Word Up Tournament
-
Cardinal Sin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Well, I can understand your rage Angie, but you can hardly blame Bob et al for trying to cash in - perhaps the other maestros are doing the same thing.
I never even bothered investigating the break-up of the prizes, such is my confidence in not winning one.
Is it even regional? If it is, I presume Scotland is a region, in which case Angie has got it sown up (never seen a 2000+ here).
Unless the groinwagon has ventured north of Hadrian's Wall?
I never even bothered investigating the break-up of the prizes, such is my confidence in not winning one.
Is it even regional? If it is, I presume Scotland is a region, in which case Angie has got it sown up (never seen a 2000+ here).
Unless the groinwagon has ventured north of Hadrian's Wall?
-
Guest
I've still not given up hope of getting a significant prize out of this tournament - got 1594 with 6-8 tiles left today and am jackpotting enough that it's not costing a fortune to keep having a stab at it.
My best recorded score so far is 1936, which hopefully would be in with a shout of a Scotland regional prize if such a thing exists. Still, with a month to go, a 2050+ has to be the aim.
Bob - how many of the top 10 leaderboard scores are yours? All the ones in Moon Under Water? I've only been able to access the leaderboard once so I can't remember many details.
Also - what was the monstrous 2497 based on? 3 QUIZZICALLYs or something?!
And can anyone confirm or deny that words over 15 letters are not allowed any more? If true, is it only for the £1000 tournament or does it also apply to the normal game?
My best recorded score so far is 1936, which hopefully would be in with a shout of a Scotland regional prize if such a thing exists. Still, with a month to go, a 2050+ has to be the aim.
Bob - how many of the top 10 leaderboard scores are yours? All the ones in Moon Under Water? I've only been able to access the leaderboard once so I can't remember many details.
Also - what was the monstrous 2497 based on? 3 QUIZZICALLYs or something?!
And can anyone confirm or deny that words over 15 letters are not allowed any more? If true, is it only for the £1000 tournament or does it also apply to the normal game?
-
Ernest W. Quality
- Senior Member
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:08 pm
- Location: Leedsish
- Contact:
2497 was a QUIZZICALITY (which Bob almost ruined, but I saved us).
15 letter words: can't say for sure, only one way to find out, but then again how often does anybody get 16s?
Scores: Simon R = reaps (original VB founder), Vicky W and Paddles are Bob's groupies, Michelle is Fotherz's girlfriend. Also some varsity table football players. But these people were playing the game as well.
15 letter words: can't say for sure, only one way to find out, but then again how often does anybody get 16s?
Scores: Simon R = reaps (original VB founder), Vicky W and Paddles are Bob's groupies, Michelle is Fotherz's girlfriend. Also some varsity table football players. But these people were playing the game as well.
-
Istenem
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5918
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
- Location: the nation's capital
- Contact:
harrumph!
(of players known to EWQ's website) prior to the tournament only 13 people had been part of a team for a 2000+ score. and of the 13, only six have had 2000+ solo.
it would follow that the six solo 2000+ clearers (Bob, Ernest, Fotherz, Dave, Angie and myself) are the six strongest players in the country, according to the current leaderboard, this appears not to be the case.
there seems to have been a lot of people getting very good very quickly, either that or the high scorer's input has been minimal. as we all know, playing with a lay friend is normally a hindrance to getting a big score.
while i acknowledge that Bob, Ernest and Fotherz are each individually very strong, it does rankle that ornamental acolytes appear to be occupying 40+ of the 50 highest scores.
i'm 100% confident that i'd be comfortably in the top ten in real terms, according to the table i'm outside the top 50. and that sucks.
(of players known to EWQ's website) prior to the tournament only 13 people had been part of a team for a 2000+ score. and of the 13, only six have had 2000+ solo.
it would follow that the six solo 2000+ clearers (Bob, Ernest, Fotherz, Dave, Angie and myself) are the six strongest players in the country, according to the current leaderboard, this appears not to be the case.
there seems to have been a lot of people getting very good very quickly, either that or the high scorer's input has been minimal. as we all know, playing with a lay friend is normally a hindrance to getting a big score.
while i acknowledge that Bob, Ernest and Fotherz are each individually very strong, it does rankle that ornamental acolytes appear to be occupying 40+ of the 50 highest scores.
i'm 100% confident that i'd be comfortably in the top ten in real terms, according to the table i'm outside the top 50. and that sucks.
nobody ever wins on those things.
Hi, thought I ought to make a comment on here if only to stop getting warning messages from the moderator for not contributing. I'm probably stating the obvious, but if the Scrabble dictionary has been imported, then 15+ won't be allowed, as the Scrabble board isn't big enough to allow anything longer than this.
Highest score so far a no-one troubling 1706, bit better on the wimp-out 50p option.
Highest score so far a no-one troubling 1706, bit better on the wimp-out 50p option.
-
Ernest W. Quality
- Senior Member
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:08 pm
- Location: Leedsish
- Contact:
We're not talking just incompetent nuisances that enter three letter words, we're talking genuine skilled players that are very good at games like Scrabble, chess, bridge, poker etc, and are Oxford and Cambridge graduates (not only graduates, but among the best in their years). Granted, they don't have the all-round tactical ability to get great scores on their own, but definitely make a good contribution. They mostly have other priorities than playing quiz machines for recreation, but the prize/tournament structure is appealing.unknownpseudonym wrote:there seems to have been a lot of people getting very good very quickly, either that or the high scorer's input has been minimal. as we all know, playing with a lay friend is normally a hindrance to getting a big score.
I thought I saw a score called "unknown" at number 35 or so?unknownpseudonym wrote:according to the table i'm outside the top 50.
Good point. Then again they may have put the longer words in from the old list. By the same token, words with multiple Z, J, X, Q shouldn't be allowed as there is only one in the bag, and even if the blank is used there are some words that are impossible to make.ggdr wrote:15+ won't be allowed, as the Scrabble board isn't big enough to allow anything longer than this.
Whilst I've long admired the prodigal skills of VB and his crew at Word Up, I must say I have some sympathy with UP here. Given that the individual full-timers on the VB crew have the ability to hold the top four or five positions on the WU tournament without any difficulty at all, it strikes me as a little greedy to want to go ahead and take all fifty scores by dint of borrowing others' mobile numbers (even given that those others are no doubt somewhat keen on the game).
There's an element of killing the golden goose here; when ItBox realises that one group of people have monopolised the score board they'll surely bin the WU tournament for good, whilst they may have been prepared to tolerate a tourney where VB et al dominated the top but Joe Public had more of a look in elsewhere. (Although I appreciate that when a machine provides an opportunity, it's always difficult to have any regard to goose-killing at all.)
(FTR my highest score on WU is something like 700 in two or three goes so I'm not personally disadvantaged by the VB approach here).
There's an element of killing the golden goose here; when ItBox realises that one group of people have monopolised the score board they'll surely bin the WU tournament for good, whilst they may have been prepared to tolerate a tourney where VB et al dominated the top but Joe Public had more of a look in elsewhere. (Although I appreciate that when a machine provides an opportunity, it's always difficult to have any regard to goose-killing at all.)
(FTR my highest score on WU is something like 700 in two or three goes so I'm not personally disadvantaged by the VB approach here).
-
Northern Monkey
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:06 am
As a long time and moderately succesful player of Golden Tee where tournaments are played every month it is worth sharing their practices here. Basically to try and prevent this sort of abuse they used to apply the following:
Only one prize available to each player based on their best score in any location. No multiple prizes for cashing scores in multiple locations.
Three divisions so that you would get promoted on achieving a decent finish thereby moving the better players upwards and giving newbies/ less skilled players more incentive to keep playing. So eg top prize in Silver division would be £500 and Bronze £250 with good prize structure for all of the top 25 or so (in the good old days). Incidentally gold used to be £1000 top prize with £75 all the way down to 60th and membership of gold was restricted to 100 or so players. Deliberate relegation was not necessarily a good tactic as you would have to go without cashing for 3 months to get relegated.
Only one prize per division per pub so that it was harder to register scores in different names without visiting multiple locations.
Random skills testing for dubious scoring eg someone comes from nowhere having played limited no of games in their lifetime and wins Bronze with a really good score.
Lifetime bans for people found in breach of the rules.
For these IT box competitions to have serious sustainability I would have thought that similar measures are required.
I for one have packed in ploughing £1s into the WU tournament as I now know that very unlikely to get a decent prize even in the event that I got an unprecedented 2050 odd.
Just my three pennies worth.
Only one prize available to each player based on their best score in any location. No multiple prizes for cashing scores in multiple locations.
Three divisions so that you would get promoted on achieving a decent finish thereby moving the better players upwards and giving newbies/ less skilled players more incentive to keep playing. So eg top prize in Silver division would be £500 and Bronze £250 with good prize structure for all of the top 25 or so (in the good old days). Incidentally gold used to be £1000 top prize with £75 all the way down to 60th and membership of gold was restricted to 100 or so players. Deliberate relegation was not necessarily a good tactic as you would have to go without cashing for 3 months to get relegated.
Only one prize per division per pub so that it was harder to register scores in different names without visiting multiple locations.
Random skills testing for dubious scoring eg someone comes from nowhere having played limited no of games in their lifetime and wins Bronze with a really good score.
Lifetime bans for people found in breach of the rules.
For these IT box competitions to have serious sustainability I would have thought that similar measures are required.
I for one have packed in ploughing £1s into the WU tournament as I now know that very unlikely to get a decent prize even in the event that I got an unprecedented 2050 odd.
Just my three pennies worth.
"we're talking genuine skilled players that are very good at games like Scrabble, chess, bridge, poker etc,"
...which would make them legitimate contenders for prizes in games like Scrabble, chess, bridge, poker.
"and are Oxford and Cambridge graduates (not only graduates, but among the best in their years)"
What's that got to do with anything ?
I'll declare a disinterest as I've not entered the tournament (though have picked up a few quid on the 50p version offered alongside). But I agree with UP and Grecian on this.
...which would make them legitimate contenders for prizes in games like Scrabble, chess, bridge, poker.
"and are Oxford and Cambridge graduates (not only graduates, but among the best in their years)"
What's that got to do with anything ?
I'll declare a disinterest as I've not entered the tournament (though have picked up a few quid on the 50p version offered alongside). But I agree with UP and Grecian on this.
-
QuizMaster
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:40 pm
Well, for 'the best in their years', these Oxbridge chavs don't have much of a clue about the real world (which tends to be the case for luvvies, in my experience)
Bob's completely transparent domination of the leaderboard has served to prove 2 things:
1/ He is clearly the best player in the country - sorry UP, but it would seem obvious that you're can only beat Bob on an off day, otherwise, you'd be placing higher in the tournament.
2/ Word Up tournament won't run again and we'll get back to something I can win on. Cheers Bob. I fucking HATE Word Up.
Hope you're happy with the magic beans Bob. Personally. I'd have kept milking the cow.
And I don't buy the Goldten Tee 'tiered' system either. Everybody knows Andy B. has about 50 aliases, and made more cash when it went structured. But then, he knew how to disguise it.
Bob's completely transparent domination of the leaderboard has served to prove 2 things:
1/ He is clearly the best player in the country - sorry UP, but it would seem obvious that you're can only beat Bob on an off day, otherwise, you'd be placing higher in the tournament.
2/ Word Up tournament won't run again and we'll get back to something I can win on. Cheers Bob. I fucking HATE Word Up.
Hope you're happy with the magic beans Bob. Personally. I'd have kept milking the cow.
And I don't buy the Goldten Tee 'tiered' system either. Everybody knows Andy B. has about 50 aliases, and made more cash when it went structured. But then, he knew how to disguise it.
Stupid punters. Telly all the week, screw the wife Saturday
-
Northern Monkey
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:06 am
-
Guest
I think what Ernest was saying was that there are a fair few fringe members (or former members of the core team, when it was primarily Cambridge-based) who are pretty good in their own right and are thus certainly capable of being a help, rather than a hindrance, to the more experienced members. They're a help because they're mostly super-smart maths post-grads to whom thinking logically in order to solve problems is second nature (the kind of thinking that makes you succeed in chess, poker, mind games in general). They, unlike most people, have no problems with spelling either.jonesey wrote:"and are Oxford and Cambridge graduates (not only graduates, but among the best in their years)"
What's that got to do with anything ?
The team is large and motley due to our (well, my) policy of seeking out any potential talent (which is why the Scrabble no.1 is now our buddy) and recruiting it. This is to check that we are not only actually the best players, but potentially the best players too.
