I’ve always thought the whole “death pool” thing was kind of, well not just kind of morbid. Has anybody ever thought of turning it on its head? Instead of picking the youngest celebs who you think will die, you pick the oldest ones that you think won’t die. Then you get points based on their age at the end of the year. For instance, if you’d picked Kirk Douglas, who lived, that’s a hundred points. Just an idea.
Perhaps set a minimum age of 70, with double points for 100 and above?
I fail to see how this game would be any less morbid than the other game.
To me, a “Life” game would be more along the lines of which celebs are gonna get pregnant or adopt this year. Or maybe even married if you want to stretch the meaning.
I think that game would be more likely to feel you with the warm fuzzies. Assuming that is the intent of the OP.
One issue I see is that it’s far more likely that in any given year someone really old won’t die than it is that someone really young will. So going for the big payoffs is far less risky in something like this than it is in the Death Pool. I have a feeling there would be a lot of high scores in this game.
I pick Abe Vi…oh crap.
Well, it puts you in the position of hoping people will live, rather than hoping that they’ll die.
I agree that the death pool game is morbid. I’ve never even read one of the threads. Rather than aged-based, it seems like the scoring should be like Boggle; if you pick a celeb that other players also pick, that should be worth fewer points than a celeb that only you have picked.
Yeah, but it’s kind of like if I were a nurse working at the children’s cancer ward taking bets on which children are going to pull through this year.
One who play’s the game isn’t hoping because they give two shits. They’re only hoping so they can win the game.
Even at 100, a person still has over a 50% chance of living out the year, which would strongly favor picks of old celebrities. But there aren’t all that many centenarian celebrities, which would result in a lot of overlap between various players’ lists.
Bumping this because of the discussion in the other thread.
I would not be interested for several reasons.
Game play: whether you put a little or a lot of thought into the DP there is an element of strategy. You take into account reported health, lifestyle choices, potential points, uniqueness etc. With the LP you randomly pick old people and hope.
After all picks are in the DP becomes an information thread about notable people who die. Even those that no one picked. It’s full of mini-discussions about people who are interesting but would otherwise not get their own thread. In many ways the DP is one of the more enjoyable threads on the board.
A LP would be hoping nothing happened. What kind of discussion will there be when day after day no one dies?
I simply pick people I admire in the Death Pool, people I hope will never die. That way, if I win, there’s a small compensation for my sadness.
There is an award for picking the most unique celebrities (The “Inside Track with the Grim Reaper” award). I won it back in 2012, tied with two others. It’s the only award I’ve ever won in the Death Pool.
A life pool would be incredibly boring. The chance of having any person die is going to be very small, so it would probably be a whole year of absolutely nothing happening.
I think the Death Pool is just another way of trying to defy the inevitability of death. It’s like saying, “I know we’re all going to die anyway, so why not make it fun and win some points?”
Suppose the regular Death Pool simply adds another award, a Life Award. Winner is the person whose list has NO DEATHS and the highest overall age total.
As DeathMistress for the regular pool in this forum, and also in another, this sounds interesting but I am not inclined to run it as for whatever reason I don’t understand it. If another Doper wants to run it I will watch to learn, and may even enter.
I’d like to have one. Minimum age of 80 for any celebrity. I actually think it should be scored:
1 point for every year over 80.
80 = 0 points
81 - 1 point
100 = 20 points
110 = 30 points
Scored only at the end of the year, with people being deleted from your list if they die.
Just spitballing, how about you have to pick 10 people 80+. Most survivors wins. Tie goes to whoever’s list has the highest combined age.
I like the idea of players being eliminated completely if any one of their celebrities kicks the bucket. If any of them die… YOU DIE (contest-wise). That way the potential winner could change quickly with the approaching new year AND the winner could have bragging rights for protecting all of their older celebrities.
Yeah, it seems pretty boring to me, too. For as high up as the actuarial tables go, everyone, of any age, is more likely than not to live for one more year. I guess if you have a high enough minimum age, and a large enough number of picks per person, you’re still likely to have some deaths, but…
That said, if a group of people do want to do it anyway, go ahead.
A single elimination would also provide a nice opposite to the regular game. We would already have a leader on January first. But as deceased celebrities whittle down the list of players, it could get interesting.
Single elimination would almost mandate that everybody will pick 10 (or whatever the number is) celebs that are 80 or 81 (or whatever the minimum age is). Nobody is gonna pick the folks that are 95+, or even 90+.
I like Mahaloth’s scoring system.
What I like about my system is that it uses the same risk system as death pool.
Do I pick 13 81 years olds so I can get 13 points?
Or do I pick a few 81 year olds, a 90 year old, and a few 91+ year olds and so forth?
A nice risk and reward system.