@Ticomaya,
I don't think you understood what I meant Tico. I'll explain with an example.
In the horseracing press here there is an annual competition between all the leading racing correspondents. Each day these experts give what is called the "nap". Their star choice for that day's racing.
Any correspondent who naps odds on chances all the time never wins.
He probably has more winners than anybody else at the season's end but £1 bet on all his selections loses money. A considerable amount.
On an old table I happen to have to hand a Doug Moscrop of the Newcastle Journal is in No 1 spot, as I have been, you will remember, twice running from two attempts in this game and, in the tradition of the famous Gimcrack Stakes, a 2-year old race run at York in August over six furlongs, I am entitled to make speeches as the owner of the winner of the Gimcrack is at an annual dinner in memory of the famous horse from which the race derives its name which was a favourite with the public in the 18th century much as Red Rum was until it carked it a few years back.
Be that as it may Tico, in Mr Moscrop's selections he has napped 1 more loser than winners ( slightly minus of .500 on rjb's reckoning and well out of contention for my title) and £1 bet on all his selections shows a profit of £62.04 which is excellent for those who follow him and bet in larger amounts than £1, a size of bet not a one of them would ever be caught entering in to unless when playing monopoly with their nieces on Christmas Day when there is no racing.
On the other hand Kevin Walsh of the Irish Post has napped 1 more winner than losers and £1 bet on his selections is losing £32.51 and so also the Blackpool Gazette's correspondent, Steve Simpson, has napped one more winner than losers and bets on his selections are losing £39.75. Which are as bad for their followers as the exellence is for the followers of Mr Moscrop.
On your reckoning Tico both Mr Walsh and Mr Simpson are slightly plus of .500 and stand higher in your estimation than Mr Moscrop. Which shows that you are more a pedant than a betting man and your position as a defensive half-back is likely appropriate.
I do realise that the process I am suggesting, and the tradition is that the owner of the Gimcrack winner uses his speech to suggest improvements in horse racing, might put Jespah and osso and ed and your goodself up the table considerably and demote myself and other experts. And it would, of course, be more difficult for Johnny to administer and adjudicate on.
With 22 players there could be 22 points per game. If a split on the game is 11-11 then those who picked correctly share the 11 points of those who didn't. 1 point each and the others -1 point. If we split 18-4 and the former are correct the 18 share the 4 points which is .2222rec each or .222 for easier reckoning with the same amount being deducted from the 4 incorrect picker's running total. If the 4 choose correctly they share the 18 points, 4.5 points each.
I am not penalising choosers of the good things. I am merely putting them in their rightful place and as a two-times winner I am entitled to howl more than anybody but, as you might have suspected by now, I don't do subjectivity.
Think of the player who might have chosen the Buccs in a 21-1 split and his or her general demenour on watching Mr Brees throw that pass to the other side of the endzone from that side where the receiver stood out like an animated scarecrow in a field covered in snow. And as we play this game it mattered not a jot.
I submit the above for the consideration of members here and look forward to their comments which should not, under any circumstances, be influenced by pity for rjb.
