Predictocomp table

[griff]

Four entrants this week and we were all a bit rubbish. Check your own, but this is what i make it (and I'm assuming that Pete's 1s and 2s are homes and aways)

Griff 6
Pete 3
Piglet 1
Beast 1

Some catching up to do lads.

[Piglet_Phoenix]

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

[griff]

Current table. Piglet's set off on his marathon but must have stopped to take on water. Top scorer this week was Sandpit with 5, thanks to getting the Liverpool result right. Noggy's novel entry got him 2 results right, still better than 2 others. As always, check them because my maths may have been influenced by a bucket o' red.

Griff (4) 10
Pete (5) 8
Beast (4) 5
Sandpit (5) 5
Noggy (2) 2
Benji (1) 1
Piglet (0) 1

Missed Pete completely edit. Equal top scorer this week.

[Piglet_Phoenix]

Do I not get points for the Burton and Oldham games being home wins?

"One point for the correct result, three for the correct score"

I clearly predicted those games as home wins.

[Piglet_Phoenix]

And checking Week One...

I should've been awarded 3 points, getting the Sunderland, Yeovil and Wimbledon results all correct.

So my real score is 5.

Creative marking going on it seems...

[griff]

It's an either/or situation Piglet. In each group you get to guess the score of one of the games. Get it wrong and you get nowt.

[Piglet_Phoenix]

You didn't specify that in the rules to begin with, seems to me you're just making it up as you go along to give yourself a better chance of winning.

According to your rules specified at the outset of the competition, I've had five correct results and therefore should've had five points. I would've selected differently under different rules.

Do you have any more secret rules that you've neglected to share?

[griff]

No need to be unpleasant Piglet. There are no secret rules. I'm sure that if I'd applied your understanding from the beginning everyone else would have had more points too. I've applied the same rule that applies in similar competitions e.g on the Cambridge board - not that it matters. And if you didn't like my little joke in my first post, well, I apologise.

[Piglet_Phoenix]

So you're admitting marking everyone down now? You should, in fairness (if you understand the meaning of the word), go back and re-mark everyone's predictions to rectify this.

How do you expect people to understand the rules when you don't express them at all? We can only go by what you say the rules are, and this is clearly a new one.

Why on earth would I check the Cambridge board? Especially when you clearly state the rules on this one.

I'm glad to hear there are no more secret rules and look forward to receiving my four extra points - and seeing the fully recalculated table.

No unpleasantness intended, thanks.

[griff]

Piglet, I ask folk to forecast the score of one game in each group, When talking about points awarded I state "three for the score. Nowhere do I state that if you get the score wrong then you still get a point if the result of that game was correct. I also ask folk to forecast two results in each group, hence "one point for a correct result". That's why the points on offer total 20. Following your rationale if someone correctly forecasts a score I'd also have to give then a point for correctly forecasting that result too, making 24 points on offer in total. It doesn't add up.

As a matter of interest, using your system would give me an extra 4 points over the 2 weeks too. Beast would have another 3, as would Sandpit. Noggy and Benji would have another 1 each and Pete nowt.

To be fair, if anyone else feels they've been misled please speak up. I tried to make the rules simple but I'm not perfect. Otherwise it's as you were.