Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Celebrity Dead Pool 2017 - "Surprise! You're Dead!"


Lemonade

Recommended Posts

wasn't that just you could swap someone out? This would be where all picks are unique. i.e. you and I can't both have Prince Philip but if I have him and you really want him because you got some inside info about his gall bladder acting up or something, you could propose a trade to me for your Vera Lynn. Needlessly complicated of course, but I do like the idea of picks being pulled from a pool of ageing/cancer or addiction-riddled/depressed celebs. Doubt Micahel Cera and Frankie Muniz would make the list of course so would severely hamper the lolz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ca_gere said:

wasn't that just you could swap someone out? This would be where all picks are unique. i.e. you and I can't both have Prince Philip but if I have him and you really want him because you got some inside info about his gall bladder acting up or something, you could propose a trade to me for your Vera Lynn. Needlessly complicated of course, but I do like the idea of picks being pulled from a pool of ageing/cancer or addiction-riddled/depressed celebs. Doubt Micahel Cera and Frankie Muniz would make the list of course so would severely hamper the lolz.

Ah like a draft? That could actually be quite fun, maybe even like a mini-league on the side where everyone has  a team of five, all unique,  picked from a pool of all the names entered in 2018. Could even be a knock out competition. Eg you're drawn against someone, whoever has someone on their team  die first progresses to the next round. Or instead of a list of named picks, everybody is given  a letter.  If someone who's name begins with your letter dies, you progress and the person you were up against is eliminated.  Interesting. We've  left it far too late to set anything up tho. Maybe for '19.

Edited by Lemonade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing I'd maybe suggest (and merely suggest) is upping the number of picks. Presently and  until now the only way to seriously win was to google and pick terminally ill people, which appears to be Bigsby's strategy (according to the Harbinger of Death, I mean Bibsby, himself no less) or picking guys who have picked a conventional war with the US and actively used modern media propaganda to get famous (me; I mean this has been my strategy the last 2 years, not that I am in Daesh...). This means maybe a couple of huge points bags to win (I did need I think Lee Kwan Yew and/or King of Thailand to help last year; if I sneak it this year, poor Mao will have been a crucial help).

Looks like it's going to get more competitive: most people used to pick people they disliked and were known to probably have  a few years left (say Thatcher or Philip), combined with some random irrational, hilarious choice (like Cera, or whoever). Amy Winehouse (though people had their reasons there) is probably the only big, young, points scorer for more than 1 person. I looked at death pool sites after the first year or two, but there were just the same few people at the top getting points for a lot of people (according to data that got sent in, or whatever). Minimising the bar for "celebrity" (regardless of what broonbreed thinks) was a good idea IMO; by what ca_gere said, sounds like other competitions have done so too.

Anyway, the point: I hypothesise that if (*if*) the FB group brings more people, people are taking it more seriously (as ca_gere seems to be) and doing research and really strategising much, the teams are going to look more similar. This might make it a closer run; but which perversely might make it duller (similar teams). If you had teams of 30-50 (50, excessive IMO, but possible it seems; say 35), people would run out of good bets, and would thus have to start throwing in longer punts, or people they just detest (as was earlier the norm). So assuming every terminally ill oldie and celebrity drone bulls-eye gets got, and every front runner scores the same because they all picked them, the winner will be decided by the wild cards (the more participants, and the more choices, the higher the odds that someone gets it).

Lowering the number of picks and forcing unique picks (as the draft mode seems to imply), I'm not too keen on. Lowering the number of picks will result in fewer scores ("take yer best orgasm..." No. no. Erm..).for each person, making it less compelling. I also like Lemonade's system of anonymous entries published a couple of weeks into the new year; it stops pilfering (the original intention) and means if one  gets a unique pick, it was really earned. I like the current set-up tbh, maybe just with a few tweaks and tightening up.

 

 

 

 

Edited by scottyboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, scottyboy said:

Only thing I'd maybe suggest (and merely suggest) is upping the number of picks. Presently and  until now the only way to seriously win was to google and pick terminally ill people, which appears to be Bigsby's strategy (according to the Harbinger of Death, I mean Bibsby, himself no less) or picking guys who have picked a conventional war with the US and actively used modern media propaganda to get famous (me; I mean this has been my strategy the last 2 years, not that I am in Daesh...). This means maybe a couple of huge points bags to win (I did need I think Lee Kwan Yew and/or King of Thailand to help last year; if I sneak it this year, poor Mao will have been a crucial help).

Looks like it's going to get more competitive: most people used to pick people they disliked and were known to probably have  a few years left (say Thatcher or Philip), combined with some random irrational, hilarious choice (like Cera, or whoever). Amy Winehouse (though people had their reasons there) is probably the only big, young, points scorer for more than 1 person. I looked at death pool sites after the first year or two, but there were just the same few people at the top getting points for a lot of people (according to data that got sent in, or whatever). Minimising the bar for "celebrity" (regardless of what broonbreed thinks) was a good idea IMO; by what ca_gere said, sounds like other competitions have done so too.

Anyway, the point: I hypothesise that if (*if*) the FB group brings more people, people are taking it more seriously (as ca_gere seems to be) and doing research and really strategising much, the teams are going to look more similar. This might make it a closer run; but which perversely might make it duller (similar teams). If you had teams of 30-50 (50, excessive IMO, but possible it seems; say 35), people would run out of good bets, and would thus have to start throwing in longer punts, or people they just detest (as was earlier the norm). So assuming every terminally ill oldie and celebrity drone bulls-eye gets got, and every front runner scores the same because they all picked them, the winner will be decided by the wild cards (the more participants, and the more choices, the higher the odds that someone gets it).

Lowering the number of picks and forcing unique picks (as the draft mode seems to imply), I'm not too keen on. Lowering the number of picks will result in fewer scores ("take yer best orgasm..." No. no. Erm..).for each person, making it less compelling. I also like Lemonade's system of anonymous entries published a couple of weeks into the new year; it stops pilfering (the original intention) and means if one  gets a unique pick, it was really earned. I like the current set-up tbh, maybe just with a few tweaks and tightening up.

 

 

 

 

There's definitely a few people take it more seriously than others, and generally they find their way to the top, I usually pick a few old duffers and a few names that I think will give people a laugh when I publish it (Geoff Capes was in my team this year for example, I've no idea what his health situation is, I just thought people would laugh at Geoff Capes). I have put a little more effort in to my 18 team, I think about half of them are suffering from some awful illness or another, and the other half in their 80s or 90s. No comedy entry this year, although Floella Benjamin and Amy Studt were on my initial list. I do feel a bit of a ghoul putting on people suffering with cancer etc but I guess you have to take the low hanging fruit and have a bit of a warped sense of humour in this game. Got to hand it to you, picking Daesh members was a smart way to pick up mega points, generally young men, unique picks, unnatural deaths. Plus, very little guilt. I felt awful when Muhammad Ali died and I got points for it. Anybody really give a fuck if an ISIS member dies in an airstrike? 

BTW the 2018 league is named for Ronnie James Dio who's death inspired me to start the game in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s totally fine as is. I reckon we could maybe throw in one or two wildcard rules to mix it up - extra points if Limmy does his ‘met him/her at a charity do’ tweet for your celeb. Stuff like that.

the Daesh/despot leader strategy is a welcome change imo. We can all field a team of Stan Lees and Kirk douglases but that would be boring. The real beauty lies in picking someone just obscure enough to be an inspired pick. See Geoff Capes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2017 at 4:49 AM, scottyboy said:

Only thing I'd maybe suggest (and merely suggest) is upping the number of picks. Presently and  until now the only way to seriously win was to google and pick terminally ill people, which appears to be Bigsby's strategy (according to the Harbinger of Death, I mean Bibsby, himself no less) or picking guys who have picked a conventional war with the US and actively used modern media propaganda to get famous (me; I mean this has been my strategy the last 2 years, not that I am in Daesh...). This means maybe a couple of huge points bags to win (I did need I think Lee Kwan Yew and/or King of Thailand to help last year; if I sneak it this year, poor Mao will have been a crucial help).

Looks like it's going to get more competitive: most people used to pick people they disliked and were known to probably have  a few years left (say Thatcher or Philip), combined with some random irrational, hilarious choice (like Cera, or whoever). Amy Winehouse (though people had their reasons there) is probably the only big, young, points scorer for more than 1 person. I looked at death pool sites after the first year or two, but there were just the same few people at the top getting points for a lot of people (according to data that got sent in, or whatever). Minimising the bar for "celebrity" (regardless of what broonbreed thinks) was a good idea IMO; by what ca_gere said, sounds like other competitions have done so too.

Anyway, the point: I hypothesise that if (*if*) the FB group brings more people, people are taking it more seriously (as ca_gere seems to be) and doing research and really strategising much, the teams are going to look more similar. This might make it a closer run; but which perversely might make it duller (similar teams). If you had teams of 30-50 (50, excessive IMO, but possible it seems; say 35), people would run out of good bets, and would thus have to start throwing in longer punts, or people they just detest (as was earlier the norm). So assuming every terminally ill oldie and celebrity drone bulls-eye gets got, and every front runner scores the same because they all picked them, the winner will be decided by the wild cards (the more participants, and the more choices, the higher the odds that someone gets it).

Lowering the number of picks and forcing unique picks (as the draft mode seems to imply), I'm not too keen on. Lowering the number of picks will result in fewer scores ("take yer best orgasm..." No. no. Erm..).for each person, making it less compelling. I also like Lemonade's system of anonymous entries published a couple of weeks into the new year; it stops pilfering (the original intention) and means if one  gets a unique pick, it was really earned. I like the current set-up tbh, maybe just with a few tweaks and tightening up.

Every Dec/Jan I google death list 201-whatever, copy the top 30 of the first one that comes up and then pick 20 from that - takes 2 mins and i've been top 3 the last 2 years, only being beat by 2 ghouls that are actively trying.

Plagiarising is so much easier than strategising...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, colb said:

Every Dec/Jan I google death list 201-whatever, copy the top 30 of the first one that comes up and then pick 20 from that - takes 2 mins and i've been top 3 the last 2 years, only being beat by 2 ghouls that are actively trying.

Plagiarising is so much easier than strategising...

Fair doos, I'm just not sure where the enjoyment comes from that though? The fun for me is coming up with randoms that nobody else has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bigsby said:

Fair doos, I'm just not sure where the enjoyment comes from that though? The fun for me is coming up with randoms that nobody else has.

I have a feeling most people do what I do*, time is an issue. Plus if you take someone else's top 30 you're still having to make some cuts. 

Also I don't really know enough about anything to be informed about when people might die - except American Hardcore bands from the 80's, and they were mostly all too straight edge to be candidates for early deaths - or too obscure to be recognised as celebrities.

 

*Although I have had a few unique picks, so maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I've ever spent more than half an hour coming up with a list, there is always at least half of your list from the year before so you actually only need 10 names at most. Contrary to perception I never have that many folk with terminal illnesses, most of mine are obscure folk that are ancient, hoping for the unique pick bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take a look at the top names on the death lists out there, pick a handful of 'bankers' then google D-list celebrities i can think of that are old, have drug problems, illnesses or all 3, check to make sure there are no 'spotted looking happy and healthy' headlines, stick them in. Buffer with some lolz that seem could actually happen for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throughout 2017 every time I've read a story about someone who's either old as fuck or has a disease I've added them to a list in my phone, by the end of the year I had about 45 names on it, then just cut it down to the 20 most likely to peg it. I think my most succesful year was the year I picked 20 ex-WWF wrestlers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gulmurod Khalimov

Age 45

10 points

+3 points unnatural death bonus.

and 3 more for @scottyboy as a unique pick, which makes 16 points.

 

Abu Muhammad al-Shimali

Age 37 

10 points

+3 points unnatural death bonus.

and 3 more for @scottyboy as a unique pick, which makes 16 points.

 

Which means in a dramatic twist @scottyboy steals it at the death!

  Player Points Number of predictions Average Age
1 Scottyboy 63 4 53.0
2 Bigsby 61 7 75.1
3 Scubby 53 7 85.1
4 colb 41 5 75.0
5 Delboy1969 23 4 87.3
6 Lemonade 23 3 77.3
7 ca_gere 19 3 83.0
8 kirsten 18 1 53.0
9 James Broonbreed 17 3 86.7
10 Improved Thinker 17 3 100.7
11 Stroopy121 16 3 87.3
12 Jim McGymersun 16 3 90.3
13 NutleyMedicos 12 2 86.0
14 Gypsum Fantastic 6 1 83.0
15 Lucius 6 1 88.0
16 Mattjimf 6 1 89.0

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...