system which is probably based on wins and that no-one can win more than eight.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:

Gevin-Gavin wrote: I've seen discussions about this on F1 forums as well, and it seems that some people equate casual viewers with retards.

That's a bit far isn't it? It's nothing to do with intelligence if people don't watch every day they probably don't understand the system. As you correctly point out, I don't watch Formula 1 and I don't know what system they use to do the ratings. Doesn't make me stupid, does it.

Martin

What they don't understand may not be anything to do with their intelligence, but what some people consider that they would not understand would make them retarded if that was really the case. I'm not just talking about the system they use to do the ratings. When you said about understanding about points - I took that to mean about how points work in a game, but did you just mean in reference to how they are seeded?

Also, casual viewer covers a wide spectrum. Anyone who watches more than a few episodes across their lifetime and pays attention would soon realise that there is a seeding system which is probably based on wins and that no-one can win more than eight.

I think MG was under the impression that you were agreeing with the sentiments of people who call casual F1 fans "retards". But I don't think you were.

My mum watches Countdown frequently (at least for the time when I'm at home) and, I discovered recently, didn't realise that only the longest word scores. She certainly wouldn't know the full scoring rules for the numbers game or how a tie is resolved. I doubt it's much to do with intelligence. Some people watch just to play along and don't care much about what the contestants do, provided they keep smiling and getting good words.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:Does it really matter that much either way? Number of wins always takes precedence anyway, so I think it makes sense that for equal wins, you look at al the data you have (i.e. all games) for the most representative seeding. The point being that you don't gain anything by having the losing score added, as everyone else does too.

I know number of wins take precednce, but say for example you are currently in 8th place seed with 4 wins and have say 470 points after losing your 5th game (110 - 98 - 100 - 95 - 67) there is another player who was also won 4 games for now and has a lower score than you first 4 wins, but then gets a high enough losing score on the 5th game to beat your 470 combined total.

That would then knock the player in 8th out right, but that shouldn't be the case surely, because the player who got knocked out had more points after winning their 4th game.

Joseph Bolas wrote:That would then knock the player in 8th out right, but that shouldn't be the case surely, because the player who got knocked out had more points after winning their 4th game.

Why do you strongly feel that should that be the case? It doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent, although I'd say including the losing score is probably better as it would reward players who only narrowly lost in a high-scoring game, rather than those that got twatted. That's a good thing, right? Actually, can you think of anything else where some kind of league table is compiled which discounts the losing score?

Corby wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:That would then knock the player in 8th out right, but that shouldn't be the case surely, because the player who got knocked out had more points after winning their 4th game.

Why do you strongly feel that should that be the case? It doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent, although I'd say including the losing score is probably better as it would reward players who only narrowly lost in a high-scoring game, rather than those that got twatted. That's a good thing, right? Actually, can you think of anything else where some kind of league table is compiled which discounts the losing score?

It's just seems a very unlucky way to miss out on making the finals IMO.

Joseph Bolas wrote:It's just seems a very unlucky way to miss out on making the finals IMO.

What am I missing here? Why is it more unlucky for the chap who scored more in the first 4 of his 5 games, than the chap who scored more in all 5 of his games?

To be honest, I'd say Countdown is 'fair' just because the best player (usually) should win - as long as you're the best player in the series then you don't have to worry about the bad luck of coming up against a good player in your 8-game run (cf. all those unfortunate, would-be finalists who came up against octochamps in their first game! *cough* :p) - whilst there is obviously something cool in making the finals, as far as it goes as a 'competition' it should only really care about returning the best player - rather like the way a football (or whatever) tournament should return the best team, but the team who come 2nd in the final may not be the 2nd best team, because they went out to the winners in the semis.

As for the original post, one thing I've noticed more recently is Carol mentioning the 3V/4C rule - I'd not heard of this until I went on, I think, and now it seems to get mentioned quite a lot. Although it's probably just perceptual salience.

Corby wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:It's just seems a very unlucky way to miss out on making the finals IMO.

What am I missing here? Why is it more unlucky for the chap who scored more in the first 4 of his 5 games, than the chap who scored more in all 5 of his games?

Well, the player who got more points in his 4 wins could've come up with brilliant spots in the word rounds, solved some tough number rounds and got the conundrums, whereas the player who didn't have enough points after 4 wins, could've missed some easy words, easy numbers and got the conundrums, but then on their 5th game, just about managed to get enough points, to put them ahead of the other player.

If I was the former of those two players, I would feel unlucky, but I may be the only one who would feel that way .

Joseph Bolas wrote:Well, the player who got more points in his 4 wins could've come up with brilliant spots in the word rounds, solved some tough number rounds and got the conundrums, whereas the player who didn't have enough points after 4 wins, could've missed some easy words, easy numbers and got the conundrums, but then on their 5th game, just about managed to get enough points, to put them ahead of the other player.

Am I the only one who can't see the sense at all in this? Why would you want to discount the "brilliant spots", "tough numbers solutions" and conundrum from a losing performance? If anything they're worth more because they're against a better opponent than points scored in a won game...? The nature of the game is such that you can't overtake someone in this fashion unless your scores from your winning games were pretty close anyway, so it just means you got beaten less badly when you did lose. If anything, your suggestion has the potential for the bigger injustice. WTF are you on about?

Corby wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:Well, the player who got more points in his 4 wins could've come up with brilliant spots in the word rounds, solved some tough number rounds and got the conundrums, whereas the player who didn't have enough points after 4 wins, could've missed some easy words, easy numbers and got the conundrums, but then on their 5th game, just about managed to get enough points, to put them ahead of the other player.

Am I the only one who can't see the sense at all in this? Why would you want to discount the "brilliant spots", "tough numbers solutions" and conundrum from a losing performance? If anything they're worth more because they're against a better opponent than points scored in a won game...? The nature of the game is such that you can't overtake someone in this fashion unless your scores from your winning games were pretty close anyway, so it just means you got beaten less badly when you did lose. If anything, your suggestion has the potential for the bigger injustice. WTF are you on about?

Joseph seems to be confusing "I wouldn't want it to happen to me" with "unfair".

Corby wrote:Why would you want to discount the "brilliant spots", "tough numbers solutions" and conundrum from a losing performance? If anything they're worth more because they're against a better opponent than points scored in a won game...?

But in that 5th game, the player mightn't have come up with any "brilliant spots" or "tough numbers solutions". It may sound farfetched, but it can happen.

Joseph Bolas wrote:But in that 5th game, the player mightn't have come up with any "brilliant spots" or "tough numbers solutions". It may sound farfetched, but it can happen.

As "your" player may not have done in his 4 winning games.... I'm really not understanding your angle on this at all.

Corby wrote:Am I the only one who can't see the sense at all in this?

Me wrote:I think it makes sense that for equal wins, you look at al the data you have (i.e. all games) for the most representative seeding.

Way before you came on the scene, sunshine.

Corby wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:But in that 5th game, the player mightn't have come up with any "brilliant spots" or "tough numbers solutions". It may sound farfetched, but it can happen.

As "your" player may not have done in his 4 winning games.... I'm really not understanding your angle on this at all.

Imagine that there is a player (A) who was won 4 games with great scores and during these 4 games, they have had a brilliant performance throughout each game. Then something happens and on their 5th game, they have a poor performance and they lose, but they have made it to #8 on the seed table with their 4 wins.

Then its the next players turn (B) who also wins 4 games, but their performance hasn't been as great throughout, thus having lower winning scores than player A and thusly a lower combined total at this stage (compared to player A's 4 wins total).

Then its players B 5th game. Now something happens and they end up losing, but with a high enough score that when its added to their overall score, it comes out to a total thats more than players A, thus putting player B on the seed table at #8 and knocking player A off.

Now if you remember, my original post focused on the losing game score and whether or not it was added to the wins total as I questioned why should the score be added when its not a winning score.

Now in the example above if the 5th score wasn't added then player A would've made it on the seed list, because of the better performance throughout the games they won, but because the score is added, player B made it onto the seed list instead. It would just seem very unlucky to player A, if that actually ever happened in a series.

I know Damian has said once or twice that the viewers don't give a toss about who's playing they just want to have a go at the letters and numbers themselves (paraphrased). I think like any game in the sport and games arena, good players are better to watch than bad players. If there are two shit players I can probably beat them at home everytime, but I'm going to get a bit frustrated a bit like when you're watching who wants to be a millionaire and they use a lifeline when you at home already know the answer. People want to see amazing skill, amazing words preferably with definitions (a la Julian Fell) but having low-level players will annoy them. I know Damian said that the players prefer to be able to beat the contestants at home, is that at the expense of good players? Do audiences go down for Champion of Champions tournaments? I know when I used to run Countdown Update UK my highest ever audience was the Championship of Champions XI final, Nash vs. Wills. It just make sense from every game show and sport shown on TV, good players make good viewing.

Martin

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Corby wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:But in that 5th game, the player mightn't have come up with any "brilliant spots" or "tough numbers solutions". It may sound farfetched, but it can happen.

As "your" player may not have done in his 4 winning games.... I'm really not understanding your angle on this at all.

Imagine that there is a player (A) who was won 4 games with great scores and during these 4 games, they have had a brilliant performance throughout each game. Then something happens and on their 5th game, they have a poor performance and they lose, but they have made it to #8 on the seed table with their 4 wins.

Then its the next players turn (B) who also wins 4 games, but their performance hasn't been as great throughout, thus having lower winning scores than player A and thusly a lower combined total at this stage (compared to player A's 4 wins total).

Then its players B 5th game. Now something happens and they end up losing, but with a high enough score that when its added to their overall score, it comes out to a total thats more than players A, thus putting player B on the seed table at #8 and knocking player A off.

Now if you remember, my original post focused on the losing game score and whether or not it was added to the wins total as I questioned why should the score be added when its not a winning score.

Now in the example above if the 5th score wasn't added then player A would've made it on the seed list, because of the better performance throughout the games they won, but because the score is added, player B made it onto the seed list instead. It would just seem very unlucky to player A, if that actually ever happened in a series.

I couldn't really care less to be honest.

Martin

I know Damian said that the players prefer to be able to beat the contestants at home, is that at the expense of good players?

When, where?
And which players - you mean viewers, right?
.

Joseph Bolas wrote:Then its players B 5th game. Now something happens and they end up losing, but with a high enough score that when its added to their overall score, it comes out to a total thats more than players A, thus putting player B on the seed table at #8 and knocking player A off.

To summarise your argument, replace points with a 'performance rating' for simplicity:

Player A is consistently good, but has a poor 5th performance. I'd score him 8 8 8 8 2
Player B is consistently good, but not as a good as player A was, and suffers a narrow loss. I'd score him 7 7 7 7 7

Player A totals 32 from his wins, but 34 from his 5 performances.
Player B totals 28 from his wins, but 35 from his 5 performances.

You think player A should reach the finals. I think player B should.

I also think this point is so completely redundant it defies belief you're championing it. The 8 best players have probably never qualified for the series finals by virture of the fact they could run into one of their superiors before registering enough wins - and yet you find the remote possibility a 'great' player could be thrashed but unfairly miss out as one for consternation. Baffling.

Damian E wrote:

I know Damian said that the players prefer to be able to beat the contestants at home, is that at the expense of good players?

When, where?
And which players - you mean viewers, right?
.

Yes I meant viewers, sorry. From the Series 66 post:

Damian E wrote:

On the negative side, hmm.......the list is pretty big really. Mono-syllabic contestants in abundance, the return of unpopular/unsavoury characters, logistical nightmare trying to put it together, Chris Wills, too long in length, regular contestants kept on hold, unlikely to attract a bigger audience, alienates many viewers who are unable to compete.

Yeah I wouldn't want a championship of champions every month, but I don't think it "puts people" off when there are good players. Surely people can recognise that the player is good rather than the viewer himself thinking that he's gotten worse. If you were gonna use that logic, why not get rid of dictionary corner?

Martin

I see, Martin. Now i understand where you are coming from - i didn't earlier on.

The comments i made were in response to a suggestion of a 3-month series of Supreme Championship players, which you suggested might be Series 66 i think.

I don't really get how they related to this thread though - they seem to be wildly out of context.

I know Damian said that the players prefer to be able to beat the contestants at home, is that at the expense of good players?

I didn't say that. As you can see from your own cut and paste thingy , i said that 3-month Supremes event "alienates many viewers who are unable to compete". That's not the same as the viewers wanting to win every game from home in a normal series. In a normal series, viewers will match many contestants, they will beat some contestants, but they will be competing at a pretty decent level. With a 3-month Supremes event, they'll be lucky to win any more than 3 or 4 rounds for something like 65 programmes. Not quite the same really Martin. Also, i said its unlikely to attract a bigger audience, i didn't suggest that the audience would go down. There are clear differences here.

but I don't think it "puts people" off when there are good players.

It doesn't put people off when there are good players. We all love seeing the Conors, Julians and Craigs of his world come to the fore. But there are peaks and troughs. If you see a Conor or a Craig every day, it loses its wow factor. Viewers love good players, i just don't think they want to stomach 3 months of it.

Joseph Bolas wrote:Imagine that there is a player (A) who was won 4 games with great scores and during these 4 games, they have had a brilliant performance throughout each game. Then something happens and on their 5th game, they have a poor performance and they lose, but they have made it to #8 on the seed table with their 4 wins.

Then its the next players turn (B) who also wins 4 games, but their performance hasn't been as great throughout, thus having lower winning scores than player A and thusly a lower combined total at this stage (compared to player A's 4 wins total).

Then its players B 5th game. Now something happens and they end up losing, but with a high enough score that when its added to their overall score, it comes out to a total thats more than players A, thus putting player B on the seed table at #8 and knocking player A off.

Now if you remember, my original post focused on the losing game score and whether or not it was added to the wins total as I questioned why should the score be added when its not a winning score.

Now in the example above if the 5th score wasn't added then player A would've made it on the seed list, because of the better performance throughout the games they won, but because the score is added, player B made it onto the seed list instead. It would just seem very unlucky to player A, if that actually ever happened in a series.

You might have a situation where player B is generally better than player but they happen to have an off game in an earlier game and end up winning. They are still behind the points total of player A after the four winning games, but player B scores higher in the losing game and edges out A in the seeding.

As I said in an earlier post, use all the data you've got (scores in all the games) as it's likely to be more reliable in the long run in picking out the best players. Either system can end up with the worse player in front, and it wouldn't really bother me which system they used, but as it happens I think the one they do use is slightly better.

Are some of you saying that some people don't even care if their relatives were on Countdown?

Jason Larsen wrote:Are some of you saying that some people don't even care if their relatives were on Countdown?

Which people give that impression to you?

The people whose relatives may someday appear on Countdown.

This thread is probably the worst thing I've ever read, and I've read the novelisation of Battlefield Earth.

Jason Larsen wrote:The people whose relatives may someday appear on Countdown.

How would they know? What if their relatives are just foetuses now? I don't think you've thought this through properly.

Jason Larsen wrote:The people whose relatives may someday appear on Countdown.

What has anyone said to give you that impression? No cryptic answers!!!

Corby wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:It's just seems a very unlucky way to miss out on making the finals IMO.

What am I missing here? Why is it more unlucky for the chap who scored more in the first 4 of his 5 games, than the chap who scored more in all 5 of his games?

I think what Joseph may be getting at here is using points difference rather than points scored to separate ties (as in football). Say there's two players in a series who win four games but lose their fifth:

Player 1 - let's call him Joe - wins four in cracking style, blowing his opponents out of the water with his mad skillz. His scores are 110 - 21, 98 - 44, 100 - 32 and 95 - 25. But then he's unlucky enough to run into a fifth opponent - we'll call him Jack - who narrowly beats him 68 - 67 (although Joe would have won if he'd gone for something like DELATIONS instead of something like INSOLATED, which is perfectly good in Scrabble so he was really unlucky with that). Joe's scored 470 points, but only conceded 190 (points difference 280).

Player 2 - we'll call him Amey Deshpande - comes along later in the series and gets a run of nice selections with really obvious nine letter words all over the place and piss-easy numbers games. He misses loads of stuff but still scores highly 'cos there's so much available; he's not dominating the games, though, and they all go to crucial conundrums, the first four of which he wins, but the last of which he loses. His scores are 88 - 82, 95 - 86, 94 - 92, 96 - 82 and 98 - 99, so 471 points scored, but 441 conceded (points difference 30).

So under the current system, Amey Deshpande would be seeded higher than Joe, as he scored one more point. But using the football league system, Joe would be seeded higher than Amey Deshpande, due to his vastly superior points difference.

All that said, I think the current way of doing things is fine as it is

One of the best posts I have read on this forum!

Really?

I think so, Jason. Perhaps there are too many in-jokes for you to appreciate it or we have different senses of humour which is well within the bounds of possibility.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:As I said in an earlier post, use all the data you've got (scores in all the games) as it's likely to be more reliable in the long run in picking out the best players. Either system can end up with the worse player in front, and it wouldn't really bother me which system they used, but as it happens I think the one they do use is slightly better.

But what would've then happened in the situation with Matt Coates and Tony Durrant as both players got the same total when you added there losing score too.

Say this week was the last week before finals and noone knocked Matt off #8 seed, what would happen in that situation?

I'll still be here. Remember that, David.

jimbentley wrote:I think what Joseph may be getting at here is using points difference rather than points scored to separate ties (as in football). Say there's two players in a series who win four games but lose their fifth:

Player 1 - let's call him Joe - wins four in cracking style, blowing his opponents out of the water with his mad skillz. His scores are 110 - 21, 98 - 44, 100 - 32 and 95 - 25. But then he's unlucky enough to run into a fifth opponent - we'll call him Jack - who narrowly beats him 68 - 67 (although Joe would have won if he'd gone for something like DELATIONS instead of something like INSOLATED, which is perfectly good in Scrabble so he was really unlucky with that). Joe's scored 470 points, but only conceded 190 (points difference 280).

Player 2 - we'll call him Amey Deshpande - comes along later in the series and gets a run of nice selections with really obvious nine letter words all over the place and piss-easy numbers games. He misses loads of stuff but still scores highly 'cos there's so much available; he's not dominating the games, though, and they all go to crucial conundrums, the first four of which he wins, but the last of which he loses. His scores are 88 - 82, 95 - 86, 94 - 92, 96 - 82 and 98 - 99, so 471 points scored, but 441 conceded (points difference 30).

So under the current system, Amey Deshpande would be seeded higher than Joe, as he scored one more point. But using the football league system, Joe would be seeded higher than Amey Deshpande, due to his vastly superior points difference.

All that said, I think the current way of doing things is fine as it is

David O'Donnell wrote:

One of the best posts I have read on this forum!

I second that David . This post has really made me laugh and I don't laugh that often .

Charlie Reams wrote:This thread is probably the worst thing I've ever read, and I've read the novelisation of Battlefield Earth.

Interesting, i had i down as one of the sites' better moments.

Damian E wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This thread is probably the worst thing I've ever read, and I've read the novelisation of Battlefield Earth.

Interesting, i had i down as one of the sites' better moments.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing that much.

Cracking post Jim

But Jo wasn't suggesting that at all, he was saying that only the points from winning games should count. If he'd been suggesting that points For & Against should be taken into account, then he'd have more of a case. It just baffled me that he thought you were really unlucky to miss out on the finals using system A (of only counting the points in winning games, but not system B (of counting all points scored, which is clearly slightly fairer). It still baffles me in fact, but I don't care to think about it any more

Joseph Bolas wrote:But what would've then happened in the situation with Matt Coates and Tony Durrant as both players got the same total when you added there losing score too.

Say this week was the last week before finals and noone knocked Matt off #8 seed, what would happen in that situation?

You mean what happens if there's a draw? It could happen in your system too. You could just use winning scores in a tie-break situation perhaps. In yours you could add the losing scores.

Corby wrote:If he'd been suggesting that points For & Against should be taken into account, then he'd have more of a case.

I think that sounds even worse. You can't always stop someone scoring the same as you in a round.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:

Corby wrote:If he'd been suggesting that points For & Against should be taken into account, then he'd have more of a case.

I think that sounds even worse. You can't always stop someone scoring the same as you in a round.

Good point.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:You mean what happens if there's a draw? It could happen in your system too. You could just use winning scores in a tie-break situation perhaps. In yours you could add the losing scores.

This is the current seed list as it stands:

1 David O'Donnell - 8 wins - 880 points
2 Michael MacDonald-Cooper - 8 wins - 780 points
3 Tim Reypert - 8 wins - 773 points
4 Barry Smith - 7 wins - 648 points
5 Richard Priest - 6 wins - 697 points
6 Ben Hanks - 6 wins - 580 points
7 Jason Cullen - 4 wins - 421 points
8 Matthew Coates - 3 wins - 389 points
" Tony Durrant - 3 wins - 389 points

Now what would be the actual rule used on Countdown (not using mine or any other systems) to determine who took that 8th place seed if both players made it through to the finals?

EDIT: Nevermind. I know that Matthew is there because of his 106 and 105 scores. I have just checked Countdown Wiki and it says:

Countdown Wiki wrote:Since Series 39, players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count. Points from sudden death conundrums aren't counted, and players with the same number of wins and points are sorted by highest score(s).

But then what would've happened if both players got the same 4 scores (right down to their losing score as well)? I know theres very slim chances of that happening though, but anything is possible .

Damian E wrote: I didn't say that. As you can see from your own cut and paste thingy , i said that 3-month Supremes event "alienates many viewers who are unable to compete". That's not the same as the viewers wanting to win every game from home in a normal series. In a normal series, viewers will match many contestants, they will beat some contestants, but they will be competing at a pretty decent level. With a 3-month Supremes event, they'll be lucky to win any more than 3 or 4 rounds for something like 65 programmes. Not quite the same really Martin. Also, i said its unlikely to attract a bigger audience, i didn't suggest that the audience would go down. There are clear differences here.

Then I agree.

Martin

Since Series 39, players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count. Points from sudden death conundrums aren't counted, and players with the same number of wins and points are sorted by highest score(s).

I thought players were always sorted by number of wins, not just since Series 39? Haven't really got access to records at the moment though.

Not sure about the bit about sorted by highest scores in the event of a tie either. Has it ever happened??

I remember when they used to bring back both players for another game the next day if there was a draw. That was very odd.

I think Martin is right; Mike Brown's site gives the seedings for earlier series and shows how they were calculated, and he's usually right. For obvious reasons it doesn't usually make much difference, although occasionally it does. The current system is better IMO because it encourages players to go all out for a win when they're behind, which is exciting to watch.