Round 3600 winning scores

[Paul Keating]

The statistics that Mike has been carefully maintaining since Round 1000 are now such an expected fixture that it has only lately begun to occur to me that they are quite unlike most of the leader boards you will find for other games or sports. 

Chess and Scrabble players are accorded an elaborately computed rating after every match or tournament. Our equivalent to that is (I suppose) the 5-round rolling scores report. But there are other, simpler league tables, such as you might find at your local squash or tennis club, that list wins, draws and losses. Our statistics, on the other hand, were called into being by rules that put the emphasis on amassing points, and will not even tell you how many times a player has won a round.

Now, the distinction win/draw/loss applies chiefly to games with two opposing players or teams. Coming second in a round of Dixonary can’t be accounted a loss: in fact the runner-up is often called “the real winner” because they will earn points from the subsequent round, and the actual real winner will not. And in Dixonary, ties (which you might also call draws) are very frequent. 

Even so, there is such a thing as a “winning score”, but we don’t publish figures showing how many times a player has achieved it. So I thought I would see how that would pan out, and the results are below.

In the table, the “winning score” is the one numerically highest in the round, but with guess-assisted scores considered to rank lower. So, 6 > 6* > 5, and so 6 is higher than the other two, and is the winning score. In cases of equality, where the new dealer can be determined only by reference to the rolling or total scores, this table considers the highest score to be a winning score for all of the players who achieved it. An “outright win” is where a single player scored highest.

Player Name	Total Wins	Outright Wins
Abell, T	110	72
Barrs, J	177	122
Bourne, T	121	63
Boxer, E	2	2
Davis, G	15	9
Embler, D	38	29
Keating, P	217	161
Kornelis, H	30	22
Lodge, T	325	225
Madnick, J	100	52
Mallach, E	136	93
Naylor, S	116	79
Rey	3	3
Shefler, M	313	216
Shepherdson, N	106	60
Widdis, D	168	117

Of course, players can win rounds only by playing in them, and so these figures exhibit the same bias as the total score: the primary determinant of your number of wins is how long you have been playing. The customary remedy is to divide the number of interest by the number of rounds played. That is left as an exercise for the interested reader. 

--

Paul Keating

Soustons, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France

[Judy Madnick]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

 

Judy

 

---

Original Message

From: "Paul Keating" <dixo...@boargules.com>

To: dixo...@googlegroups.com;

Date: 11/25/2025 12:48:38 PM

Subject: [Dixonary] Round 3600 winning scores

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/Mailbird-5138fe4d-d7e9-4517-8c81-c7383b202086%40boargules.com.

[Daniel B. Widdis]

Fun!

Now do ELO ratings!

--

[Paul Keating]

ELO ratings are for zero-sum games that have a win/lose/draw (or +1, 0, -1) outcome. 

Pass.

P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CAAbgggru1vR36wgknvWu4T2nTuUFxwUcVzvQA8OHZoXHKXcafg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniel B. Widdis]

And for each pairwise combination of players, you either achieved a higher score, tied, or achieved a lower score.

In the early days of the game with 40 players that's only 780 adjustments to make.  Quite a few "up" for the "winner" particularly if at least one of the "losers" had a high rating.

But I, too, would pass on doing that.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/E1vO0Vc-000BgW-0B%40sslproxy07.your-server.de.