EPTJangBi -> Movie
Justin -> fOrGG (anti-team)
First trades this round. No hopes for winning so I'll throw points anywhere for the matchup appearances from now.
[Fantasy] PL 09-10 R1 Discussion - Page 27
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Drunk Hobo Guy
3 Posts
JangBi -> Movie Justin -> fOrGG (anti-team) First trades this round. No hopes for winning so I'll throw points anywhere for the matchup appearances from now. | ||
|
dnosrc
Germany454 Posts
5 KT Rolster 22 5  Luxury 178 Calm 175 RorO 154  Sea 91 Shine[kaL] 92  Stats 730 Total 96 5 KT Rolster 22 5 Luxury 178 Calm 175 RorO 154 Mind 91 Shine[kaL] 92 Stats 730 Total 96 | ||
|
dnosrc
Germany454 Posts
5 KT Rolster 12 5 RorO 118 Calm 95 Luxury 92 Stats 51 Shine[kaL] 51 Midas 527 56 5 KT Rolster 12 5 RorO 118 Calm 95 Luxury 92 Pure 51 Shine[kaL] 51 Midas 527 56 There are various other teams giving 56 points this week (with or without trading) but these are the cheapest and without trading. | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
On October 22 2009 19:34 Trang wrote: I'm thinking the same thing, but it's to hard to think of who to take in the long run scheme of things :S Question: If I make a trade and choose to undo it later, do I: (a) incur 0 trade tax in the end; (b) incur -1 trade tax for putting a trade through, despite undoing it; or (c) incur -2 trade tax for putting through two 'transactions' (a trade and an undo)? Sounds like it would be (a) based on the rules, but I would like to make sure  You can only undo trades during that trading period - so if you undo a trade then it's not made at all and therefore you incur no penalty. If on the other hand you were to "undo" the trade the next week by re-trading for your original player, that would be two transactions and you would be assessed a trade penalty for each. As for Justin - look carefully, there are lots of players in close point value who are probably less dangerous. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36379 Posts
1. instead of +1 for an appearance, AT players would not get points for appearing 2. instead of -1 for loss, AT players would get -2 for loss #1 would eliminate the incentive to pick players that don't play. Right now its a giant hunt to find players that don't play, rather than play and lose. #2 makes it even more beneficial to have losing players, and if they play and lose A LOT, then your AT can actually earn you points. The difficult part is that if we tweak the scoring, the player values are different. This would vastly overvalue bad players who play a lot -- namely ACE, eSTRO, etc, as their AdjTV is based on a different scale. We could have two scales, but that might be too complex. But the positives are that owners would be able to analyze matchups and trade for players they feel are going to lose, which would put a deeper level of skill into picking AT. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36379 Posts
So the current "issue" that may have to be fixed is all-ins on one team. I'm not sure if this is really an issue, but two rounds ago SKT did so well that the computer-generated SK Telecom team actually finished second. The only reason the KT Rolster team is not higher this round is because it has Jaedong on its anti-team. If you have Flash, Lux, and KT, you are automatically near the Top 50. Possible solutions: 1. Dilute team scoring / inflate team prices 2. Limit the # of players you can per team 3. Have a "tax" for multiple players on the same team #1 might work, #2 is probably ridiculous. There might be no real way to solve this problem. It may not be a problem at all -- fantasy is to an extent lucky, and a team has to go something like 10-1 to make it worth it. Two rounds ago, I had a team of Flash Lux Violet and KTF, hoping for the exact thing that is happening this round. Its a calculated risk that we may just have to live with. For instance, next round, all KT players prices will be so prohibitively high that it'll be impossible to have all of them. #3 is interesting, we could simply just limit team win points to 1 point max. That means, if you have Lux Flash and Violet on your team, and KT wins, the three players' values would reflect the team win, but you would be penalized -2 as a "same team tax" which would make it beneficial to have six players from six different teams. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36379 Posts
- Players and teams that have a negative price. That means, if you pick ACE as your team, you get 31 points to spend instead of 30. - Paying 1 point in price for an extra slot on your team. For example, if you want 7 players instead of 6, you can do that, but you can only use 29 points. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On October 23 2009 00:43 Hot_Bid wrote: Other changes we might consider next round in addition to AT scoring are: - Players and teams that have a negative price. That means, if you pick ACE as your team, you get 31 points to spend instead of 30. - Paying 1 point in price for an extra slot on your team. For example, if you want 7 players instead of 6, you can do that, but you can only use 29 points. Or you start with... 25 points, and picking ACE will get you up to 33 points to spend? But keep team scoring essentially the same? I like that idea, as well as the idea of limiting points gained from having a player on a winning team to 1. I also like the ideas aimed at getting players who lose rather than win. But I still think that in general, players who don't play are the safest anti-team picks, and I doubt my perspective will change all that much- only to stop trading an anti-team player away if I know they're going to play in the week. (For example, I ditched lomo last week, saving 2 points.) Trades made this week: MT: YellOw[ArnC] for type-b = Luxury is winning, so that means fake yellow is slumping terribly. I traded Bogus for him last week because him beating Pure was a reasonable bet, it didn't turn out well and cost me a point. Type-b plays twice this week, and can win both games. Unfortunately he's pretty cheap, so unless he does win both games, it looks like I'll have him for a while. AT: Really for Lomo = I should've known when Really came out and pushed Flash in the first game of the season that this was a dangerous call. Really and the rest of eSTRO have looked very solid, and with Really getting two winnable games this week with eSTRO against two winnable teams, I'm cutting my losses here. I dropped Lomo last week, for GuemChi, who has bizarrely not played much at all. I'm keeping the toss, but I'm getting Lomo back. I can't expect him to beat fantasy.In general: This week was a terrible week for me, but partly because CJ didn't play twice. Sending sAViOr out to lose in ace hurt me, as did Horang2's one-base carrier folly against Midas. The fake yellow trade didn't pan out. This week looks more promising, but I'm a little worried that KT Rolster has the potential to 3-0 CJ before EffOrt gets out there. Luxury v. EffOrt should be a great match. Perfectman keeps getting sent out, which delights me to no end. | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
dilution of team scoring is something I support whole-heartedly. right now a player's success in FPL is very dependent on which team they choose at the start of the season. team choices are different from player choices, because they're very difficult to trade and MUCH more difficult to predict wins from, which makes them very luck-based. because there is much more luck involved with picking teams, I feel that they should carry less weight. right now team scoring is: 3-0 Victory: 7 Points 3-1 Victory: 5 Points 3-2 Victory: 4 Points 2-3 Defeat: 1 Point 1-3 Defeat: -1 Points 0-3 Defeat: -2 Points something like this would be better in my opinion: 3-0 Victory: 4 Points 3-1 Victory: 3 Points 3-2 Victory: 2 Points 2-3 Defeat: 1 Point 1-3 Defeat: 0 Points 0-3 Defeat: -1 Points sure, it's a little less exciting, but team scoring system in place currently really pigeon holes people into certain ranks based almost entirely on luck, their choice at the start of the season. more importantly, it's frustrating to watch your team faulter in the ranks simply because you didn't pick that 1 or 2 out of 12 teams. team all-ining: this is a difficult subject... I don't think "all-in"ing with a single team is a problem, honestly I don't have the slightest problem with people only choosing players from a certain team. obviously there are lots of people who support a single team and want their FPL to show that, because it makes it more exciting for them. that's something that shouldn't be taken away the REAL problem is at the beginning of a season, there's always a team that goes on a 3-0 or 4-0 streak. this season it's KT. there is no doubt in my mind that KT will balance out and they'll end the season something like 7-4 or 8-3 or whatever. the problem is that when a team goes on a streak their trade values inflate very very rapidly, giving those users a huge advantage that they can ride for the rest of the season. perhaps another way to approach the problem would be to consider ways to limit the advantage that "streaky" team performances can give? but honestly, I think reducing the weight that team choices carry, by reducing the points that team scoring contributes, would be the most straightforward approach. make FPL about individual player choices and trading, and less about lucky picks at the start of the season. | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
Anti-Team: I realize I'm not being consulted (at all), but I want to (re-)state my two cents. #1: That would not really be likely to solve the "hunt for players who won't play" problem. If it is a problem. I don't think it is: why? With the current limited trading on anti-team it's the next thing to impossible to keep your entire anti-team out of action, and really really lucky if you manage to keep them even out of favorable matchups. Furthermore, with the new idea you're still going to want to hunt for guys who aren't playing, as you won't be able to afford more than one lineup regular: those guys - even RorO or Really or Hyuk - are good enough that they will get games they'll win sometimes, then you'll have to trade them. In short: the system really isn't broken in any way I can see, and the resulting system will look almost identical play-wise from everything I can tell, so why are we trying to "fix" it? #2: Honestly I don't like the idea of an anti-team getting you points to begin with: for that reason, I don't think it's a good idea to bump it to -2 when (with no lineup point) a loss by an anti-team playing will being netting you points anyway. Not many points, but I don't like positive points from the anti-team at all. It just feels wrong. | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
this idea might seem a little crazy but here goes: how about a totally new system for anti team. my proposed system is this: the scoring system currently in place remains. however, at the start of the season, you pick 3 players of any value to be on your anti team, so yes, you can pick all 1 point players. however, with each passing week you are forced to trade one of your anti team players upwards. for example, in week 2 you would have to trade one of you players up to.. say.. a trade value of a 3 point player. week 3 you would have to trade another one up to a 4 point player, and so on. the exact numbers can be figured out later. but basically there's a cumulative effect going so by week 7 everyone is gonna have to be making some very very tough decisions.. like choosing between JD/flash/bisu on their anti. i think it'd be cool to have the really difficult anti team choices coincide with the ending of the season. it'd be exciting as hell. thoughts? actually i dont think that in any way addresses the current problems with the anti team system. just an idea for a different one edit: nm this wont work since it forces people to trade, which is unfeasible | ||
|
KP_CollectoR
United States744 Posts
| ||
|
dnosrc
Germany454 Posts
W1-2 KT Rolster 22 W1-2 Calm 17W1-1 EffOrt 7W2-2 RorO 11W1-2 Luxury 17W1-1 HiyA 7W2-2 Midas 5W1-2 Shine[kaL] 9W1-2 Stats 7Total: 102 -2 = 100 W1-2 KT Rolster 22 W1-2 Calm 17W1-1 EffOrt 7W2-2 RorO 11W1-2 Luxury 17W1-1 HiyA 7W2-2 go.go 5W1-2 Shine[kaL] 9W1-2 Stats 7Total: 102 -2 = 100 | ||
Ver
United States2186 Posts
In case it is too hard to implement, here's another concept: -The set base for Main/Anti is 30/13. However, one can choose to go higher than 13 on the anti team. For every point above 13 they go those points are added to their main team limit. So if they chose say Leta/Stork/Guemchi, which is 21 points, they have a Main Team Cap of 38 points. This can really reward people who can predict slumps, since someone like Leta is going to be played a lot regardless, but he also might lose a bunch. In addition it gives a lot more flexibility for the main team, which is imo another problem. In certain seasons where a lot of strong players are very costly (ex: this one, R4), you get forced into going with a very limited number of team archetypes and most the high placers end up looking very similar. This is also due to the necessity of possibly spending lots of points to get a top team since teams are so important right now (glad that's being looked at). But if someone wants to they can take risks, put Jaedong on their anti instead of Justin, and get a potentially massive payoff by adding Calm to their main instead of Movie. It might be even more interesting if you could have more than 3 anti-team players in this format or the suggested raised main team cap with a point penalty, but that might be jumping too far all at once. | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
 | ||
|
gunsharp
260 Posts
I guess I should stop picking players based on reputation. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
KT was 5 points at the start of the season. Woongjin was 4 points. Currently they are 24 points difference in output (22 to -2) after just two weeks, which is huge. Of course, point loss is not the only problem here. The larger problem is that due to trading, every single early loss continues to hurt you (unless your team completely turns it around and goes on a tear for the rest of the round). KT owners can now trade for any other team, whereas Woongjin can only trade for Samsung and ACE. By the end of the round things usually even out, but there's little to compensate for the inflated trade values that come from a team starting out like KT has. So yeah, something similar to what lazz posted above would be a welcome change for team point scoring. On October 23 2009 01:44 KP_CollectoR wrote: Well I'm not planning on trading ZerO since he's playing twice this week, and I feel kinda stuck with Movie/Iris because their point values are so low. However, there are some interesting trades I can get for Ruby, but he is the only consistent player on my team so far besides Flash/ZerO. Is anyone actually planning on trading Ruby? Seems like a shoe-in as ACE's well, Ace. I'm in almost the exact same boat. Ruby only plays once this week, but it's against Juni, and ACE probably has a chance to actually beat Samsung. A few of the trades you could make would be interesting (type-b probably being the best move), but Ruby is likely to remain in ACE's lineup and bring points every week. I'm not sure he'll get many more ace appearances, but I find it hard to consider trading him when he's been a bright spot for my team. | ||
semioldguy
United States7488 Posts
Pros of keeping Effort: - CJ has only played 3 games so far compared to SKT's 4, meaning there are 8 left including this week, but only 7 for Bisu. - Potential Streak Break point if he beats Luxury. - Seems more likely to always appear in CJ's lineup. Cons of keeping Effort: - Effort has tougher matches than Bisu this week, less likely to win both. - Bisu likely to get 3rd win and Streak point that Effort already got/passed. - Only one player ranked above me has Bisu and this could help give me an edge to get ahead of the top ranked players (4 different players ranked above me have Effort). | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
Another reason to get him is because SKT is likely to win against both OZ and CJE (or that i hope), so that's +2 points. While CJE is gonna lose against KTR and SKT xD | ||
| ||
