The CoC Predictions Game

[Graeme Cole]

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Points	Total Points	
3	Graeme Cole	ZS (5)		78	231

Bwahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction		Points	Total Points	
12	Graeme Cole	MH (15)			-60	171

hahaha

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Points	Total Points	
16	Graeme Cole	AM (5)		-19	152

ha

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Points	Total Points	
17	Graeme Cole	NM (45)		-68	84

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

It’s in the OP.

The OP reads like ESL.
There's something about a -75, but it's not explained.
Also, with the margins scoring, it says there is an extra 1pt added per number closer than 10pts out, but in the given example, it seems some sort of exponential method is used...

[Thomas Carey]

It’s in the OP.

The OP reads like ESL.
There's something about a -75, but it's not explained.
Also, with the margins scoring, it says there is an extra 1pt added per number closer than 10pts out, but in the given example, it seems some sort of exponential method is used...

Since you predicted Paul and me to win, you're essentially pretending Zarte is Paul on Thursday. They basically look the same anyway. The -75 thing is for games where you've guessed both of the wrong players to be there (so everyone who guessed Stephen and Paul to win now has that for the me-Zarte game). Margins - the exponential (actually quadratic) thing is for guesses within 10 of the actual margin, flat linear point loss system for guesses further than 10 out, which gets a steeper gradient (double points lost) if you're more than 40 out on the margin.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

They basically look the same anyway.

Fair point. Paul is the Clark Kent version...

Tx for the explanation. Clears up a few things I was unsure about.
The only bit that's still confusing is this:

The -75 thing

Is that an automatic -75 you score if neither of your picks from earlier matches appear opposite one another in a later match?
And if so, is there a points penalty for having one wrong player in a match?

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

The only bit that's still confusing is this:

The -75 thing

Actually, never mind. I think I have it now.
-75 as a penalty for having both wrong players in a match,
but no penalty applies as long as one of the players is the person you predicted to be there.
And as that system will carry on all the way to the final, the most accurate sets of predictions, like cream before them, will rise to the top. V nice.
It's a decent and interesting scoring system.

[Thomas Carey]

JONATHAN I STILL HAVE YOUR JUMPER I'LL GIVE YOU IT AT COLIN also PHILIP IS BACK AGAIN

Eoin, myself: take a bow. Very surprised nobody else expected this, Philip's bloody good. Hopefully the opponent column is self explanatory, it'll become more interesting later. The 18 point win for Philip had one bang on guess, one one away and then the next closest were Gev and Robbo down the bottom, interesting outcome.

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Opponent	Points	Total Points	
1	Tim Down	JW (11)	PA		-19	418
2	Thomas Carey	PA (17)	JW		95	406
3	James Laverty	JW (6)	PA		-14	384
4	Eoin Jackson	PA (18)	JW		105	383
5	Tom Ssssss	JW (15)	PA		-23	363
6	Tom Cappleman	JW (15)	PA		-23	354
7	Zubair Patel	JW (6)	PA		-14	351
8	Bradley Horrock	JW (16)	PA		-24	346
9	Rhys Benjamin	JW (7)	PA		-15	327
10	Jen Steadman	JW (7)	PA		-15	307
11	Mark Murray	JW (25)	PA		-36	304
12	Toby McDonald	JW (7)	PA		-15	294
13	Owen Carroll	JW (25)	PA		-36	279
14	Zarte Siempre	JW (12)	PA		-20	263
15	Gavin Chipper	JW (1)	PA		-9	257
16	James Robinson	JW (1)	PA		-9	202
17	Graeme Cole	JW (30)	NM		-46	38

[Thomas Carey]

cow gets MASHED by BRADLEY'S HORROCKS a SECOND TIME



3 point victory for our Bradley! Most people thought it was going to be Bradley vs Ann, but sadly that wasn't to be, so some of the results got bashed around a bit. We also got the first of many -75 scores, but the low winning margin generally meant that nobody lost too much. Tim massively extends his lead while a lot of Ann voters including Horrock slip down a bit.

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Points	Total Points	
1	Tim Down	BH (5)	AD		86	504
2	Thomas Carey	BH (17)	AD		46	452
3	Eoin Jackson	BH (12)	JC		51	434
4	Tom Ssssss	BH (10)	AD		56	419
5	Zubair Patel	BH (8)	JC		65	416
6	Tom Cappleman	BH (15)	AD		48	402
7	James Laverty	AD (4)	BH		6	390
8	Toby McDonald	BH (6)	JC		78	372
9	Bradley Horrock	AD (2)	BH		15	361
10	Gavin Chipper	BH (1)	AD		86	343
11	Mark Murray	BH (25)	AD		38	342
12	Rhys Benjamin	AD (7)	BH		0	327
13	Owen Carroll	BH (20)	AD		43	322
13	Jen Steadman	AD (2)	BH		15	322
15	Zarte Siempre	AD (0)	BH		28	291
16	James Robinson	BH (17)	AD		46	248
17	Graeme Cole	AM (30)	AD		-75	-37

[Thomas Carey]

TASS vs YET ANOTHER TOM

50 point win for Tom means that everyone got the winner but only Robbo didn't lose margin points. Pretty standard stuff. Cheers maus

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Opponent	Points	Total Points	
1	Tim Down	TCC (15)	MT		26	530
2	Thomas Carey	TCC (17)	MT		28	480
3	Eoin Jackson	TCC (24)	MT		35	469
4	Tom Ssssss	TCC (17)	MT		28	447
5	Zubair Patel	TCC (11)	MT		22	438
6	Tom Cappleman	TCC (20)	MT		31	433
7	James Laverty	TCC (13)	MT		24	414
8	Toby McDonald	TCC (18)	MT		29	401
9	Bradley Horrock	TCC (24)	MT		35	396
10	Mark Murray	TCC (35)	MT		46	388
11	Gavin Chipper	TCC (15)	MT		26	369
12	Owen Carroll	TCC (23)	MT		34	356
13	Rhys Benjamin	TCC (12)	MT		23	350
14	Jen Steadman	TCC (15)	MT		26	348
15	Zarte Siempre	TCC (20)	MT		31	322
16	James Robinson	TCC (45)	MT		71	319
17	Graeme Cole	MH (5)		MT		12	-25

[Thomas Carey]

THAT GAME

Cheers for all the support! Most people guessed something with a smaller margin that the 28 given how close everything was meant to be because nobody could have predicted that ninefest. Scores were pretty much divided between about 40 and the -75 fest for the Paul vs Stephen predictors. Blame the original creator of this scoring system (and my televised walloper)

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Opponent	Points	Total Points	
1	Tim Down	ZS (12)	TC		44	574
2	Thomas Carey	ZS (17)	TC		49	529
3	Eoin Jackson	PE (0)	TC		32	501
4	Tom Ssssss	PE (10)	TC		42	489
5	Tom Cappleman	ZS (0)	SR		32	465
6	James Laverty	ZS (1)	TC		33	447
7	Bradley Horrock	PE (10)	TC		42	438
8	Mark Murray	ZS (5)	SR		37	425
9	Owen Carroll	ZS (20)	SR		53	409
10	Jen Steadman	ZS (11)	SR		43	391
11	Rhys Benjamin	ZS (3)	TC		35	385
12	Zubair Patel	PE (3)	SR		-75	363
13	Toby McDonald	PE (2)	SR		-75	326
14	Gavin Chipper	SR (1)	PE		-75	294
15	Zarte Siempre	PE (15)	SR		-75	247
16	James Robinson	PE (15)	SR		-75	244
17	Graeme Cole	TC (25)	ZS		-56	-81

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Another prediction about this Champion of Champions...
...the long standing game high score record of 146 will finally be beaten.

Yep!
It only took 17 years.
My new prediction is that 150pts will remain unbeaten for fewer than 3 years.

[Tom S]

Another prediction about this Champion of Champions...
...the long standing game high score record of 146 will finally be beaten.

My new prediction is that 150pts will remain unbeaten for fewer than 3 years.

Yeah, I've got some funny inkling about that too, but it will not be easy for any player......

[Thomas Carey]

PHILIP VS ZARTE AGAIN AGAIN SMH CHANNEL 4 GET SOME NEW MATERIAL

Yeah, 'everyone' predicted their group of death candidate to win here. -75s causing some issues. Enjoy COLIN, everyone!!

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Opponent	Points	Total Points	
1	Tim Down	ZS (9)	JW		36	610
2	Thomas Carey	ZS (23)	PA		50	579
3	Eoin Jackson	PE (3)	PA		30	531
4	Tom Cappleman	ZS (25)	JW		53	518
5	James Laverty	ZS (14)	JW		41	488
6	Mark Murray	ZS (25)	JW		53	478
7	Owen Carroll	ZS (10)	JW		37	446
8	Jen Steadman	ZS (17)	JW		44	435
9	Rhys Benjamin	ZS (5)	JW		32	417
10	Tom Ssssss	PE (12)	JW		-75	414
11	Bradley Horrock	PE (19)	JW		-75	363
12	Zubair Patel	PE (15)	JW		-75	288
13	Toby McDonald	PE (8)	JW		-75	251
14	Gavin Chipper	SR (1)	JW		-75	219
15	Zarte Siempre	PE (20)	JW		-75	172
16	James Robinson	PE (25)	JW		-75	169
17	Graeme Cole	JW (10)	TC		-75	-156

[Rhys Benjamin]

Ah, I've only just noticed that incorrect predictions have been interpreted as a scale rather than a number... is this right?

For instance, Jen's predicted a 17-point win for Stephen against 'Maus, but there's an argument to say this should be interpreted as "2 away + incorrect result" (36 pts), not "36 away + incorrect result" (-26 pts).

Clarification from Zarte would be useful, especially since I interpreted the rules as the former (right margin, wrong result = 55) - which is why I erred on the side of low margins.

[Thomas Carey]

Ah, I've only just noticed that incorrect predictions have been interpreted as a scale rather than a number... is this right?

For instance, Jen's predicted a 17-point win for Stephen against 'Maus, but there's an argument to say this should be interpreted as "2 away + incorrect result" (36 pts), not "36 away + incorrect result" (-26 pts).

Clarification from Zarte would be useful, especially since I interpreted the rules as the former (right margin, wrong result = 55) - which is why I erred on the side of low margins.

Yeah, Jen pointed that out to me, she's on your side (lol). Was with Zarte at the time and he agreed with my interpretation. We asked Graeme and he said it should be ours but it is very ambiguous. I'll redo the scores your way at the end

[Gevin Chapwell]

Ah, I've only just noticed that incorrect predictions have been interpreted as a scale rather than a number... is this right?

For instance, Jen's predicted a 17-point win for Stephen against 'Maus, but there's an argument to say this should be interpreted as "2 away + incorrect result" (36 pts), not "36 away + incorrect result" (-26 pts).

Clarification from Zarte would be useful, especially since I interpreted the rules as the former (right margin, wrong result = 55) - which is why I erred on the side of low margins.

Yeah, Jen pointed that out to me, she's on your side (lol). Was with Zarte at the time and he agreed with my interpretation. We asked Graeme and he said it should be ours but it is very ambiguous. I'll redo the scores your way at the end

This quote from Zarte (especially the bit about probably losing margins points if you pick the wrong winner) made me think that picking Stephen to beat Tom by 17 when really Tom won by 19 would count as 36 away.

If you predict the wrong winner you can still collect margin points, or more likely, you will still lose margin points. In the event of a tie-break conundrum, this will be taken to be a 0 point win. If you were to predict this for the wrong player, you would still get 55 margin points, cos it’d be a ballsy pick.

I'd say it's not that ambiguous actually.

[Graeme Cole]

Ah, I've only just noticed that incorrect predictions have been interpreted as a scale rather than a number... is this right?

For instance, Jen's predicted a 17-point win for Stephen against 'Maus, but there's an argument to say this should be interpreted as "2 away + incorrect result" (36 pts), not "36 away + incorrect result" (-26 pts).

Clarification from Zarte would be useful, especially since I interpreted the rules as the former (right margin, wrong result = 55) - which is why I erred on the side of low margins.

Yeah, Jen pointed that out to me, she's on your side (lol). Was with Zarte at the time and he agreed with my interpretation. We asked Graeme and he said it should be ours but it is very ambiguous. I'll redo the scores your way at the end

This quote from Zarte (especially the bit about probably losing margins points if you pick the wrong winner) made me think that picking Stephen to beat Tom by 17 when really Tom won by 19 would count as 36 away.

If you predict the wrong winner you can still collect margin points, or more likely, you will still lose margin points. In the event of a tie-break conundrum, this will be taken to be a 0 point win. If you were to predict this for the wrong player, you would still get 55 margin points, cos it’d be a ballsy pick.

I'd say it's not that ambiguous actually.

Yes, this quote (specifically, the "more likely") is what made me think that a predicted margin includes a direction. It's not explicitly stated, but the "more likely" thing certainly points more to that interpretation than the other one. It's possible to pick the wrong winner and still win margin points (if you predicted C1 to win by 1, but C2 won by 1, you're 2 away), but less likely than if you picked the right winner.

[Thomas Carey]

TOM AND BRADLEY AGAIN BUT THIS TIME THE OTHER GUY WIN WOOOOOH SPOOKY ALSO DUNK DUNK ETC

The Tim is dead. Long live the... me?!

After the big scoring system debacle (I'll post standings with the other system also, but they won't count) and an even bigger COLIN, we have this thing again. And we finally got a one point margin, which created some interesting point gains. However, the margin went the wrong way to what everyone guessed... except once again me and Eoin, the same two who said Philip to beat Jonathan! (Also Lav sort of but like not really, lol)

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Opponent	Points	Total Points	
1	Thomas Carey	BH (25)		TCC		36	615
2	Tim Down	TCC (8)		BH		1	611
3	Eoin Jackson	BH (7)		TCC		60	591
4	James Laverty	AD (8)		TCC		56	544
5	Tom Cappleman	TCC (20)	BH		-11	507
6	Mark Murray	TCC (15)	BH		-6	472
7	Owen Carroll	TCC (10)	BH		-1	445
8	Rhys Benjamin	TCC (4)		AD		15	432
9	Jen Steadman	TCC (12)	AD		-3	432
10	Tom Ssssss	TCC (10)	BH		-1	413
11	Bradley Horrock	TCC (11)	AD		-2	361
12	Zubair Patel	TCC (3)		BH		21	309
13	Toby McDonald	TCC (9)		BH		0	251
14	Gavin Chipper	TCC (10)	BH		-1	218
15	Zarte Siempre	TCC (8)		AD		1	173
16	James Robinson	TCC (30)	BH		-21	148
17	Graeme Cole	MH (25) 	AM		-75	-231

[Gevin Chapwell]

Just looking at the scoring for today's game, it does seem strange that you get 50 points (plus whatever you get for margins) for predicting Ann Dibben to beat Tom Chafer-Cook, whereas you get -75 if neither of your players are in the game. I actually kind of assumed that you would only get the win points for a game if you actually predicted the winner correctly. It seems strange that you get full game rights for having one player in the game rather than half game rights, and then nothing at all for having neither player in.

Is this definitely the right interpretation? To be clear, I think you should only get the 50 win points in today's game if you specifically predicted Bradley Horrocks to win.

[Thomas Carey]

THE FINAL

I called all but one game correctly, albeit with some shocking margins. Can't really go wrong there. (Tim in second called twelve, but was a lot less than a hundred behind...)

33 point win for Zarte, boom boom. At least he won the contest that mattered, I guess...

Cheers for taking part, everyone. I'll put results up with some different scoring systems soon, to see how you'd all have done with less confusion. (@Gev's last point, that was how I interpreted the rules, so I just went with it).

Cheers for playing everyone!!

Code: Select all

Position	Name	Prediction	Opponent	Points	Total Points	
1	Thomas Carey	ZS (36)	BH		78	693
2	Tim Down	ZS (7)	TCC		34	645
3	James Laverty	ZS (12)	AD		39	583
4	Eoin Jackson	BH (0)	PE		-23	568
5	Tom Cappleman	ZS (0)	TCC		27	534
6	Owen Carroll	ZS (10)	TCC		37	482
7	Jen Steadman	ZS (13)	TCC		40	472
8	Rhys Benjamin	ZS (5)	TCC		32	464
9	Mark Murray	TCC (5)	ZS		-28	444
10	Tom Ssssss	PE (10)	TCC		-75	338
11	Bradley Horrock	PE (15)	TCC		-75	286
12	Zubair Patel	TCC (7)	PE		-75	234
13	Toby McDonald	PE (2)	TCC		-75	176
14	Gavin Chipper	SR (6)	TCC		-75	143
15	Zarte Siempre	PE (10)	TCC		-75	98
16	James Robinson	PE (0)	TCC		-75	73
17	Graeme Cole	MH (35)	JW		-75	-306

The theoretical max here is 1575.

[Gevin Chapwell]

At least I beat Graeme's random guesses!

[Tom S]

Cheers, thanks for running

[Tim Down]

Denied by rodent. It was fun, thanks for running it.