Okay, so I officially got rid of my old user-name on BOM and its weighted down score (I got 66% on two games way back in december before I took any of this seriously.)
I am now John Savage on BOM, and will hopefully have a good overall percentage without those shit games. If it weren't for the 2 old ones I would've had about an 80% lifetime average, now I'll have to wait ten games but hopefully I'll get higher than that.

restarting is for pansies.
http://boxofficemojo.com/derbygame/derbyuserhist.htm
averaged 76% between 04 and 05

enh, too late.
I just don't see the point in being held back by an annoying handi-cap.

I have never considered restarting or making another account cause I always thought it would be sort of unfair. For a while I was playing mainly only special game on leesmovieinfo for openers and occasionally put some almost random prediction on BoM. It was really hard to make it to the all-time top having several games with 50-60% score in 2004-2005.

Man, no offence here, but that's kinda shitty to restart just because you want to go up the ranks. Looks like one of those pumps to enlarge a small penis...

lol I'm not offended cause that was funny.
I was being held down by two predictions I made a long time ago before I took BO seriously. If others don't want to do that, fine, but I don't think it's unfair and it makes sense to me.

And a respectable job you've done. I know there are several players who started weak and fought toward the top. I think it's cool to see how a top player has improved over the years. It's sort of like having those battle scars as a mark of pride to show how far you've come.

There's no doubt that several high-ups on the charts restarted at some point in the past once they learned more, but you can't always know who's who. And BOM doesn't have an adjustment factor for relative difficulty of or number of games played, or improvement ranks, etc, so I just keep my own charts and occasionally update and post them.

Great score shawman! And to Scott as well.

Best 4-week stretch in a while for me personally.

Xia and Scott both on a mean 4-straight top 20 streak. You guys are tough.

Yes, well done guys.

I'm not going to complain about taking 29th this week.

Thanks xiayun. you and scott are juggernauts. I am hoping BJ also goes on a streak and makes it a 3-way battle for the year.

not likely, Yun and Scott average 3%+ higher than I do in the summer, and Im crap in the fall, from here on out ill probably be coasting, I would not be surprised if I dropped out of the top 5 by the end of the summer.

Mine two. Four winning weeks in a row. I had a couple of 4 consecutive top 20 appearances (including two in 2004 and 2005). My longest stretch of top 20 appearances was November 4 of 2007 though the second weekend of December, when I had 6. Looks like us veterans are dominating everyone now.

That gives me a goal. In 13 weeks I've only hit the top 20 twice, and it was
non-consecutive, so it may be a bit of a pipe dream. We'll see.

Does anyone know how is that possible?
http://boxofficemojo.com/derbygame/derb ... &order=ASC
70 BJ 193,234 80.51% 237
72 Rumpelschtiltzchen_[rus] 192,263 80.55% 237

Well I see two issues. It looks like BOM has changed their scoring policy at least once, and did not update all records after they changed it. Their current rule states, by example, "Your average predicting accuracy last week was 75.22%; you are awarded 75.22 points. This week your average is 92.50%, so you now have a total of 167.72 points." Yet the only way to get the kind of point totals we see is to multiply the percentage points times 10 first and then the number of games, and even then it falls short. I think in the distant past they may have multiplied by 100 first, and then number of games. Since BJ's earliest games were earlier, he could have been playing during a period when they had a different scoring policy. Clearly they have failed to update all records with their current policy, and instead just added points to the existing total after they changed their policy. Perhaps one of the vets could confirm this?

The other issue is that for points they only use average score, and not overall accuracy, which I think are two different calcs. You'll notice you and BJ for example both have 80.6 listed as your average score. If both of you in theory had the exact same ave score and number of games, you should have the exact same number of points. There is probably a rounding or truncating problem, but one tenth does not account for the difference in points between you unless there is a factor of 100 involved somewhere down the line.

I never paid much attention to total points, but it's good to know they are even more meaningless than I thought. Sigh...

The scoring policy has always been the same. The issue there there were weeks where BOM asked to predict more than 10 movies before (and one week where we only predicted 9 due to a hiccup), and BJ predicted one or more those weeks that had more than 10 movies, thus receiving more total points while possibly having a lower accuracy.

But you still have your score out of 100%, thus maximum number of points can't be more than 1000, or can it? I still don't get it.

If you are correct that the policy has always been the same, and I don't doubt you are, then the official rules tab on the derby page is incorrect as it currently states that your points are determined by "average predicting accuracy" for a week, which is independent of number of movies predicted for a game, even if it might change the difficulty of the game, which is not the issue at hand. They do not state anything about the sum of accuracies for individual movies.

Your explanation states that the score is the sum of accuracies for all movies predicted converted to points, not the average accuracy for the whole game as is stated on BOM's page. 300 games at 100% accuracy each is still only 30,000 points the way the rule is explained on BOM, but 300,000 points makes perfect sense if you're talking the sum of accuracies for every movie ever predicted, at 10 movies per game.

So, it looks like BOM's official scoring policy is stated incorrectly in that case. Not that any amount of correction can give any meaning to point totals.

No, each film is always worth 100 points, and the total points is 100 * number of movies to predict, so if there are 12 movies to predict, which was the case for one of the weeks (I think it was because of too many new openers and second week holdovers), the total possible points would be 1200 for that week. Basically, it's not equally weighted per week, but per movie.

BJ played 10 games with 12 movies and 1 with 11 before I started playing. In theory it is enough to make up this 1000-point difference. It seems that you are right, because it's the only sensible explanation we have here.

Congrats to xiayun on the win, along with other KJ'ers. I got 12th place, to stretch my top 20 streak to 5. Just need one more to tie my personal best.

Congratulations to Xiayun with another great victory with excellent score.

WOW. What a score for xiayun. Congrats to him and everyone else who did well this week.