Highest possible 3 dart average?

i got 171.875 but may not have thought it through properly

#HOLD#

i agree with the original post, player loses match though

Indeed, Dave, to achieve the best possible average a player must lose the match.

167

Record held by Kim Jong-un

By putting forward spin or 'carry' on the darts, I can usually do 190 or so.

I've got 172.481 - but I've been in the pub all night - will revisit this tomorrow - great question though...

It is, and a very difficult one to work out.

Is is not dependent upon which game one is playing and upon which 'board' one is using?

I think it's a straightforward arithmetical question.

Which I can't get my head round, good as I am at simple arithmetic.

Brilliant question and the correct answer is given in the opening post.

You have to lose the match anywhere between 10-1 to 10-9.
In the leg(s) you win you have to hit a 9 darter producing a 167 avererage for 3 darts.
In the legs that you lose, your opponent has to hit 9 darters (when going first), and you would have to hit two 180's each time.

Simple maths gives 172.532

Simple question Pokermonster, do you work for GCHQ, and if so, are you recruiting

Interesting one this, its a different premise than when calculating the highest average a player can get when playing a standard set of darts (best of 5 legs) which can give a 3 dart average of 174.14

Is this 180s and 9 darters the whole way through for both players, with you throwing 2nd in the 1st leg?

That's what it is SJ. Unlikely, but not impossible, especially given how easy the game is proving now enough people can make a living by playing it.

I am pleased though that those people who stupidly maintained that a nine-dart finish is harder than a 147 are being shown up for the fools they are.

Stupid fools?

According to wiki, Currently over 105 professional nine-darters have achieved nine-dart finishes, both televised and untelevised whatever that means! Meanwhile, 107 official maximum breaks have been achieved in professional competition.

Just because something happens more often doesn't definitively make it easier to achieve.  It's very subjective.  Far more man hours are spent playing darts than they are playing snooker for a start.

I'd assume that the untelevised 180s ones are in proper competitions that are not televised.

Also that reads 105 people for darts (With tens or hundreds of 180s each for the pros) vs 107 147s in snooker.

Would it be fair to say the majority of dart players will hit a 180 at some time in their life, whereas the percentage of snooker players with a 147 break would be expected to be very low indeed?

Certainly a nine dart finish is easier to visualise and I imagine that messes up our thinking.

I played darts for years and hit plenty of 180s, but my lowest finish was 11 darts.

The most important consideration when comparing the two achievements is how far the technical limits of both games have been stretched.

In snooker, it has been possible for several decades to earn a living at the game, and a decent living if one is among the top players. In darts, it has only been relatively recently that serious money has been available and a decent tournament calendar organised to encourage the amateur to concentrate full-time on achieving his dreams.

As such, the general standard of darts is improving at an exponential rate, making nine-dart finishes much more common nowadays and much more likely in the future. I expect this argument to take on Flat Earth proportions within the next decade i.e it will become obvious which achievement is the more meritorious and it will be thought quaint that people once believed in the greater difficulty of the nine-dart finish.

I've run out of chalk

I could spend the rest of my life playing snooker but would never get a 147 break. The game doesn't suit me, which is why I took up darts.

Horse for courses CMAT.

I play both, snooker to professional standard, and the level of practise required to achieve a comparable standard is infinitely greater in snooker for the average person imo.

It stands to reason (I'm sure you'll agree :))that throwing pointed things at a target is hardwired into the human brain, whereas snooker is a totally acquired skill.

Technicality is just a subjective component, which you could argue both ways.  Just because the technique is apparently more difficult to master doesn't make a 147 easier than running the 100m in less than ten seconds.  For instance everyone learns to run from a young age.  Everyone masters the basic technique through regular practice and out of the billions of people who run only a handful can run under 10 seconds.  Most people barely or never play snooker.  They never master the technique because they don't play it enough.  If they did there would be no comparison and this would be a flat earth argument.

I played Joe Johnson in about 1968 in a WMC match. As I was the weakest player in the side, but capable of a 30 break or thereabouts, they put me in against the "young kid".

The basic technique in darts is throwing which is similar to running.  Everyone throws from a young age so most of the technique is already programmed into us.  Snooker would be like archery, a totally foreign technique that you learn from the very beginning.  The same argument that applies with running applies to darts.

I'm guessing that story doesn't end well Kenny :)

I played Ali Carter once when he was about nine, in a grotty little Con Club in Kelvedon, Essex. I only used to go to such events for the craic and because there was often some card action to be had, and I went there playing out of my skin. I made an eleven-red, ten-black 81 on their table to warm up, and then I got drawn against this tiny boy. I thought he was the sacrificial lamb that you were in the above example, until I broke, left him one red that he could even see, and he made a 60, every other shot with the rest. He beat me on the pink in the end, but it did teach me a valuable lesson and it gave my team-mates a proper giggle to see my bubble burst in such a manner. Doesn't seem so bad in hindsight though given he's made two WC finals and only got done by the absolute king of the game.

If you took a young child at a very young age, with money and resources at your disposal that were no object, I suspect it would be much easier to train them up to be a champion golfer, or a champion snooker player than a champion darts player.

CLYDEBANK29
03 Nov 14 13:10   
If you took a young child at a very young age..

I wanted my grandsons, aged 3 and 6 months, to take up boxing as early as possible. Given the family genes, they will both be at least light heavyweights, and riches and fame await

Daughters won't hear of it.

nature=brain damage, nurture=brain damage.

Indeed not, Jed. I think I got about 9. Lost count of Joe's score. Total annihilation. :-(

Wow, Ali was that good at 9!

A different Ali, Muhammad not Carter, got whupped.


.
http://i58.tinypic.com/33nfgv7.jpg

Yeah Kenny, and a lovely kid as well. Very gracious in victory. I've obviously followed his career closely, and I still think he has the game to be World Champion, but the poor bloke's had just about every bit of bad-luck going health-wise. I just hope he can have a few untroubled years and achieve what he is capable of.

Yes Chrohn's and cancer, poor kid. Lets hope he makes it back to full health.

I played in the local pub B team at the age of 15. I was not very good, but one of the better players in that team. It was good to get around a lot of local pubs at that age.

My dad's place in the Friday night darts team at the George (Cheshunt) was taken by Bobby George. In truth my dad was making up the numbers for a good local team.
One of my dad's good fishing mates was Dennis Ovens who got into darts late but made/makes a no. of tv appearances.

My brother played Leighton Rees in an exhibition at the Hotpoles in Enfield ca. 30 years ago. He put up a decent showing but lost. My brother & my mum went to see Jocky Wilson play an exhibition at Ryes in Hoddesdon. It chucked it down and very few made it down there. My brother played lots of games against him & ended up chalking for much of the night. Jocky Wilson came down in a big camper van. (Gyppo!)

Try throwing a dart with your left hand.  Not such an apparently easy technique then.

Yeah SJ, I used to play a lot of pub darts, great nights out. Never played any pros at darts, I wouldn't be in their League or even near it, but you still see some fantastic players. I know from my own experiences at snooker that is rarely pure ability that determines who makes it at games like these, where performance levels can vary wildly between practise and matchplay due to nerves and such.

Hence several beers required to steady the nerves

Talking of left handed activities, I once participated in a left handed throwing comp with some mates throwing a golf ball off the 1st level of a driving range

In the legs that you lose, your opponent has to hit 9 darters (when going first), and you would have to hit two 180's each time.

maybe a stupid question as i dont play darts, but If your dart opponent is sh!t you could be hitting 180s for ever why is it assumed opponent hits 9 dart finish aswell?

The question is about the theoretical maximum three-dart average brendan.

You must hit two 180s in every leg you lose, and your opponent must have a nine-darter, thus denying you the chance to lower your average by finishing, or not finishing.

so not finishing by hitting repeated 180s lowers the average?

Ok, so your opponet throws first in the first leg and throws a nine-darter while you throw two 180s. So you have thrown two 180s in that leg, and then you throw two 180s and finish on 141 for a nine-darter in the second leg.

So it's 1-1, you have had five throws, and hit four maximums and a 141. If the game continues in this vein, the maximum average is achievable, but only if your opponent throws first in the first leg and wins the match with you winning an odd number of legs.

I think that's right, but pokermonster - statistician, cue sports historian and arcane sports question specialist - is really the man to confirm this.

I agree with Clydebank that golf and snooker are not as difficult to reach a high standard as some people think. Naturally, there will be some exceptionally talented players in both games who have an extra special ingredient that no amount of practise could replicate. However, the key thing is that few people ever pick up a golf club or a snooker cue and even if you do have a talent for the game its very difficult to have access to the facilities to put in the amount of practise needed.

So, the top players in both snooker and golf come from a very very small pool of participants.

ok cheers, guess i am asking even after going bust can the player carry on throwing? I know nobody would in a real game, but this is hypothetical so I am I looking for offician rules

Lets say a 10 year shows the same amount of talent at darts, snooker and golf. There are major barriers to being able to put in the same amount of practise hours in snooker and golf. With darts he can just put a board up on his bedroom door.

More fitness, skill, and technique required in darts than snooker, as you're constantly walking up and down for hrs on end, and have to use your brain in a split second.

Golfers take forever to hit a stationary ball - what's the delay? Just hit it.

Snooker players bend down and hit a ball. How hard can it be to practice the same shot over and over again?

All three have one thing in common - Mental strength is a must.

P.S. 147 is easier than a 9 darter - Bigger pockets

CLYDEBANK29
03 Nov 14 16:01   
Try throwing a dart with your left hand.  Not such an apparently easy technique then.

Piece of cake.

DartsnBooze
03 Nov 14 18:49   
More fitness, skill, and technique required in darts than snooker, as you're constantly walking up and down for hrs on end, and have to use your brain in a split second.

The weight gained by beer, and playing 3 nights a week, did my left knee in.

180 shirley, hit a 180 on your first throw then concede the match

Good evening, gentlemen.

Jed described the (albeit highly unlikely) scenario perfectly in his post just above.  It's interesting to note that a very unfortunate player could theoretically lose ten-zip and still achieve a three-dart average of just over 172.  172.149 to be precise.

Another darts brainteaser posted shortly.