Competitions SCS Premier League Darts- World Championships - Tuesday 27th December @10:00pm AEDT
- Thread starter The Banker
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,628
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,628
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,628
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 4,380
- Likes
- 18,390
Hi all,
After the completion of the Masters, which I thought was a great introduction to this new competition, I have had time to review the numbers. I continued to come back to the Gary Anderson v Joe Cullen whitewash.
Cullen def Anderson 10-1 on legs.
Before the peripherals were added the legs on this match were scored at +1 for winning a leg and -1 for losing a leg.
This made the scoring.
Cullen (10 won x1) - (1 lost x1) = 9
Anderson (1 won x1) - (10 lost x1) = -9
So for this match I effectively added the peripherals to Cullens leg count of 9
Anderson had no peripherals to add and therefore finished on -9
The part that hasn't sat well with me, is that Cullen won the match by 9 legs, but won the points count by 18. This was not my intention in scoring games. Effectively, for the scoring to be sound at 1 points difference between competitors, the above calculation needs the x1 to be replaced with x0.5. This would effectively make Cullen's leg count 4.5, and Anderson's leg count -4.5...a difference of 9 and the amount of legs Cullen won the match by.
I made a small reference to +/-0.5 in post 180 because the scoring wasn't sitting well with me.
Last night I recalculated all matches. The results were alarming. This can be attributed to the fact I was double deducting a losing player, so any participant that picked that losing player, was also being double deducted. Vic-versa any winning player was technically be rewarded extra points, and so was anyone that selected him.
These are the scoring tables from the Masters using the correct +/-0.5 leg counts
From Round 1/2 table we can see Cullen won 16 legs and lost 3 legs, Chisnall won 16 legs and lost 4 legs...and so on. (double the legs to get the full amount won and lost)
This is the finals table
From these tables I have recalculated every participants entry.
I introduced a column down the right hand side of the table to show the results. I will use Connoisseur as an example.
198.25 is his new points calculation using the correct leg counts.
220 was his points count at the completion of Mondays calculation.
-21.75 is his loss in points between scores.
The 3 in Green is his points gain on the original leader (which was myself). In other words he turned a 1 point deficit into a 2 point lead.
Vice-versa my new points tally turned the 1 point lead into a 2 point deficit. So I'm in Red.
Ironhawks recalculation is the only other player that got a negative result. This can be attributed largely to Ironhawk being the only player to select Cullen as captain in Round 1/2. Cullen was scored at 56 (28 x 2) points under the incorrect scoring method and under the correct method is now scored at 43 (21.5 x 2).
Everybody else correlates positively because the losing selections that they made in the competition were not double penalised. So the Green number next to each participant indicates the points deficit that has been made up in relation to the leader.
I know there's a fair bit going on here with the tables and explanations, and I apologise to all for the teething error, most of all to Ironhawk (to be honest I wish I had lost more points than you).
Being a new competition and a lot of numbers, it's been quite a bit to get my head around.
From here on out I'm hoping this nips this in the bud and we can continue on with what shapes to be a fantastic Premier League.
After the completion of the Masters, which I thought was a great introduction to this new competition, I have had time to review the numbers. I continued to come back to the Gary Anderson v Joe Cullen whitewash.
Cullen def Anderson 10-1 on legs.
Before the peripherals were added the legs on this match were scored at +1 for winning a leg and -1 for losing a leg.
This made the scoring.
Cullen (10 won x1) - (1 lost x1) = 9
Anderson (1 won x1) - (10 lost x1) = -9
So for this match I effectively added the peripherals to Cullens leg count of 9
Anderson had no peripherals to add and therefore finished on -9
The part that hasn't sat well with me, is that Cullen won the match by 9 legs, but won the points count by 18. This was not my intention in scoring games. Effectively, for the scoring to be sound at 1 points difference between competitors, the above calculation needs the x1 to be replaced with x0.5. This would effectively make Cullen's leg count 4.5, and Anderson's leg count -4.5...a difference of 9 and the amount of legs Cullen won the match by.
I made a small reference to +/-0.5 in post 180 because the scoring wasn't sitting well with me.
Last night I recalculated all matches. The results were alarming. This can be attributed to the fact I was double deducting a losing player, so any participant that picked that losing player, was also being double deducted. Vic-versa any winning player was technically be rewarded extra points, and so was anyone that selected him.
These are the scoring tables from the Masters using the correct +/-0.5 leg counts
From Round 1/2 table we can see Cullen won 16 legs and lost 3 legs, Chisnall won 16 legs and lost 4 legs...and so on. (double the legs to get the full amount won and lost)
This is the finals table
From these tables I have recalculated every participants entry.
I introduced a column down the right hand side of the table to show the results. I will use Connoisseur as an example.
198.25 is his new points calculation using the correct leg counts.
220 was his points count at the completion of Mondays calculation.
-21.75 is his loss in points between scores.
The 3 in Green is his points gain on the original leader (which was myself). In other words he turned a 1 point deficit into a 2 point lead.
Vice-versa my new points tally turned the 1 point lead into a 2 point deficit. So I'm in Red.
Ironhawks recalculation is the only other player that got a negative result. This can be attributed largely to Ironhawk being the only player to select Cullen as captain in Round 1/2. Cullen was scored at 56 (28 x 2) points under the incorrect scoring method and under the correct method is now scored at 43 (21.5 x 2).
Everybody else correlates positively because the losing selections that they made in the competition were not double penalised. So the Green number next to each participant indicates the points deficit that has been made up in relation to the leader.
I know there's a fair bit going on here with the tables and explanations, and I apologise to all for the teething error, most of all to Ironhawk (to be honest I wish I had lost more points than you).
Being a new competition and a lot of numbers, it's been quite a bit to get my head around.
From here on out I'm hoping this nips this in the bud and we can continue on with what shapes to be a fantastic Premier League.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,960
- Likes
- 126,628
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Given the current ownership and captaincy selections for Price that have been disclosed, it feels time for a nine darter to be hit against James Wade, as there has been far too long of a break between drinks since we have witnessed him on the receiving end. What better time to do it than in Cardiff and to kick off the Premier League in fine fashion. 
Yay. Might be nearly as worthwhile to pick losers who can be competitive from now on I guess if you don't get rewarded for picking winners, which I thought was the right strategy.
I'm sure you are doing what is best for the competition in the end, I'll trust your judgement on that. Bit annoying, especially changing the scoring after the event, but I'll get over it - I doubt it would have changed my tips if I knew this was how it would be scored anyway. I still have time to get those points back I guess...
I'm sure you are doing what is best for the competition in the end, I'll trust your judgement on that. Bit annoying, especially changing the scoring after the event, but I'll get over it - I doubt it would have changed my tips if I knew this was how it would be scored anyway. I still have time to get those points back I guess...
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 4,380
- Likes
- 18,390
Yay. Might be nearly as worthwhile to pick losers who can be competitive from now on I guess if you don't get rewarded for picking winners, which I thought was the right strategy.
I'm sure you are doing what is best for the competition in the end, I'll trust your judgement on that. Bit annoying, especially changing the scoring after the event, but I'll get over it - I doubt it would have changed my tips if I knew this was how it would be scored anyway. I still have time to get those points back I guess...
I'm sure you are doing what is best for the competition in the end, I'll trust your judgement on that. Bit annoying, especially changing the scoring after the event, but I'll get over it - I doubt it would have changed my tips if I knew this was how it would be scored anyway. I still have time to get those points back I guess...
Effectively I was penalising those at the mid->bottom of the table by far greater for making more losing selections than I was penalising those who made winning selections.
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 4,380
- Likes
- 18,390
The only thing from this point onwards will be with the first calculation of the Premier League round 1 results where I had implemented 1 point for leg won and 0 for a leg lost.
If I calculate this and it doesn't correlate correctly with the above method used in the Masters, then the only alternative is to revert to what I would call the correct method +/-0.5.
There's a difference of 1 between a) 1 (winning a leg) and 0 (losing a leg), and there's a difference of 1 between b) +0.5 (winning a leg) and -0.5 (losing a leg), so I'm hoping either way it doesn't matter.
I will be calculating using both methods, so if the correlation isn't there then I will divulge that information when I put the results up.
Really, this has no bearing on team selection. I will at least have the answer to scoring going forward, and then we continue knowing that either one method or both methods work.
If I calculate this and it doesn't correlate correctly with the above method used in the Masters, then the only alternative is to revert to what I would call the correct method +/-0.5.
There's a difference of 1 between a) 1 (winning a leg) and 0 (losing a leg), and there's a difference of 1 between b) +0.5 (winning a leg) and -0.5 (losing a leg), so I'm hoping either way it doesn't matter.
I will be calculating using both methods, so if the correlation isn't there then I will divulge that information when I put the results up.
Really, this has no bearing on team selection. I will at least have the answer to scoring going forward, and then we continue knowing that either one method or both methods work.
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 4,380
- Likes
- 18,390
Here's a comparison from the Round 1/2 table from the Masters and I don't believe the 1 and 0 method works
There's no correlation in the scoring, it just provides more points but no penalties. I see the positive and negative legs as the efficiency of the competition. It's kind of like comparing Dreamteam with Supercoach.
We can't control the peripherals of the competition, these are the bonuses.
Edit: The lack of correlation in the scores may be deciphered by some players playing 1 match and some playing 2 combined with 1st round matches being best of 11, and 2nd round matches being best of 19 legs. There may have been a correlation should match total leg counts have remained the same.
Given every Premier League match is best of 11 each round of each week, maybe that creates a correlation.
There's no correlation in the scoring, it just provides more points but no penalties. I see the positive and negative legs as the efficiency of the competition. It's kind of like comparing Dreamteam with Supercoach.
We can't control the peripherals of the competition, these are the bonuses.
Edit: The lack of correlation in the scores may be deciphered by some players playing 1 match and some playing 2 combined with 1st round matches being best of 11, and 2nd round matches being best of 19 legs. There may have been a correlation should match total leg counts have remained the same.
Given every Premier League match is best of 11 each round of each week, maybe that creates a correlation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Yay. Might be nearly as worthwhile to pick losers who can be competitive from now on I guess if you don't get rewarded for picking winners, which I thought was the right strategy.
I'm sure you are doing what is best for the competition in the end, I'll trust your judgement on that. Bit annoying, especially changing the scoring after the event, but I'll get over it - I doubt it would have changed my tips if I knew this was how it would be scored anyway. I still have time to get those points back I guess...
I'm sure you are doing what is best for the competition in the end, I'll trust your judgement on that. Bit annoying, especially changing the scoring after the event, but I'll get over it - I doubt it would have changed my tips if I knew this was how it would be scored anyway. I still have time to get those points back I guess...
I nearly posted a few times to make the observation that this scoring is highly leveraged to picking the winners which I didn’t realise was the case when I decided to enter. I incorrectly assumed it was more of a fantasy comp where points were awarded for actions rather than outcomes but that was my bad.
Whilst this softens it a bit I actually still think that is the case for the following reasons.
- The winner of the match gets points for legs and then extra points for winning matches.
- The winner is highly likely to score more in the peripherals (because generally this drives the victory).
- The kicker is that the loser has no opportunity to score any points in the next round.