The 2010 Nik Memorial Grading Contest *FINAL RANKING*

[joe_collector]

Was it the only book that could not be 'mined' by your method?

 

No, the Avengers 1 was another one, but it had the disadvantage of its (incorrect) data mined number yielding 3 points, so the results are not as blatant.

 

But I also believe its bulls-eye percentage was very low, which tells the tale as well. I thik Timmay got it right, and was one of the only leaders to do so.

[trmoore54]

Hey where's Book 26??!!

[Warlord]

 

Am also proud to have tied with the best bullseye streak of 6...along with Thomas Nielson, *Bronze age fan* and canickus...special hat off to Warlord for an 8 out of 10 bullseye run sandwiched around two -1s...

 

 

Yeah, that was sort of a nice run. I blew a few of the grades big time. I'm the highest finishing contestant with 6 negs!

 

Of course after the MEL passed over me I pretty much lost the will to study the scans, like the ASM #100. Tried looking at it for a bit and decided it wasn't worth going blind trying to find the creases and got a neg for my "grade first, look later" approach!

[*Bronze age fan*]

CONGRATS and MAJOR KUDOs to He11blazer...VICTORY is SWEET!

 

 

 

Am also proud to have tied with the best bullseye streak of 6...along with Thomas Nielson, *Bronze age fan* and canickus...special hat off to Warlordfor an 8 out of 10 bullseye run sandwiched around two -1s...

 

Already looking forward to next year!

 

 

Good showing dude! Wish I would have been in from the start! 9 Bullseyes and missing 8 rounds is pretty good! Cant wait till the next contest! Thanks to all for alot of fun!

[He11blazer]

Was it the only book that could not be 'mined' by your method?

 

No, the Avengers 1 was another one, but it had the disadvantage of its (incorrect) data mined number yielding 3 points, so the results are not as blatant.

 

But I also believe its bulls-eye percentage was very low, which tells the tale as well. I thik Timmay got it right, and was one of the only leaders to do so.

 

It's comments like that which are rather grating. You're flat out saying that everyone near the top MUST have cheated on the basis of a single result (or group of results if you prefer). It's not just weak, it's demonstrably false.

 

I scored a -1 on the Av1, a score you clearly stated would not be suffered by a 'miner'. My results, and those of everyone else near the top, disagree with your predictions on many other rounds also.

 

You made your point a dozen times and I gather there was something in it, but I can't ignore it when you say "players x, y and z are definitely cheating" - which you have said on several occasions - when your own evidence proves you wrong every time! It's possible somebody cheated by your method, but stop claiming that specific individuals did when you have no evidence of it.

[He11blazer]

Don't worry, we have new loopholes to be exploited in the next contest. (thumbs u

 

[AJD]

Was it the only book that could not be 'mined' by your method?

 

No, the Avengers 1 was another one, but it had the disadvantage of its (incorrect) data mined number yielding 3 points, so the results are not as blatant.

 

But I also believe its bulls-eye percentage was very low, which tells the tale as well. I thik Timmay got it right, and was one of the only leaders to do so.

 

It's comments like that which are rather grating. You're flat out saying that everyone near the top MUST have cheated on the basis of a single result (or group of results if you prefer). It's not just weak, it's demonstrably false.

 

I scored a -1 on the Av1, a score you clearly stated would not be suffered by a 'miner'. My results, and those of everyone else near the top, disagree with your predictions on many other rounds also.

 

You made your point a dozen times and I gather there was something in it, but I can't ignore it when you say "players x, y and z are definitely cheating" - which you have said on several occasions - when your own evidence proves you wrong every time! It's possible somebody cheated by your method, but stop claiming that specific individuals did when you have no evidence of it.

 

Quite - I got most of what Joe calls the 'mineable' books right - but not all, and I got some of the unmineable ones right too, or close to it. Of course, I got a few of both types wrong too - including assigning some 'impossible' grades according to the census.

 

So that's two of the top five who demonstrably didn't cheat - and I'm willing to bet the others are clean too. What do you (JC) think this is - the Tour de France?

[Jeffro.]

Was it the only book that could not be 'mined' by your method?

 

No, the Avengers 1 was another one, but it had the disadvantage of its (incorrect) data mined number yielding 3 points, so the results are not as blatant.

 

But I also believe its bulls-eye percentage was very low, which tells the tale as well. I thik Timmay got it right, and was one of the only leaders to do so.

 

It's comments like that which are rather grating. You're flat out saying that everyone near the top MUST have cheated on the basis of a single result (or group of results if you prefer). It's not just weak, it's demonstrably false.

 

I scored a -1 on the Av1, a score you clearly stated would not be suffered by a 'miner'. My results, and those of everyone else near the top, disagree with your predictions on many other rounds also.

 

You made your point a dozen times and I gather there was something in it, but I can't ignore it when you say "players x, y and z are definitely cheating" - which you have said on several occasions - when your own evidence proves you wrong every time! It's possible somebody cheated by your method, but stop claiming that specific individuals did when you have no evidence of it.

 

Ignore it. It's just like the yammering biddies on The View. Useless.

[He11blazer]

I assume JC's main point is about using the census. This depends on the books having been updated to the census, knowing they've been updated, and having a low population book with zeroes in most grades.

 

If we assume the books were updated to the census, then yes this was useful for the Tomahawk which only has books on the census from 7.0 to 9.4. It is reasonable to suppose that that explains the lack of a bell curve on the results for that round, with the majority aiming 5.5/6.0 and about 15 more people than you'd statistically expect shooting at 7.0.

 

Anyone doing that had faith that the census included the contest book.

 

I don't think any other books in the contest had such low populations.

 

So anyway, assuming the census is the datamine JC is talking about, it would be nice (if there's a next time) if CGC could kindly withhold the books from the census.

 

As for finding previous sales of the same book (I believe someone had seen the AF#15 before?) that would help by giving additional scans (handy) and somebody else's opinion of the grade (take at your own risk). But again, this only applies to maybe one book in the contest, and I doubt more than a handful of people at most knew of it (I certainly didn't).

[trip74-migration]

much thanks to the 4 organizers.

 

this was my first attempt at the contest and I have to admit it's pretty fun, if a little daunting

[Arcade]

Was it the only book that could not be 'mined' by your method?

 

No, the Avengers 1 was another one, but it had the disadvantage of its (incorrect) data mined number yielding 3 points, so the results are not as blatant.

 

But I also believe its bulls-eye percentage was very low, which tells the tale as well. I thik Timmay got it right, and was one of the only leaders to do so.

 

It's comments like that which are rather grating. You're flat out saying that everyone near the top MUST have cheated on the basis of a single result (or group of results if you prefer). It's not just weak, it's demonstrably false.

 

I scored a -1 on the Av1, a score you clearly stated would not be suffered by a 'miner'. My results, and those of everyone else near the top, disagree with your predictions on many other rounds also.

 

You made your point a dozen times and I gather there was something in it, but I can't ignore it when you say "players x, y and z are definitely cheating" - which you have said on several occasions - when your own evidence proves you wrong every time! It's possible somebody cheated by your method, but stop claiming that specific individuals did when you have no evidence of it.

 

 

Don't feel bad.

I happened to recognize one book, the Amazing Fantasy 15, from a sales thread.

Next thing you know I am being lectured on the finer points of Data Mining.

And I did not even pick the grade the book was sold for in the thread.

[joe_collector]

[My results, and those of everyone else near the top, disagree with your predictions on many other rounds also.

 

If you want me to go through the results - I have them in an Excel file - and then correlate that data with each of the Top 15-20, just let me know. I never said you were data mining, but I know for a fact that some were. 100% certain as I followed along about halfway through.

 

There are definite patterns, as others like oakman have clearly illustrated.

 

And all this "it's just sour grapes" is hilarious, as I could have easily won the contest had my ethics allowed me to data mine my way to victory. Again, this can be easily demonstrated if someone gives me the go-ahead, as I don't want to stir up anything wthout just cause.

[joe_collector]

I happened to recognize one book, the Amazing Fantasy 15, from a sales thread.

Next thing you know I am being lectured on the finer points of Data Mining.

 

Wow, nice memory Jethro, and this after you *assured* us all that you *knew* that comment was not meant for you, and that your statement was "just a joke".

 

Let me guess, you're going to play off the above, as "just another hilarious joke", right?

[GACollectibles]

 

Although some of my behavior was uncalled for and detrimental to the contest

 

Vince, if we had a Lifetime Consistency Award tied in with this contest, you'd have won it hands down. (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

[He11blazer]

[My results, and those of everyone else near the top, disagree with your predictions on many other rounds also.

 

If you want me to go through the results - I have them in an Excel file - and then correlate that data with each of the Top 15-20, just let me know.

 

It would be interesting to see what scores you say would have been achieved purely using your method.

 

I never said you were data mining, but I know for a fact that some were. 100% certain as I followed along about halfway through.

 

I don't see how you can be 100% certain. I do see that if the spread often shows a statistically anomalous peak where the 'mine' predicts, that would be strong evidence that some people are using the same source.

 

There are definite patterns, as others like oakman have clearly illustrated.

 

And all this "it's just sour grapes" is hilarious, as I could have easily won the contest had my ethics allowed me to data mine my way to victory. Again, this can be easily demonstrated if someone gives me the go-ahead, as I don't want to stir up anything wthout just cause.

 

I don't think anyone said it was sour grapes (I may have missed it if they did). I don't think that. You've said all along "I could win using my secret method but I'm too honourable", and whilst I didn't doubt that, it did get a bit annoying after a while!

 

Sorry for prolonging the discussion folks!

[ckp1680]

If you want me to go through the results - I have them in an Excel file - and then correlate that data with each of the Top 15-20, just let me know.

 

You can do my results, I would like to get your take on them.

 

[joe_collector]

I will not go into the actual data, as that too would be detrimental to the contest, but here is the basic method, which I am certain other people utilized to mine their way to the top.

 

The key is knowing that the books in the contest were "freshly graded" (although Doc tossed in a couple of older books in the second half of the contest to mix things up) so would be part of a more recent Census update.

 

Step 1: In two windows, open up the CGC Census Analysis Tool (http://www.valiantfan.com/cgc/) and the CGC Census (http://www.cgccomics.com/census/index.asp) and enter the book in question. Compare the analysis results from December against the updated Census results and look for differences.

 

Often there was only one obvious choice, which occurred in about 50-60% of the results (70%+ in the first half, less than 50% in the second half), and a lot of the other times, it was between 2-3 alternate choices, many times guaranteeing you 1-3 points.

 

Step 2: In the latter case, you could increase your percentages greatly by searching auction results in GPA or other historical databases looking for these graded books, thereby eliminating some or all of the alternates.

 

Step 3: Use your grading ability to set a "range" of acceptable results and lower the numbers that way, and then making the best choice of the 20% of the contest books that were older subs or where you could really risk a -1 score (Avengers 1, Spider-man 100, etc.).

[joe_collector]

It would be interesting to see what scores you say would have been achieved purely using your method.

 

Using my method taken to all 3 steps, combined with some very lucky scores on some "unmineable" books, my max would have been about 102 points - give or take depending on your grading ability/luck on the "tough books" - maybe 95-98 had I wanted to "play if safe". Some of these books were beyond analysis and the end score could change based on your grade/guess.

 

After a bit of number crunching, 90-97 would be the optimal/luckiest score for most people using this method, but even if you missed the tough ones, definitely in the high 80's just based on the obvious 5-point bulls-eyes.

[DrWatson]

killjoy: kill·joy (kljoi) noun

 

One who spoils the enthusiasm or fun of others.

 

[DrWatson]

 

Although some of my behavior was uncalled for and detrimental to the contest

 

Vince, if we had a Lifetime Consistency Award tied in with this contest, you'd have won it hands down. (thumbs u

I believe you misspelled bullsh*t, Andrew.