League Tables 22.11.2016

[Bristolatic]

It’s definitely worth repeating this rule, as points are being lost.

For the avoidance of doubt, players cannot predict Latics to score in their result prediction and 'no scorer' in their scorer prediction for the same fixture. Likewise, players cannot predict that Latics will not score and name a first scorer. Nor can players predict a half-time score which does not align with the full time score (e.g. Latics to be 1-0 up at half-time and Latics to lose 1-0). Each full prediction should be fully-formed and be a possible outcome of the match. Any predictions submitted which are contrary to this rule will be discounted.

 

Premier League

Only SAV picked up points in more than two sections, which bumped jumped him up 5 places. No one fell more than by two, rosa and lookersstandandy being the ones. jorvik_latic’s post was null and void through not predicting a half time score, costing him just one point. Handsy posted twice, but only the 1^st one counts. Shame really, the 2^nd one would have been better, but not enough to get him off the bottom of the table.

There were no predictions from HarryBosch, Latics_Fanatic and LaticsPete

 

Championship

BP1960 takes over at the top at the expense of dave_ragg1984 and Hometownclub, who drop a place each. No one from 4^th to 13^th moved at all and, apart from two below them, the others only went up or down by one place. Hometownclub missed out on 4 points by predicting a 1-1 draw, but failed to name a scorer.

 

There were no predictions from BJBlue, dave_ragg1984, GlossopLatic, and LaticsChris.

 

[BP1960]

My few days of fame.

[jorvik_latic]

That's fine and fair enough. Just a heads up though. This is also supposed to be a bit of fun - these rules are the opposite of that. I won't be doing this again next season because of this and I suspect I won't be the only one. You should be encouraging people to participate, not put people off.

[Bristolatic]

That's fine and fair enough. Just a heads up though. This is also supposed to be a bit of fun - these rules are the opposite of that. I won't be doing this again next season because of this and I suspect I won't be the only one. You should be encouraging people to participate, not put people off.

The rules have certainly been the same since the 2013-14 season. I'm not too sure about the rules before that (I'm not going to research that far back) as I only took it over part way through the season before (2012-13) and also had the previous season's tables to that (2011-12) to finish off.

 

Anyway, in the past I've inadvertently given points to incomplete entries and had to remove them when predictors have spotted it and posted/PM'd to let me know. Also, when I've noticed someone's got it wrong before the cut off time, I've posted accordingly to alert them, but not by PM. Some felt that this gave an unfair advantage/disadvantage depending on which way you looked at it. So, this season I'm simply ensuring the rules, as they've been for the last 3 plus years, are applied correctly.

 

You know what they say: You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't ...

I think we all know the rest.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Serious post. I can see the merit of the rule where your h/t score and full-time score have to align, and the rule that means you can't list a first scorer if you've (correctly) predicted Oldham Athletic Nil. Those protect against hedging and demand strong predicting commitment, which is what the competition is all about.

 

However, I can't see the merit of discounting incomplete predictions. It's the player costing themselves points and there's no question of hedging. Rules are rules are rules until they cease to be useful in my book.

 

I don't see why you can't change the rules mid-season. It's been done in other top level sports (this F1 season for instance). It's much better to change the rule than have the rigmarole of enforcing a rule that no one believes in.

 

Just as an aside, I essentially agree with Jorvik, but he's wrong about one thing: predicting isn't about fun; it's about winning. I won't be sorry to see him go if he's approaching the game with that sort of attitude.

[jorvik_latic]

Serious post. I can see the merit of the rule where your h/t score and full-time score have to align, and the rule that means you can't list a first scorer if you've (correctly) predicted Oldham Athletic Nil. Those protect against hedging and demand strong predicting commitment, which is what the competition is all about.

 

However, I can't see the merit of discounting incomplete predictions. It's the player costing themselves points and there's no question of hedging. Rules are rules are rules until they cease to be useful in my book.

 

I don't see why you can't change the rules mid-season. It's been done in other top level sports (this F1 season for instance). It's much better to change the rule than have the rigmarole of enforcing a rule that no one believes in.

 

Exactly this. If you're not hedging then you're only losing out by your emissions. It's bollocks to enforce this rule.

Just as an aside, I essentially agree with Jorvik, but he's wrong about one thing: predicting isn't about fun; it's about winning. I won't be sorry to see him go if he's approaching the game with that sort of attitude.

:censored: off

[jorvik_latic]

Some felt that this gave an unfair advantage/disadvantage depending on which way you looked at it. So, this season I'm simply ensuring the rules

There's no advantage to gain from my predictions where I've omitted the chance to score points!

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

There's no advantage to gain from my predictions where I've omitted the chance to score points!

Of course, you could always "do an Ex_pat" and pay for a change of rules to increase your chances of winning an empty crown.

[disjointed]

Of course, you could always "do an Ex_pat" and pay for a change of rules to increase your chances of winning an empty crown.

sometimes you just have to move on. Life is too short.

[Ex_pat]

Of course, you could always "do an Ex_pat" and pay for a change of rules to increase your chances of winning an empty crown.

 

 

That wound is really deep, isn't it. Sounds like it may never heal.

[HarryBosch]

There's no advantage to gain from my predictions where I've omitted the chance to score points!

 

Most of your predictions. valid or otherwise, seem to omit the chance to score points.....

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by HarryBosch

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

sometimes you just have to move on. Life is too short.

 

Tell that to the Birmingham Six, the Bridgewater Four, the Guildford Four and the Nazareth One.

 

 

 

That wound is really deep, isn't it. Sounds like it may never heal.

 

My conscience is clear, which is much healthier than having a tainted, paid-for paper crown.

[Stevie_J]

In Pete's defence, it was me who introduced the anti-hedging rule a few years ago and I think this is his interpretation of how I'd drafted it - so I take the blame entirely.

 

I've lost points the same way but I just pass it off as my own stupid fault. However, both Pete and I see the argument for not discounting the entire prediction where parts of the prediction are missing and no advantage can be gained. We'll go back to this next season but we'll stick with it as it is for this season, so as not to disadvantage others who've already fallen foul of it.

 

Nobody's trying to put anyone off. Pete offered his own time to put together league tables for this, for no reward; he does a great job, for which I'm extremely grateful. There's no way I'd ever have the time to do it. He even tries to point out incomplete predictions but can't be expected to always pick them up and he does keep trying to draw people's attention to the rule - not that it helped me a couple of weeks back.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

In Pete's defence, it was me who introduced the anti-hedging rule a few years ago and I think this is his interpretation of how I'd drafted it - so I take the blame entirely.

 

I've lost points the same way but I just pass it off as my own stupid fault. However, both Pete and I see the argument for not discounting the entire prediction where parts of the prediction are missing and no advantage can be gained. We'll go back to this next season but we'll stick with it as it is for this season, so as not to disadvantage others who've already fallen foul of it.

 

Nobody's trying to put anyone off. Pete offered his own time to put together league tables for this, for no reward; he does a great job, for which I'm extremely grateful. There's no way I'd ever have the time to do it. He even tries to point out incomplete predictions but can't be expected to always pick them up and he does keep trying to draw people's attention to the rule - not that it helped me a couple of weeks back.

 

...except for Ex_pat's bungs.

[Stevie_J]

 

...except for Ex_pat's bungs.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, petal.

[lookersstandandy]

https://twitter.com/manc_union1234/status/803254613046624256

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Whatever you need to tell yourself, petal.

 

And your Lego infrastructure for the cup draws doesn't come cheap. I expect to see gold bricks in this season's broadcasts after what Ex_pat did.

[Stevie_J]

 

And your Lego infrastructure for the cup draws doesn't come cheap. I expect to see gold bricks in this season's broadcasts after what Ex_pat did.

I was thinking I might need to get my hands on some bingo balls this year.

 

The lego brick were from a calendar and only go up to 31!

 

If anyone can help me out, the title's yours.

[jorvik_latic]

I know Pete's a nice guy and puts a lot of his time into this - I'm grateful for it too, honest! I've aired my views on this as that's just how I am....

 

It really should be a *bit* of fun (:censored: off again 24hrs). After pushing this in pre season so much, enforcing this rule really put me off playing again and wanted to raise it as I know you aren't trying to put anyone off. I'm glad you'll look at this for next season and am ok for it to carry on as it has been doing this season.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I know Pete's a nice guy and puts a lot of his time into this - I'm grateful for it too, honest! I've aired my views on this as that's just how I am....

 

It really should be a *bit* of fun (:censored: off again 24hrs). After pushing this in pre season so much, enforcing this rule really put me off playing again and wanted to raise it as I know you aren't trying to put anyone off. I'm glad you'll look at this for next season and am ok for it to carry on as it has been doing this season.

 

I dunno. You pile in on someone's side in a fight and they slope off at the first sign of bother.