Page 20 of 30
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 7:55 am
by Clive Brooker
Gavin Chipper wrote:That's still not helpful because I just scrolled down to the bottom of the thread and saw the spoiler before the spoiler space. Plus it would be hard to read later posts (like this) without seeing it.
Quite. It would've been much better to put the comment in the spoiler thread, making the reference in the opposite direction.
My life has not been seriously damaged though.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:53 pm
by James Laverty
With CoC upcoming, will any of the contestants become the first to have played all three formats on TV?
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:57 pm
by Graeme Cole
James Laverty wrote:With CoC upcoming, will any of the contestants become the first to have played all three formats on TV?
After the CoC, Paul James will have played a 9 rounder, Old 15 and New 15. I don't think there's anyone else.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:28 pm
by Innis Carson
Actually, Graham Nash has already done so (as well as a 14-rounder).
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:06 pm
by Graeme Cole
Innis Carson wrote:Actually, Graham Nash has already done so (as well as a 14-rounder).
Ah yes, well spotted. Just testing you.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:16 pm
by Adam Gillard
Graeme Cole wrote:Thomas Carey wrote:Related: what's the most used conundrum?
DECLARING and PERPETUAL, which have been used six times each. Another 32 conundrum solutions have been used five times.
Plus, PERPETUAL was used on the
Countdown board game box, so it wins really.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:05 pm
by Johnny Canuck
If there was a "Group of Death" in the Supreme Championship, which one was it? Which group (A-G) was made up of people with the highest numbers of prior wins and prior points? Note that groups A,B,E,G had 8 people whereas C,D,F had only 7, so I'd appreciate if this could be adjusted for somehow.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:00 pm
by Johnny Canuck
Within each of the 15-round formats (and the 14-round format, too, I suppose), what is the closest all numbers game targets have been? In other words, what is the smallest interval between the smallest and largest targets in a game? I'm not asking about 9-rounders because I know there were a few that had all (i.e., both) targets the same.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:28 am
by Ryan Taylor
Has anyone on apterous played more standard 9 or 15 rounders than there have been in the total history of TV Countdown? How long did it take them if so? Have I?
Also, has anyone played apterous for longer than the combined time of all TV Countdown episodes? Have I?
I imagine a lot of people have probably done this.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:26 pm
by Graeme Cole
Johnny Canuck wrote:If there was a "Group of Death" in the Supreme Championship, which one was it? Which group (A-G) was made up of people with the highest numbers of prior wins and prior points? Note that groups A,B,E,G had 8 people whereas C,D,F had only 7, so I'd appreciate if this could be adjusted for somehow.
If you judge each group by the average number of wins per player prior to the Supreme Championship, group E seems to have been the strongest, with its players having an average of 10 previous wins each. The next highest is group A with an average of 9.375.
Group E also wins on previous points scored, with an average of 721.375 compared to the next highest (group G) which had 683.625.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:29 pm
by Graeme Cole
Johnny Canuck wrote:Within each of the 15-round formats (and the 14-round format, too, I suppose), what is the closest all numbers game targets have been? In other words, what is the smallest interval between the smallest and largest targets in a game? I'm not asking about 9-rounders because I know there were a few that had all (i.e., both) targets the same.
In
this game all three targets were within six of each other.
If we only look at games with four numbers rounds (14-round finals and new 15-rounders) the game with the tightest grouping of numbers targets is
this game, with a difference of 33 between highest and lowest.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:47 pm
by Graeme Cole
Ryan Taylor wrote:Has anyone on apterous played more standard 9 or 15 rounders than there have been in the total history of TV Countdown? How long did it take them if so? Have I?
Up to the end of series 72 there have been 3,035 televised 9-rounders, 2,609 old 15 rounders and 495 new 15 rounders. I haven't added series 73 to the database yet, but it had 121 episodes, so that makes 616 new 15 rounders.
apterous stats:
9 rounder
Old 15 rounder
New 15 rounder
Nobody has played more 9-rounders on apterous than were played on Countdown. Quite a few people have played more old 15s than were played on Countdown (including you), and loads of people have played more new 15s than have been played on Countdown.
Ryan Taylor wrote:Also, has anyone played apterous for longer than the combined time of all TV Countdown episodes? Have I?
I imagine a lot of people have probably done this.
If we take a 9-rounder to be 30 minutes and a 14- or 15-rounder to be 45 minutes, and ignore any other games (specials with weird formats, Masters games, etc), the total running time of all televised Countdown episodes, to the end of series 72, is 233,205 minutes. Series 73's 121 45-minute games would take the total up to 238,650 minutes, which is 165 days, 17 hours and 30 minutes.
Note that recently, episodes have started to take up 50 minutes of the programme schedule rather than 45, and the actual running time is usually a bit less than whatever the schedule says, so this is only an approximation.
Here is
the apterous table for most time played, which includes all variants and formats. The format is days:hours:minutes. So nobody has done it yet, but at 142 days, David Barnard is pretty close.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:23 pm
by Ryan Taylor
That's awesome Graeme, and really interesting. I had actually expected that people like Innis (and those above him) would have surpassed the total length of Countdown episodes in apterous play time so it's pretty cool that no one has but that people are quite close to doing so. Thanks Graeme!
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:29 pm
by Gavin Chipper
We're not comparing like with like though. Apterous games are being measured at 30 seconds per round (so 4.5 minutes for a 9-round game or 7.5 minutes for 15), whereas TV games are being measured at 30 and 45 minutes.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:56 pm
by Ben Wilson
Gavin Chipper wrote:We're not comparing like with like though. Apterous games are being measured at 30 seconds per round (so 4.5 minutes for a 9-round game or 7.5 minutes for 15), whereas TV games are being measured at 30 and 45 minutes.
So on that note, if we divide up the apterous play time figures into units of 30 seconds and say 'that's the number of rounds someone has played*' and we then take the total number of rounds played in the history of televised Countdown, how many people on the apterous leaderboard will come out ahead?
*I know this isn't going to be anywhere near accurate, but just humour Gevin here for a minute, please. Also, shorter round times are far more popular, so if anything, the answer will probably be an underestimate of the number of people who've played more rounds than have been televised.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:31 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Ben Wilson wrote:but just humour Gevin here for a minute, please.
Nice.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:49 am
by Peter Mabey
In the first semifinal Rachel beat DC with COOEEING - I think she's done this before - but how often? (Though I suspect that the recapper doesn't always credit her - I wouldn't have known this time if I hadn't watched the TiVo recording)
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:33 am
by Johnny Canuck
Peter Mabey wrote:In the first semifinal Rachel beat DC with COOEEING - I think she's done this before - but how often? (Though I suspect that the recapper doesn't always credit her - I wouldn't have known this time if I hadn't watched the TiVo recording)
I'm not sure the resources to answer that question are available, given that all words that are mentioned on the show by anyone (other than the contestants) are notated the same way on the wiki.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:28 pm
by Tom
Apologies as this has probably been asked before, but has there been any research into how many points on average the "new" 15 round format Octochamps score either per game or as an 8-game aggregate? It seems usually 1 person will top 900 per series whereas in old 15 I reckon it would have probably happened once every few years.
Also, have there been any Octochamps/series finalists of note who in the last few years haven't been an Apterous player and caused any kind of shake up? Whenever I've heard or seen anything it seems all finalists have either been known beforehand and/or played Apterous.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:12 am
by Jennifer Steadman
Tom wrote:Also, have there been any Octochamps/series finalists of note who in the last few years haven't been an Apterous player and caused any kind of shake up? Whenever I've heard or seen anything it seems all finalists have either been known beforehand and/or played Apterous.
Depends what you mean by 'haven't been an Apterous player'. I'd be loathe to consider someone who's signed up but played fewer than 50 games to be 'an Apterous player' really. Under those considerations, full series since the dawn of Apterous...:
Series 60: 3/8 non-Apterites (Cate Henderson [2], Shane Roberts [4],
Hamish Williamson [7])
61: 4/8 (Brian Selway [5], Jeffrey Burgin* [6], Steve Wood* [7], Jacqueline Baker [8])
62: 4/8 (Dave Wilkinson [3],
Lee Graham [6],
Nicki Sellars [7], Claudia Tyson [8])
63: 2/8 (Niall Young* [7], Peter Godwin [8])
64: 1/8 (
Mary Adie [6])
65: 4/8 (
Paul Keane [3],
Carl Williams [4], Dave Taylor [6], David Butcher [8])
66: 4/8 (Suzi Purcell [4],
Nick Hall [5], Victoria James [6], Mark Murphy* [7])
67: 1/8 (Liam Shaw [4])
68: 5/8 (
Eileen Taylor [3],
Joe McGonigle* [4], Sam McElhinney [5], Jill Hayward [6], Chris Ball* [7])
69: 2/8 (
Bradley Cates [4], Jonathan Liew* [6])
70: 5/8 (
Andy Naylor [3], Neil Green* [4], Bobby Banerjee [6], Priscilla Munday [7], Andy Gardner [8])
71: 2/8 (
Tricia Pay* [3], David Stanford [7])
72: 1/8 (Gavin Woolnough [8])
73: 2/8 (
Stephen Briggs [3], Judy Bursford [6])
*Signed up but played fewer than 50 games
Italics: scored over 800 points
Bold: made it past the quarter finals
Underlined: made the final
So since Apterous began, only 3 non-Apterites have made the final (and none of them have won, although Carl Williams took Graeme to a tie-break conundrum), and only 3 have scored over 800 points (none have reached 900). Of the 800 club, Stephen Briggs's total of 889 puts him 21st in the all-time octototal scores, Bradley is 26th with 862, and Tricia is 30th with 857.
For reference, there are 66 octochamps in the 800 club, of which 15 are also in the 900 club. However, Julian Fell is still easily the highest-scoring non-Apterite, scoring 924 in the pre-Apterous era. (Graeme can take back over now.)
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:37 am
by Johnny Canuck
Could a similar listing be made of people who only became Apterites after (or shortly before) their shows were taped as opposed to those who were Apterites for a long period beforehand?
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:54 am
by Jennifer Steadman
Johnny Canuck wrote:Could a similar listing be made of people who only became Apterites after (or shortly before) their shows were taped as opposed to those who were Apterites for a long period beforehand?
No. That would take fucking ages.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:59 am
by Mark Deeks
Jennifer Steadman wrote:Tom wrote:Also, have there been any Octochamps/series finalists of note who in the last few years haven't been an Apterous player and caused any kind of shake up? Whenever I've heard or seen anything it seems all finalists have either been known beforehand and/or played Apterous.
Depends what you mean by 'haven't been an Apterous player'. I'd be loathe to consider someone who's signed up but played fewer than 50 games to be 'an Apterous player' really.
I'd been on Apterous for three weeks before I filmed, how negotiable is this cut-off?
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:40 am
by Gavin Chipper
Good work Jen. I was surprised to see John Hardie had played so many games (163). I was aware he was a member though.
Also even though they didn't make the final, I think Stephen Briggs and Bradley Cates are worth a special mention for the level they reached.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:02 pm
by Johnny Canuck
Hiya Graeme,
On an alphabetical list of all letters-game selections ever seen on the show (all the way from
AAATLNLIL to ZYTAIAICU), which two are the closest? Have there ever been two selections that differ only in the final letter? If so, were there ever two that were only one alphabetical place apart (e.g., TNEMARHIB and TNEMARHIC)?
JC
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:19 am
by Jack Worsley
Graeme Cole wrote:Chris Marshall wrote:Is it possible to get a letter distribution frequency for each letter over the data you have?
The letter distribution has changed quite a few times over the years. To start with, let's look at series 66 only.
The frequency with which each letter appeared in that series is as follows.
Code: Select all
VOWELS
A 1081
E 1444
I 943
O 963
U 506
CONSONANTS
B 178
C 272
D 531
F 183
G 348
H 186
J 91
K 98
L 445
M 351
N 718
P 359
Q 86
R 781
S 795
T 799
V 175
W 185
X 91
Y 90
Z 82
We don't know exactly how many letters are in the vowel and consonant piles at the start of the game. However, if we can assume the distribution used for a game has exactly one of each of Q, X, Z and J, that helps us. They came out an average of 88.5 times, so let's say that for series 66, a letter that comes out 88.5 times in the series appears exactly once in the pack, and that's the baseline from which we can scale all the other frequencies. That gives us this:
Code: Select all
B 2.0
C 3.1
D 6.0
F 2.1
G 3.9
H 2.1
J 1.0
K 1.1
L 5.0
M 4.0
N 8.1
P 4.1
Q 1.0
R 8.8
S 9.0
T 9.0
V 2.0
W 2.1
X 1.0
Y 1.0
Z 0.9
These all look to be near a whole number, which is a good sign. So our best guess at the consonant distribution used in series 66 is this:
Code: Select all
B 2
C 3
D 6
F 2
G 4
H 2
J 1
K 1
L 5
M 4
N 8
P 4
Q 1
R 9
S 9
T 9
V 2
W 2
X 1
Y 1
Z 1
Applying this same method to all the other series since the introduction of the 15-round format, and assuming they've only ever had one Q, Z, X and J in the pack, the most likely distributions for each series are as follows:
Code: Select all
SERIES B C D F G H J K L M N P Q R S T V W X Y Z
46 2 4 8 3 6 3 1 1 7 4 7 4 1 10 10 10 2 1 1 2 1
47 2 5 8 4 6 3 1 1 8 6 7 5 1 10 10 10 2 1 1 1 1
48 1 5 7 3 6 2 1 1 7 6 7 5 1 10 10 10 2 1 1 1 1
49 2 4 7 2 4 3 1 1 6 5 7 5 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
50 2 5 7 2 4 2 1 1 7 6 7 5 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
51 4 7 10 4 5 4 1 2 10 9 10 7 1 13 13 13 2 2 1 2 1
52 3 6 9 3 5 3 1 2 9 7 9 6 1 12 12 12 2 2 1 2 1
53 2 4 7 2 4 2 1 1 6 5 9 5 1 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1
54 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
55 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
56 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
57 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
58 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 10 9 1 1 1 1 1
59 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
60 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
61 2 3 6 2 3 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1
62 2 4 7 2 4 2 1 1 6 4 9 4 1 10 10 10 2 2 1 2 1
63 2 3 7 2 4 2 1 1 6 4 9 4 1 10 10 10 2 2 1 1 1
64 2 3 7 2 4 2 1 1 6 5 9 5 1 10 10 10 2 2 1 1 1
65 2 3 6 2 4 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 2 2 1 1 1
66 2 3 6 2 4 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 9 9 9 2 2 1 1 1
67 2 4 7 2 4 2 1 1 5 4 8 4 1 10 10 11 2 2 1 1 1
So it looks like a second V and W were added to the pile from series 62 onwards. It's possible they sneaked an extra Y into the pile for much/all of that series as well, but took it out afterwards.
The vowel pile is a bit more tricky, as we don't have any known data points to work with, only their frequencies relative to each other. We do know that there have to be at least 55 vowels in the pile at the start of the game (in case both contestants are Jonathan Rawlinson), but without an exact count it's difficult to reach details of the actual distribution. So it's much more finger-in-the-air.
My rough guess, based on trying numbers and seeing if they give counts roughly near whole numbers, are that as of series 66 there were about 15 As, 20 Es, 13 Is, 13 Os and 7 Us.
Using these rough estimates of letters distributions, do you think you could work out the lowest-probability nines ever to appear on the show, given that the right combination of vowels and consonants was selected in each case? I would post a long complicated formula on how to do it but with you being Graeme, you probably know anyway. We'll have to work on the assumption that the shuffling isn't rigged in any way to allow for nicer selections, which I think we all agree is not realistic, but there's no better way of doing it that I can think of. Thanks.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:57 pm
by Johnny Canuck
Have any specific CECIL targets resulted in spot-on solutions from both players every time they have come up? If so, which one(s)? If not, which one(s) come the closest to a 100% perfect solution rate, counting only spot-on solutions toward this rate? Conversely, which CECIL target(s) have produced the lowest percentage of spot-on solutions? Both contestants' declarations count toward the total, so if, say, a target of 420 has come up 13 times in the show's history, then the number of spot-on solutions for the target 420 will be calculated out of 26.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:54 pm
by Gavin Chipper
There have been
discussions about comparing the score of the new 15 and old 15 formats. But I don't think there's been an analysis based on contestant data as opposed to maxes. I'm also more interested in comparisons for better players. So if we take all 900+ octochamps (in either format) and convert their scores to the other format by adding letters average * 10 or 11, numbers average * 4 or 3, conundrum average, how much higher on average would the new 15 scores be, and what would be the average ratio between scores? Also, might as well convert to 9-rounders as well to get a comparison. I remember there used to be an 11/18 ratio rule of thumb between the 9 and the old 15.
I suppose the simplest way of doing it would be to get the overall letters, numbers and conundrum averages for these players, and then post that raw information, and then the rest would be easy for comparisons between any formats.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:10 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Is Edward McCullagh still the highest maxing xicount?
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:46 am
by Gavin Chipper
Could we have the letters/numbers/conundrum score breakdowns (or maybe the per round average - or both) of the highest scoring octochamps in each format? Has this already been asked? A quick search didn't find it, but there would be new people to add to the list now anyway. I'm not sure what counts as "highest scoring", but I'd at least want to see everyone on 900 or more in the 15-round era, and maybe those over 500 for 9 rounds. Then it will be easy to see how players compare when converting to any other format, including made-up ones.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:35 pm
by Jon O'Neill
Graeme Cole wrote:Gavin Chipper wrote:Jono came up with what he calls the "TV GOAT list", which is a player's most number of maxes over three consecutive games. He reckons that he's done this himself (and that he's second with 41 out of 45) but is refusing to publish it, but it sounds like a good idea. Maybe it could be done as % of maxes so that we could compare players in 9-round games and 14-round finals as well.
All formats, sorted by percentage of rounds maxed in three consecutive games:
Code: Select all
1. Conor Travers 5653 100.00%
2. Jon O'Neill 5653 91.11%
3. Dylan Taylor 5833 88.89%
3. Kirk Bevins 5650 88.89%
3. Jen Steadman 5762 88.89%
3. Paul Gallen 4127 88.89%
7. Craig Beevers 4472 86.67%
7. Edward McCullagh 5200 86.67%
7. Dan McColm 6013 86.67%
7. Jack Worsley 5649 86.67%
7. Jonathan Rawlinson 5505 86.67%
12. Innis Carson 5645 84.44%
12. Jack Hurst 5636 84.44%
12. Julian Fell 3345 84.44%
12. Andy Platt 5668 84.44%
16. Giles Hutchings 5675 82.22%
16. Chris Davies 4878 82.22%
16. Callum Todd 5839 82.22%
19. Helen Grayson 269 81.48%
19. Harvey Freeman 488 81.48%
19. Allan Saldanha 1906 81.48%
22. Mark Murray 5909 80.00%
22. Chris Wills 3169 80.00%
22. Mark Tournoff 4127 80.00%
25. David O'Donnell 5644 77.78%
25. Tricia Pay 5964 77.78%
25. Jonathan Anstey 892 77.78%
25. Adam Gillard 5185 77.78%
25. Stewart Holden 3656 77.78%
25. Damian Eadie 1533 77.78%
25. Bradley Cates 5798 77.78%
25. Paul Howe 4117 77.78%
33. Glen Webb 5835 75.56%
33. Eoin Monaghan 5114 75.56%
33. Samir Pilica 5929 75.56%
36. Tim Morrissey 1906 74.07%
36. Richard Campbell 1502 74.07%
36. Susan Shilton 2529 74.07%
36. Pete Cashmore 1982 74.07%
40. Graeme Cole 5282 73.33%
40. Zarte Siempre 5742 73.33%
40. Oliver Garner 4962 73.33%
40. Marcus Hares 5150 73.33%
44. Mark Nyman 132 71.88%
45. Junaid Mubeen 4732 71.11%
45. Chris Cummins 4120 71.11%
45. George Ford 6053 71.11%
45. Jack Welsby 3753 71.11%
45. Tom Hargreaves 3278 71.11%
45. Grace Page 3287 71.11%
45. David Barnard 5596 71.11%
45. Abdirizak Hirsi 5789 71.11%
45. Chris Hunt 3883 71.11%
54. Terry Knowles 2396 70.37%
54. Scott Mearns 2557 70.37%
54. Clive Spate 362 70.37%
54. James Sheppard 2872 70.37%
54. Darren Shacklady 1623 70.37%
54. Kevin McMahon 2970 70.37%
54. David Acton 1766 70.37%
54. Bhavin Manek 2093 70.37%
62. Harshan Lamabadusuriya S7 69.70%
63. Andrew Hulme 5639 68.89%
63. Jimmy Gough 4816 68.89%
63. George Greenhough 3359 68.89%
63. Neil Green 5918 68.89%
63. John Mayhew 3954 68.89%
63. Matthew Shore 4121 68.89%
63. Paul James 5612 68.89%
70. Nic Brown 818 68.75%
70. Don Reid 1855 68.75%
70. John Ashmore 2292 68.75%
73. Darryl Francis 287 66.67%
73. Melvin Hetherington 2656 66.67%
73. Pamela Roud 2538 66.67%
73. Rory Dunlop 2589 66.67%
73. Mickie O'Neill 2591 66.67%
73. Neil Zussman 4841 66.67%
73. David Ballheimer 2795 66.67%
73. John Clarke 538 66.67%
73. Peter McGuigan 2777 66.67%
73. Matthew Turner 2895 66.67%
73. Daniel Pati 5174 66.67%
73. Peter Lee 5435 66.67%
73. John Davies 4122 66.67%
73. Derek Coombs 1016 66.67%
73. Chris Waddington 1195 66.67%
73. David Williams 2831 66.67%
73. Andy Bodle 1415 66.67%
73. Alec Webb 1423 66.67%
73. Andy Cusworth 1640 66.67%
73. Jason Turner 5962 66.67%
73. Catriona Cappleman 1685 66.67%
73. Graham Cross 1692 66.67%
73. Richard Heald 3956 66.67%
73. Tony Killilea 1926 66.67%
73. Jon Corby 4746 66.67%
73. Simon Born 4169 66.67%
73. David Nickeas 3292 66.67%
73. Ricky Zinger 2141 66.67%
73. Steven Briers 4745 66.67%
Renaming this the TV3GAMP (Televised 3-Game Accumulated Max Percentage).
I am including tie-break conundrums, which gives Kirk Bevins a slight bump.
Second sort is when that % was first achieved.
Updated to the end of S73:
Code: Select all
Player Date TV3GAMP
1 Conor Travers 28/02/2013 100.00%
2 Jon O'Neill 28/02/2013 91.11%
3 Jonathan Wynn 02/09/2015 91.11%
4 Kirk Bevins 25/02/2013 89.13%
5 Paul Gallen 16/06/2006 88.89%
6 Jen Steadman 04/09/2013 88.89%
7 Dylan Taylor 12/12/2013 88.89%
8 Craig Beevers 31/10/2007 86.67%
9 Edward McCullagh 08/02/2011 86.67%
10 Jonathan Rawlinson 13/06/2012 86.67%
11 Jack Worsley 22/02/2013 86.67%
12 Dan McColm 16/10/2014 86.67%
13 Innis Carson 18/02/2013 84.78%
14 Julian Fell 21/10/2002 84.44%
15 Jack Hurst 09/01/2013 84.44%
16 Andy Platt 27/03/2013 84.44%
17 Tom Cappleman 26/03/2015 84.44%
18 Chris Davies 04/09/2009 82.22%
19 Giles Hutchings 09/04/2013 82.22%
20 Callum Todd 20/12/2013 82.22%
21 Thomas Carey 29/09/2015 82.22%
22 Helen Grayson 22/02/1985 81.48%
23 Allan Saldanha 19/12/1996 81.48%
24 Chris Wills 17/01/2002 80.00%
25 Mark Tournoff 14/06/2006 80.00%
26 Mark Murray 18/04/2014 80.00%
27 Ed McCullagh 17/01/2013 78.26%
28 David O'Donnell 15/02/2013 78.26%
29 Harvey Freeman 11/12/1986 78.05%
30 Jonathan Anstey 11/08/1989 77.78%
31 Damian Eadie 18/07/1994 77.78%
32 Stewart Holden 02/03/2004 77.78%
33 Paul Howe 02/06/2006 77.78%
34 Adam Gillard 18/01/2011 77.78%
35 Bradley Cates 23/10/2013 77.78%
36 Tricia Pay 25/07/2014 77.78%
37 Eoin Monaghan 20/09/2010 75.56%
38 Glen Webb 16/12/2013 75.56%
39 Samir Pilica 28/05/2014 75.56%
40 Richard Campbell 04/03/1994 74.07%
41 Tim Morrissey 19/12/1996 74.07%
42 Pete Cashmore 11/04/1997 74.07%
43 Susan Shilton 25/05/1999 74.07%
44 Oliver Garner 19/01/2010 73.33%
45 Marcus Hares 08/11/2010 73.33%
46 Graeme Cole 09/06/2011 73.33%
47 Zarte Siempre 29/07/2013 73.33%
48 Andy Noden 13/01/2015 73.33%
49 Mark Nyman 15/12/1983 71.88%
50 Tom Hargreaves 27/06/2002 71.11%
51 Grace Page 10/07/2002 71.11%
52 Jack Welsby 09/08/2004 71.11%
53 Chris Hunt 03/03/2005 71.11%
54 Chris Cummins 07/06/2006 71.11%
55 Junaid Mubeen 12/12/2008 71.11%
56 David Barnard 26/11/2012 71.11%
57 Abdirizak Hirsi 11/10/2013 71.11%
58 George Ford 16/12/2014 71.11%
59 Tracey Mills 29/01/2015 71.11%
60 John Hardie 14/10/2015 71.11%
61 Stephen Briggs 22/12/2015 71.11%
62 Clive Spate 06/02/1986 70.37%
63 Darren Shacklady 20/02/1995 70.37%
64 David Acton 07/03/1996 70.37%
65 Bhavin Manek 15/09/1997 70.37%
66 Terry Knowles 12/11/1998 70.37%
67 Scott Mearns 02/07/1999 70.37%
68 James Sheppard 31/10/2000 70.37%
69 Kevin McMahon 15/03/2001 70.37%
70 John Ashmore 26/06/1998 69.70%
71 Harshan Lamabadusuriya 03/09/2003 69.70%
72 Neil Green 05/05/2014 69.57%
73 George Greenhough 07/11/2002 68.89%
74 John Mayhew 24/06/2005 68.89%
75 Matthew Shore 22/05/2006 68.89%
76 Jimmy Gough 13/05/2009 68.89%
77 Paul James 19/12/2012 68.89%
78 Andrew Hulme 08/02/2013 68.89%
79 Kevin Steede 13/02/2015 68.89%
80 Gerry Tynan 07/04/2015 68.89%
81 Nic Brown 09/01/1989 68.75%
82 Don Reid 10/01/1995 68.75%
83 Darryl Francis 20/03/1985 66.67%
84 John Clarke 02/04/1987 66.67%
85 Tony Vick 06/01/1989 66.67%
86 Derek Coombs 19/07/1990 66.67%
87 Chris Waddington 06/09/1991 66.67%
88 Andy Bodle 04/08/1993 66.67%
89 Alec Webb 16/08/1993 66.67%
90 Andy Cusworth 15/03/1995 66.67%
91 Catriona Cappleman 16/08/1995 66.67%
92 Graham Cross 25/08/1995 66.67%
93 Tony Killilea 22/01/1997 66.67%
94 Ricky Zinger 20/11/1997 66.67%
95 Pamela Roud 07/06/1999 66.67%
96 Rory Dunlop 31/08/1999 66.67%
97 Mickie O'Neill 02/09/1999 66.67%
98 Melvin Hetherington 02/12/1999 66.67%
99 Peter McGuigan 23/05/2000 66.67%
100 David Ballheimer 21/06/2000 66.67%
Edited to remove the benefit of having games with no round details. Sorry Helen Grayson.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:02 pm
by Johnny Canuck
As of yesterday, Tim Down has, in a single heat run, played games in December, January and February. Is he the first contestant whose preliminary run has spanned three different months? If someone plays a heat run and is later invited back to the show, their second appearance or set of appearances obviously constitutes a separate heat run.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:59 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Spoilers!
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:02 pm
by Johnny Canuck
Gavin Chipper wrote:Spoilers!
Well, OK. But only if you really want them.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:34 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Jon O'Neill wrote:Renaming this the TV3GAMP (Televised 3-Game Accumulated Max Percentage).
I am including tie-break conundrums, which gives Kirk Bevins a slight bump.
Second sort is when that % was first achieved.
Updated to the end of S73:
Code: Select all
Player Date TV3GAMP
1 Conor Travers 28/02/2013 100.00%
2 Jon O'Neill 28/02/2013 91.11%
3 Jonathan Wynn 02/09/2015 91.11%
4 Kirk Bevins 25/02/2013 89.13%
5 Paul Gallen 16/06/2006 88.89%
6 Jen Steadman 04/09/2013 88.89%
7 Dylan Taylor 12/12/2013 88.89%
8 Craig Beevers 31/10/2007 86.67%
9 Edward McCullagh 08/02/2011 86.67%
10 Jonathan Rawlinson 13/06/2012 86.67%
11 Jack Worsley 22/02/2013 86.67%
12 Dan McColm 16/10/2014 86.67%
13 Innis Carson 18/02/2013 84.78%
14 Julian Fell 21/10/2002 84.44%
15 Jack Hurst 09/01/2013 84.44%
16 Andy Platt 27/03/2013 84.44%
17 Tom Cappleman 26/03/2015 84.44%
18 Chris Davies 04/09/2009 82.22%
19 Giles Hutchings 09/04/2013 82.22%
20 Callum Todd 20/12/2013 82.22%
21 Thomas Carey 29/09/2015 82.22%
22 Helen Grayson 22/02/1985 81.48%
23 Allan Saldanha 19/12/1996 81.48%
24 Chris Wills 17/01/2002 80.00%
25 Mark Tournoff 14/06/2006 80.00%
26 Mark Murray 18/04/2014 80.00%
27 Ed McCullagh 17/01/2013 78.26%
28 David O'Donnell 15/02/2013 78.26%
29 Harvey Freeman 11/12/1986 78.05%
30 Jonathan Anstey 11/08/1989 77.78%
31 Damian Eadie 18/07/1994 77.78%
32 Stewart Holden 02/03/2004 77.78%
33 Paul Howe 02/06/2006 77.78%
34 Adam Gillard 18/01/2011 77.78%
35 Bradley Cates 23/10/2013 77.78%
36 Tricia Pay 25/07/2014 77.78%
37 Eoin Monaghan 20/09/2010 75.56%
38 Glen Webb 16/12/2013 75.56%
39 Samir Pilica 28/05/2014 75.56%
40 Richard Campbell 04/03/1994 74.07%
41 Tim Morrissey 19/12/1996 74.07%
42 Pete Cashmore 11/04/1997 74.07%
43 Susan Shilton 25/05/1999 74.07%
44 Oliver Garner 19/01/2010 73.33%
45 Marcus Hares 08/11/2010 73.33%
46 Graeme Cole 09/06/2011 73.33%
47 Zarte Siempre 29/07/2013 73.33%
48 Andy Noden 13/01/2015 73.33%
49 Mark Nyman 15/12/1983 71.88%
50 Tom Hargreaves 27/06/2002 71.11%
51 Grace Page 10/07/2002 71.11%
52 Jack Welsby 09/08/2004 71.11%
53 Chris Hunt 03/03/2005 71.11%
54 Chris Cummins 07/06/2006 71.11%
55 Junaid Mubeen 12/12/2008 71.11%
56 David Barnard 26/11/2012 71.11%
57 Abdirizak Hirsi 11/10/2013 71.11%
58 George Ford 16/12/2014 71.11%
59 Tracey Mills 29/01/2015 71.11%
60 John Hardie 14/10/2015 71.11%
61 Stephen Briggs 22/12/2015 71.11%
62 Clive Spate 06/02/1986 70.37%
63 Darren Shacklady 20/02/1995 70.37%
64 David Acton 07/03/1996 70.37%
65 Bhavin Manek 15/09/1997 70.37%
66 Terry Knowles 12/11/1998 70.37%
67 Scott Mearns 02/07/1999 70.37%
68 James Sheppard 31/10/2000 70.37%
69 Kevin McMahon 15/03/2001 70.37%
70 John Ashmore 26/06/1998 69.70%
71 Harshan Lamabadusuriya 03/09/2003 69.70%
72 Neil Green 05/05/2014 69.57%
73 George Greenhough 07/11/2002 68.89%
74 John Mayhew 24/06/2005 68.89%
75 Matthew Shore 22/05/2006 68.89%
76 Jimmy Gough 13/05/2009 68.89%
77 Paul James 19/12/2012 68.89%
78 Andrew Hulme 08/02/2013 68.89%
79 Kevin Steede 13/02/2015 68.89%
80 Gerry Tynan 07/04/2015 68.89%
81 Nic Brown 09/01/1989 68.75%
82 Don Reid 10/01/1995 68.75%
83 Darryl Francis 20/03/1985 66.67%
84 John Clarke 02/04/1987 66.67%
85 Tony Vick 06/01/1989 66.67%
86 Derek Coombs 19/07/1990 66.67%
87 Chris Waddington 06/09/1991 66.67%
88 Andy Bodle 04/08/1993 66.67%
89 Alec Webb 16/08/1993 66.67%
90 Andy Cusworth 15/03/1995 66.67%
91 Catriona Cappleman 16/08/1995 66.67%
92 Graham Cross 25/08/1995 66.67%
93 Tony Killilea 22/01/1997 66.67%
94 Ricky Zinger 20/11/1997 66.67%
95 Pamela Roud 07/06/1999 66.67%
96 Rory Dunlop 31/08/1999 66.67%
97 Mickie O'Neill 02/09/1999 66.67%
98 Melvin Hetherington 02/12/1999 66.67%
99 Peter McGuigan 23/05/2000 66.67%
100 David Ballheimer 21/06/2000 66.67%
Edited to remove the benefit of having games with no round details. Sorry Helen Grayson.
This is a brave effort, Jono, but ultimately the quality control is lacking. First of all the Helen Grayson error, and also Harvey Freeman's percentage has slipped since last time. 78.05% suggests 32 maxes out of 41. 41 is a very weird number of rounds to play over three games. So what happened with Helen Grayson? Was the game with no round details taken to be a max game? It would also be nice to have the raw number of maxes and rounds as well as the percentages.
But obviously TV3GAMP is the only metric worth bothering with, especially with the chronological tie-break, because it gives the most realistic second-place player. I think without any statistics, most people would give the same top two as that list. It's also quite a satisfying thing to say (even in your head when you're typing), so I'll do it again. TV3GAMP.
TV3GAMP.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:41 pm
by Jon O'Neill
Gavin Chipper wrote:This is a brave effort, Jono, but ultimately the quality control is lacking. First of all the Helen Grayson error, and also Harvey Freeman's percentage has slipped since last time. 78.05% suggests 32 maxes out of 41. 41 is a very weird number of rounds to play over three games. So what happened with Helen Grayson? Was the game with no round details taken to be a max game? It would also be nice to have the raw number of maxes and rounds as well as the percentages.
But obviously TV3GAMP is the only metric worth bothering with, especially with the chronological tie-break, because it gives the most realistic second-place player. I think without any statistics, most people would give the same top two as that list. It's also quite a satisfying thing to say (even in your head when you're typing), so I'll do it again. TV3GAMP.
TV3GAMP.
I'm working on the Freeman issue. It's caused by missing rounds in his semi-final, and by my incompetence. That's why it's Ask Graeme and not Ask Jono. I can't really comment on the results of the metric, but the methodology is guaranteed to produce the most accurate test of Countdown ability.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:57 pm
by Philip Wilson
I don't think this counts as a spoiler but not sure. Anyway, how many times has a numbers game been solvable using only two numbers? Can't be very many. Thanks.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:18 pm
by Graeme Cole
Johnny Canuck wrote:Hiya Graeme,
On an alphabetical list of all letters-game selections ever seen on the show (all the way from
AAATLNLIL to ZYTAIAICU), which two are the closest? Have there ever been two selections that differ only in the final letter? If so, were there ever two that were only one alphabetical place apart (e.g., TNEMARHIB and TNEMARHIC)?
JC
A few selections have differed in only the last letter.
These two tie for the distinction of being the closest pair of letters selections. Their last letters differ by only three places.
Round 7 of
this game and round 3 of
this game.
Round 9 of
this game and round 12 of
this game.
The other examples of selections which match in all but the last letter are:
Round 2 of
this game and round 12 of
this game.
Round 7 of
this game and round 6 of
this game.
Round 1 of
this game and round 11 of
this game.
Aptoforummers Dinos Sfyris and Jack Worsley had selections that differed only in the final letter four years apart: Round 12 of
this game and round 2 of
this game.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:19 pm
by Graeme Cole
Jack Worsley wrote:Using these rough estimates of letters distributions, do you think you could work out the lowest-probability nines ever to appear on the show, given that the right combination of vowels and consonants was selected in each case? I would post a long complicated formula on how to do it but with you being Graeme, you probably know anyway. We'll have to work on the assumption that the shuffling isn't rigged in any way to allow for nicer selections, which I think we all agree is not realistic, but there's no better way of doing it that I can think of. Thanks.
I think I worked this out ages ago (though not as a response to anything on here), and WAKIZASHI is the least likely nine.
For the record, I don't think the shuffling is deliberately "rigged" in any way. It is true that consecutive occurrences of the same letter in the pile appear much less frequently on the show than you would expect from chance, but this is likely to be an unintended side-effect of face-up shuffling.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:20 pm
by Graeme Cole
Johnny Canuck wrote:Peter Mabey wrote:In the first semifinal Rachel beat DC with COOEEING - I think she's done this before - but how often? (Though I suspect that the recapper doesn't always credit her - I wouldn't have known this time if I hadn't watched the TiVo recording)
I'm not sure the resources to answer that question are available, given that all words that are mentioned on the show by anyone (other than the contestants) are notated the same way on the wiki.
No, the wikicaps don't record which member of Team Countdown came up with a word.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:24 pm
by Graeme Cole
Johnny Canuck wrote:Have any specific CECIL targets resulted in spot-on solutions from both players every time they have come up? If so, which one(s)? If not, which one(s) come the closest to a 100% perfect solution rate, counting only spot-on solutions toward this rate? Conversely, which CECIL target(s) have produced the lowest percentage of spot-on solutions? Both contestants' declarations count toward the total, so if, say, a target of 420 has come up 13 times in the show's history, then the number of spot-on solutions for the target 420 will be calculated out of 26.
100 was solved by both contestants every time it came up, but it's only come up four times and it isn't a valid target any more.
111 has appeared 14 times, and 700 has appeared 10 times. These targets were solved by both contestants every time.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:51 pm
by Graeme Cole
Gavin Chipper wrote:There have been
discussions about comparing the score of the new 15 and old 15 formats. But I don't think there's been an analysis based on contestant data as opposed to maxes. I'm also more interested in comparisons for better players. So if we take all 900+ octochamps (in either format) and convert their scores to the other format by adding letters average * 10 or 11, numbers average * 4 or 3, conundrum average, how much higher on average would the new 15 scores be, and what would be the average ratio between scores? Also, might as well convert to 9-rounders as well to get a comparison. I remember there used to be an 11/18 ratio rule of thumb between the 9 and the old 15.
I suppose the simplest way of doing it would be to get the overall letters, numbers and conundrum averages for these players, and then post that raw information, and then the rest would be easy for comparisons between any formats.
Octochamps who scored 900 or more, with the average points scored in letters, numbers and conundrum rounds in their heats (ordered by name):
Code: Select all
NAME L N C
Adam Gillard 6.9545 9.2083 8.75
Andrew Hulme 7.3409 8.9166 8.75
Craig Beevers 6.9204 9.5 8.75
Dan McColm 7.25 9.4375 7.5
Dylan Taylor 7.6625 9.7187 6.25
Giles Hutchings 7.6125 8.9375 8.75
Glen Webb 7.4125 9.125 7.5
Jack Hurst 7.4431 9.625 7.5
Jen Steadman 7.4625 9.2187 7.5
Jonathan Wynn 7.2375 8.8437 7.5
Julian Fell 7.3863 8.0833 10.0
Kirk Bevins 7.3181 9.2083 7.5
Mark Murray 6.875 9.125 7.5
Thomas Carey 6.725 9.5312 10.0
Tom Cappleman 7.025 9.5312 7.5
If we scale this to Old 15 octototototals it looks like this (ordered by L * 88 + N * 24 + C * 8):
Code: Select all
Dylan Taylor 957.55
Giles Hutchings 954.4
Jack Hurst 946.0
Jen Steadman 937.95
Glen Webb 931.3
Andrew Hulme 930.0
Kirk Bevins 925.0
Dan McColm 924.5
Julian Fell 924.0
Jonathan Wynn 909.15
Craig Beevers 907.0
Tom Cappleman 906.95
Adam Gillard 903.0
Thomas Carey 900.55
Mark Murray 884.0
Scaled to New 15 totals it looks like this (ordered by L * 80 + N * 32 + C * 8):
Code: Select all
Dylan Taylor 974.0
Giles Hutchings 965.0
Jack Hurst 963.4545
Jen Steadman 952.0
Glen Webb 945.0
Andrew Hulme 942.6060
Dan McColm 942.0
Kirk Bevins 940.1212
Julian Fell 929.5757
Craig Beevers 927.6363
Tom Cappleman 927.0
Thomas Carey 923.0
Jonathan Wynn 922.0
Adam Gillard 921.0303
Mark Murray 902.0
And again for 9 rounders (L * 48 + N * 16 + C * 8):
Code: Select all
Giles Hutchings 578.4
Dylan Taylor 573.3
Jack Hurst 571.2727
Jen Steadman 565.7
Andrew Hulme 565.0303
Julian Fell 563.8787
Glen Webb 561.8
Dan McColm 559.0
Kirk Bevins 558.6060
Thomas Carey 555.3
Craig Beevers 554.1818
Adam Gillard 551.1515
Tom Cappleman 549.7
Jonathan Wynn 548.9
Mark Murray 536.0
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:03 pm
by Graeme Cole
Gavin Chipper wrote:Is Edward McCullagh still the highest maxing xicount?
If by "highest maxing" you mean "maxed the most rounds in their heat games and finals", no. Ed maxed 130 rounds out of 165, but Dan McColm maxed 133.
If you relax the "xicount" requirement, Dylan Taylor is the only person who got more maxes than that in eight heat games, a quarter-final, a semi-final and a final (140).
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:26 pm
by Graeme Cole
Gavin Chipper wrote:Could we have the letters/numbers/conundrum score breakdowns (or maybe the per round average - or both) of the highest scoring octochamps in each format? Has this already been asked? A quick search didn't find it, but there would be new people to add to the list now anyway. I'm not sure what counts as "highest scoring", but I'd at least want to see everyone on 900 or more in the 15-round era, and maybe those over 500 for 9 rounds. Then it will be easy to see how players compare when converting to any other format, including made-up ones.
Hopefully the answer above gives you the information you need for 15-round octochamps. Here's the same for 9-round octochamps who scored 500 or more.
500+ scoring 9-round octochamps with letters, numbers and conundrum average, ordered by 9-round total:
Code: Select all
L N C TOTAL
David Williams 6.5208 8.875 10.0 535
Harvey Freeman 6.625 7.8125 10.0 523
Scott Mearns 6.6875 8.0625 7.5 510
Lucy Roberts 6.375 8.625 7.5 504
Terry Knowles 6.4583 7.625 8.75 502
Richard Campbell 5.8958 9.1875 8.75 500
Mapped to old 15 rounder (L * 88 + N * 24 + C * 8):
Code: Select all
David Williams 866.83
Harvey Freeman 850.5
Scott Mearns 842.0
Lucy Roberts 828.0
Terry Knowles 821.33
Richard Campbell 809.33
Mapped to new 15 rounder (L * 80 + N * 32 + C * 8):
Code: Select all
David Williams 885.66
Harvey Freeman 860.0
Scott Mearns 853.0
Lucy Roberts 846.0
Richard Campbell 835.66
Terry Knowles 830.66
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:32 pm
by Graeme Cole
Philip Wilson wrote:I don't think this counts as a spoiler but not sure. Anyway, how many times has a numbers game been solvable using only two numbers? Can't be very many. Thanks.
Up to the end of CoC XIV, 96 numbers games have been solvable by adding or multiplying two of the starting numbers together.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:38 pm
by Graeme Cole
Johnny Canuck wrote:As of yesterday, Tim Down has, in a single heat run, played games in December, January and February. Is he the first contestant whose preliminary run has spanned three different months? If someone plays a heat run and is later invited back to the show, their second appearance or set of appearances obviously constitutes a separate heat run.
No.
Alan Harston also did this, but as far as I can tell he's the only other one. He appeared in the last episode of series 22 in September 1991, then appeared at the start of series 23 in December 1991 and January 1992.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:39 pm
by Graeme Cole
Thanks to Jen and Jono for the great work further up the thread, too.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:34 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Graeme Cole wrote:Thanks to Jen and Jono for the great work further up the thread, too.
And more thanks to you for more excellent work as always!
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:52 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Converting just the 900+ octochamp scores, it would seem that the averages are:
New 15: 117.3
Old 15: 115.34
9: 69.93
So the new 15 is worth 1.7% more than the old 15 and 67.7% more than the 9-rounder. The old 15 is worth 64.9% more than the 9-rounder. Interestingly, previous analysis (from years ago) seemed to indicate that the old 15 was worth about 63.7% more than the 9-rounder, so this is quite a big difference. Obviously higher scores might mean a different ratio, so the best thing would be a scatter plot for all octoscores (or just every individual game) and then a best line could be fitted through it.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:54 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Would it be possible to look at loads (as many as possible) of results of all standard (method) types of game (9 rounds, old 15, new 15, 14 round final, Masters) and convert them to scores in the other formats and then come up with a best fit thing to give us an ultimate conversion chart?
We could just look at all scores of e.g. 48 in 9-round games and find that the average new 15 conversion would be about 80 and use that on the chart. But treating scores individually could cause problems, because it might then turn out that 49 on average converts to 79! So obviously the data would have to be "smoothed out".
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:47 am
by Paul Erdunast
Wouldn't that unfairly discriminate in favour of strong numbers players in the new 15 era and strong letters players in the old 15 era, to have a conversion chart 'blind' to letters and numbers round differences?
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 7:17 am
by Gavin Chipper
Paul Erdunast wrote:Wouldn't that unfairly discriminate in favour of strong numbers players in the new 15 era and strong letters players in the old 15 era, to have a conversion chart 'blind' to letters and numbers round differences?
It would but it's meant to be a "rule of thumb" for when round details aren't available. Also I think it still makes sense to say this score in this format is as good as that score in that format regardless of round details in the same way as you might try and compare performances in other different disciplines. For example, you might say running a certain time over 1500m is equivalent to another time over 5000m but this doesn't necessarily mean that someone who can run one can run the other.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:12 am
by Matt Bayfield
Would it be possible, in terms of comparing scores for different formats, to go through the entire database, and determine:
Lm = mean score for a Letters round, which I imagine is something below 5, bearing in mind that many contestants score zero because their opponent has a longer word
Nm = mean score for a Numbers round
Cm = mean score for a Conundrum (which must be below 5, since only one player can ever get the conundrum)
Then, for each format, calculate the "mean" score: e.g. 9R mean score would be S(9Rm) = 6Lm + 2Nm + Cm; old 15R mean score would be S(15Rom) = 11Lm + 3Nm + Cm, etc.
You could then even consider converting between format scores using e.g. S(15Ro)equivalent = S(9R)actual x S(15Rom) / S(9Rm). However, I have a feeling this might be a poor conversion at the very low and high ends of the score spectrum.
(Edit: Looks like Gevin has already suggested something similar, but I'm leaving this post here anyway.)
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:28 pm
by Ben Wilson
Apologies if this has been asked before, but going purely on the average number of maxes achieved by each contestant, which heat games have the highest aggregate average maxes between the two players? I'm particularly interested in a player's average maxes over their entire 'career' (if applicable), not just their heats.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:26 pm
by Johnny Canuck
Magnificent number-crunching skills as always, Graeme, particularly on the alphabetically closest selections question because I know (or at least strongly suspect) that your database isn't exactly well suited to answering it.
Next up:
Let us call a conundrum scramble "unoriginal" if it has been used three or more times and no other scramble has ever been used for the same word. For example, I believe PARTRIDGE has been scrambled as GREATDRIP three times, with no other scrambles ever used for it, so that would make GREATDRIP unoriginal. However, HYDRANGEA has been scrambled as ANGRYHEAD three times (or could have been two; not sure) and then also as GARDENHAY once, so ANGRYHEAD is not unoriginal.
How many unoriginal scrambles are there, and if there aren't too many, might you be able to list them?
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:41 pm
by Johnny Canuck
Gavin Chipper wrote:But treating scores individually could cause problems, because it might then turn out that 49 on average converts to 79!
Why on Earth would 49 convert to 8.94618 × 10¹¹⁶?
...
I'll see myself out.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:13 pm
by Thomas Carey
Johnny Canuck wrote:Gavin Chipper wrote:But treating scores individually could cause problems, because it might then turn out that 49 on average converts to 79!
Why on Earth would 49 convert to 8.94618 × 10¹¹⁶?
...
I'll see myself out.
Heh. This is why I always put a space between numbers and exclamation marks like peak Tracey Mills
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:34 pm
by Andy McGurn
Question: was Fred Mumford correct when he PM-ed you his CoC predictions based on what people had said on the forum? If not how close was he?
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:44 am
by Fred Mumford
My only real prediction was that Jen would get to the final, based on a comment she had made about never having made it to a final, which I interpreted as some kind of double bluff.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:42 am
by Johnny Canuck
Based on (a) prior numbers of wins, (b) prior point totals, and (c) prior average scores, who are the statistically weakest contestants to have ever qualified for Championships of Champions? I would expect at least one of them to be from CoC IX, since all contestants in it were drawn from only one year of heat games as opposed to between 2 and 4 years for the others.