Series 78 Finals Predictions (Contains Spoilers!)

[Ryan Lam]

So, with just three Preliminaries of Series 78 yet to air as of the time of writing, we now know who are the final eight and here they are:

Quarter-Finals #1 (14 June): Zarte Siempre (#1 Seed) vs Jan Pask (#8 Seed)
Quarter-Finals #2 (15 June): Toby McDonald (#2 Seed) vs Philip Aston (#7 Seed)
Quarter-Finals #3 (18 June): Chris Thorn (#3 Seed) vs Dougie Mackay (#6 Seed)
Quarter-Finals #4 (19 June): Phil Davies (#4 Seed) vs Paul Harper (#5 Seed)

Now, this Series has been exceptional IMO, because unlike Series 77 where we can pretty much tell who will win each match, this one is much more tricky because if Philip had not been defeated by Zarte, he probably would've gone on to become an Octochamp, so his actual potential isn't reflected here. If Dougie had not lost to Mac Walker, he would've been #3 Seed with 769 Points. Thus, the outcome of each match could vary.

The only one I'm very certain of is Zarte will thrash Jan by a lot (Maybe by 50 Points), Second is Phil will probably edge Paul by about 10-20 Points. The third QF is tricky because if Chris uses his 6 small tactic it may pull off, but if it doesn't it may prove fatal here. The most uncertain one is of course, QF #2 with Toby and Philip, two very strong Apterites facing each other. I have a gut feeling it may end in a Crucial Conundrum. Philip will win at speed but of course accuracy counts here as well!

We've been waiting for this to come since 13 and 14 March when they were recorded. Stay tuned to find out the outcome as we wish them all the best!

Also, based on Series 75 Champion Martin's game of playing getting points if you predicted correctly who would win before the show aired, perhaps you guys would like it as well? Let me know! If it goes ahead, maybe we shouldn't impose an algorithm this time so that it'll be less restrictive.

(P.S. The poll will close on the day the Grand Final airs, so if you happen to be reading this in the near future, apologies but you will not be able to cast since the result is known.)

[Zarte Siempre]

Dougie lost to Mac, not George.

[Ryan Lam]

Dougie lost to Mac, not George.

Thanks Zarte, I have corrected it. Sorry I wasn't referencing the Wiki for this part, and best of luck when you're against Jan!

[Tom S]

Also, based on Series 75 Champion Martin's game of playing getting points if you predicted correctly who would win before the show aired, perhaps you guys would like it as well? Let me know! If it goes ahead, maybe we shouldn't impose an algorithm this time so that it'll be less restrictive.

Do you have guidelines for these scores?

[Zarte Siempre]

Dougie lost to Mac, not George.

Thanks Zarte, I have corrected it. Sorry I wasn't referencing the Wiki for this part, and best of luck when you're against Jan!

Gracias!

[Gavin Chipper]

Also, based on Series 75 Champion Martin's game of playing getting points if you predicted correctly who would win before the show aired, perhaps you guys would like it as well? Let me know! If it goes ahead, maybe we shouldn't impose an algorithm this time so that it'll be less restrictive.

Go for it.

[Tom S]

Thinking about it Ryan can do margins afterwards.
Zarte V Jan- A game of 2 great personalities, but Zarte trumps in all areas and will win by about 50-70 pts.
Toby v Philip- Think if Philip had not come across Zarte, then he would be above Toby in the odds. Toby is a great player, but think Philip will give a close game, and ultimately potentially triumphing on a crucial to cause a seeding upset. Philip to win by about 5-20 pts. Could go Toby's way though...
Chris v Dougie-2 players of a very similar ability and are both of a good standard. Personally am going to go for a win for Dougie as think his numbers are just ever so slightly more solid than Chris- think it could go to a crucial though. Dougie to win by 5-20 pts.
Phil v Paul- Paul has had some good letters spots, but his numbers are just too weak to be competitive with Phil who has that overall consistency. Phil to win by 15-25 pts.

QF:
Zarte v Phil- Zarte triumphs again in all areas, but not to discredit Phil's ability. Zarte to win by 30-40 pts.
Dougie v Philip- Philip to cause another seeding upset as he triumphs over Dougie with a win by about 25-35 pts.

Final:
Zarte v Philip- Zarte to win in the rematch by about 20-35 pts. Philip to put up a very good fight though...

[Tom S]

I take it everyone was present though....

[Zarte Siempre]

I take it everyone was present though....

They were.

[Tom S]

I take it everyone was present though....

They were.

Ta

[Owen Carroll]

Define everyone. You mean all 8 of the finalists?

[Mark Deeks]

What about Nicholas Parsons, was he there? Maria Sharapova? Colin Montgomerie?

[Tom S]

Some finalist analysis:
Jan Pask
Wins: 5
Points:473
Seed:8
Total Maximums: 21 /90 (23%)

Letters Maximums:10 /60 (17%)
Badged Words:(7+ length maxes not previously submitted as a max by a contestant on Countdown before at time of broadcast):1
Medalled Words: (7+ length maxes not previously submitted as a max by a contestant or DC on CD before at time of broadcast):N/A
Badged Words: Abortive
Medalled Words: N/A

Numbers Maximums: 9/24 (37.5%)
0L: N/A
1L:2/7 (29%)
2L: 7 /18 (39%)
3L:N/A
4L:N/A

Conundrum Maximums:2/6 (33%)
Conundrum Record: 2 Won, 1 Lost, 4 Unsolved.

So, could be better..... But nice to see a female back in the final again, and though she will not prove competition to Zarte imo,there will be some good rapport throughout I think....

[Tom S]

Philip Aston:

Wins: 6
Points: 760
Seed:7
Total Maximums: 67 /105 (64%)

Letters Maximums: 42 /70 (60%)
Badged Words:8
Medalled Words:6
Badged Words: Priorates, Denarii, Sudsier, Stumpier, Versional, Adulters, Palisade, Eurolands.
Medalled Words: Earlobe, Inexpert, Miniator, Romaunt, Duettino, Peaiman.
(Demonstrates Philip's fabulous word knowledge)

Numbers Maximums: 20 /28 (71%)
0L:2/5 (40%)
1L: 5 /6 (83%)
2L: 2/4 (50%)
3L:10/11 (91%)
4L:1/2 (50%)

Conundrum Wins:5
Conundrum Record: 5 Wins, 1 Lost, 1 Unsolved.
A fab showing throughout for Philip, very unlucky to be drawn against Zarte....

[Tom S]

Dougie Mackay

Wins:7
Points:759
Seed:6
Total Maximums: 50/120 (42%)

Letters Maximums: 30/80 (37.5%)
Badged Words: 2
Medalled Words: 1
Badged Words: Spongers, Narrowed
Medalled Words: Snuggled

Numbers Maximums: 18/32 (56%)
0L:1/1 (100%)
1L: 14/22 (64%)
2L: 3/5 (60%)
3L: 1/2 (50%)
4L:0/2

Conundrum Wins:3
Conundrum Record: 3 Wins, 3 Losses, 2 Unsolved
So Dougie seems to have more consistency in the numbers, but for a Non-Apterite, he is not a bad player and in comparison to last years semi-finalists, he is above Michael Pfeffer, James Kennedy and Graeme Staples who were all good players, think the letters percentage comes across as a bit low and slightly surprising in my view, but it will be a good QF game v him and Chris.

[Tom S]

Paul Harper:

Wins:8
Points:739
Seed: 5
Total Maximums: 43/120 (36%)

Letters Maximums:29 /80 (36%)
Badged Words: 1
Medalled Words: N/A
Badged Words: Transpire
Medalled Words: N/A

Numbers Maximums: 11/32 (34%)
0L: 2/3 (67%)
1L: 8/24 (33%)
2L: 1/4 (25%)
3L: 0/1
4L:0/1

Conundrum Wins: 7
Conundrum Records: 7 Wins, 0 Losses, 1 Unsolved.

Some features ought to be stronger here if Paul is to further his success in the competition, but he should take pride in the fact that he has the best conundrum accuracy of all the finalists...

[Tom S]

Phil Davies:

Wins:8
Points:757
Seed:4
Total Maximums: 50/120 (42%)

Letters Maximums: 26 /80 (32.5%)
Badged Words: 1
Medalled Words: 1
Badged Words: Pouncers
Medalled Words:Frumpiest

Numbers Maximums: 20 /32 (62.5%)
0L: 1/4 (25%)
1L: 10/16 (62.5%)
2L: 8/10 (89%)
3L: 1/2 (50%)
4L: N/A

Conundrum Wins: 4
Conundrum Records: 4 Wins, 1 Loss, 3 Unsolved.

Some nice nums stats there for Phil- particularly his 2 larges, but from here looks as if his letters need improving. Nevertheless, he has similar stats to Paul, so another close contest is on the cards I think!

[Tom S]

Chris Thorn

Wins: 8
Points: 760
Seed:3
Total Maximums:47/120 (39%)

Letters Maximums: 24/80 (30%)
Badged Words: 1
Medalled Words:2
Badged Words:Relocates
Medalled Words:Resolving, Gelding.

Numbers Maximums: 18/32 (56%)
0L: 3/9 (33%)
1L: 14/17 (82%)
2L: 0/1
3L: N/A
4L: 1/1 (100%)

Conundrum Wins: 5
Conundrum Record: 5 Wins, 1 Loss, 2 Unsolved

Some very interesting stats here- suffice to say, as mentioned before, there will be a good game in his QF!

[Owen Carroll]

What about Nicholas Parsons, was he there? Maria Sharapova? Colin Montgomerie?

Nope nine of them. Was that a joke?

[Owen Carroll]

What about Nicholas Parsons, was he there? Maria Sharapova? Colin Montgomerie?

Nope nine of them. Was that a joke?

I mean none of them

[Tom S]

Toby McDonald:

Wins:8
Points:882
Seed:2
Total Maximums: 74/120 (62%)

Letters Maximums: 40/80 (50%)
Badges: 5
Medals: 9
Badged Words: Epigone, Earplug, Unrailed, Haurient, Forearm
Medalled Words: Matronise, Ariosos, Adamites, Melanous, Carnivore, Surtitle, Raioids, Maroudis, Dualize
WOOOOW!

Numbers Maximums:28/32 (87.5%)
0L: N/A
1L:25/26 (96%)
2L:3/4 (75%)
3L: N/A
4L: 0/1

Conundrum Wins:6
Conundrum Record: 6 Wins, 0 Losses, 2 Unsolved.

A great word knowledge and a super showing on the numbers- Toby and Philip will be tough competition for each other!

[Tom S]

What about Nicholas Parsons, was he there? Maria Sharapova? Colin Montgomerie?

Nope nine of them. Was that a joke?

I mean none of them

Yup

[Tom S]

And finally Zarte Siempre....

Wins:8
Points:967
Seed: 1
Total Maximums: 90/120 (75%)

Letters Maximums: 56/80 (70%)
Badges:8
Medals:5
Badged Words: Pikeman, Unloaders, Ratified, Supinated, Antiserum, Upfield, Megavolt, Rumbaed
Medalled Words:Malefit, Railages, Unaligned, Unlimbed, Notators

Numbers Maximums: 28/32 (75%)
0L: 2/3 (66%)
1L: 10/10 (100%)
2L: 15/18 (83%)
3L:1/1 (100%)
4L: N/A

Conundrum Wins: 6
Conundrum Records: 6 Wins, 1 Loss, 1 Unsolved.

Very good performance by Zarte throughout- a sure candidate for the crown.

I most likely have made errors here, so please tell me if so!

[Owen Carroll]

Nope nine of them. Was that a joke?

I mean none of them

Yup

Can you explain it then please?

[Tom S]

I mean none of them

Yup

Can you explain it then please?

I was a bit vague with my wording and I meant to ask whether all the finalists were present at recordings, in case a person had withdrawn for whatever reason, but my comment was a bit of an open goal for joke taking

[Owen Carroll]

Yup

Can you explain it then please?

I was a bit vague with my wording and I meant to ask whether all the finalists were present at recordings, in case a person had withdrawn for whatever reason, but my comment was a bit of an open goal for joke taking

I meant the joke. I was asking mark desks if he was joking when he said those names and you said yup

[Owen Carroll]

Can you explain it then please?

I was a bit vague with my wording and I meant to ask whether all the finalists were present at recordings, in case a person had withdrawn for whatever reason, but my comment was a bit of an open goal for joke taking

I meant the joke. I was asking mark desks if he was joking when he said those names and you said yup

When I said I mean none of them, I meant none of them had been on. The people mark mentioned

[Elliott Mellor]

I was a bit vague with my wording and I meant to ask whether all the finalists were present at recordings, in case a person had withdrawn for whatever reason, but my comment was a bit of an open goal for joke taking

I meant the joke. I was asking mark desks if he was joking when he said those names and you said yup

When I said I mean none of them, I meant none of them had been on. The people mark mentioned

What a startling revelation. Also, who is Mark Desks?

[Matt Morrison]

It has been rumoured Parsons recorded his episodes earlier this year but they are going to be shown out of order due to unforeseen circumstances. I think we generally accept that he has won 8, there were even rumours that he would get close to the 1000 point octorun. However, we have no idea if he will be in these finals or not, and depends if the producers work out how to squeeze his shows in. It's no surprise we keep asking those in the know if Parsons is coming up soon.

Sharapova obviously was the episode she covered for Rachel during Rachel's third trimester. The fact that this was recorded during Parsons's run means that really the question of when Parsons and Sharapova are on is basically one and the same.

Colin Montgomerie is just Mark's favourite DC guest. Not sure why he mentioned Montgomerie in the same series of questions as if anything that has just confused the matter.

[Mark Deeks]

Sharapova was a good get for the show, to be fair. They did well there, can't have been cheap.

Anyway, yes, sorry, I confused the issue with mentioning Montgomerie in there. I was getting facetious towards the end of an otherwise valid question, apologies.

[Gavin Chipper]

It has been rumoured Parsons recorded his episodes earlier

Too busy for the day job.

[Owen Carroll]

I meant the joke. I was asking mark desks if he was joking when he said those names and you said yup

When I said I mean none of them, I meant none of them had been on. The people mark mentioned

What a startling revelation. Also, who is Mark Desks?

I meant mark deeks

[Ryan Lam]

Alright let's not go too off-topic please.

If you guys would like Martin Hurst's game like I mentioned in my original post, here are the rules and instructions and if you're still confused, I will provide examples from the last Series:

1. Guess how much the difference between both players are for the seven episodes BEFORE the start of the Finals.
2. If you guess the winner correctly, you will get points based on your prediction minus the actual difference.
3. If you guess the winner incorrectly OR if you guess the winner correctly but your difference is less than the actual difference, you won't get any points.
4. Whoever gets the most points at the end of the Series wins the game (Although no prizes are involved sadly...)

Examples are as follows (Note that I did not participate in this the last time round but my predictions at that time are here AND I predicted the winners correctly for all the episodes):
QF1: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Graeme Staples (Prediction: 50 Points) (Actual: 45 Points) (Score: 50-45=5 Points)
QF2: Bradley Horrocks vs James Kennedy (Prediction: 30 Points) (Actual: 26 Points) (Score: 30-26=4 Points)
QF3: John Cowen vs Michael Pfeffer (Prediction: 30 Points) (Actual: 56 Points) (Score: 0 Points)
QF4: Noel McIlvenny vs Eoin Jackson (Prediction: 15 Points) (Actual: 2 Points) (Score: 0 Points)
SF1: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Noel McIlvenny (Prediction: 40 Points) (Actual: 50 Points) (Score: 0 Points)
SF2: Bradley Horrocks vs John Cowen (Prediction: 20 Points) (Actual: 12 Points) (Score: 20-12=8 Points)
GF: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Bradley Horrocks (Prediction: 10 Points) (Actual: 9 Points) (Score: 10-9=1 Point)

So, if any of you would like to play this, do submit your predictions here in the format I'm providing:
QF1: (Players Names) (Prediction: ) etc.

Do submit it by 14th June, 1410 BST before the First QF airs!!

[Owen Carroll]

Alright let's not go too off-topic please.

If you guys would like Martin Hurst's game like I mentioned in my original post, here are the rules and instructions and if you're still confused, I will provide examples from the last Series:

1. Guess how much the difference between both players are for the seven episodes BEFORE the start of the Finals.
2. If you guess the winner correctly, you will get points based on your prediction minus the actual difference.
3. If you guess the winner incorrectly OR if you guess the winner correctly but your difference is less than the actual difference, you won't get any points.
4. Whoever gets the most points at the end of the Series wins the game (Although no prizes are involved sadly...)

Examples are as follows (Note that I did not participate in this the last time round but my predictions at that time are here AND I predicted the winners correctly for all the episodes):
QF1: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Graeme Staples (Prediction: 50 Points) (Actual: 45 Points) (Score: 50-45=5 Points)
QF2: Bradley Horrocks vs James Kennedy (Prediction: 30 Points) (Actual: 26 Points) (Score: 30-26=4 Points)
QF3: John Cowen vs Michael Pfeffer (Prediction: 30 Points) (Actual: 56 Points) (Score: 0 Points)
QF4: Noel McIlvenny vs Eoin Jackson (Prediction: 15 Points) (Actual: 2 Points) (Score: 0 Points)
SF1: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Noel McIlvenny (Prediction: 40 Points) (Actual: 50 Points) (Score: 0 Points)
SF2: Bradley Horrocks vs John Cowen (Prediction: 20 Points) (Actual: 12 Points) (Score: 20-12=8 Points)
GF: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Bradley Horrocks (Prediction: 10 Points) (Actual: 9 Points) (Score: 10-9=1 Point)

So, if any of you would like to play this, do submit your predictions here in the format I'm providing:
QF1: (Players Names) (Prediction: ) etc.

Do submit it by 14th June, 1410 BST before the First QF airs!!

What do you mean would we like his game?

[Ryan Lam]

What do you mean would we like his game?

I mean if you all would like to play his game which he had in Series 77 which is what I posted. Oh, once the final start airing, you cannot change our predictions as well!

[Owen Carroll]

What do you mean would we like his game?

I mean if you all would like to play his game which he had in Series 77 which is what I posted. Oh, once the final start airing, you cannot change our predictions as well!

What game did he have in s77?

[Elliott Mellor]

What do you mean would we like his game?

I mean if you all would like to play his game which he had in Series 77 which is what I posted. Oh, once the final start airing, you cannot change our predictions as well!

What game did he have in s77?

If you took time to actually read the thread as opposed to just jumping in at random points, you might be able to answer this for yourself.
Unless your soul aim is just to troll.

[Owen Carroll]

I mean if you all would like to play his game which he had in Series 77 which is what I posted. Oh, once the final start airing, you cannot change our predictions as well!

What game did he have in s77?

If you took time to actually read the thread as opposed to just jumping in at random points, you might be able to answer this for yourself.
Unless your soul aim is just to troll.

Ok Ryan's talking about martin's prediction for the s77 finals. Right? That's what we get if our predictions are right? Also, I don't appreciate being called a troll or saying I'm just trolling or whatever you're getting at. I'd like you to explain what you're getting at. Though I think I have an idea

[Marc Meakin]

I meant the joke. I was asking mark desks if he was joking when he said those names and you said yup

When I said I mean none of them, I meant none of them had been on. The people mark mentioned

What a startling revelation. Also, who is Mark Desks?

A classroom graffiti artist

[Elliott Mellor]

When I said I mean none of them, I meant none of them had been on. The people mark mentioned

What a startling revelation. Also, who is Mark Desks?

A classroom graffiti artist

Have an imaginary post like.

[Johnny Canuck]

1. Guess how much the difference between both players are for the seven episodes BEFORE the start of the Finals.

Somehow, I'm uncannily certain that Mick's going to beat Jan by exactly 2 points. Not quite sure about the six other games afterward.

[Owen Carroll]

1. Guess how much the difference between both players are for the seven episodes BEFORE the start of the Finals.

Somehow, I'm uncannily certain that Mick's going to beat Jan by exactly 2 points. Not quite sure about the six other games afterward.

Johnny what was the latest episode you saw?

[Owen Carroll]

1. Guess how much the difference between both players are for the seven episodes BEFORE the start of the Finals.

Somehow, I'm uncannily certain that Mick's going to beat Jan by exactly 2 points. Not quite sure about the six other games afterward.

Johnny what was the latest episode you saw?

Cause mick's gone

[Johnny Canuck]

1. Guess how much the difference between both players are for the seven episodes BEFORE the start of the Finals.

Somehow, I'm uncannily certain that Mick's going to beat Jan by exactly 2 points. Not quite sure about the six other games afterward.

Johnny what was the latest episode you saw?

It was a joke, kiddo. Was being pedantic by pointing out that it could also sound like Ryan was talking about predicting the results of the last seven heat games before the finals, instead of the seven finals games themselves.

Also, did you know you can edit your posts using the pencil button at the top right instead of making a new post and quoting yourself?

[Owen Carroll]

Somehow, I'm uncannily certain that Mick's going to beat Jan by exactly 2 points. Not quite sure about the six other games afterward.

Johnny what was the latest episode you saw?

It was a joke, kiddo. Was being pedantic by pointing out that it could also sound like Ryan was talking about predicting the results of the last seven heat games before the finals, instead of the seven finals games themselves.

Also, did you know you can edit your posts using the pencil button at the top right instead of making a new post and quoting yourself?

Cheers. Forgot about that

[Owen Carroll]

Here are my predictions
Zarte will win by at least 40 points.
Philip will win by 10-15.
Chris will win if it's not a crucial conundrum
Phil probably if ain't a crucial

Zarte by about 40-50 points
Philip by 40 points

Zarte by 15-20 points

[Gavin Chipper]

QF1: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Graeme Staples (Prediction: 50 Points) (Actual: 45 Points) (Score: 50-45=5 Points)

If I understand this correctly, if you predicted Tom to win by a million and 45 points, you'd get a million points.

[Ryan Lam]

QF1: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Graeme Staples (Prediction: 50 Points) (Actual: 45 Points) (Score: 50-45=5 Points)

If I understand this correctly, if you predicted Tom to win by a million and 45 points, you'd get a million points.

That is technically correct, although I must admit no one is going to win with that HUGE difference.

[Thomas Cappleman]

QF1: Tom Chafer-Cook vs Graeme Staples (Prediction: 50 Points) (Actual: 45 Points) (Score: 50-45=5 Points)

If I understand this correctly, if you predicted Tom to win by a million and 45 points, you'd get a million points.

That is technically correct, although I must admit no one is going to win with that HUGE difference.

The point is that with your current scoring everyone should pick who they think is going to win, and then say that they'll win by infinite points. That way if you're right you get infinite points, and if you're wrong you lose nothing.

The system last time was that Martin put some predictions to start from, and you had to say if the result would be higher or lower than that, and score based on your difference from his prediction.

If you want to do everyone making their own score prediction, you should do something like being right about the result scores you e.g. 100 points - how far out you are, and being wrong scores you nothing, or something similar.

[Ryan Lam]

The point is that with your current scoring everyone should pick who they think is going to win, and then say that they'll win by infinite points. That way if you're right you get infinite points, and if you're wrong you lose nothing.

The system last time was that Martin put some predictions to start from, and you had to say if the result would be higher or lower than that, and score based on your difference from his prediction.

If you want to do everyone making their own score prediction, you should do something like being right about the result scores you e.g. 100 points - how far out you are, and being wrong scores you nothing, or something similar.

Thanks Thomas and Gavin for pointing out the loophole in my rules vs Martin's ones. In view of this, the maximum difference you can bet on is 100 points. If anyone wants to still join in you can, you've got just under 24 hours to do so. (Although I'll be on a domestic flight in China when the Finals get going tomorrow so I'll join in as soon as I finish watching the episode in isolation without you all spoiling me.)

[Johnny Canuck]

QF1: Zarte to win by 100 points
QF2: Philip to win by 100 points
QF3: Chris to win by 100 points
QF4: Phil to win by 100 points
SF1: Zarte to win by 100 points
SF2: Philip to win by 100 points
GF: Zarte to win by 100 points

[Gavin Chipper]

If we have to predict all the results before any games are played, do we automatically get zero for games that have players in we thought wouldn't get that far? Or can we specify something like "the higher seed"?

[Elliott Mellor]

The point is that with your current scoring everyone should pick who they think is going to win, and then say that they'll win by infinite points. That way if you're right you get infinite points, and if you're wrong you lose nothing.

The system last time was that Martin put some predictions to start from, and you had to say if the result would be higher or lower than that, and score based on your difference from his prediction.

If you want to do everyone making their own score prediction, you should do something like being right about the result scores you e.g. 100 points - how far out you are, and being wrong scores you nothing, or something similar.

Thanks Thomas and Gavin for pointing out the loophole in my rules vs Martin's ones. In view of this, the maximum difference you can bet on is 100 points. If anyone wants to still join in you can, you've got just under 24 hours to do so. (Although I'll be on a domestic flight in China when the Finals get going tomorrow so I'll join in as soon as I finish watching the episode in isolation without you all spoiling me.)

It's still flawed. If I understand correctly, if I predict Zarte to beat Jan by 100 points, and he actually beats her by 50 then I will get 50 points. If I predict him to beat her 51 points and it's actually 50, I'll get 1 point - rewarding people for being further out isn't really logical. Either implement the system Thomas proposed or alternatively have the person with the lowest points total wins.

[Elliott Mellor]

QF1: Zarte to win by 100 points
QF2: Philip to win by 100 points
QF3: Chris to win by 100 points
QF4: Phil to win by 100 points
SF1: Zarte to win by 100 points
SF2: Philip to win by 100 points
GF: Zarte to win by 100 points

Mine was very similar to this tbh, except I think the second QF will only be a 99 point victory.

[Martin Hurst]

https://media2.ausbt.com.au/1500,1500-5 ... evil-1.jpg

[Ryan Lam]

It's still flawed. If I understand correctly, if I predict Zarte to beat Jan by 100 points, and he actually beats her by 50 then I will get 50 points. If I predict him to beat her 51 points and it's actually 50, I'll get 1 point - rewarding people for being further out isn't really logical. Either implement the system Thomas proposed or alternatively have the person with the lowest points total wins.

Now that you mention it, since there's not enough time to rectify this, alright if we want such a thing again in Series 79 I'll take this into cnosideration. For now, we'll just stick to what we have. Sorry for the massive confusion I've caused.

[Adam Gillard]

I like how the Countdown Finals start the same time as the World Cup Finals. Strong alternative offering there from Channel 4!

[Gavin Chipper]

QF1: Zarte to win by 100 points
QF2: Philip to win by 100 points
QF3: Chris to win by 100 points
QF4: Phil to win by 100 points
SF1: Zarte to win by 100 points
SF2: Philip to win by 100 points
GF: Zarte to win by 100 points

I'd probably go for similar, but to make a change, I'll pick Dougie to win in QF3, and with an amazing 200-point turnaround, he'll win by 100 points. Also, since I don't know who's going to make the semi-finals and final, if any of my predicted winners in the later rounds aren't playing, I'll just predict that the higher seed wins by 100 points. Actually there is an exception to that - Philip Aston would be my prediction to win the final against anyone apart from Zarte, regardless of seeding, and by 100 points.

[Matt Morrison]

this fucking mess

[Noel Mc]

So no points for the first game??