# Celebrity Death Pool 2016 **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Tags:** death-pool\ **Created:** [December 1, 2015, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098 "2015-12-01T05:57:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 47

**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/922 "2016-03-05T09:23:18Z")

> [@guylevesque](#): > > [Martin Crowe is dead.](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11462281) Golly, that’s a surprise. I’ve really not kept up with New Zealand news. ---

**Author:** ![Catamount](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/catamount/32/2840_2.png) [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/923 "2016-03-05T11:19:15Z")

> [@Stephe96](#): > > Hearing unconfirmed reports that author Pat Conroy (The Prince of Tides) has died [CNN confirms.](http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/05/entertainment/author-pat-conroy-dead/) ---

**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/924 "2016-03-05T11:45:27Z")

Looks like I am back up to third place, my high water mark of last year. I guess that makes me the Marco Rubio of the Death Pool. **CAMJAY77** and **Registered at Last** can fight over which is Donald Trump. ---

**Author:** ![anyrose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/54ee81/32.png) [@anyrose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anyrose)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/925 "2016-03-05T12:26:40Z")

Feek is more points than I’ve gotten in all the years I’ve played put together! ---

**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/926 "2016-03-05T13:40:22Z")

I’m still have no points.☹ ---

**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/927 "2016-03-05T16:43:53Z")

> [@Mahaloth](#): > > Look how many are tied for 5th. > [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I didn’t realize that Baker did it that way, thanks. I probably won’t be doing it that way, as I’ve always found that way unwieldy and puzzling/confusing. My score will be 1. xxx 2. (four people tied and listing them all) 3.(seven people tied and listing them all) 4. (eleven people tied and listing them all), etc ---

**Author:** ![Tangent](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tangent/32/3098_2.png) [@Tangent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tangent)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/928 "2016-03-05T17:13:39Z")

That’s too bad. The way Baker is doing it is pretty standard for competitions. It’s more accurate in terms of knowing how someone placed relative to the field. For example, if three people tied for first place, then calling the next person “2nd” is misleading since they actually came in fourth. ---

**Author:** ![Fleetwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fleetwood/32/271_2.png) [@Fleetwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fleetwood)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/929 "2016-03-05T17:26:07Z")

> [@Tangent](#): > > That’s too bad. The way Baker is doing it is pretty standard for competitions. It’s more accurate in terms of knowing how someone placed relative to the field. > > For example, if three people tied for first place, then calling the next person “2nd” is misleading since they actually came in fourth. I agree with Tangent. I think the way Idle Thoughts is planning to do it is less accurate and more confusing. ---

**Author:** ![The\_Vorlon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@The\_Vorlon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Vorlon)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/930 "2016-03-05T17:47:00Z")

Is it bad that upon hearing of Feek’s passing, my first thought was “Poor **Baker**!” ---

**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/931 "2016-03-05T17:49:01Z")

> [@Tangent](#): > > That’s too bad. The way Baker is doing it is pretty standard for competitions. It’s more accurate in terms of knowing how someone placed relative to the field. > > For example, if three people tied for first place, then calling the next person “2nd” is misleading since they actually came in fourth. I agree. It would seem bizarre if you could be in second place but not be in the top ten. ---

**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/932 "2016-03-05T19:14:11Z")

> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree. It would seem bizarre if you could be in second place but not be in the top ten. Let us not annoy the guy running the store before it opens, okay? :dubious: ---

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/933 "2016-03-05T19:32:20Z")

> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Let us not annoy the guy running the store before it opens, okay? :dubious: “With great power, comes great irresponsibility.” -Deadpool 😛 ---

**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/934 "2016-03-05T19:38:00Z")

> [@Tangent](#): > > That’s too bad. The way Baker is doing it is pretty standard for competitions. It’s more accurate in terms of knowing how someone placed relative to the field. > > For example, if three people tied for first place, then calling the next person “2nd” is misleading since they actually came in fourth. I disagree. I call it “A three way tie for first”. So three people got first. The next person is the only person who got second place. He didn’t get fourth place, he got second, because the three above him all got a tie for first. ---

**Author:** ![kayT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayt/32/3633_2.png) [@kayT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayT)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/935 "2016-03-05T19:40:17Z")

Of course, the Death Head can do it as he chooses, either Baker’s way or the wrong way. ---

**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/936 "2016-03-05T20:01:43Z")

> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > I disagree. I call it “A three way tie for first”. So three people got first. The next person is the only person who got second place. He didn’t get fourth place, he got second, because the three above him all got a tie for first. If three runners break the tape at exactly the same instant, the one who follows does not come in second: there are three runners better than that runner, so that runner is literally fourth. ---

**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/937 "2016-03-05T20:20:57Z")

**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/938 "2016-03-05T20:23:26Z")

> [@eschereal](#): > > If three runners break the tape at exactly the same instant, the one who follows does not come in second: there are three runners better than that runner, so that runner is literally fourth. Yeah, that’s in a race. In something that has scores, I consider a high score score of 20,000 (gotten by three people) to be a three way tie for first place and a person to have a score of 19,999 to have taken second place. …or sharing second place with others depending on how many others got a score of 19,999. ---

**Author:** ![Tangent](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tangent/32/3098_2.png) [@Tangent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tangent)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/939 "2016-03-05T20:25:39Z")

In pro golf, for example, if two people tie for second place then they are both listed as “2nd” but they typically split the prize money for second and third places. The next golfer in line is listed as “4th” and gets the prize money for 4th place. ---

**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/940 "2016-03-05T20:33:39Z")

> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Yeah, that’s in a race. In something that has scores, I consider a high score score of 20,000 (gotten by three people) to be a three way tie for first place and a person to have a score of 19,999 to have taken second place. > …or sharing second place with others depending on how many others got a score of 19,999. Then there could be dozens of people in the top ten. ---

**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098/941 "2016-03-05T20:39:48Z")

I understand that, but my logic is this and you really can’t argue against it: Let’s say there is a contest that has scores and five people get 30,000 points, which is the highest anyone gets who is in the contest. So they all are tied for first. They got the highest score of anyone else. So obviously you can’t say to one person “You got 30,000 points, you win” and say to another “You got 30,000 points, you don’t win” (unless the rule is “whoever gets to 30,000 points _ **first** _”, but that’s not the case in the death pool so let’s say it’s not the case in this example either). But I realize nobody is debating that in here… where the disagreement seems to come from is what we’d say to the person who got, say, 28,932 points. Now most of you seem like you’d say that person got 4th place…but yes or no, **IS 28,932 NOT THE _SECOND_-HIGHEST SCORE ANYONE got**? It is. It’s the second highest/second place score, behind 30,000…so, in my mind, any person (be it one person or more than one) who got 28,932 got the second highest score…thus SECOND place. So, put into a scoreboard, it would be like this: Mark 30,000 \<----Highest score Jay 30,000 Tim 30,000 Helen 30,000 Peter 30,000 Mary 28,932 \<-------Second highest score Tommy 27,655 \<--------Third highest score Jean 27,655 Steve 27,655 Elaine 27,012 \<-------- Fourth highest score Or, put more simple, a list of scores, with doubles taken out: 30,000 \<–first place score 28,932 \<–second place score 27,655 \<–third place score 27,012 \<–fourth place score Going with looking at it that way, I’d say 27,012 was fourth place with the fourth highest score, taking home the fourth place prize (if there is one) and the three people in third place should either all get a third place prize of their very own or split it. And the three tied for first either all get the first prize or split the prize or a new sudden death quickie tie-breaker round should happen to decide the winner out of those three. That’s all just me, though…I realize it’s done differently in other venues, but if I’m running this, I’m going to keep score like I’m used to. Of course, if Baker or someone else wants to not use me as host next year for this reasoning, that’s fine too, I don’t mind. 😛 I’d understand.. …but really, I think it’s a small enough thing to where it really shouldn’t matter much anyway, haha. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Then there could be dozens of people in the top ten. That’s right. Anyway, sorry for the hijack, I will stop talking about it beyond this post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/celebrity-death-pool-2016/739098.md?page=48)