Series 10 Week by Week Running Scores and Results

1 of 2

Bonnie96

08-10-2012

Week 1 - 5th/6th October

Ballroom:

Code:

Waltz

Sid/Ola	         26
Denise/James	 25
Richard/Erin	 22
Dani/Vincent 	 21
Michael/Natalie	 20
Nicky/Karen	 17

Latin:

Code:

ChaChaCha

Lisa/Robin	 30
Kimberley/Pasha	 28
Louis/Flavia	 27
Colin/Kristina	 23
Fern/Artem	 19
Jerry/Anton	 18
Johnny/Iveta	 17
Victoria/Brendan 16

Leaderboard:

Code:

Lisa/Robin	 30
Kimberley/Pasha	 28
Louis/Flavia	 27	
Sid/Ola	         26				
Denise/James	 25
Colin/Kristina	 23	
Richard/Erin	 22	
Dani/Vincent 	 21
Michael/Natalie	 20
Fern/Artem	 19
Jerry/Anton	 18
=Johnny/Iveta	 17
=Nicky/Karen	 17
Victoria/Brendan 16

Eliminated
n/a

Bonnie96

13-10-2012

Week 2 - 13th October

Ballroom:

Code:

Louis/Flavia	     30
=Kimberley/Pasha     26
=Victoria/Brendan    26
Lisa/Robin	     25
=Colin/Kristina	     24
=Fern/Artem	     24
Johnny/Iveta	     20
Jerry/Anton	     18

Latin:

Code:

Denise/James	      32
Dani/Vincent 	      27
Sid/Ola	              22
Richard/Erin	      19
Nicky/Karen	      18
Michael/Natalie	      15

Leaderboard:

Code:

This Week	          2 Weeks Combined [Average]

Denise/James	      32  =Denise/James	        57 [28.5]
Louis/Flavia	      30  =Louis/Flavia	        57 [28.5]
Dani/Vincent 	      27  Lisa/Robin		55 [27.5]
=Kimberley/Pasha      26  Kimberley/Pasha	54 [27.0]
=Victoria/Brendan     26  =Dani/Vincent 	48 [24.0]	
Lisa/Robin	      25  =Sid/Ola		48 [24.0]	
=Colin/Kristina	      24  Colin/Kristina	47 [23.5]
=Fern/Artem           24  Fern/Artem		43 [21.5]                  
Sid/Ola               22  Victoria/Brendan	42 [21.0]
Johnny/Iveta	      20  Richard/Erin	        41 [20.5]
Richard/Erin	      19  Johnny/Iveta	        37 [18.5]
=Jerry/Anton	      18  Jerry/Anton		36 [18.0]
=Nicky/Karen	      18  =Michael/Natalie	35 [17.5]
Michael/Natalie	      15  =Nicky/Karen	        35 [17.5]

Eliminated

Code:


	
	Spoiler 
	
	
		14th - Johnny/Iveta [+11] 18.5

Jayinthegarden

13-10-2012

Thanks for this, it is really, really helpful

maggie_07

14-10-2012

Thanks for this - it's interesting to compare both weeks to see who has improved and who hasn't. Poor Nicky is near the bottom both weeks and I had high hopes for him.

blueface2222

14-10-2012

thanks

So Kimberley, Louis, Denise or Lisa will win it.

Bonnie96

15-10-2012

You're all very welcome

I like to be able to look back in a number crunching kinda way!

Veri

15-10-2012

Originally Posted by blueface2222:
“thanks

So Kimberley, Louis, Denise or Lisa will win it.”

How can you tell from the results so far? (Just wondering.)

Bonnie96

21-10-2012

Week 3 - 20th October

HOLLYWOOD WEEK

Ballroom:

Code:

(Running Total) {Present Average}

Denise/James	   32	(57)	{28.5}
=Kimberley/Pasha   29	(55)	{27.5}
=Dani/Vincent 	   29	(50)	{25.0}
Nicky/Karen	   27	(44)	{22.0}
Colin/Kristina	   26	(50)	{25.0}
Richard/Erin	   25	(47)	{23.5}
Jerry/Anton	   18	(36)	{18.0}
Sid/Ola	           17	(43)	{21.5}

Latin:

Code:

(Running Total) {Present Average}

Louis/Flavia	   30	(57)	{28.5}
Lisa/Robin	   29	(59)	{29.5}
Fern/Artem	   23	(42)	{21.0}
Victoria/Brendan   22	(38)	{19.0}
Michael/Natalie	   19	(34)	{17.0}

Leaderboard:

Code:

[Previous Positions read right to left from week 1] 

Denise/James	   32	 (89)	{29.7}	[  1  5]
Louis/Flavia	   30	 (87)	{29.0}	[  2  3]
=Lisa/Robin	   29	 (84)	{28.0}	[  6  1]
=Kimberley/Pasha   29	 (83)	{27.7}	[ =4  2]
=Dani/Vincent 	   29	 (77)	{25.7}	[  3  8]
Nicky/Karen	   27    (62)	{20.7}	[=12=12]
Colin/Kristina	   26	 (73)	{24.3}	[ =7  6]
Richard/Erin	   25	 (66)	{22.0}	[ 11  7]
Fern/Artem	   23    (66)	{22.0}	[ =7 10]
Victoria/Brendan   22	 (64)	{21.3}	[ =4 14]
Jerry/Anton	   18	 (54)	{18.0}	[=12 11]
Sid/Ola	           17	 (65)	{21.7}	[  9  4]

Eliminated

Code:


	
	Spoiler 
	
	
		13th - Jerry/Anton    {18.0}	[12]
	

14th - Johnny/Iveta {18.5}	[11]

Kelley18644

21-10-2012

Is Michael/Natalie missing from the latest leaderboard chart?

Bonnie96

22-10-2012

Originally Posted by Kelley18644:
“Is Michael/Natalie missing from the latest leaderboard chart?”

Yes they are

Don't know where they went

unless it was while I was fiddling with the code

Here's the leaderboard minus Jerry & Anton who were next position down from Michael & Natalie:

Code:

(Running Total) {Present Average}
[Previous Positions read right to left from week 1] 

Denise/James	    32	 (89)	{29.7}	[  1  5]
Louis/Flavia	    30	 (87)	{29.0}	[  2  3]
=Lisa/Robin	    29	 (84)	{28.0}	[  6  1]
=Kimberley/Pasha    29	 (83)	{27.7}	[ =4  2]
=Dani/Vincent 	    29	 (77)	{25.7}	[  3  8]
Nicky/Karen	    27   (62)	{20.7}	[=12=12]
Colin/Kristina	    26	 (73)	{24.3}	[ =7  6]
Richard/Erin	    25	 (66)	{22.0}	[ 11  7]
Fern/Artem	    23   (66)	{22.0}	[ =7 10]
Victoria/Brendan    22	 (64)	{21.3}	[ =4 14]
Michael/Natalie	    19	 (54)	{18.0}	[ 14  9]
Sid/Ola	            17	 (65)	{21.7}	[  9  4]

henrywilliams58

27-10-2012

Week 4 Judge rank Judges scores
Colin & Kristina - 9 24
Dani & Vincent -- 6 27
Denise & James 5 28
Fern & Artem --- 11 21
Kim & Pasha ---- 2 31
Lisa & Robin ---- 7 26
Louis & Flavia --- 1 35
Michael & Nat -- 2 31
Nicky & Karen --- 7 26
Richard & Erin -- 10 22
Sid & Ola -------- 12 17
Vicky & Brendan 2 31

Average scores
Craig Dracy Len Bruno
6.0 6.7 7.1 6.8

henrywilliams58

27-10-2012

My calculations above are wrong. Only just realised that if there is a tied score they don't skip a rank in Strictly.

As per the other thread, Denise came 4th but at 10 points only 2 points below Louis at 12 points

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A6PGLolCUAEeXM8.jpg

And Sid came 12th but got 4 points instead of 1.

Unusual way of doing it. I've never seen such a marking system anywhere.

ceemage

27-10-2012

Originally Posted by henrywilliams58:
“My calculations above are wrong. Only just realised that if there is a tied score they don't skip a rank in Strictly.

Unusual way of doing it. I've never seen such a marking system anywhere.”

A legacy of the Tom Chambers Semi-Final hoo-hah from a few series back.

Bonnie96

27-10-2012

Week 4 - 27th October

HALLOWEEN WEEK

Ballroom:

Code:

(Running Total) {Present Average}

Louis/Flavia	  35	(65)	{32.5}
=Victoria/Brendan 31	(57)	{28.5}
=Michael/Natalie  31	(51)	{25.5}
Nicky/Karen	  26	(70)	{23.3}
Fern/Artem	  21	(45)	{22.5}

Latin:

Code:

(Running Total) {Present Average}

Kimberley/Pasha	  31	(59)	{29.5}
Denise/James	  28	(60)	{30.0}
Dani/Vincent 	  27	(54)	{27.0}
Lisa/Robin	  26	(85)	{28.3}
Colin/Kristina	  24	(47)	{23.5}
Richard/Erin	  22	(41)	{20.5}
Sid/Ola	          17	(39)	{19.5}

Leaderboard:

Code:

(Running Total) {Present Average}
[Previous Positions read right to left from week 1] 

Louis/Flavia	  35	 (122)	{30.5}	[ 2  2	3]
=Kimberley/Pasha  31	 (114)	{28.5}	[=3 =4  2]
=Victoria/Brendan 31	  (95)	{23.8}	[ 8 =4 14]
=Michael/Natalie  31	  (85)	{21.3}	[ 9 14	9]
Denise/James	  28	 (117)	{29.3}	[ 1  1	5]
Dani/Vincent 	  27	 (104)	{26.0}	[=3  3  8]
=Lisa/Robin	  26	 (110)	{27.5}	[=3  6  1]
=Nicky/Karen	  26      (88)	{22.0}	[ 4=12=12]
Colin/Kristina	  24	  (97)	{24.3}	[ 5 =7	6]
Richard/Erin	  22	  (88)	{22.0}	[ 6 11	7]
Fern/Artem	  21      (87)	{21.8}	[ 7 =7 10]
Sid/Ola	          17	  (82)	{20.5}	[ 11 9  4]

Eliminated

Code:


	
	Spoiler 
	
	
		12TH - Sid/Ola     {20.5}   [ 9]
	

13th - Jerry/Anton    {18.0}	[10]
14th - Johnny/Iveta   {18.5}	[11]

henrywilliams58

28-10-2012

Originally Posted by ceemage:
“A legacy of the Tom Chambers Semi-Final hoo-hah from a few series back.”

I must have had a SCD sabbatacial then as I don't remember that.

This system leads to a higher average judges score than voters' score.

Voters scores are unlikely to tie and contestants will be given points:
12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Whereas the judges points are:
12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4

If there is a tie break they should use the previous week's judges score - and if that is also tied then the week before that etc.

Bonnie96

28-10-2012

Originally Posted by henrywilliams58:
“I must have had a SCD sabbatacial then as I don't remember that.

This system leads to a higher average judges score than voters' score.

Voters scores are unlikely to tie and contestants will be given points:
12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Whereas the judges points are:
12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4”

Voters' Points:
12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Average: 6.5

Judges' Points:
12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 Average: 8.5

Previous method Judges Points:
12, 11, 11, 11, 8, 7, 6, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 Average: 6.83

Still a higher average than the voters so I'm not really sure of the point (pardon the pun

) you're making?

The point system only allocates the place on the leaderboard until the voters points are added to make a new one and then there are 1000s of permutations.
True, 2 couples may only be separated by 1 vote but it's more likely to be 100s.

Are you perhaps wanting the Judges' Scores averages and not the points?

Originally Posted by henrywilliams58:
“If there is a tie break they should use the previous week's judges score - and if that is also tied then the week before that etc.”

I don't like it when there are ties but to allocate a previous week's Judges' scores would negate a couple's progress or lapse just to make the numbers orderly.
What would be the point in competition then?

ceemage

28-10-2012

Originally Posted by Bonnie96:
“I don't like it when there are ties but to allocate a previous week's Judges' scores would negate a couple's progress or lapse just to make the numbers orderly.
What would be the point in competition then?”

In the Christmas Show after the Tom Chambers incident, pretty much everyone got 40 or 39. So they went back to the judges and asked them to break their ties, which they did. (It was a joint decision, but Len announced them, as Head Judge.) This would be the ideal solution for dealing with ties week-in week-out, but I guess wouldn't work with the dynamics of a live show.

Although, if the BBC want to preserve the fiction of the Results show not being pre-recorded, I guess they could always start the Sunday show by asking the judges to break their ties "now you've had a chance to sleep on it..." <grin>

henrywilliams58

28-10-2012

Originally Posted by Bonnie96:
“Voters' Points:
12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Average: 6.5

Judges' Points:
12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 Average: 8.5

Previous method Judges Points:
12, 11, 11, 11, 8, 7, 6, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 Average: 6.83

Still a higher average than the voters so I'm not really sure of the point (pardon the pun ) you're making?

The point system only allocates the place on the leaderboard until the voters points are added to make a new one and then there are 1000s of permutations.
True, 2 couples may only be separated by 1 vote but it's more likely to be 100s.

Are you perhaps wanting the Judges' Scores averages and not the points?

I don't like it when there are ties but to allocate a previous week's Judges' scores would negate a couple's progress or lapse just to make the numbers orderly.
What would be the point in competition then?”

OK then if there are ties then judges points should be (as for this Saturday)

12, 10, 10, 10, 8, 6.5, 6.5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Average: 6.5

So same average as voters' points and no bias in favour of judges.

And total points (judges and voters) assuming public and judges vote in the same order would be

24, 21, 20, 19, 16, 13.5, 12.5, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2 Average: 13

Voters scores just will not tie given the numbers involved.

And if judges score half 40 and the other half 39 then the judges points would be

9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5 Average: 6.5

and total points (judges and voters) assuming public and judges in the same order would be

21.5, 20.5, 19.5, 18.5, 17.5, 16.5, 9.5, 8.5, 7.5, 6.5, 5.5, 4.5 Average: 13

Bonnie96

29-10-2012

Originally Posted by henrywilliams58:
“OK then if there are ties then judges points should be (as for this Saturday)

12, 10, 10, 10, 8, 6.5, 6.5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Average: 6.5

So same average as voters' points and no bias in favour of judges.”

BIB would only work with an odd number of ties since there are no half points in a supposed simple points system

The only reason for translating the scores to points is to place the couples on a leaderboard instead of having eg :

Couple AB 3459
Couple CD 2987
Couple EF 2715
Couple GH 2222

etc

So much simpler to have:

Judges + voters = comb -> new lb
Couple AB 12+3 = 15 -> 1st
Couple CD 5+ 9 = 14 -> 2nd
Couple EF 7+ 5 = 12 -> 3rd
Couple GH 7+ 4 = 11 -> 4th

The unknown factor of the public vote is what places the couples - not the Judges scores/points.
The only difference is; in the new way, lowest on the leaderboard is helped one last time if there are ties above them

Averaging Judges points serves no purpose as the public vote throws it all open

henrywilliams58

29-10-2012

Originally Posted by Bonnie96:
“
The unknown factor of the public vote is what places the couples - not the Judges scores/points.
The only difference is; in the new way, lowest on the leaderboard is helped one last time if there are ties above them
..”

I'm missing something clearly.

Are the judges' points (i.e. rankings) weighted the same as voters' points (i.e. rankings)?

If so they have equal influence as the voters in determining the final ranking.

Except under the current system judges' points (i.e. rankings) are over stated when a couple or any couple above them is tied.

Bonnie96

29-10-2012

Originally Posted by henrywilliams58:
“I'm missing something clearly.

Are the judges' points (i.e. rankings) weighted the same as voters' points (i.e. rankings)?

If so they have equal influence as the voters in determining the final ranking.

Except under the current system judges' points (i.e. rankings) are over stated when a couple or any couple above them is tied.”

The Judges' rankings are known and the viewers know where each of the couples are placed on the leaderboard before they get a chance to vote.
The rankings from viewers' phone votes are an unknown factor until the last call is made and could swing any of the couples placings.

It's the couples' relative positions on the leaderboard that could make any kind of difference at all whether you number them or not because their fate still hangs on how many calls are made in their favour.
It's never going to be an exact science however it's set up because the exact same number of calls aren't going to be made week after week.

In previous years we've worked out (once the number of couples gets lower

) just how many permutations there are for the couple at the top of the leaderboard to be in the dance off or voted out because of the unknown factor which is the GBP so no, points are not a major factor per se except to give some kind of starting point according to (in the Judges' opinion) the couples' expertise.

It's still a lottery.

henrywilliams58

29-10-2012

Originally Posted by Bonnie96:
“ ... because of the unknown factor which is the GBP so no, points are not a major factor per se except to give some kind of starting point according to (in the Judges' opinion) the couples' expertise.

It's still a lottery.”

Mmm. I thought Judges' points (ranking of scores) + Voters' points (ranking of calls) = Total points (overall ranking)

Which would have made points a "major factor".

I don't see a lottery - i.e. randomness in this.

Anyway many or most voters are not (at this stage) voting for a couple to win. They are voting for a dance-off candidate to stay out of the dance-off. That might and does push a judges' non dance-off candidate into the dance off. Not this series so far and we don't have any complete dross left after Michael and Victoria improved.

Surely somebody must have written a dissertation on this!

Monkseal

29-10-2012

It's a mathematical fallacy to say that the judges get more say when they give out more points. They don't. The judges (and public's) influence solely lies in the standard deviation of the scores they give out, not their numerical value. If the judges ranking scores were ranged 100, 99, 98, 97, 96 it wouldn't make their rankings more influential than if they were ranged 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Hence why the new system of ties, where the judges standard deviation is LOWER than that of the public in the event of ties gives them LESS influence over the result than the old system where ties gave the judges scores a HIGHER standard deviation than that of the public's votes and hence MORE influence than the public had.

henrywilliams58

29-10-2012

Of course only the bottom five or so really matter for ejection purposes.

Sure the standard deviation of the bottom five scores in the event of a four way tie is lower for the judges than the standard deviation in that of the voters

(a) Judges 7 7 7 7 6 of 0.45

(b) voters 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 of 1.58

But Judges points of

(c) 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 1 has a standard deviation of 1.12

By suggesting that "judges have more influence under the current system" I am suggesting that the judges' points system is understating the difference in performance between the bottom five thereby favouring the worst performer - who in turn will generate a sympathy vote more than deserved and may well be saved as a result of the judges points system overstating his rating.

Bonnie96

29-10-2012

Originally Posted by henrywilliams58:
“Of course only the bottom five or so really matter for ejection purposes.”

Not at all.

There is usually a shock exit from mid to high leaderboard somewhere in the series - Zoe Lucker, Jimi Mistry - because of the unpredictibility of the voting public

1 of 2