Gills Vital 2017/2018 Prediction League Final Table | Vital Football

Gills Vital 2017/2018 Prediction League Final Table

P

patchy70

Vital Squad Member
The final table for the 2017/2018 season is:
Max.Headroom - 69
ian08040 - 66
BlueBall2016 - 63
DebbieA - 59
Straightbat - 57
Vodapadi Beef Sache - 56
Brockers343 - 55
Skullduggery Pleasan - 53
Kojaculation - 53
Kent_UckyFriedGills - 50
FishGills - 49
NathanH_GFC - 46
Lark - 45
wooboygill - 45
townendgill - 43
Mouldybluecheese - 43
patchy70 - 42
vinney - 42
LSB2 - 42
ME7_Gills - 40
Romany - 40
HerrLjunga - 37
Rob_b100 - 36
GillsBluenose - 34
GRSGimmer - 33
WGUAFC - 32
LancsGordoRoad - 32
Vambogills - 32
pinhead - 23
ME2blue - 22
Brucieboy - 18
Gills88 - 15
Gills1958 - 14
Archiepoptart - 13
Foxinthebox67 - 13
PhilK66 - 13
Spoonster912 - 10
Porkygills - 8
Broncos77 - 7
medwayblue - 7
Sturdy Gill - 7
daveycrocket - 7
alphabet_king - 6
Jerryattrick - 5
The Holy Spirit - 5
valenciagill - 5
Dan7564 - 4
DurhamGills - 4
OneSirKeefy - 3
Razorpound - 3
SurreryBOB - 3
alex_farrels_left_p - 2
Arthurly - 2
GC_Sam - 2
HarrowGill - 2
octopus - 2
Wayne.Kerr - 2
Bobby Vegas - 1
jogills - 1
mozzer59 - 1
Sandyman_GFC - 1
BriefcaseMong - 0
Hermes_GFC - 0
jokerman - 0
nuclearboy - 0
PapaBurgundy - 0
ThreeSixes - 0

Congratulations to Max.Headroom on his victory!

Thanks to all of you that entered throughout the season!
 
Hear hear. Do you set the rules Patchy? I think it's possible to get more correct results and exact results than someone else and still get less points than them.

How do you know when to disqualify a deliberately high scoring prediction to capitalise on scorer points but not predict the score in good faith, when it is not as extreme as skulduggery's prediction today?
 
Straightbat said:
Hear hear. Do you set the rules Patchy? I think it's possible to get more correct results and exact results than someone else and still get less points than them.

How do you know when to disqualify a deliberately high scoring prediction to capitalise on scorer points but not predict the score in good faith, when it is not as extreme as skulduggery's prediction today?
Click to expand...

Yes I did set the rules up this season (I'll post what they were at the end). The scenario you've mentioned is indeed possible because the goalscorer points are still picked up regardless of whether the score/result is correctly predicted.

I don't believe I've disqualified any predictions this season bar the 18-18 yesterday. In the rules I stated that the predictions should be made 'within the spirit of the competition' and I haven't had any problems throughout the whole season. I don't want to set any specific parameters on 'within the spirit of the competition'.

I decided that Skullduggery's prediction was invalid because he'd put so many goalscorers that it was actually impossible for them all to score (given that all 7 subs for both teams were named).

If people would be happy for me to continue running the competition next season then I'd naturally be open to any suggestions for changes to the rules!

The rules which were posted for this season were:
"Scoring System:
Predict the score and goalscorers (for both teams)
3 Points - Correct result and scoreline
1 Point - Correct result but wrong scoreline
1 Point - Each correct goalscorer (whether you get result/scoreline correct)

Only rule is that when predicting the scorers the scorers must match up with the score. So you can't say Gills will score 2 goals and predict 3 scorers.

If you don't want to predict the goalscorers then that's completely fine but obviously that will put you at a disadvantage.

As long as the predictions are entered before kick-off for each individual game then they'll all be counted, and you can edit predictions up to kick-off.

Please do play within the spirit of the competition, continually posting 10-10 predictions just to try and obtain goalscorer points will not be accepted!"
 
Yes thanks Patchy for that reply and once again thanks for running the competition! Thanks also for inviting suggestions.

To encourage genuine results (and by results, I include exact score) predictions, rather than harvesting goal scorer points (which I personally suspected was going on a bit by one or two contributors but is hard to prove!) I suggest the following alteration: 2 points for a correct result (i.e. home win, away win or draw) and 5 for a correct exact scoreline.

It's best to keep these things simple, and my suggestion keeps the basis of points scoring the same just altering the number awarded. But you could add a bonus point for the correct exact score for each team and leave exact scoreline points at 3 - as 5 would still then be earned. Correct result score would then still be worth 2 in my opinion, with a possible 3 points earned if the score for one of the teams is correct.

Another model could be keep the exact score per team bonus points as suggested above and keep the suggestion for two points for a correct result but scrap 3 points for an exact scoreline as with the other new rules this will automatically get 4 points.
 
Last edited:
If you only awarded correct scorer points when the correct score had been predicted, you wouldn't have a problem.

You can do this for each team, so you don't have to actually predict the overall correct score (which is pretty hard). But it would stop the 5-5 predictions happening because teams never score 5. Oh, hang on...
 
Oi Straightbat. What do you mean "...harvesting goal scorer points..."? The thought had never occurred to me :fish:

Well, not until I predicted all 3 of our scorers and one of the oppositions but the wrong result. Ended up with 4 points. Then I thought "Hello, that's a handy way of getting to the top" :lol: So I kept that little gem to myself until it didn't matter - ie the last match when it would become obvious there was a loophole to be exploited and even so I couldn't win (actually I was expecting a 0-0).

I reckon Straightbat's points suggestion is in the right area. I'd go for 5 for the correct score, 3 for the correct result and 1 for correct scorer EVEN IF IT IS A SUBSTITUTE :p:grinning:

Thanks patchy. Even though i still reckon I was robbed on a very, very dubious technicality, I do appreciate your efforts
:tophat:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.