Ask Graeme?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Many thanks Graeme. For both my questions I'm surprised at just how many occasions those scenarios occurred. I accept your judgement as the final arbiter of what is ironic too.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Treat the episode counts in this answer as approximate. The recap writer will have calculated the max for older games using the ODE2r, so words that would be accepted now might not have been accepted then, and this of course means the recorded maxes might not be right.Jon Stitcher wrote:0 max games....
Obviously the games where players scored 0 were zero max games I just wondered how many contestants scored 0 maxes in a game, did any player win whilst scoring 0 maxes, what's the fewest number of maxes a winner has scored, any games where neither player hit a max?
According to the database, the number of games in which one or both of the players did not max any rounds is 155, of which 18 were 15-rounders.
Only two games have seen neither player max a round: episode 1189 and episode 1614.
In addition to those, there are five episodes in which the winner did not max a round: episode 261, episode 616, episode 728, episode 1184 and episode 3081. No 15-round game has been won by a player who scored no maxes, but 14 15-rounders have been won by a player who maxed only one round.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Interestingly, both players from episode 1614 went on to make the quarter finals.Graeme Cole wrote:[Only two games have seen neither player max a round: episode 1189 and episode 1614.
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Ask Graeme?
Equally interestingly, Philip Griffiths seems to have maxed R1 in 1189, and both players maxed R7 in 1614.Gavin Chipper wrote:Interestingly, both players from episode 1614 went on to make the quarter finals.Graeme Cole wrote:[Only two games have seen neither player max a round: episode 1189 and episode 1614.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Thanks for thet Graeme, that's an interesting list.
The list I asked for which you generated and is empty should be a list of sixes which always appear as a max, which is a subset of the list of sixes with no stemming.
I'll think of an example using 7s to illustrate the idea: MOUJIKS appears on the list of always max words, so by definition of that list, MOUJIKS has no stems, so cant be on the no stem list, but SKYGLOW, whilst not on the list of always max words, does appear on the list of words with no stems. So there either by an 8 with 6 letters in common with skyglow.
You just made me doubt myself, and I had to think about it for 5 minutesm but they are different:Graeme Cole wrote:Yes, it is. There doesn't seem to be a six letter word which does not have at least four letters in common with some seven letter word.JackHurst wrote:Could you also do the same for 6 letter words? I imagine the list would be empty.
Isn't this the same thing as a six that's always the max?JackHurst wrote:If you still have time on your hands, could you produce the list of 6 letter words that you cannot add letters to and reorder to get a 7, 8 or 9?
The list I asked for which you generated and is empty should be a list of sixes which always appear as a max, which is a subset of the list of sixes with no stemming.
I'll think of an example using 7s to illustrate the idea: MOUJIKS appears on the list of always max words, so by definition of that list, MOUJIKS has no stems, so cant be on the no stem list, but SKYGLOW, whilst not on the list of always max words, does appear on the list of words with no stems. So there either by an 8 with 6 letters in common with skyglow.
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Would CLAMORED have been OK back then for R1 in 1189?Clive Brooker wrote:Equally interestingly, Philip Griffiths seems to have maxed R1 in 1189, and both players maxed R7 in 1614.Gavin Chipper wrote:Interestingly, both players from episode 1614 went on to make the quarter finals.Graeme Cole wrote:[Only two games have seen neither player max a round: episode 1189 and episode 1614.
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Ask Graeme?
Yes, I think so. It looks as though I was wise to equivocate slightly.Innis Carson wrote:Would CLAMORED have been OK back then for R1 in 1189?Clive Brooker wrote:Equally interestingly, Philip Griffiths seems to have maxed R1 in 1189, and both players maxed R7 in 1614.
Seeing a recap for a game in 1995 which implies that the players could have offered KIDULT is amusing, if nothing else. It's good to have an example of an Americanism to show an error in the opposite direction.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Probably. American spellings were allowed for ages before they were banned.Innis Carson wrote:Would CLAMORED have been OK back then for R1 in 1189?Clive Brooker wrote:Equally interestingly, Philip Griffiths seems to have maxed R1 in 1189, and both players maxed R7 in 1614.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
I see what you mean. So a list of sixes for which there is no seven, eight or nine which has six letters in common with that six.JackHurst wrote:Thanks for thet Graeme, that's an interesting list.
You just made me doubt myself, and I had to think about it for 5 minutesm but they are different:Graeme Cole wrote:Yes, it is. There doesn't seem to be a six letter word which does not have at least four letters in common with some seven letter word.JackHurst wrote:Could you also do the same for 6 letter words? I imagine the list would be empty.
Isn't this the same thing as a six that's always the max?JackHurst wrote:If you still have time on your hands, could you produce the list of 6 letter words that you cannot add letters to and reorder to get a 7, 8 or 9?
The list I asked for which you generated and is empty should be a list of sixes which always appear as a max, which is a subset of the list of sixes with no stemming.
I'll think of an example using 7s to illustrate the idea: MOUJIKS appears on the list of always max words, so by definition of that list, MOUJIKS has no stems, so cant be on the no stem list, but SKYGLOW, whilst not on the list of always max words, does appear on the list of words with no stems. So there either by an 8 with 6 letters in common with skyglow.
Turns out there was quite a big difference. Here are the words...
AIKIDO, ANYHOW, AUGURY, AUMBRY, BAPPUS, BARFLY, BAULKY, BHAJIA, BIBBED, BIFFED, BIJOUX, BLOBBY, BLOWZY, BOBBLY, BOTFLY, BOVVER, BOWMAN, BOWMEN, BRAWNY, BREKKY, BRUMBY, BRUMMY, BRYONY, BUNCHY, BUZZED, BYWAYS, CAUDEX, CHAVVY, CHOCCY, CHUDDY, COCCUS, COWPOX, CRUDDY, CUPPAS, DHAMMA, DJINNS, DOVISH, DOZILY, EARWAX, EFFIGY, EXEQUY, EXURBS, FAFFED, FEZZED, FEZZES, FIBBED, FICKLY, FITCHY, FJORDS, FLICKY, FLOCKY, FLOOZY, FLOSSY, FLYMEN, FLYSCH, FOSSAS, FROGGY, FROWZY, FURPHY, FUTZED, FUZZED, GALAXY, GAWKED, GAWPED, GIZMOS, GLUMLY, GOGGAS, GRRRLS, GRYKES, GUTKHA, GYPPED, GYPPOS, GYPSUM, GYTTJA, HAJJIS, HALLUX, HALVAH, HALWAH, HAUGHS, HAWALA, HAZILY, HOOROO, HOWFFS, HOWZAT, HUMMUS, HURROO, JALOPY, JAMMED, JARRED, JAZZED, JIBBED, JIGGLY, JINXED, JINXES, JISSOM, JIVERS, JIVING, JOBBED, JOHNNY, JOOKED, JORUMS, JOTTED, JOUKED, JOWARS, JOWLED, JULEPS, JUMARS, JUNGLY, JUTTED, KABUKI, KAIKAI, KAIZEN, KAKURO, KANZUS, KEDGED, KEENLY, KIKOIS, KLUTZY, KONFYT, KOUROI, KUDZUS, KUKRIS, LARYNX, LEKKED, LEKKER, LOOKUP, LUXURY, LYNXES, MAJLIS, MAYFLY, MAZUMA, MEEKLY, MOULDY, MUKTUK, MYRRHY, NINJAS, NUBBLY, NUMBLY, NYAFFS, ODDITY, OUKLIP, PAZAZZ, PEBBLY, PIFFLE, PLEBBY, PLUMMY, PONZUS, POOJAS, POPPLY, PRAJNA, PUBBED, PUDDLY, PUFFED, PUKKAH, PUNANY, PUPPED, QIGONG, QUAGGY, QUIPUS, SCUDDY, SCUZZY, SHOJIS, SKANKY, SKEEVY, SKIFFS, SKINNY, SPAZAS, SPIVVY, SPODDY, SWAMPY, SWOONY, SWOTTY, SYNTHY, SYRUPY, SYZYGY, TAMPAX, TAZZAS, TUCUXI, TWANGY, TWEENY, TWIGGY, TWISTY, UBUNTU, UPKEEP, UPPITY, VAJRAS, VARVED, VERNIX, VROUWS, WABBIT, WAFFLY, WAMPUM, WAVILY, WAXERS, WAXIER, WAXILY, WAZZED, WAZZES, WHAMMO, WHAMMY, WHIFFY, WHIPPY, WIBBLY, WIFEYS, WILDLY, WOBBLY, XYLENE, XYSTUS, YAKUZA, YECCHY, YUCKED, YUKKED, ZAFFER, ZAFFRE, ZAFTIG, ZEBECS, ZIZZED, ZIZZES, ZLOTYS, ZOFTIG, ZOKORS, ZORROS, ZOUNDS, ZYDECO.
Again, some of these might not be real words any more. For example, Mark recently raised an apterous ticket saying that MYRRHY^ isn't in.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Cool thanks!
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Ask Graeme?
Somewhat vague question, feel free to formalize this however is convenient: if only letters rounds counted, how different would the seedings be in a typical series? I'm imagining counting wins and points for the letters rounds up to and including the first game each contestant would've lost (if any) without numbers and conundrums. (This is a bit artificial because you can discount points following games a contestant would've lost, but you can't say much about the impact of the player who actually lost but would've won. But hey.)
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:45 pm
- Location: West Bridgford
Re: Ask Graeme?
Have any contestants appeared in episodes hosted by all five presenters? If not who holds the record for appearing with the most presenters
Definitely not Jamie McNeill or Schrodinger's Cat....
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Ask Graeme?
I somehow doubt it. I can't even think of anyone who has done it with 4. Loads have done it with 3.James Laverty wrote:Have any contestants appeared in episodes hosted by all five presenters? If not who holds the record for appearing with the most presenters
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Ask Graeme?
I somehow doubt it. I can't even think of anyone who has done it with 4. Loads have done it with 3.James Laverty wrote:Have any contestants appeared in episodes hosted by all five presenters? If not who holds the record for appearing with the most presenters
-
- Series 66 Champion
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
- Location: Blackpool
Re: Ask Graeme?
Junaid Mubeen, Anita Freeland, Nick Wainwright, Conor Travers, Mark Tournoff, Andrew Hulme, Steven Briers, Kai Laddiman, Jon O'Neill, Chris Wills, Kirk Bevins and David O'Donnell are the ones I can think of who have appeared with three. Of those, only Junaid and Anita didn't appear in the 30BC.James Robinson wrote:I somehow doubt it. I can't even think of anyone who has done it with 4. Loads have done it with 3.James Laverty wrote:Have any contestants appeared in episodes hosted by all five presenters? If not who holds the record for appearing with the most presenters
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:45 pm
- Location: West Bridgford
Re: Ask Graeme?
Yeah I could think of loads with three. Thought Chris Wills had been on with four for some reason but I was mistakenJack Worsley wrote:Junaid Mubeen, Anita Freeland, Nick Wainwright, Conor Travers, Mark Tournoff, Andrew Hulme, Steven Briers, Kai Laddiman, Jon O'Neill, Chris Wills, Kirk Bevins and David O'Donnell are the ones I can think of who have appeared with three. Of those, only Junaid and Anita didn't appear in the 30BC.James Robinson wrote:I somehow doubt it. I can't even think of anyone who has done it with 4. Loads have done it with 3.James Laverty wrote:Have any contestants appeared in episodes hosted by all five presenters? If not who holds the record for appearing with the most presenters
Definitely not Jamie McNeill or Schrodinger's Cat....
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
For each game, I've recalculated who would have won based only on the letters rounds. If this results in a tie, the outcome of the original game is used. Then each player's run ignores any games they played after one they would have lost. From that I've worked out the number of wins and points each player has left. As you say, we can't answer the whole question, because although we can say that, for example, Mark Deeks would have lost his first game and Jack Worsley would have lost after three wins, we can't say how many games someone would have won after they actually lost. In other words, this recalculation can turn an octochamp into a zero-time winner, but someone who lost a game can only gain one win. For example, James Robinson would have beaten Patrick McCurdie in his third game, but I've only counted him as having three wins because we don't know how many he would have won afterwards. Also, for players who still have 8 wins only counting letters rounds, they might have faced different opponents so the outcomes of those games might have been different.Charlie Reams wrote:Somewhat vague question, feel free to formalize this however is convenient: if only letters rounds counted, how different would the seedings be in a typical series? I'm imagining counting wins and points for the letters rounds up to and including the first game each contestant would've lost (if any) without numbers and conundrums. (This is a bit artificial because you can discount points following games a contestant would've lost, but you can't say much about the impact of the player who actually lost but would've won. But hey.)
Ignoring all these caveats, let's look at some tables.
Code: Select all
Series 69
Dylan Taylor 8 613
Jen Steadman 8 597
Glen Webb 8 593
Bradley Cates 8 523
Alex Fish 8 484
Zarte Siempre 5 388
Abdirizak Hirsi 5 386
June Glasspell 5 307
Code: Select all
Series 68
Andy Platt 8 620
Giles Hutchings 8 609
Joe McGonigle 8 417
Jill Hayward 4 220
Chris Ball 3 223
Philip Jarvis 3 204
Peter Fenton 2 164
Stuart Scholes 2 145
Some other series, going back to series 59...
Code: Select all
Series 67
Paul James 8 572
David Barnard 8 537
Tia Corkish 8 505
Liam Shaw 7 490
Chris Marshall 5 342
Heather Styles 4 325
Philip Jackson 4 298
Sohail Virdi 4 288
Series 66
Peter Lee 8 572
Jonathan Rawlinson 8 565
Suzi Purcell 8 470
Victoria James 6 402
Mark Murphy 5 324
Alison Shipman 5 323
Rob Gibney 4 315
Ben Nicholson 4 254
Series 65
Graeme Cole 8 568
Paul Keane 8 495
Dave Taylor 8 489
Matt Croy 6 413
Carl Williams 4 321
Nikki Roberts 4 276
Jon Elmer 4 241
Jayne Wisniewski 3 261
Series 64
Adam Gillard 8 612
Edward McCullagh 8 602
Tom Barnes 8 586
Andy McGurn 8 505
Mary Adie 5 367
Andrew McNamara 5 325
Michelle Nevitt 4 309
Mike Pickering 3 217
Series 63
Jack Hurst 8 655
Eoin Monaghan 8 609
Daniel Pati 8 589
Marcus Hares 8 572
Scott Gillies 8 555
Tom Rowell 8 532
Peter Godwin 7 510
Michael Chadwick 7 481
Series 62
Peter Zyss 7 463
Lee Graham 7 458
Danny Pledger 7 448
Claudia Tyson 6 414
Dominic Travers 5 360
Raheel Mirza 5 347
James Rawson 4 338
Kevin Davis 4 312
Series 61
Andrew Hulme 8 646
Chris Davies 8 626
Innis Carson 8 598
Ryan Taylor 8 557
Jeffrey Burgin 8 517
Jacqueline Baker 5 355
Bob De Caux 5 355
Tom Allerton 4 296
Series 60
Kirk Bevins 8 644
Jimmy Gough 8 578
Shane Roberts 8 531
Neil Zussman 8 529
Stephen Porritt 4 234
Julie Russell 3 240
Kate Richardson 3 210
James Robinson 3 195
Series 59
Charlie Reams 8 579
Martin Bishop 8 566
Debbi Flack 6 417
Denis Kaye 3 227
John Matthews 3 221
Tony Gilgun 3 208
Samira Mohamed 3 177
Mike Lambert 2 206
Last edited by Graeme Cole on Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Junaid Mubeen, Andrew Hulme, Chris Wills, Kirk Bevins, Mark Tournoff, Jon O'Neill, Conor Travers, Steven Briers, Anita Freeland, Nick Wainwright, David O'Donnell and Kai Laddiman have all appeared alongside three different presenters, which is the record. (Edit: just realised that Jack already answered this, and completely correctly.)James Laverty wrote:Have any contestants appeared in episodes hosted by all five presenters? If not who holds the record for appearing with the most presenters
Five people have appeared in Dictionary Corner with all five presenters: Susie Dent, Ken Bruce, Jo Brand, Pam Ayres and Paul Zenon. Surprisingly enough, Gyles Brandreth isn't among them - he never appeared with Des Lynam.
-
- Series 66 Champion
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
- Location: Blackpool
Re: Ask Graeme?
What evidence is there (if any) to suggest that having the letters pick gives you an advantage for the round?
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Almost none.Jack Worsley wrote:What evidence is there (if any) to suggest that having the letters pick gives you an advantage for the round?
Up to the end of series 69 there have been 1,730 letters rounds in the new 15-round format.
I ran one query to find out how many of those times the player who picked the letters maxed the round. The answer was 667.
I ran another query to find out how many times the player who didn't pick the letters maxed the round. The answer was 667 again, so I assumed I'd made a mistake somewhere, or was accidentally running the first query twice, or something like that.
I pondered and rewrote the queries several times before realising this was actually the right answer. In new 15 rounders up to the end of 2013, the number of letters rounds maxed by the picker, and the number maxed by the non-picker, were exactly equal.
For old 15 rounders, even though there's far more data, there isn't much difference. Of the 28,677 letters rounds under this format, the picker maxed 10,253 and the non-picker maxed 9,980. So the picker is less than one percentage point more likely to max the round than the non-picker. Even this tiny difference could be partly explained by the fact that in the Old 15 the player in the champion's chair was more likely to be the letters picker (picking six letters rounds to the challenger's five), and because it's the champion's chair that person is more likely to be the stronger player.
Note that before the introduction of the ODE2r, our information about the maxes isn't quite right. If we ignore everything before then, the figures for the old 15 rounder are 6217/17193 for the picker and 5986/17193 for the non-picker.
Perhaps there's only an advantage in picking the letters if you're a stronger player? What if we look at the 30th Birthday Championship? Still nothing much. Of the 440 letters rounds in the 30th Birthday Championship, the picker maxed 298 and the non-picker maxed 294. Still less than one percentage point difference.
If you think about it, this seems reasonable. The picker has to pick at least three vowels and at least four consonants, so they only have any control over two of the nine letters. Picking the letters is only going to be an advantage on the rare occasion where you fish for a particular letter for an obscure word and get it (and your opponent doesn't spot it), or if you've spent time learning some of the high-probability five-vowel words.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Ask Graeme?
CRacking cole.
Re: Ask Graeme?
I'm pretty certain that for higher quality letters players there should be a small difference in percentage, something around 0.5% to 1.5%. Though looking at information from the show wont help with proving or disproving that because:
A) The standard of letters on the show isn't high enough
B) You'd need shitloads of data to convince yourself of the existence of such a small difference.
For each of the current top 10 letters player on apterous, it would be cool to see their percentage maxes on their own pick vs on their opponents pick, for say their last 10000 letters rounds.
Also, percentage maxes is only one way of looking at things. What about beaters? For example, take two very good players who have played a lot on apterous (i.e Innis and James N) and look at their letters games. Then see what percentage of the time each player gets a beater on their own pick vs on their opponents pick.
A) The standard of letters on the show isn't high enough
B) You'd need shitloads of data to convince yourself of the existence of such a small difference.
For each of the current top 10 letters player on apterous, it would be cool to see their percentage maxes on their own pick vs on their opponents pick, for say their last 10000 letters rounds.
Also, percentage maxes is only one way of looking at things. What about beaters? For example, take two very good players who have played a lot on apterous (i.e Innis and James N) and look at their letters games. Then see what percentage of the time each player gets a beater on their own pick vs on their opponents pick.
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Ask Graeme?
I'd assumed that the questioner was asking whether the picker has a better chance of winning the round, not maxing it.
Intuitively, I'd expect the player declaring second to have the advantage in a letters round, this effect possibly swamping any minuscule advantage gained from being the picker. Is the information there to look at that? I'm not sure whether all the presenters - Des O'Connor in particular - were entirely consistent in their approaches.
Intuitively, I'd expect the player declaring second to have the advantage in a letters round, this effect possibly swamping any minuscule advantage gained from being the picker. Is the information there to look at that? I'm not sure whether all the presenters - Des O'Connor in particular - were entirely consistent in their approaches.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
I checked that as well, but the results were mostly the same. In the new 15-rounders up to the end of last series, 480 of the 1,370 letters rounds were won by the picker and 477 were won by the non-picker. Of the 28677 old 15-rounder letters rounds, 7329 were won by the picker and 7241 were won by the non-picker. In the 30th Birthday Championship, the difference is (a little bit) more pronounced: in 440 letters rounds, the picker won 75 and the non-picker won 65.Clive Brooker wrote:I'd assumed that the questioner was asking whether the picker has a better chance of winning the round, not maxing it.
I expect the effect would be quite small. The main advantage I can think of is the case where, for example, you've got a safe seven and a risky eight, and your opponent declares six, so you declare your seven and your eight wasn't valid.Clive Brooker wrote:Intuitively, I'd expect the player declaring second to have the advantage in a letters round, this effect possibly swamping any minuscule advantage gained from being the picker. Is the information there to look at that? I'm not sure whether all the presenters - Des O'Connor in particular - were entirely consistent in their approaches.
The database doesn't know who declared their word first. I know Jeff always asked the non-picker to declare first, and Nick asks the picker first, but I don't remember if the other presenters were as consistent.
-
- Series 66 Champion
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
- Location: Blackpool
Re: Ask Graeme?
Cheers Graeme, that's quite astonishing! I wasn't expecting much of a difference but would have expected the picker to have a slight advantage.
Clive - I didn't have any method in mind so I'm happy with both maxes and winning declarations.
Nick asks the picker first while Jeff normally asked the non-picker. While I'm not 100% sure about the other three, I've seen a few youtube videos and I get the impression that Richard and Des OC asked the picker first and Des L asked the non-picker. Would it be possible to find data for just episodes presented by Des L and Jeff? If the extra letters pick for the champion affects the data too much, maybe we can exclude the last letters round for the old 15 or something. Thanks.
Clive - I didn't have any method in mind so I'm happy with both maxes and winning declarations.
Nick asks the picker first while Jeff normally asked the non-picker. While I'm not 100% sure about the other three, I've seen a few youtube videos and I get the impression that Richard and Des OC asked the picker first and Des L asked the non-picker. Would it be possible to find data for just episodes presented by Des L and Jeff? If the extra letters pick for the champion affects the data too much, maybe we can exclude the last letters round for the old 15 or something. Thanks.
Re: Ask Graeme?
It would be valid to brush over this fact as unimportant based on the tiny sample size, but to brush it aside as an insignificant margin (which I get the impression you have) is ridiculous! That gap is by no means insignificant in a game of such fine margins.Graeme Cole wrote:In the 30th Birthday Championship, the difference is (a little bit) more pronounced: in 440 letters rounds, the picker won 75 and the non-picker won 65.
I get the feeling the general response to Graeme's analysis here is that it proves there is no worth while advantage in picking the letters. I am not convinced by this at all yet. A deeper analysis on a larger data set (such as the data made available from apterous) which gives the same verdict would be required to convince me.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Though it's a tiny sample I'd be interested to see if Jonathan Rawlinson's tactic of always picking 5 vowels conferred any advantage ( as defined above). 5 vowels seems like an area where a regular practicer could gain a small advantage over the general population
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Looking at this, in 140 trials the probability of getting 75 or more when there is a 50% chance each time is over 22%, so it's not particularly statistically significant. Even less so when you do a two-tailed test, which you should be doing anyway because you could argue that not picking the letters gives you more time to find words. So while the ratio 75:65 is quite big if it's statistically significant, it's not in this case.JackHurst wrote:It would be valid to brush over this fact as unimportant based on the tiny sample size, but to brush it aside as an insignificant margin (which I get the impression you have) is ridiculous! That gap is by no means insignificant in a game of such fine margins.Graeme Cole wrote:In the 30th Birthday Championship, the difference is (a little bit) more pronounced: in 440 letters rounds, the picker won 75 and the non-picker won 65.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
What's the average number of maxes per game that the studio gets collectively? Any words or numbers declarations outside the time count, and also it can be said that the studio got the conundrum. So basically what's 15 minus the number of rounds with beaters available?
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
It did for me in one round in the match I played.Jack Worsley wrote:What evidence is there (if any) to suggest that having the letters pick gives you an advantage for the round?
The first 8 letters I picked were U I A F D S O G. I realised that if an E came up I would have the word GAUDIES. I asked for a vowel in the hope that an E would be selected, and that's what happened.
Re: Ask Graeme?
Great story bro. I wish I had the skillz to pull that off.Martin Thompson wrote:It did for me in one round in the match I played.Jack Worsley wrote:What evidence is there (if any) to suggest that having the letters pick gives you an advantage for the round?
The first 8 letters I picked were U I A F D S O G. I realised that if an E came up I would have the word GAUDIES. I asked for a vowel in the hope that an E would be selected, and that's what happened.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Ask Graeme?
It's not an advantage if your opponent spots it too though. It's the whole reason countdown is better than scrabble. You can be the best scrabble player in the world but if you're getting shitty tiles compared to you're opponent you wont win. Countdown is a level playing field with both players playing off the same 9 letters.Martin Thompson wrote:It did for me in one round in the match I played.Jack Worsley wrote:What evidence is there (if any) to suggest that having the letters pick gives you an advantage for the round?
The first 8 letters I picked were U I A F D S O G. I realised that if an E came up I would have the word GAUDIES. I asked for a vowel in the hope that an E would be selected, and that's what happened.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Scrabble tiles 'luck' evens in no time at all, so that's irrelevant, surely?
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Ask Graeme?
It's not at all unlikely to not see Q, Z and X in a Scrabble game for two or three games in a row, and anyway, the point is that luck isn't much of a factor in CD, whereas it can greatly affect a game of Scrabble. Whether it evens out is moot.Dave Preece wrote:Scrabble tiles 'luck' evens in no time at all, so that's irrelevant, surely?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:26 am
Re: Ask Graeme?
When Mark beat Bobby last week, Bobby got two nines and still lost.
Obviously we all remember Jack Hurst losing with two nines in the 30th birthday final.
Have any other players lost a game where they scored two nine letter words?
Obviously we all remember Jack Hurst losing with two nines in the 30th birthday final.
Have any other players lost a game where they scored two nine letter words?
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Ask Graeme?
I beat Abdi and we both got two nines.
- Bradley Cates
- Acolyte
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:47 pm
- Location: Southport
- Contact:
Re: Ask Graeme?
And Glen Webb had two nines when he lost to Callum. I would assume there'll be a few more, particularly in the 30th Birthday Championship.Mark James wrote:I beat Abdi and we both got two nines.
Sfumato soup
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Ask Graeme?
There was also Ross Mackenzie, who got TOTALISES and HERALDING, but Chris Davies got those in his 139.Bradley Cates wrote:And Glen Webb had two nines when he lost to Callum. I would assume there'll be a few more, particularly in the 30th Birthday Championship.Mark James wrote:I beat Abdi and we both got two nines.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Ask Graeme?
Plus Terry Rattle when he lost to Chris Wills in Series 47.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
What a coincidence. So did Ross win his game?James Robinson wrote:There was also Ross Mackenzie, who got TOTALISES and HERALDING, but Chris Davies got those in his 139.Bradley Cates wrote:And Glen Webb had two nines when he lost to Callum. I would assume there'll be a few more, particularly in the 30th Birthday Championship.Mark James wrote:I beat Abdi and we both got two nines.
Re: Ask Graeme?
So basically it happens pretty much every single game.
- Johnny Canuck
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
- Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃
Re: Ask Graeme?
Jon Corby wrote:So basically it happens pretty much every single game.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
He doesn't mean single games as in people playing on their own, because it would be impossible in that case, if that was your concern.Johnny Canuck wrote:Jon Corby wrote:So basically it happens pretty much every single game.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
I'll have to pass on this for now, as I've just settled down to answer this question and realised that my database doesn't record which words DC got.Gavin Chipper wrote:What's the average number of maxes per game that the studio gets collectively? Any words or numbers declarations outside the time count, and also it can be said that the studio got the conundrum. So basically what's 15 minus the number of rounds with beaters available?
Nine players including Jack Hurst, up to the end of series 69. The full list is Terry Rattle, Matthew Shore, Micheal Harris, Ross Mackenzie, Lesley Hines, Chris Davies, Jack Hurst, Abdirizak Hirsi and Glen Webb.Jon Stitcher wrote:When Mark beat Bobby last week, Bobby got two nines and still lost.
Obviously we all remember Jack Hurst losing with two nines in the 30th birthday final.
Have any other players lost a game where they scored two nine letter words?
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Ask Graeme?
Was PREFUCK really valid back then?Graeme Cole wrote:Lesley Hines
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
Re: Ask Graeme?
In seedings, are these still decided by number of wins then number of points?
If 2 players have the same aggregate score and number of wins, would the higher finisher still be the one who has the higher individual score in a heat game and if both players were then still matched, would it then boil down to 2nd highest, 3rd highest individual score etc to determine who finishes higher?
Under the 15 round format, does anyone know what the closest points difference has been between 8th and 9th seed? I've always thought the idea of having an 8 vs 9 play off sounds nice but isn't really fair for the 8th seed if they have a higher points total.
Whilst the chances of it happening are unlikely, if 2 players had the same number of wins and aggregate score plus the same highest individual score and the 8th seeding place in the finals was at stake, I think it would be brilliant to see a play off/special game on the final heat game of the series to determine the 8th seed and the winner plays straight afterwards in the 1st QF.
If 2 players have the same aggregate score and number of wins, would the higher finisher still be the one who has the higher individual score in a heat game and if both players were then still matched, would it then boil down to 2nd highest, 3rd highest individual score etc to determine who finishes higher?
Under the 15 round format, does anyone know what the closest points difference has been between 8th and 9th seed? I've always thought the idea of having an 8 vs 9 play off sounds nice but isn't really fair for the 8th seed if they have a higher points total.
Whilst the chances of it happening are unlikely, if 2 players had the same number of wins and aggregate score plus the same highest individual score and the 8th seeding place in the finals was at stake, I think it would be brilliant to see a play off/special game on the final heat game of the series to determine the 8th seed and the winner plays straight afterwards in the 1st QF.
Probably the second tallest ever series finalist.
Re: Ask Graeme?
In seedings, are these still decided by number of wins then number of points?
If 2 players have the same aggregate score and number of wins, would the higher finisher still be the one who has the higher individual score in a heat game and if both players were then still matched, would it then boil down to 2nd highest, 3rd highest individual score etc to determine who finishes higher?
Under the 15 round format, does anyone know what the closest points difference has been between 8th and 9th seed? I've always thought the idea of having an 8 vs 9 play off sounds nice but isn't really fair for the 8th seed if they have a higher points total.
Whilst the chances of it happening are unlikely, if 2 players had the same number of wins and aggregate score plus the same highest individual score and the 8th seeding place in the finals was at stake, I think it would be brilliant to see a play off/special game on the final heat game of the series to determine the 8th seed and the winner plays straight afterwards in the 1st QF.
If 2 players have the same aggregate score and number of wins, would the higher finisher still be the one who has the higher individual score in a heat game and if both players were then still matched, would it then boil down to 2nd highest, 3rd highest individual score etc to determine who finishes higher?
Under the 15 round format, does anyone know what the closest points difference has been between 8th and 9th seed? I've always thought the idea of having an 8 vs 9 play off sounds nice but isn't really fair for the 8th seed if they have a higher points total.
Whilst the chances of it happening are unlikely, if 2 players had the same number of wins and aggregate score plus the same highest individual score and the 8th seeding place in the finals was at stake, I think it would be brilliant to see a play off/special game on the final heat game of the series to determine the 8th seed and the winner plays straight afterwards in the 1st QF.
Probably the second tallest ever series finalist.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Since Series 64, players are sorted by number of wins then by number of points. Points from both wins and losses count. Points from sudden death conundrums aren't counted, and players with the same number of wins and points are sorted by the number of conundrums correctly guessed, then highest individual score.Tom wrote:In seedings, are these still decided by number of wins then number of points?
If 2 players have the same aggregate score and number of wins, would the higher finisher still be the one who has the higher individual score in a heat game and if both players were then still matched, would it then boil down to 2nd highest, 3rd highest individual score etc to determine who finishes higher?
Under the 15 round format, does anyone know what the closest points difference has been between 8th and 9th seed? I've always thought the idea of having an 8 vs 9 play off sounds nice but isn't really fair for the 8th seed if they have a higher points total.
Whilst the chances of it happening are unlikely, if 2 players had the same number of wins and aggregate score plus the same highest individual score and the 8th seeding place in the finals was at stake, I think it would be brilliant to see a play off/special game on the final heat game of the series to determine the 8th seed and the winner plays straight afterwards in the 1st QF.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
I don't remember this being asked - what are the most commonly offered words ever on Countdown? Like top 50 or something.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Yes.Tom wrote:In seedings, are these still decided by number of wins then number of points?
Countdown Team would know the answer to this better than me, but last time I enquired about it (which was 2011), it was that if two players are level on wins and points, the player with the most conundrums solved gets the higher spot. After that I presume it's whoever got the highest score in an individual game, and I don't know how they do it after that.Tom wrote:If 2 players have the same aggregate score and number of wins, would the higher finisher still be the one who has the higher individual score in a heat game and if both players were then still matched, would it then boil down to 2nd highest, 3rd highest individual score etc to determine who finishes higher?
The rules that determine the seedings have changed over the years, but as far as I can tell there were a few cases where the 8th and 9th seeds were particuarly close.Tom wrote:Under the 15 round format, does anyone know what the closest points difference has been between 8th and 9th seed? I've always thought the idea of having an 8 vs 9 play off sounds nice but isn't really fair for the 8th seed if they have a higher points total.
In Series 63, Michael Chadwick beat Peter Godwin to the #8 spot by one point. However, it turned out that Michael Chadwick didn't turn up for the finals, even though he was practising on apterous just a couple of days before the finals were filmed. I seem to remember he had to fly off to Singapore at short notice. So Peter Godwin was promoted to #8 seed.
In either of the two 15 round formats, the closest gap between #8 and #9 seed was in Series 61, when Jacqueline Baker beat Bob de Caux to the last finals place by 5 points.
If you go back a bit further to the 9 round game, you can find even closer cases. In Series 27, #8 seed Pierre Sandrini had one more point than #9 seed Lorraine Tomlinson.
I believe there is (or at least was) a whole list of criteria to separate contestants who have the same number of wins and points, so they wouldn't have to resort to a play-off. I have a dim memory of Richard Whiteley talking in detail about the seed order rules in one show, and I seem to remember that "fastest conundrum time" was one of the things used to break a tie if other things fail. This was about 500 years ago though.Tom wrote:Whilst the chances of it happening are unlikely, if 2 players had the same number of wins and aggregate score plus the same highest individual score and the 8th seeding place in the finals was at stake, I think it would be brilliant to see a play off/special game on the final heat game of the series to determine the 8th seed and the winner plays straight afterwards in the 1st QF.
What if the tie for 8th place only manifested itself in the last preliminary of the series? They can't suddenly put in an extra show.
That said, a play-off for 8th seed has happened before. In Series 23, Fiona Davies was unable to attend the finals, so she was put in a special play-off game the following series with that series' 8th seed, Maureen Grabham. Davies won, and went on to become the series runner up. Incidentally, the player who replaced Fiona Davies in series 23 was a certain Glen Webb.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
The "since series 64" bit appears to be incorrect - the decider after wins and points has been number of conundrum solves since at least series 60, when Cate Henderson and Jimmy Gough were separated in this way (also see this post).
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
William G Stewart used to talk about play-offs that had happened untelevised when there was a tie for 15th in the 15 to 1 grand final leaderboard. I don't think an ad hoc televisation would probably be the best idea.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Words sorted by the number of times they have been validly offered up to the end of series 69...Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't remember this being asked - what are the most commonly offered words ever on Countdown? Like top 50 or something.
Code: Select all
1. RATION 126
2. TRAINED 125
3. TRAILED 107
4. RATIONS 102
5. ROASTED 96
6. POINTED 92
7. PAINTED 90
8. LOITERS 78
9. PANTIES 77
10. COATED 76
11. COASTED 68
12. DONATES 67
13. GLOATED 66
13. SOLDIER 66
13. STAGED 66
16. FLOATED 63
16. ORANGES 63
16. WAITER 63
19. PAINTER 62
19. RELATION 62
21. BOASTED 61
21. MOISTER 61
21. REASON 61
24. STONED 60
25. FLOATER 58
25. GORIEST 58
25. STRAINED 58
28. GOITRE 57
28. LOITER 57
28. PRAISED 57
28. RADIOS 57
32. POINTER 56
33. DREAMS 55
33. POSTAGE 55
35. ELATION 54
35. MOANERS 54
35. PLAITED 54
35. POLITE 54
39. COASTER 53
39. LOANERS 53
39. MOIST 53
39. RATIOS 53
43. IMAGES 52
44. FASTEN 51
44. STAINED 51
46. FAINTED 50
46. TOILED 50
46. WAITED 50
49. POUTED 49
50. FOISTED 48
50. PARTIED 48
50. WAITERS 48
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Nope, the thing used between Series 39 and 63 applies to 60; Gough had a score of 116, Henderson had 113.Graeme Cole wrote:The "since series 64" bit appears to be incorrect - the decider after wins and points has been number of conundrum solves since at least series 60, when Cate Henderson and Jimmy Gough were separated in this way (also see this post).
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
So why was Cate put above Jimmy then?Rhys Benjamin wrote:Nope, the thing used between Series 39 and 63 applies to 60; Gough had a score of 116, Henderson had 113.Graeme Cole wrote:The "since series 64" bit appears to be incorrect - the decider after wins and points has been number of conundrum solves since at least series 60, when Cate Henderson and Jimmy Gough were separated in this way (also see this post).
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Thanks for that, Graeme. No LEOTARD then!Graeme Cole wrote:Words sorted by the number of times they have been validly offered up to the end of series 69...Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't remember this being asked - what are the most commonly offered words ever on Countdown? Like top 50 or something.
Code: Select all
1. RATION 126 2. TRAINED 125 3. TRAILED 107 4. RATIONS 102 5. ROASTED 96 6. POINTED 92 7. PAINTED 90 8. LOITERS 78 9. PANTIES 77 10. COATED 76 11. COASTED 68 12. DONATES 67 13. GLOATED 66 13. SOLDIER 66 13. STAGED 66 16. FLOATED 63 16. ORANGES 63 16. WAITER 63 19. PAINTER 62 19. RELATION 62 21. BOASTED 61 21. MOISTER 61 21. REASON 61 24. STONED 60 25. FLOATER 58 25. GORIEST 58 25. STRAINED 58 28. GOITRE 57 28. LOITER 57 28. PRAISED 57 28. RADIOS 57 32. POINTER 56 33. DREAMS 55 33. POSTAGE 55 35. ELATION 54 35. MOANERS 54 35. PLAITED 54 35. POLITE 54 39. COASTER 53 39. LOANERS 53 39. MOIST 53 39. RATIOS 53 43. IMAGES 52 44. FASTEN 51 44. STAINED 51 46. FAINTED 50 46. TOILED 50 46. WAITED 50 49. POUTED 49 50. FOISTED 48 50. PARTIED 48 50. WAITERS 48
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:45 pm
- Location: West Bridgford
Re: Ask Graeme?
Going on from this point, how often have finalists qualified for the finals but not taken part? Can remember it happening for Rachel Moran in S68 and who ever it was for Michelle to sneak in S64 but I'm guessing it's happened a few more times over the yearsIn Series 63, Michael Chadwick beat Peter Godwin to the #8 spot by one point. However, it turned out that Michael Chadwick didn't turn up for the finals, even though he was practising on apterous just a couple of days before the finals were filmed. I seem to remember he had to fly off to Singapore at short notice. So Peter Godwin was promoted to #8 seed.
Definitely not Jamie McNeill or Schrodinger's Cat....
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Ask Graeme?
Mark Deeks wrote:Was PREFUCK really valid back then?Graeme Cole wrote:Lesley Hines
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
I don't have an ODE2r, so I can only assume so.Mark Deeks wrote:Mark Deeks wrote:Was PREFUCK really valid back then?Graeme Cole wrote:Lesley Hines