Finding the best possible fantasy team - Page 4

Post a Reply

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next All

cjin

181 Posts

January 12 2013 04:37 GMT

#61

On January 12 2013 11:49 paladin8 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 12 2013 08:50 cjin wrote:

On January 12 2013 08:13 paladin8 wrote:

On January 12 2013 07:57 cjin wrote:

On January 12 2013 02:40 paladin8 wrote:

On January 08 2013 22:25 cjin wrote:

On January 08 2013 14:28 Spazer wrote:
I tried brute forcing the main using the 30 highest scoring players per week (works out to 53 players total). It tested 583 teams over the course of 2.5 hours before I shut it down since it was obviously never going to finish in a reasonable amount of time. In comparison, with the 20 highest scoring players per week (pool of 41), I did 279 teams over 40 minutes. With the 10 highest scoring players per week (pool of 27), I did 285 in 35 minutes.

In short, brute forcing main teams is a pipe dream for large pools of players until we do some optimization.

Low trade value players can be evaluated almost instantly, but high ones take forever. For instance, testing trades with an initial team of KT Rolster, s2, hitman, barracks, alone, jangbi, and bogus took 1 minute 18 seconds by itself. I need a better way of discarding initial teams.

With anti-teams, discarding initial teams is really easy. If an initial team scores more points than your current best team right off the bat, you can safely skip it. This trims off entire branches and really cuts down on the calculation time. What we need is a smart way to do this for main teams as well.

I was thinking something along the lines of this:

Take an initial team
Determine the two best players that are not on your team for the current week
Switch them for the two lowest scoring players on your team REGARDLESS of trade value
Repeat steps 2-3 for each week
If the final score is lower than the final score of your current best team, you can safely ignore this branch

My currently implemented system like this:

Take X top scoring players of each week to generate a pool of players.
Make an ordered list ranking the pool of players by cost.
Use a bunch of nested loops to iterate through the cost ordered list. This will make an initial team. The ordered list allows us to ignore all players past a certain point for a given loop once the cost exceeds 30.
Check the race requirement for the initial team
Test trades for the initial team. I use an ordered list of trade values here so that I can ignore players past a certain point, just like with step 3.
Only attempt trades where the new player scores more points than the current player at some point in the future.
Call the trade function recursively for each week
Select the highest scoring resultant team and compare it against whatever our best solution currently is. Replace the best team if we've scored higher.

Also, the formula for trade value seems to be

Trade value = cost * (total games in round - games played)/total games in round + points * 2/7

I'm still uncertain about the 2/7 part, but it works so far for round 2 week 1. Somehow in the last round, it ends up being (points / 4.5), and I have no idea when or how.

I rewrote whole mainteamsearching shit, and ended with something like that. Only shortcut I have taken is, that instead of
6. Only attempt trades where the new player scores more points than the current player at some point in the future.
I just don't allow to trade into player who will score 1 or less on next round. Or into team that will score 0 or less.

I takes long to go trough all, but I'm confident it will find best solutions early. I put my round1 data trough it, and it found team that scores 215 (212 with anti team, witch is lot better than the 163 points without any trades.) in first 30 mins of running, and haven't found any better for an hour, and I think it will not find anything better anymore.

Now it is basicly just discarding every startteam suggestion becouce of my version of
[*]Determine the two best players that are not on your team for the current week
[*]Switch them for the two lowest scoring players on your team REGARDLESS of trade value
[*]Repeat steps 2-3 for each week
check

What is the team that scores 215? I've been running some searches but nothing gets me close, so I'm wondering if I have a bug somewhere.

First of all, are we using same data? The one I'm using has week 2 trade values quessed to something in the lines of what I think they could be, and it might be possible I have mistake in scoring them.

Yeah, I used the data you posted, so it should be the same. The best team I found only gave 204, so if you could post the 215-point team I'd like to know why my program isn't finding it or anything close.

+ Show Spoiler +

WEEK 1

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
Fantasy        +4     Trap           +1
Action         +4     Kop            ±0
herO[jOin]     +4     Shine          +1
Wooki          +4
Speed          +4
soO            +4
KT Rolster     +8     Trade Tax      ±0
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +34
Score Total    +34

WEEK 2

Trades
Speed          ->Soulkey
soO            ->Shy
Trap           ->Stork

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
Fantasy        +4     Stork          ±0
Action         +4     Kop            ±0
herO[jOin]     +14    Shine          ±0
Wooki          +7
Shy            +8
Soulkey        +14
KT Rolster     +4     Trade Tax      -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +52
Score Total    +86

WEEK 3

Trades
herO[jOin]     ->Flash
Wooki          ->TaeJa
Stork          ->Reality

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
Fantasy        +11    Reality        ±0
Action         +6     Kop            ±0
TaeJa          +15    Shine          ±0
Flash          +16
Shy            +10
Soulkey        +6
KT Rolster     +8     Trade Tax      -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +69
Score Total    +155

WEEK 4

Trades
KT Rolster     ->Woongjin Stars
Flash          ->JangBi
Shine          ->Bbyong

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
Fantasy        +8     Reality        -1
Action         +9     Kop            -1
TaeJa          +6     Bbyong         ±0
JangBi         +10
Shy            +9
Soulkey        +6
Woongjin Stars +14    Trade Tax      -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +57
Score Total    +212

One thing that comes into mind is in my data line for TaeJa is
TaeJa T x 0 5.10 4 4.89 19 6.22 25
where x is for not available at first week (I know he could be picked for main, but my program doesn't allow it).
Is the x messing your data so that it doesn't have TaeJa available at all?

Great, thanks. I handle the x properly, so that shouldn't be an issue. Probably just a bug

edit: It seems like your team might not be valid? These two trades seem wrong.

WEEK 2: Speed (2.40) -> Soulkey (6.30)
WEEK 3: Wooki (4.67) -> TaeJa (4.89)

Assuming I'm reading your initial data correctly.

You are right. Had || instead of &&. Too much copy/paste.

paladin8

United States44 Posts

January 12 2013 05:10 GMT

#62

+ Show Spoiler +

=== Week 1 ===

Week score: 34
Total score: 34

Team: KT.Rolster (3.0, 8)
Player: Action (3.0, 4)
Player: Baby (7.0, 6)
Player: herO[jOin] (7.0, 4)
Player: Speed (2.0, 4)
Player: Stats (5.0, 4)
Player: Wooki (3.0, 4)

=== Week 1 to 2 trades ===

Player: Baby (6.8) -> Soulkey (6.3)
Player: Speed (2.4) -> hOn_sin (2.4)

=== Week 2 ===

Week score: 54 (-2)
Total score: 86

Team: KT.Rolster (4.0, 4)
Player: Action (3.4, 4)
Player: Soulkey (6.3, 14)
Player: herO[jOin] (6.4, 14)
Player: hOn_sin (2.4, 9)
Player: Stats (4.8, 2)
Player: Wooki (3.4, 7)

=== Week 2 to 3 trades ===

Player: Soulkey (7.68) -> TaeJa (4.89)
Player: herO[jOin] (8.0) -> Flash (7.5)

=== Week 3 ===

Week score: 60 (-2)
Total score: 144

Team: KT.Rolster (4.3, 8)
Player: Action (4.45, 6)
Player: TaeJa (4.89, 15)
Player: Flash (7.5, 16)
Player: hOn_sin (3.71, 1)
Player: Stats (4.19, 10)
Player: Wooki (4.67, 4)

=== Week 3 to 4 trades ===

Player: TaeJa (6.22) -> JangBi (2.54)
Player: Flash (7.75) -> Shy (6.0)

=== Week 4 ===

Week score: 62 (-2)
Total score: 204

Team: KT.Rolster (5.3, 12)
Player: Action (3.97, 9)
Player: JangBi (2.54, 10)
Player: Shy (6.0, 9)
Player: hOn_sin (3.08, 8)
Player: Stats (4.98, 8)
Player: Wooki (4.19, 6)

That's the best team I've found. I implemented some heuristics that may not find the optimal team, though. Still thinking about how I can adjust those so that they are still optimal without making the search take forever.

cjin

181 Posts

January 12 2013 05:44 GMT

#63

On January 12 2013 14:10 paladin8 wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

=== Week 1 ===

Week score: 34
Total score: 34

Team: KT.Rolster (3.0, 8)
Player: Action (3.0, 4)
Player: Baby (7.0, 6)
Player: herO[jOin] (7.0, 4)
Player: Speed (2.0, 4)
Player: Stats (5.0, 4)
Player: Wooki (3.0, 4)

=== Week 1 to 2 trades ===

Player: Baby (6.8) -> Soulkey (6.3)
Player: Speed (2.4) -> hOn_sin (2.4)

=== Week 2 ===

Week score: 54 (-2)
Total score: 86

Team: KT.Rolster (4.0, 4)
Player: Action (3.4, 4)
Player: Soulkey (6.3, 14)
Player: herO[jOin] (6.4, 14)
Player: hOn_sin (2.4, 9)
Player: Stats (4.8, 2)
Player: Wooki (3.4, 7)

=== Week 2 to 3 trades ===

Player: Soulkey (7.68) -> TaeJa (4.89)
Player: herO[jOin] (8.0) -> Flash (7.5)

=== Week 3 ===

Week score: 60 (-2)
Total score: 144

Team: KT.Rolster (4.3, 8)
Player: Action (4.45, 6)
Player: TaeJa (4.89, 15)
Player: Flash (7.5, 16)
Player: hOn_sin (3.71, 1)
Player: Stats (4.19, 10)
Player: Wooki (4.67, 4)

=== Week 3 to 4 trades ===

Player: TaeJa (6.22) -> JangBi (2.54)
Player: Flash (7.75) -> Shy (6.0)

=== Week 4 ===

Week score: 62 (-2)
Total score: 204

Team: KT.Rolster (5.3, 12)
Player: Action (3.97, 9)
Player: JangBi (2.54, 10)
Player: Shy (6.0, 9)
Player: hOn_sin (3.08, 8)
Player: Stats (4.98, 8)
Player: Wooki (4.19, 6)

Edit: still got error on tradevaluecheck. Now I can get only 203 as best main team.

Also rules say:
Every player has a trade value, and you can only trade for players of lower value
You are trading for someone with equal value
Player: Speed (2.4) -> hOn_sin (2.4)

Spazer

Canada8036 Posts

January 12 2013 11:43 GMT

#64

I figured out a neat optimization that works before trades are evaluated. This method assumes that you have costs and trade values (or points) for all players, and that your system uses nested loops.

On any given iteration, the first 5 slots will be locked, and slot 6 will change as the final nested loop executes, creating different initial teams. On the first run of the loop, I put the first available player in the list in slot 6. The resultant team is evaluated for trades. The player in slot 6 is considered the "best player" for that slot at this cost.

On the second run of the loop, slot 6 changes. I check to see if the new player has the same cost as the former player. If yes, I now check to see if the trade value of the new player ever exceeds the trade value of the old player (using a running total of each player's points also works). If yes, I evaluate trades for this team as normal. If no, I continue on to the next iteration of the loop.

This method can be applied to all slots on the main team.

Finally, whenever I find a team with a higher point total than whatever my current best is, the "best player" for each respective slot is overwritten by whatever player is in that slot for the newly created team. The "best player" is also overwritten when players of a new cost are reached. Because of this limitation, it is recommended that your player lists be sorted by cost if you use this method.

The takeaway is this: there is no need to acquire results for a given player in a given slot IF AND ONLY IF they have the same cost as the "best player", and also have worse or identical trade values/point totals for every week. This works because:

If they have the same cost as the "best player", there is no spare cost that can be reallocated elsewhere for potential point gain
If their trade value/point total for each week is equal to or less than the "best player" for that slot, they are only eligible for the same trades (or worse) as the "best player". Their personal contribution to the team's point total will also be equal to or less than that of the "best player"

We can expand this theory to conclude that any player in slot 6 that has a point gain (for every week) AND cost equal to or less than the "best player" can safely be ignored. The new player will not be able to make any trades the "best player" cannot, and the reallocation of the spare cost will be addressed in higher loops.

Example
Say I have a choice of Effort, Soulkey, and Jaedong for slot 6. Their trade values are:

Player	W1	W2	W3	Cost	Total Points
Effort	7.9365	6.9206	5.9047	9	21
Soulkey	6.8571	7.6825	6.7301	8	26
Jaedong	6.8571	6.1269	4.9523	8	16

1st iteration, Effort is used. He is the "best player" by default. This team is evaluated for trades.

2nd iteration, Soulkey is used. Since his cost is different from Taeja's, he is the new "best player" at cost 8. This team is evaluated for trades.

3rd iteration, Jaedong is used. His cost is equal to Soulkey's. Since his trade value is always equal to or lower than Soulkey's, we do not evaluate this team for trades.

paladin8

United States44 Posts

January 12 2013 19:37 GMT

#65

On January 12 2013 14:44 cjin wrote:

Show nested quote +

No, equal trades are fine. Didn't you play?

paladin8

United States44 Posts

January 12 2013 19:46 GMT

#66

+ Show Spoiler +

On January 12 2013 20:43 Spazer wrote:
I figured out a neat optimization that works before trades are evaluated. This method assumes that you have costs and trade values (or points) for all players, and that your system uses nested loops.

On any given iteration, the first 5 slots will be locked, and slot 6 will change as the final nested loop executes, creating different initial teams. On the first run of the loop, I put the first available player in the list in slot 6. The resultant team is evaluated for trades. The player in slot 6 is considered the "best player" for that slot at this cost.

On the second run of the loop, slot 6 changes. I check to see if the new player has the same cost as the former player. If yes, I now check to see if the trade value of the new player ever exceeds the trade value of the old player (using a running total of each player's points also works). If yes, I evaluate trades for this team as normal. If no, I continue on to the next iteration of the loop.

This method can be applied to all slots on the main team.

Finally, whenever I find a team with a higher point total than whatever my current best is, the "best player" for each respective slot is overwritten by whatever player is in that slot for the newly created team. The "best player" is also overwritten when players of a new cost are reached. Because of this limitation, it is recommended that your player lists be sorted by cost if you use this method.

The takeaway is this: there is no need to acquire results for a given player in a given slot IF AND ONLY IF they have the same cost as the "best player", and also have worse or identical trade values/point totals for every week. This works because:

If they have the same cost as the "best player", there is no spare cost that can be reallocated elsewhere for potential point gain
If their trade value/point total for each week is equal to or less than the "best player" for that slot, they are only eligible for the same trades (or worse) as the "best player". Their personal contribution to the team's point total will also be equal to or less than that of the "best player"

Player	W1	W2	W3	Cost	Total Points
Effort	7.9365	6.9206	5.9047	9	21
Soulkey	6.8571	7.6825	6.7301	8	26
Jaedong	6.8571	6.1269	4.9523	8	16

Yes, your observation is correct (although the example doesn't quite capture all the information). We can use that fact to limit the set of initial teams even more than the way you've described, though.

Incidentally, I think the 204 point team is provably optimal, but somewhat by a stroke of luck. I'll write about it soon.

cjin

181 Posts

January 12 2013 20:41 GMT

#67

On January 13 2013 04:37 paladin8 wrote:

Show nested quote +

No, equal trades are fine. Didn't you play?

No, I did not play. But lower was bolded in the rules section, so i thought equal is not allowed.

Now that we got back to what is allowed to do

On January 09 2013 13:14 Spazer wrote:
Weekly point gain and trade value data for Round 1:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4718/Round 1 Data.xlsx

Edit:

Show nested quote +

I tested this, and it doesn't work. You can only trade the zerg for another zerg, the terran for another terran, etc.

is this really how it works?

Spazer

Canada8036 Posts

January 12 2013 21:16 GMT

#68

Yeah, if you're race limited, all options in the trade dropdown box are greyed out except for players of the same race.

Proseat

Germany5113 Posts

January 13 2013 20:02 GMT

#69

On January 08 2013 14:28 Spazer wrote:
Also, the formula for trade value seems to be

Trade value = cost * (total games in round - games played)/total games in round + points * 2/7

I'm still uncertain about the 2/7 part, but it works so far for round 2 week 1. Somehow in the last round, it ends up being (points / 4.5), and I have no idea when or how.

I have a few questions about your proposed formula:

Is this formula for the adjusted trade value ("Adj TrVal" on Trade tab) or the base trade value ("TrVal" on Stats tab)? I'm assuming the former because that's the value we trade by?
What exactly do you mean with "total games in round" and "games played"? Is this per player or per team or per all teams? Can you give an example?
What about the optional ace game in standard format and the variance of 4-7 games per match in All-Kill format? How does this factor into your "total games in round"?
If all the variables in your formula are player-specific, wouldn't that mean the initial adjusted trade value is cost * 1 for everyone as no games were played yet and thus no points were scored?

cost * (n - 0) / n + 0 * c = cost * n / n + 0 = cost * 1 + 0 = cost

Looking at the Stats tab and Trade tab, I conclude the following:

Initial base trade value (TrVal) is the initial point cost ($) in decimal representation (example from round 2: Flash had a cost of 10 points and his initial TrVal is thus 10.00).

Adjusted trade value (Adj TrVal) is a value derived from the base trade value (TrVal) probably taking into account number of games and scores. It is the value you trade by.

Both base trade value (TrVal) and adjusted trade value (Adj TrVal) have the same deltas every week, which seems strange.

On January 09 2013 00:47 monk wrote:
I do know that every round there's a "magic number" which is a constant we have to input to determine trade values. This number is an estimate of how many points each player will score. For example, a 4 pointer is expected to score 14 points. Round 2's magic number was 3.5, which accounts for the 2/7(1/3.5=2/7) in the formula you guys figured out.

Is that magic number player-specific (i.e. each player has his own magic number) or is there one for all, or one for each cost (i.e. all players having the same initial cost have the same magic number)? And since you said "every round" I assume this magic number stays the same for the entirety of the round (4 weeks)?

Looking at the relationship between initial base trade value (TrVal) and initial adjusted trade value (Adj TrVal) in light of a confirmed magic value I noticed the following for round 2:

There are several players who satisfy the formula AdjTrVal = TrVal * 5 (i.e. JYP, Jaehoon, Bbyong, BarrackS, Flying, HoeJJa, Mind, NaGi, check, Haruhi, Hyuk, Leta, rare, Sherry, Snow, Ssak) and a few players satisfying AdjTrVal = TrVal * 4 (i.e. BaBy, Stephano). All others have an initial adjusted trade value which is strangely not integer.

We didn't get to see the initial adjusted trade values as such because the FPL system was still in its post-creation state before the first update after the matches on Day 2 concluded. So I computed them by reversing their shown initial deltas after the update (e.g. Flash had an Adj TrVal of 51.43 and a delta of +0.29, so an initial Adj TrVal of 51.43 - 0.29 = 51.14). Is there an error here?

Spazer

Canada8036 Posts

January 13 2013 20:39 GMT

#70

That formula is for Trade Value. Adjusted Trade Value is just Trade Value multiplied by the number of games the team has left in the round. In short, adjusted trade value is only dependent on trade value.

"Total games in round" refers to the number of matches (not individual games) each team plays, which is 7 in R1 and R2.

"Games played" refers to the number of matches completed by a team. For example, say we have KT vs EG. After the match finishes, both of those teams and all of their players (regardless of whether they played in the match itself) will have their "games played" counter incremented by 1.

Edit: Incidentally, this is the reason why players that gain 0 points over the week lose trade value.

The magic number/point modifier is global. I have confirmed this through testing. In R1 it is 4.5, and in R2 it is 3.5. The magic number never changes in the round.

The delta listed on the trades page does not refer to adjusted trade value. When you hover over it, it says "trade value change this week". That's why it's the same as the value on the stats page.

Based on monk's info, I've adjusted the formula. It is now

Trade value = cost * (total matches in round - matches played)/total matches in round + (points / point modifier)

This fulfills all the requirements. At the start of the round, nobody has points, so their trade value is equal to their cost. At the end of the round, their trade value is equal to their points divided by an arbitrary point modifier. And every week in between is a mixture of both.

Finally, adjusted trade value is largely unnecessary in recent Proleague rounds since all teams play the same number of games each week. It was more useful back in the days when we had uneven match distribution among teams.

Proseat

Germany5113 Posts

January 13 2013 23:03 GMT

#71

Ah, so you meant team matches, okay. Maybe we should use the term "game" for players and the term "match" for teams to avoid confusion.

I doublechecked everything and can confirm that your adjusted formula makes sense and seems to be correct. Also thanks for clarifying the correlation between trade value and adjusted trade value. That's been the most puzzling thing for me.

So with this formula and given we're told the chosen magic number for a round, it should now be possible to track trading options (by Adj TrVal) across the round. Trades are possible whenever all teams have each played 2, 4, or 6 matches (if the round ends with only 2 match days) or after 1, 3, or 5 matches (if the round starts with only 2 match days).

The algorithm to pick the initial best-scoring team and then to keep the team optimized through trades across the round seems to be NP-complete though and similar to the Knapsack problem.

Spazer

Canada8036 Posts

January 14 2013 00:12 GMT

#72

I've updated the above formula to say "match" instead of "game".

As I mentioned before, you don't strictly need to use adjusted trade value for trading anymore since there's no any disparity between matches per week per team. But it certainly won't hurt.

What optimizations have you guys added for evaluating trades? That seems to be the biggest bottleneck for me. Currently, for each initial team I generate, I iterate through each possible trade for each starting player. This is done recursively until I go through every week. Problem is, for teams with multiple high cost players, evaluation takes upwards of 2 minutes per initial team.

cjin

181 Posts

January 14 2013 01:50 GMT

#73

On January 14 2013 09:12 Spazer wrote:
I've updated the above formula to say "match" instead of "game".

As I mentioned before, you don't strictly need to use adjusted trade value for trading anymore since there's no any disparity between matches per week per team. But it certainly won't hurt.

I just don't allow to trade to a player that is going to score 1 or less points on next set of games or to a team that is going to score 0 or less.

I have also this kind of thing you described earlier

On January 08 2013 14:28 Spazer wrote:

Take an initial team
Determine the two best players that are not on your team for the current week
Switch them for the two lowest scoring players on your team REGARDLESS of trade value
Repeat steps 2-3 for each week
If the final score is lower than the final score of your current best team, you can safely ignore this branch

paladin8

United States44 Posts

January 14 2013 02:11 GMT

#74

I just wrote a blog post about it here: http://ternarysearch.blogspot.com/2013/01/fantasy-proleague.html. It's mostly just pruning based on determining which players are strictly better than which others from certain weeks and ignoring the worse ones.

cjin

181 Posts

January 15 2013 13:12 GMT

#75

If I scored right this weeks games, the best team so far is 119 points.
+ Show Spoiler +

WEEK 1

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
free           +8     Jaedong        -1
Hydra          +5     Dear           ±0
JangBi         +8     Classic        ±0
Speed          +7
Wooki          +11
Alone          +1
KT Rolster     +12    Trade Tax      ±0
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +51
Score Total    +51

WEEK 2

Trades
KT Rolster     ->CJ Entus
Wooki          ->Jaehoon

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
free           +11    Jaedong        ±0
Hydra          +17    Dear           ±0
JangBi         +11    Classic        ±0
Speed          +8
Jaehoon        +9
Alone          +6
CJ Entus       +8     Trade Tax      -2
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +68
Score Total    +119

With 19 other anti teams that can score the same and 7 other main teams that can score the same.

Chr15t

Denmark1103 Posts

January 15 2013 19:32 GMT

#76

On January 15 2013 22:12 cjin wrote:
If I scored right this weeks games, the best team so far is 119 points.
+ Show Spoiler +

WEEK 1

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
free           +8     Jaedong        -1
Hydra          +5     Dear           ±0
JangBi         +8     Classic        ±0
Speed          +7
Wooki          +11
Alone          +1
KT Rolster     +12    Trade Tax      ±0
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +51
Score Total    +51

WEEK 2

Trades
KT Rolster     ->CJ Entus
Wooki          ->Jaehoon

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
free           +11    Jaedong        ±0
Hydra          +17    Dear           ±0
JangBi         +11    Classic        ±0
Speed          +8
Jaehoon        +9
Alone          +6
CJ Entus       +8     Trade Tax      -2
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +68
Score Total    +119

With 19 other anti teams that can score the same and 7 other main teams that can score the same.

Where did you get your point values from? TL.net has errors in their data- on the FPL page. But your data seems to be in order :O

Also can you release the newest data.txt file? Since i kinda lost some of my data for this round X.x

cjin

181 Posts

January 15 2013 19:51 GMT

#77

On January 16 2013 04:32 Chr15t wrote:

Show nested quote +

From http://www.teamliquid.net/fantasy/proleague/Stats.php?r=13. It is not updated to todays games (if you look teams, you see some of them with 4 games played, others with 3), I just copied that and added points from todays games.

Chr15t

Denmark1103 Posts

January 15 2013 20:23 GMT

#78

On January 16 2013 04:51 cjin wrote:

Show nested quote +

:O that sounds like manual labour!

cjin

181 Posts

January 16 2013 06:10 GMT

#79

On January 16 2013 05:23 Chr15t wrote:

Show nested quote +

:O that sounds like manual labour!

And open for mistakes. I actually had a little error (jaehoon got 1 point less than he really have), so the real result is 120 points
+ Show Spoiler +

WEEK 1

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
free           +8     Jaedong        -1
Hydra          +5     Dear           ±0
JangBi         +8     Classic        ±0
Speed          +7
Wooki          +11
Alone          +1
KT Rolster     +12    Trade Tax      ±0
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +51
Score Total    +51

WEEK 2

Trades
KT Rolster     ->CJ Entus
Wooki          ->Jaehoon

Main Team      Pt     Anti Team      Pt
free           +11    Jaedong        ±0
Hydra          +17    Dear           ±0
JangBi         +11    Classic        ±0
Speed          +8
Jaehoon        +10
Alone          +6
CJ Entus       +8     Trade Tax      -2
-----------------------------------------
Score Week     +69
Score Total    +120