Ask Graeme?

All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Clive Brooker » Sat Nov 21, 2015 7:55 am

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.

User avatar
James Laverty
Enthusiast
Posts: 359
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:45 pm
Location: West Bridgford

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by James Laverty » Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:53 pm

With CoC upcoming, will any of the contestants become the first to have played all three formats on TV?
Definitely not Jamie McNeill or Schrodinger's Cat....

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:57 pm

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.

User avatar
Innis Carson
Devotee
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Innis Carson » Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:28 pm

Actually, Graham Nash has already done so (as well as a 14-rounder).

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:06 pm

Innis Carson wrote:Actually, Graham Nash has already done so (as well as a 14-rounder).
Ah yes, well spotted. Just testing you.

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Adam Gillard » Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:16 pm

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.

Image
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:05 pm

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.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:00 pm

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.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Ryan Taylor » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:28 am

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:26 pm

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:29 pm

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:47 pm

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.

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Ryan Taylor » Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:23 pm

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!

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:29 pm

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.

User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Ben Wilson » Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:56 pm

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.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:31 pm

Ben Wilson wrote:but just humour Gevin here for a minute, please.
Nice.

Peter Mabey
Devotee
Posts: 939
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Peter Mabey » Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:49 am

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) :geek:

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:33 am

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) :geek:
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.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Tom
Acolyte
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Tom » Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:28 pm

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.
Probably the second tallest ever series finalist.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:12 am

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.)
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:37 am

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?
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:54 am

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.
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Mark Deeks » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:59 am

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?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:40 am

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.

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:02 pm

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
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Jack Worsley
Series 66 Champion
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Blackpool

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Jack Worsley » Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:19 am

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.

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:57 pm

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.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:54 pm

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.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:10 pm

Is Edward McCullagh still the highest maxing xicount?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:46 am

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.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Jon O'Neill » Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:35 pm

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.

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:02 pm

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.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:59 pm

Spoilers!

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:02 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:Spoilers!
Well, OK. But only if you really want them.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:34 pm

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.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Jon O'Neill » Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:41 pm

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.

Philip Wilson
Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Philip Wilson » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:57 pm

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:18 pm

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:19 pm

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:20 pm

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) :geek:
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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:24 pm

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:51 pm

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   

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:03 pm

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).

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:26 pm

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

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:32 pm

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:38 pm

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.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:39 pm

Thanks to Jen and Jono for the great work further up the thread, too.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:34 pm

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!

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:52 pm

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.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:54 pm

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".

Paul Erdunast
Acolyte
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:59 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Paul Erdunast » Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:47 am

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?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7647
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Feb 06, 2016 7:17 am

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.

Matt Bayfield
Devotee
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 8:39 am
Location: Seated at a computer

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Matt Bayfield » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:12 am

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.)

User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Ben Wilson » Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:28 pm

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.

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:26 pm

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?
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:41 pm

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.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

User avatar
Thomas Carey
Devotee
Posts: 891
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
Location: North-West of Bradford
Contact:

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Thomas Carey » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:13 pm

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
signature

Andy McGurn
Enthusiast
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Andy McGurn » Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:34 pm

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?

Fred Mumford
Acolyte
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Fred Mumford » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:44 am

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.

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Ask Graeme?

Post by Johnny Canuck » Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:42 am

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.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest