|
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/HawaiianPig/sc2spl/SKPLbanner_bridge.jpg)
monk. wrote:
If anyone would like to help with a program that will let us calculate the hypothetical best team including trades, feel free to contact us!
Hopefully, this thread will serve as a hub, for those interested in solving this problem, to find resources, ask questions, and share information.
I'll be updating this thread as new information comes in.
Goal
Given rules and data for Fantasy Proleague '12-13, find the starting line-up and weekly trades that result in the highest point value at the end of the Proleague season (or any arbitrary week).
Resources
General Information and Rules:
Main Thread for Fantasy Proleague '12-13
Data:
Players: Race (P/T/Z), Team, Cost ($)
Teams: Cost ($)
Player Points
Team Points
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AquXzBNtz3J0dEVYN2dBR3lQUUtobFF1b0FFTHYyM1E
Thanks, to monk. and Spazer, for contributing.
Required Resources (still looking for these)
Have data or know the answer to any of these questions? Feel free to post in the thread or PM me.
I tried to cover everything needed to solve the problem between Resources and Required Resources. If I've overlooked anything, please let me know.
Rules:
How is trade value calculated at the start, and how are changes in trade value calculated week to week?
Given a team with 4 (P), 1 (T), 1 (Z), is it possible to use the 2 weekly main-team trades to make the following trade without breaking the rule for having at least one of each race on a team?
1 (T) -> 1 (Z)
1 (Z) -> 1 (T)
Data:
Player data: Starting Trade Value
Team data: Starting Trade Value
Game data: Player 1, Player 2, Week #, Set #, Winning Player
|
On December 31 2012 16:02 longdivision wrote:
Rules:
How is trade value calculated at the start, and how are changes in trade value calculated week to week?
I'm pretty sure the trade value at the start of the season was set arbitrarily due to this being the first SC2 proleague, so trade values were set based on opinions/other SC2 results. You'd probably have to ask for the original values.
On December 31 2012 16:02 longdivision wrote:
Given a team with 4 (P), 1 (T), 1 (Z), is it possible to use the 2 weekly main-team trades to make the following trade without breaking the rule for having at least one of each race on a team? (I didn't create a team for the current league, so I can't check.)
1 (T) -> 1 (Z)
1 (Z) -> 1 (T)
No, I don't think you can trade someone at all when they are the last player of that race on your team, so (in the given scenario) you'd have to bounce a toss first for a t/z to trade out the other.
|
United States8476 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/monk/fantasy_proleague/fpl_lp_season1_data.xlsx
This is the file I've been using thus-far to calculate optimal teams without trades. It uses linear optimization, but this method isn't viable/efficient to calculate teams with trades and including trades goes beyond the scope of my algorithm/programming knowledge. However, this will be useful to you to extract players, initial costs, and races.
Edit: Updated file to include a page on teams. DL this new file please.
|
On December 31 2012 16:08 Cornix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 16:02 longdivision wrote:
Rules:
How is trade value calculated at the start, and how are changes in trade value calculated week to week?
I'm pretty sure the trade value at the start of the season was set arbitrarily due to this being the first SC2 proleague, so trade values were set based on opinions/other SC2 results. You'd probably have to ask for the original values. Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 16:02 longdivision wrote:
Given a team with 4 (P), 1 (T), 1 (Z), is it possible to use the 2 weekly main-team trades to make the following trade without breaking the rule for having at least one of each race on a team? (I didn't create a team for the current league, so I can't check.)
1 (T) -> 1 (Z)
1 (Z) -> 1 (T)
No, I don't think you can trade someone at all when they are the last player of that race on your team, so (in the given scenario) you'd have to bounce a toss first for a t/z to trade out the other.
So Trade Value wasn't set in relation to Point Value? That's a bummer. Hopefully the file with initial values still exists on someone's harddrive.
Is it only possible to trade 1 player at a time in the trade UI? If both players were exchanged at the same time, it seems like the trade should be allowed.
|
On December 31 2012 16:40 longdivision wrote:
Is it only possible to trade 1 player at a time in the trade UI? If both players were exchanged at the same time, it seems like the trade should be allowed.
I think as long as you do both trades during the same "trading session" then it would work.
|
On December 31 2012 16:39 monk. wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/monk/fantasy_proleague/fpl_lp_season1.xlsxThis is the file I've been using thus-far to calculate optimal teams without trades. It uses linear optimization, but this method isn't viable/efficient to calculate teams without trades and including trades goes beyond the scope of my algorithm/programming knowledge. However, this will be useful to you to extract players, initial costs, and races.
Thanks, I'll repost the data in csv format when I get a chance.
I've briefly thought about how to approach this problem, and I think it's a bit more complicated than it seems at first glance. Given the number of players, trades, and weeks of competition, I'm not sure brute force is a viable option. If brute force is not viable, then I am probably in over my head as well. I welcome the challenge, though. My current job provides very rare chances to improve my programming skills.
|
On December 31 2012 16:45 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 16:40 longdivision wrote:
Is it only possible to trade 1 player at a time in the trade UI? If both players were exchanged at the same time, it seems like the trade should be allowed. I think as long as you do both trades during the same "trading session" then it would work.
Can anyone confirm this definitively or experimentally?
|
On December 31 2012 16:59 longdivision wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 16:39 monk. wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/monk/fantasy_proleague/fpl_lp_season1.xlsxThis is the file I've been using thus-far to calculate optimal teams without trades. It uses linear optimization, but this method isn't viable/efficient to calculate teams without trades and including trades goes beyond the scope of my algorithm/programming knowledge. However, this will be useful to you to extract players, initial costs, and races. Thanks, I'll repost the data in csv format when I get a chance. I've briefly thought about how to approach this problem, and I think it's a bit more complicated that it seems at first glance. Given the number of players, trades, and weeks of competition, I'm not sure brute force is a viable option. If brute force is not viable, then I am probably in over my head as well. I welcome the challenge, though. My current job provides very rare chances to improve my programming skills.
Yeah, I was just taking a look at the numbers and I don't think brute force would really work.
You'd at least need a way to quickly identify a team which has no potential of being good so you can skip going through all the following trade possibilities.
Knowing the match results... Would it be reasonable to say that it's couldn't be a good idea to trade for someone who doesn't result in a better score after that week, or is there a situation where it's good to trade for someone even if it doesn't pay off until the following week?
|
On December 31 2012 17:07 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 16:59 longdivision wrote:On December 31 2012 16:39 monk. wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/monk/fantasy_proleague/fpl_lp_season1.xlsxThis is the file I've been using thus-far to calculate optimal teams without trades. It uses linear optimization, but this method isn't viable/efficient to calculate teams without trades and including trades goes beyond the scope of my algorithm/programming knowledge. However, this will be useful to you to extract players, initial costs, and races. Thanks, I'll repost the data in csv format when I get a chance. I've briefly thought about how to approach this problem, and I think it's a bit more complicated that it seems at first glance. Given the number of players, trades, and weeks of competition, I'm not sure brute force is a viable option. If brute force is not viable, then I am probably in over my head as well. I welcome the challenge, though. My current job provides very rare chances to improve my programming skills. Yeah, I was just taking a look at the numbers and I don't think brute force would really work. You'd at least need a way to quickly identify a team which has no potential of being good so you can skip going through all the following trade possibilities. Knowing the match results... Would it be reasonable to say that it's couldn't be a good idea to trade for someone who doesn't result in a better score after that week, or is there a situation where it's good to trade for someone even if it doesn't pay off until the following week?
Yes, the tricky part seems to be that the starting point/path to an optimal team after week 2 may be different from the starting point/path to the optimal team after week 3 or 4.
Regarding narrowing down choices, I'm a bit too tired to contribute anything useful. I'll be back tomorrow.
|
The optimal anti-team you can probably compute pretty easily with A* and any sort of decent heuristic. My current idea for heuristic (untested and unproven) is to use dynamic programming to get decent lower limit each player and week.
The optimal main-team seems to be much harder problem. It might even be NP-hard since it's essentially longest path problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_path_problem ). Unless someone is able to come up with something really smart we won't be able to prove that we have found the optimal team. It's likely you can get pretty decent results with some probabilistic optimization techniques (maybe something like MAX-MIN Ant System?) or linear programming with heavy restrictions but I'm not very experienced with these methods.
|
Unless it counts anti-team I didn't have a  until I traded for one... If it does count anti-team, I traded my anti-team terran at the same time.
|
Canada8031 Posts
On December 31 2012 17:07 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 16:59 longdivision wrote:On December 31 2012 16:39 monk. wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/monk/fantasy_proleague/fpl_lp_season1.xlsxThis is the file I've been using thus-far to calculate optimal teams without trades. It uses linear optimization, but this method isn't viable/efficient to calculate teams without trades and including trades goes beyond the scope of my algorithm/programming knowledge. However, this will be useful to you to extract players, initial costs, and races. Thanks, I'll repost the data in csv format when I get a chance. I've briefly thought about how to approach this problem, and I think it's a bit more complicated that it seems at first glance. Given the number of players, trades, and weeks of competition, I'm not sure brute force is a viable option. If brute force is not viable, then I am probably in over my head as well. I welcome the challenge, though. My current job provides very rare chances to improve my programming skills. Yeah, I was just taking a look at the numbers and I don't think brute force would really work. You'd at least need a way to quickly identify a team which has no potential of being good so you can skip going through all the following trade possibilities.
I think brute force is still a viable solution. So far, all of the best teams without trading have used players that are within the top 20 for point gain. In all, I'd say it's pretty safe to ignore the bottom 40-50 players in terms of point gain. So if we take the top 30-40 players in terms of point gain for each week and intersect these sets, we can significantly reduce the number of possible teams.
Knowing the match results... Would it be reasonable to say that it's couldn't be a good idea to trade for someone who doesn't result in a better score after that week, or is there a situation where it's good to trade for someone even if it doesn't pay off until the following week?
If a trade results in net positive gain at any point in the future, that branch should be considered. However, all trades that result in a possible negative or 0 point gain can safely be ignored.
For instance, if we are considering trading player A for player B, and the point differential is -1 in the first new week and +4 in the second, we should consider that branch. We can also safely ignore all possible teams that result from trading player B during the first new week, because we would otherwise end up with a net loss in points.
I've already done a bunch of coding, btw. So far, my program can pull all the data from the FPL page (to get player, race, and cost data). I then parse Liquipedia to get win data. Using all this, I can calculate points gained per player per week. Once the trade value algorithm is figured out, the plan is to figure out and store the trade value for each player per week, and use that to implement some sort of trading function.
Here's an excel spreadsheet with weekly point gains for each player/team.
Outdated.
Edit:
On January 01 2013 02:30 y0su wrote:Unless it counts anti-team I didn't have a until I traded for one... If it does count anti-team, I traded my anti-team terran at the same time.
Anti-teams have no race restrictions.
|
On January 01 2013 02:10 Laquendi wrote:
The optimal anti-team you can probably compute pretty easily with A* and any sort of decent heuristic. My current idea for heuristic (untested and unproven) is to use dynamic programming to get decent lower limit each player and week.
Could you describe this approach for those (me included) who are not familiar with the more technical terms?
The optimal main-team seems to be much harder problem. It might even be NP-hard since it's essentially longest path problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_path_problem ). Unless someone is able to come up with something really smart we won't be able to prove that we have found the optimal team. It's likely you can get pretty decent results with some probabilistic optimization techniques (maybe something like MAX-MIN Ant System?) or linear programming with heavy restrictions but I'm not very experienced with these methods.
Yikes. NP means the time to compute a solution grows exponentially with the size of the problem, right? Or at least it's not reducible to polynomial time.
Does anyone know when the league ends? Is it after 10 weeks? I wonder if it is realistic to solve this problem by going through all options.
On January 01 2013 02:30 y0su wrote:Unless it counts anti-team I didn't have a until I traded for one... If it does count anti-team, I traded my anti-team terran at the same time.
Fascinating... At this point, maybe it is easier to follow the rules as they were presented, instead of trying to model how the rules actually work.
|
On January 01 2013 08:32 Spazer wrote:
I think brute force is still a viable solution. So far, all of the best teams without trading have used players that are within the top 20 for point gain. In all, I'd say it's pretty safe to ignore the bottom 40-50 players in terms of point gain. So if we take the top 30-40 players in terms of point gain for each week and intersect these sets, we can significantly reduce the number of possible teams.
If a trade results in net positive gain at any point in the future, that branch should be considered. However, all trades that result in a possible negative or 0 point gain can safely be ignored.
These seem like good strategies.
For instance, if we are considering trading player A for player B, and the point differential is -1 in the first new week and +4 in the second, we should consider that branch. We can also safely ignore all possible teams that result from trading player B during the first new week, because we would otherwise end up with a net loss in points.
Could a situation arise where 4 players need to be traded over 2 weeks and trading player A for player B during the first week is the optimal solution?
I've already done a bunch of coding, btw. So far, my program can pull all the data from the FPL page (to get player, race, and cost data). I then parse Liquipedia to get win data. Using all this, I can calculate points gained per player per week. Once the trade value algorithm is figured out, the plan is to figure out and store the trade value for each player per week, and use that to implement some sort of trading function. Here's an excel spreadsheet with weekly point gains for each player/team. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4718/Weekly Point Gain Data.xlsx
Would you be willing to share your code? I'm a fairly inexperienced programmer and want to learn more. I'm interested in how you get data from the FPL page, parse Liquipedia, and how you structure your code.
|
Canada8031 Posts
On January 01 2013 14:15 longdivision wrote:Show nested quote +For instance, if we are considering trading player A for player B, and the point differential is -1 in the first new week and +4 in the second, we should consider that branch. We can also safely ignore all possible teams that result from trading player B during the first new week, because we would otherwise end up with a net loss in points. Could a situation arise where 4 players need to be traded over 2 weeks and trading player A for player B during the first week is the optimal solution?
With my described method, all I check for in the current week is whether or not a trade returns a net positive gain at any point in the future. If so, then ALL future branches with that trade are considered. To clarify my previous example:
You have option to trade player A for player B.
Player A Player B Net gain from trade
Week 1: +4 +3 -1
Week 2: +2 +6 +4
So if I make the trade, I will have a net gain of +3 from the transaction in 2 weeks, so this branch will be considered. What I'm saying is that it's pointless to consider any branches wherein player B is traded away at the end of week 1, as this will leave us a net loss of -1, defeating the entire purpose of the trade.
The situation you mention (4 players being traded over 2 weeks) is already covered with this.
Show nested quote +I've already done a bunch of coding, btw. So far, my program can pull all the data from the FPL page (to get player, race, and cost data). I then parse Liquipedia to get win data. Using all this, I can calculate points gained per player per week. Once the trade value algorithm is figured out, the plan is to figure out and store the trade value for each player per week, and use that to implement some sort of trading function. Here's an excel spreadsheet with weekly point gains for each player/team. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4718/Weekly Point Gain Data.xlsx Would you be willing to share your code? I'm a fairly inexperienced programmer and want to learn more. I'm interested in how you get data from the FPL page, parse Liquipedia, and how you structure your code.
https://github.com/spazer/FPL_Calculator
Written in C# with VS2010
|
United States33388 Posts
yay, people who do math are on the problem!
|
Canada8031 Posts
Things I've figured out:
- Trade value for each week is related to total points (all players with the same total points have the same trade value at the end of the round). Something like (Points / (Games Played / Games Per Week) is a factor. For the current round, final trade value can be found by dividing points by 4.5. The same can be done for other rounds, but the modifier is sometimes 4, sometimes 5.
- The initial cost of a team/player is factored into trade value. The amount it adds decreases every week, hitting zero at the end of the round.
- Adjusted trade value is just (trade value * # of matches the team has left to play)
|
I'll take another approach to this. Making a program that stores all good teams from each week, and then i'll try to implement a way to transform high earning teams from week 1 to equally teams next week, using all the rules to ensure i dont get lost along the way. It might be an ugly implementation, but i think the average computer should be able to solve such a problem given a fair time span. I'll keep you guys posted
|
Couldn't R1CH pull the actual trade value formulas from the FPL code? Understanding how the trade values increase and decrease and being able to recreate it is key to any intended program to solve the presented problem. Otherwise you will not be able to decide who you could eligibly trade for each week.
|
Canada8031 Posts
On January 04 2013 04:57 Proseat wrote:
Couldn't R1CH pull the actual trade value formulas from the FPL code? Understanding how the trade values increase and decrease and being able to recreate it is key to any intended program to solve the presented problem. Otherwise you will not be able to decide who you could eligibly trade for each week.
That's what we're waiting on at the moment. But that doesn't mean we can't try to figure it out ourselves in the meantime.
|
How about; Generate 5 teams based on (maximum number of points in W1) or (Maksimum expected points through out W1-4)
iirc KT made it easy this time around, being the most profitable team every W (I might be wrong here?) = KT selected as team.
Method for calculating optimal team:
Firstly; calculate expected point gain for every player, for every week
Eksample:
W1 = total number of points earned R1
W2 = (W1 Value) - (points earned W1)
W3 = W2 - (points earned W2)
Then for each week, starting with W2 (trade between W1 and W2):
Run For each player check if:
1. Is another player with higher expected points? (Factoring in the trade penalty)
2. Is it possible to trade for him? (Test of Trade values)
3. Does trade go against law of Races?
4. Make trade
Repeat
**Pros and Cons**
Pros:
Only have to run each weeks results through 6 times (1 for each player)
No need to even remove bad players from the tables
Cons:
Doesn't solve the problem of finding the optimal starting team...
|
Does anyone have a google-docs or simular document with the starting costs , and so on, for round 2?
I need some test numbers, costs, points, and trade values to test my program so far. Will probably have to wait till the end of 2. round before i have all the data needed to run a full scale test.
|
On January 04 2013 05:16 Spazer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 04:57 Proseat wrote:
Couldn't R1CH pull the actual trade value formulas from the FPL code? Understanding how the trade values increase and decrease and being able to recreate it is key to any intended program to solve the presented problem. Otherwise you will not be able to decide who you could eligibly trade for each week.
That's what we're waiting on at the moment. But that doesn't mean we can't try to figure it out ourselves in the meantime.
Well going from round 1 to round 2 and looking at their point values? Yeah, I have a really hard time deciphering it. There are some good values in there and some total ripoffs that are outside the numbers like certain players not even being available to play certain weeks.
|
Almost finished writing thingie to brute force it.
I had trade value and how much it changed from round1 week3->week4, so I had to quess trade values for week 2 for everyone and for week3 for teams.
+ Show Spoiler +
CJ Entus 4 6 3.80 10 3.60 12 3.81 12
EG.TL 6 -2 3.00 7 3.70 10 3.94 17
KT Rolster 3 8 4.00 12 4.30 20 5.30 32
Samsung Khan 4 1 2.00 0 0.90 -1 0.92 -1
SK Telecom T1 5 2 4.20 11 4.40 17 5.21 18
STX Soul 3 1 2.50 4 2.20 7 2.41 5
Team 8 1 2 1.20 -1 0.40 2 0.73 7
Woongjin Stars 3 -1 2.80 9 3.40 12 3.52 26
Acacia Z 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 6
Action Z 3 4 3.40 8 4.45 14 3.97 23
Alone Z 1 1 1.00 1 0.79 2 0.73 6
Baby T 7 6 6.80 6 5.33 18 6.00 22
BarrackS T 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 7
Bbyong T 4 4 4.00 9 4.29 12 3.81 12
Bear Z 1 0 0.80 1 0.79 2 0.73 2
Best P 6 4 5.60 8 5.21 10 3.94 11
BisAnG P 1 0 0.80 2 1.01 3 0.95 5
Bisu P 4 1 3.60 2 2.73 7 2.70 8
Bogus T 9 3 8.10 11 7.58 15 5.90 18
Bong[S.G] P 2 1 1.80 6 2.47 6 1.90 6
Calm Z 3 0 2.40 1 1.93 2 1.30 2
Classic T 3 0 2.40 4 2.60 5 1.97 5
Comet P 1 0 0.80 1 0.79 2 0.73 2
Crazy-Hydra Z 3 2 2.80 4 2.61 9 2.86 17
Dear P 3 3 3.10 7 4.67 14 3.97 18
Dream.t)check Z 2 1 1.80 1 1.37 2 1.02 3
Effort Z 9 1 7.70 8 6.92 15 5.90 21
Fantasy T 6 4 5.60 8 5.21 19 5.94 27
Flash T 10 4 8.90 6 7.50 22 7.75 24
Flying P 6 0 5.00 3 4.09 4 2.60 6
fOKINS Z 2 0 1.60 2 1.59 3 1.24 5
free P 3 0 2.40 3 2.37 7 2.41 12
Hanbin T 1 0 0.80 2 1.01 3 0.95 5
Haruhi P 1 1 1.00 1 0.79 2 0.73 3
HerO P x 0 5.10 4 4.89 12 4.67 13
herO[jOin] P 7 4 6.40 18 8.00 20 6.44 22
Hitman Z 1 1 1.10 5 1.68 7 1.84 9
HoeJJa Z 2 1 1.80 2 1.33 4 1.46 6
hOn_sin T 3 0 2.40 9 3.71 10 3.08 18
hOpe Z 2 0 1.60 3 1.81 3 1.24 5
Horang2 P 2 1 1.80 3 1.81 3 1.24 3
Huk P 3 1 2.60 2 2.15 3 1.52 4
Hydra Z 3 4 3.20 9 3.71 8 2.63 11
Hyuk Z 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 5
hyvaa Z 6 0 4.70 4 4.32 8 3.49 8
IdrA Z 2 0 1.60 1 1.37 2 1.02 3
Jaedong Z 8 0 7.00 7 6.12 12 4.95 16
Jaehoon P 5 4 4.80 8 4.64 13 4.32 14
JangBi P 5 0 4.20 1 3.08 5 2.54 15
JuNi Z 1 0 0.80 0 0.58 0 0.29 1
JYP P 4 0 3.40 7 3.85 10 3.37 18
Kop T 2 0 1.60 0 1.14 0 0.57 1
Last T 5 3 4.60 7 4.41 11 3.87 12
Leta P 3 1 2.60 3 2.38 3 1.52 3
Light T 4 0 3.20 2 2.73 6 2.48 12
Mind T 2 2 1.90 3 1.81 5 1.68 7
Mini P 4 0 3.40 1 2.50 5 2.25 5
miso T 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 6
Motive P 3 1 2.60 2 2.16 4 1.75 9
MyuNgSiK P 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 6
NaGi P 2 0 1.60 2 1.59 3 1.24 6
oDin Z 1 0 0.80 0 0.58 0 0.29 1
ParalyzE P 2 1 1.80 5 2.26 7 2.13 8
PenguiN Z 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 6
Puma T 3 1 2.60 3 2.38 4 1.75 6
Rain P 12 6 10.50 11 8.30 20 7.87 33
rare Z 1 1 1.00 3 1.24 3 0.95 3
Reality T 5 3 4.60 6 4.20 6 2.76 7
RorO Z 8 3 6.80 5 5.68 8 4.06 12
Rudy T 1 0 0.80 2 1.01 3 0.95 5
Ryul2 Z 2 4 2.40 4 2.03 8 2.35 12
s2 Z 1 1 1.00 5 1.68 7 1.84 11
Sacsri Z 3 1 2.60 2 2.16 7 2.41 8
Sea T 2 0 1.60 1 1.37 2 1.02 3
Sherry P 1 1 1.00 1 0.79 2 0.73 3
Shine Z 4 -1 3.00 -1 2.06 -1 0.92 1
Shy P 7 0 5.10 8 5.78 18 6.00 27
Size Z 1 0 0.80 1 0.79 2 0.73 2
sKyHigh T 4 4 4.00 6 3.62 10 3.37 10
Snow T 2 1 1.80 3 1.81 3 1.24 3
SonGDuri Z 2 1 1.80 7 2.69 10 2.79 11
soO Z 6 4 5.60 8 5.21 16 5.27 17
Soulkey Z 8 0 6.30 14 7.68 20 6.73 26
Speed T 2 4 2.40 5 2.25 10 2.79 18
Stats P 5 4 4.80 6 4.19 16 4.98 24
Stephano Z x 0 5.10 1 4.22 2 2.44 3
Stork P 6 3 5.40 3 4.10 7 3.27 11
Swift T 1 0 0.80 2 1.01 3 0.95 5
TaeJa T x 0 5.10 4 4.89 19 6.22 25
Terminator P 3 1 2.60 2 2.16 6 2.19 9
ThorZain T 3 0 2.40 1 1.93 2 1.30 6
Trap P 7 -1 5.00 3 4.66 10 4.22 11
Turn T 3 0 2.40 1 1.94 1 1.08 2
Wooki P 3 4 3.40 11 4.67 15 4.19 21
yeOngJae T 1 1 1.00 5 1.68 7 1.84 8
Zenio Z 3 0 2.40 4 2.60 5 1.97 9
ZerO Z 4 0 3.20 8 4.06 12 3.81 17
With these values best anti team I get gives -3 points.
+ Show Spoiler +
Week 1
Kop ±0
Shine +1
Trap +1
-----------------
weekly +2
total +2
Week 2
trade:Trap->Stork
Kop ±0
Shine ±0
Stork ±0
TradeTax -1
-----------------
weekly -1
total +1
Week 3
trade:Stork->Reality
Kop ±0
Shine ±0
Reality ±0
TradeTax -1
-----------------
weekly -1
total ±0
Week 4
trade:Shine->hyvaa
Kop -1
hyvaa ±0
Reality -1
TradeTax -1
-----------------
weekly -3
total -3
May not be the only way to get -3, but better score should not be possible.
It took some 75 minutes to get anti team, not gonna search main until I make some adjustments to algorithm, maybe even rewrite it form scratch.
|
On January 07 2013 20:24 cjin wrote:Almost finished writing thingie to brute force it. I had trade value and how much it changed from round1 week3->week4, so I had to quess trade values for week 2 for everyone and for week3 for teams. + Show Spoiler +
CJ Entus 4 6 3.80 10 3.60 12 3.81 12
EG.TL 6 -2 3.00 7 3.70 10 3.94 17
KT Rolster 3 8 4.00 12 4.30 20 5.30 32
Samsung Khan 4 1 2.00 0 0.90 -1 0.92 -1
SK Telecom T1 5 2 4.20 11 4.40 17 5.21 18
STX Soul 3 1 2.50 4 2.20 7 2.41 5
Team 8 1 2 1.20 -1 0.40 2 0.73 7
Woongjin Stars 3 -1 2.80 9 3.40 12 3.52 26
Acacia Z 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 6
Action Z 3 4 3.40 8 4.45 14 3.97 23
Alone Z 1 1 1.00 1 0.79 2 0.73 6
Baby T 7 6 6.80 6 5.33 18 6.00 22
BarrackS T 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 7
Bbyong T 4 4 4.00 9 4.29 12 3.81 12
Bear Z 1 0 0.80 1 0.79 2 0.73 2
Best P 6 4 5.60 8 5.21 10 3.94 11
BisAnG P 1 0 0.80 2 1.01 3 0.95 5
Bisu P 4 1 3.60 2 2.73 7 2.70 8
Bogus T 9 3 8.10 11 7.58 15 5.90 18
Bong[S.G] P 2 1 1.80 6 2.47 6 1.90 6
Calm Z 3 0 2.40 1 1.93 2 1.30 2
Classic T 3 0 2.40 4 2.60 5 1.97 5
Comet P 1 0 0.80 1 0.79 2 0.73 2
Crazy-Hydra Z 3 2 2.80 4 2.61 9 2.86 17
Dear P 3 3 3.10 7 4.67 14 3.97 18
Dream.t)check Z 2 1 1.80 1 1.37 2 1.02 3
Effort Z 9 1 7.70 8 6.92 15 5.90 21
Fantasy T 6 4 5.60 8 5.21 19 5.94 27
Flash T 10 4 8.90 6 7.50 22 7.75 24
Flying P 6 0 5.00 3 4.09 4 2.60 6
fOKINS Z 2 0 1.60 2 1.59 3 1.24 5
free P 3 0 2.40 3 2.37 7 2.41 12
Hanbin T 1 0 0.80 2 1.01 3 0.95 5
Haruhi P 1 1 1.00 1 0.79 2 0.73 3
HerO P x 0 5.10 4 4.89 12 4.67 13
herO[jOin] P 7 4 6.40 18 8.00 20 6.44 22
Hitman Z 1 1 1.10 5 1.68 7 1.84 9
HoeJJa Z 2 1 1.80 2 1.33 4 1.46 6
hOn_sin T 3 0 2.40 9 3.71 10 3.08 18
hOpe Z 2 0 1.60 3 1.81 3 1.24 5
Horang2 P 2 1 1.80 3 1.81 3 1.24 3
Huk P 3 1 2.60 2 2.15 3 1.52 4
Hydra Z 3 4 3.20 9 3.71 8 2.63 11
Hyuk Z 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 5
hyvaa Z 6 0 4.70 4 4.32 8 3.49 8
IdrA Z 2 0 1.60 1 1.37 2 1.02 3
Jaedong Z 8 0 7.00 7 6.12 12 4.95 16
Jaehoon P 5 4 4.80 8 4.64 13 4.32 14
JangBi P 5 0 4.20 1 3.08 5 2.54 15
JuNi Z 1 0 0.80 0 0.58 0 0.29 1
JYP P 4 0 3.40 7 3.85 10 3.37 18
Kop T 2 0 1.60 0 1.14 0 0.57 1
Last T 5 3 4.60 7 4.41 11 3.87 12
Leta P 3 1 2.60 3 2.38 3 1.52 3
Light T 4 0 3.20 2 2.73 6 2.48 12
Mind T 2 2 1.90 3 1.81 5 1.68 7
Mini P 4 0 3.40 1 2.50 5 2.25 5
miso T 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 6
Motive P 3 1 2.60 2 2.16 4 1.75 9
MyuNgSiK P 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 6
NaGi P 2 0 1.60 2 1.59 3 1.24 6
oDin Z 1 0 0.80 0 0.58 0 0.29 1
ParalyzE P 2 1 1.80 5 2.26 7 2.13 8
PenguiN Z 1 1 1.00 2 1.01 4 1.17 6
Puma T 3 1 2.60 3 2.38 4 1.75 6
Rain P 12 6 10.50 11 8.30 20 7.87 33
rare Z 1 1 1.00 3 1.24 3 0.95 3
Reality T 5 3 4.60 6 4.20 6 2.76 7
RorO Z 8 3 6.80 5 5.68 8 4.06 12
Rudy T 1 0 0.80 2 1.01 3 0.95 5
Ryul2 Z 2 4 2.40 4 2.03 8 2.35 12
s2 Z 1 1 1.00 5 1.68 7 1.84 11
Sacsri Z 3 1 2.60 2 2.16 7 2.41 8
Sea T 2 0 1.60 1 1.37 2 1.02 3
Sherry P 1 1 1.00 1 0.79 2 0.73 3
Shine Z 4 -1 3.00 -1 2.06 -1 0.92 1
Shy P 7 0 5.10 8 5.78 18 6.00 27
Size Z 1 0 0.80 1 0.79 2 0.73 2
sKyHigh T 4 4 4.00 6 3.62 10 3.37 10
Snow T 2 1 1.80 3 1.81 3 1.24 3
SonGDuri Z 2 1 1.80 7 2.69 10 2.79 11
soO Z 6 4 5.60 8 5.21 16 5.27 17
Soulkey Z 8 0 6.30 14 7.68 20 6.73 26
Speed T 2 4 2.40 5 2.25 10 2.79 18
Stats P 5 4 4.80 6 4.19 16 4.98 24
Stephano Z x 0 5.10 1 4.22 2 2.44 3
Stork P 6 3 5.40 3 4.10 7 3.27 11
Swift T 1 0 0.80 2 1.01 3 0.95 5
TaeJa T x 0 5.10 4 4.89 19 6.22 25
Terminator P 3 1 2.60 2 2.16 6 2.19 9
ThorZain T 3 0 2.40 1 1.93 2 1.30 6
Trap P 7 -1 5.00 3 4.66 10 4.22 11
Turn T 3 0 2.40 1 1.94 1 1.08 2
Wooki P 3 4 3.40 11 4.67 15 4.19 21
yeOngJae T 1 1 1.00 5 1.68 7 1.84 8
Zenio Z 3 0 2.40 4 2.60 5 1.97 9
ZerO Z 4 0 3.20 8 4.06 12 3.81 17
With these values best anti team I get gives -3 points. + Show Spoiler +
Week 1
Kop ±0
Shine +1
Trap +1
-----------------
weekly +2
total +2
Week 2
trade:Trap->Stork
Kop ±0
Shine ±0
Stork ±0
TradeTax -1
-----------------
weekly -1
total +1
Week 3
trade:Stork->Reality
Kop ±0
Shine ±0
Reality ±0
TradeTax -1
-----------------
weekly -1
total ±0
Week 4
trade:Shine->hyvaa
Kop -1
hyvaa ±0
Reality -1
TradeTax -1
-----------------
weekly -3
total -3
May not be the only way to get -3, but better score should not be possible. It took some 75 minutes to get anti team, not gonna search main until I make some adjustments to algorithm, maybe even rewrite it form scratch.
Nice it seems like we have been going very simular ways with our approach. I have tried to calculate the optimal main team given random points and tradevalues myself. This was also done with a significant smaller player pool. I plan on running it full scale once the first week of the pl.round is over.
does your implementation take into account that suboptimal trades one week, might end up leading to a higher result further along the way?. Mine doesnt, it tries to max out all of the possible teams values each week.
If thats the case i would like if you could put your code up on pastebin or gist.github 
|
On January 07 2013 23:31 Chr15t wrote:does your implementation take into account that suboptimal trades one week, might end up leading to a higher result further along the way?. Mine doesnt, it tries to max out all of the possible teams values each week. If thats the case i would like if you could put your code up on pastebin or gist.github
As long as the lineup is on top 100000 score of the possible lineups of that week. Well, not all possible, just the ones you can get from the top 100000 of previous week.
Probably best way to fasten search (or at least easiest way) would be to reduce that to 10000. I was thinking about to not allow trades where you trade to a player that is going to score 1 or less on next round. Or just less than the player you are trading out.
|
On January 08 2013 01:21 cjin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 23:31 Chr15t wrote:does your implementation take into account that suboptimal trades one week, might end up leading to a higher result further along the way?. Mine doesnt, it tries to max out all of the possible teams values each week. If thats the case i would like if you could put your code up on pastebin or gist.github As long as the lineup is on top 100000 score of the possible lineups of that week. Well, not all possible, just the ones you can get from the top 100000 of previous week. Probably best way to fasten search (or at least easiest way) would be to reduce that to 10000. I was thinking about to not allow trades where you trade to a player that is going to score 1 or less on next round. Or just less than the player you are trading out.
In my program i test for if its viable to trade players based on the following week, so i dont end up having too, too many team combinations ;D
|
On January 08 2013 02:05 Chr15t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 01:21 cjin wrote:On January 07 2013 23:31 Chr15t wrote:does your implementation take into account that suboptimal trades one week, might end up leading to a higher result further along the way?. Mine doesnt, it tries to max out all of the possible teams values each week. If thats the case i would like if you could put your code up on pastebin or gist.github As long as the lineup is on top 100000 score of the possible lineups of that week. Well, not all possible, just the ones you can get from the top 100000 of previous week. Probably best way to fasten search (or at least easiest way) would be to reduce that to 10000. I was thinking about to not allow trades where you trade to a player that is going to score 1 or less on next round. Or just less than the player you are trading out. In my program i test for if its viable to trade players based on the following week, so i dont end up having too, too many team combinations ;D
I was going to cut out low end scoring teams, like 25+ points behind leading team at the end of each week or something like that, just haven't done it yet
|
this is impossible to know because you can't know which players will win until they do...
User was warned for this post
|
Canada8031 Posts
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.
|
On January 08 2013 10:12 xmungam wrote:
this is impossible to know because you can't know which players will win until they do...
But you do know which players have won, because they did!
|
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
|
On January 08 2013 22:25 cjin wrote:Show nested quote +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 language do you use? - would like to know if i would have any benifit from you uploading your solution ;D
|
United States8476 Posts
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.
|
Oh hi monk, I wonder if you can tell me when this weeks trade-window starts, i've been f5ing the page every 30th minut so far, to get my hands on the new data to test out optimizations for my current program.
|
I was here thinking the fun of this "game" would be to determine who had the better instinct and had the best opinion of player's skill/potential. Silly me.
Don't read this as a negative comment, it's not intended to me I just don't know how else to word it - is there any satisfaction in using a script to determine your team?
User was warned for this post
|
On January 09 2013 03:59 Zenbrez wrote:
Don't read this as a negative comment, it's not intended to me I just don't know how else to word it - is there any satisfaction in using a script to determine your team?
You don't get it. They do it because of the satisfaction that comes from having a go at a hard problem and solving it. That's as much fun as anything else you can think of it that's what floats your boat.
|
On January 01 2013 02:10 Laquendi wrote:The optimal anti-team you can probably compute pretty easily with A* and any sort of decent heuristic. My current idea for heuristic (untested and unproven) is to use dynamic programming to get decent lower limit each player and week. The optimal main-team seems to be much harder problem. It might even be NP-hard since it's essentially longest path problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_path_problem ). Unless someone is able to come up with something really smart we won't be able to prove that we have found the optimal team. It's likely you can get pretty decent results with some probabilistic optimization techniques (maybe something like MAX-MIN Ant System?) or linear programming with heavy restrictions but I'm not very experienced with these methods. The longest path is on a DAG, no? So DP could still work. I am more concerned about the number of states if we use DP, however. It's approximately 10^10 teams out there, without counting anti-teams and such.
Edit: Calculations are slightly off. It's more like 10^10 instead of 10^12. Still a pretty big number, but probably doable with enough machine power.
|
On January 09 2013 04:09 Serek wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 03:59 Zenbrez wrote:
Don't read this as a negative comment, it's not intended to me I just don't know how else to word it - is there any satisfaction in using a script to determine your team? You don't get it. They do it because of the satisfaction that comes from having a go at a hard problem and solving it. That's as much fun as anything else you can think of it that's what floats your boat.
The script is only for determine the best team after-the-fact... Just for the sake of knowing, after all the games have been played, what the best possible team would have been.
|
On January 09 2013 03:59 Zenbrez wrote:
I was here thinking the fun of this "game" would be to determine who had the better instinct and had the best opinion of player's skill/potential. Silly me.
Don't read this as a negative comment, it's not intended to me I just don't know how else to word it - is there any satisfaction in using a script to determine your team?
User was warned for this post
Well the point of the script is to determine the best possible team, with trades, in RETROSPECT. Meaning when all matches are over you can compare your actual team to the best possible one. So it's not about "cheating" or "beating the system", it's about making a tool that is making it easier for those who created the fantasy feature. Instead of manually calculating the "best possible team with trades", which would take forever, they can enter the right numbers into this number-crunching-tool and it does it for them.
And again, this is all done AFTER the games are played.
On another note, I am intrigued by this thread, following this with great interest!
best
Kim
|
United States8476 Posts
On January 09 2013 03:51 Chr15t wrote:
Oh hi monk, I wonder if you can tell me when this weeks trade-window starts, i've been f5ing the page every 30th minut so far, to get my hands on the new data to test out optimizations for my current program.
It's whenever R1CH wakes up/updates it.
|
On January 09 2013 04:24 monk. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 03:51 Chr15t wrote:
Oh hi monk, I wonder if you can tell me when this weeks trade-window starts, i've been f5ing the page every 30th minut so far, to get my hands on the new data to test out optimizations for my current program. It's whenever R1CH wakes up/updates it.
okay thanks for the reply
|
Canada8031 Posts
Weekly point gain and trade value data for Round 1:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4718/Round 1 Data.xlsx
Edit:
Given a team with 4 (P), 1 (T), 1 (Z), is it possible to use the 2 weekly main-team trades to make the following trade without breaking the rule for having at least one of each race on a team?
1 (T) -> 1 (Z)
1 (Z) -> 1 (T)
I tested this, and it doesn't work. You can only trade the zerg for another zerg, the terran for another terran, etc.
|
United States8476 Posts
Just to check, the algorithm I used for best team without trades gives me:
Cure, free, Revival, soo, Terminator, P7GAB(Wooki), KT Rolster
Anti: Dear, RorO, Turn
|
Canada8031 Posts
|
Turn Dear and RorO are horrid anti-teams.
A better one would be Turn, hyvaa and Trap which is still 0, 0, 0.
Is there are way to sort it by winning percentages over the season?
|
Canada8031 Posts
Ok, everything's fixed now. The new scoring was wreaking havoc with my code.
Name Cost Points
Terminator 3 6
Revival 3 7
free 3 8
Speed 4 7
soO 5 8
Wooki 6 11
KT Rolster 6 12
@Blisse: You haven't fulfilled the 13 cost anti-team requirement.
Week 1's a bit of a crapshoot anyways.
|
Was just thinking about exactly the same problem the last few days and now saw this thread. Yeah, the optimization problem without trading is what I've used to pick my team for R2 too (and doing pretty well), but then the real problem would be to include trades in the optimization, which increases the complexity way too much. Glad to see others thinking on it also.
|
I'm working on this now (best w/ trades) based on R1 data. Can anyone confirm that this is the one of the best main teams w/o trades?
Max score: 172
Best team:
KT.Rolster (3.0, 32)
Action (3.0, 23)
Fantasy (6.0, 27)
Shy (7.0, 27)
Speed (2.0, 18)
Stats (5.0, 24)
Wooki (3.0, 21)
|
Canada8031 Posts
What's the first number in the bracket signify?
|
The player's initial cost.
|
Canada8031 Posts
Hm, my bad. Looks like I've screwed up the initial team costs in the excel file. The costs under "Team trade values" are accurate though.
Edit: Player costs are also fine.
Edit 2: As an aside, trade values in the excel file reflect the player's/team's trade value at the end of the week. So week 4 trade values are essentially irrelevant.
Edit 3: Excel spreadsheet values are now corrected.
|
On January 09 2013 15:28 paladin8 wrote:I'm working on this now (best w/ trades) based on R1 data. Can anyone confirm that this is the one of the best main teams w/o trades? Max score: 172
Best team:
KT.Rolster (3.0, 32)
Action (3.0, 23)
Fantasy (6.0, 27)
Shy (7.0, 27)
Speed (2.0, 18)
Stats (5.0, 24)
Wooki (3.0, 21)
according to http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391291¤tpage=1#1 172 points is best you can get, little different team there.
On January 09 2013 13:17 monk. wrote:
Just to check, the algorithm I used for best team without trades gives me:
Cure, free, Revival, soo, Terminator, P7GAB(Wooki), KT Rolster
Anti: Dear, RorO, Turn
Where did you get Cure? Hes dosen't exist on my list at all http://www.teamliquid.net/fantasy/proleague/Stats.php?r=13&s=2&d=0
I get 59 points with
Wooki, free, soO, Revival, Speed, Terminator, KT Rolster
Reality, RorO, Trap
I found total of 10 other ways to get same value anti team, but no other way to get same value main team.
|
Canada8031 Posts
Cure is Speed. I have to keep a file specifically set up to catch all the alternate aliases, haha.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 09 2013 15:17 Spazer wrote:Ok, everything's fixed now. The new scoring was wreaking havoc with my code. Name Cost Points
Terminator 3 6
Revival 3 7
free 3 8
Speed 4 7
soO 5 8
Wooki 6 11
KT Rolster 6 12 @Blisse: You haven't fulfilled the 13 cost anti-team requirement. Week 1's a bit of a crapshoot anyways.
Well your team seems to be in order i got a bit different lineup, but comes out at the same total:
MainTeam:
Players: Race: Points:
1. Wooki P 11
2. soO Z 8
3. Speed T 7
4. free P 8
5. Revival Z 7
6. Terminator P 6
Team: KT Rolster 12
AntiTeam
Players: Race: Points:
1. RorO Z 0
2. Dear P 0
3. hyvaa Z 0
Total points: 59
EDIT: lol nevermind , our teams are identical ;D my brain just didnt compute it
|
On January 08 2013 22:25 cjin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 12 2013 02:40 paladin8 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 12 2013 07:57 cjin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 12 2013 08:13 paladin8 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On January 12 2013 08:50 cjin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
+ 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.
|
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) 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.
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)
|
Canada8031 Posts
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.
|
On January 12 2013 14:44 cjin wrote:Show nested quote +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) 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. 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)
No, equal trades are fine. Didn't you play? 
|
+ 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"
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. ExampleSay 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.
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.
|
On January 13 2013 04:37 paladin8 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 14:44 cjin wrote: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) 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. 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) 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.xlsxEdit: Show nested quote +Given a team with 4 (P), 1 (T), 1 (Z), is it possible to use the 2 weekly main-team trades to make the following trade without breaking the rule for having at least one of each race on a team?
1 (T) -> 1 (Z)
1 (Z) -> 1 (T) 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?
|
Canada8031 Posts
Yeah, if you're race limited, all options in the trade dropdown box are greyed out except for players of the same race.
|
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?
|
Canada8031 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
Canada8031 Posts
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.
|
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. 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.
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
|
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. 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.
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
On January 16 2013 04:32 Chr15t wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
On January 16 2013 04:51 cjin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:32 Chr15t wrote: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 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.
:O that sounds like manual labour!
|
On January 16 2013 05:23 Chr15t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:51 cjin wrote:On January 16 2013 04:32 Chr15t wrote: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 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. :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
|
United States8476 Posts
So does anyone have a fully verified working version? We can start working it into news-posts if you do.
|
On January 22 2013 03:14 monk wrote:
So does anyone have a fully verified working version? We can start working it into news-posts if you do.
I had to reinstall windows and formatting kinda erased my thingie.
|
United States8476 Posts
|
I can't 100% guarantee correctness, but I have a pretty good attempt if you can provide the data in a reasonable format (e.g. cjin's format).
|
I actually had some old version stashed away, but don't remember if there's any errors
+ Show Spoiler +WEEK 1
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +5 RorO ±0
JangBi +8 Dear ±0
free +8 Best -1
Wooki +11
Speed +7
soO +8
CJ Entus +3 Trade Tax ±0
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +49
Score Total +49
WEEK 2
Trades
Wooki ->RorO
soO ->HerO
RorO ->soO
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +17 soO ±0
JangBi +11 Dear ±0
free +11 Best ±0
HerO +6
Speed +8
RorO +7
CJ Entus +8 Trade Tax -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +65
Score Total +114
WEEK 3
Trades
free ->Bogus
Speed ->ZerO
Dear ->Speed
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +5 soO ±0
JangBi +5 Speed ±0
ZerO +12 Best ±0
HerO +10
Bogus +10
RorO +10
CJ Entus +4 Trade Tax -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +53
Score Total +167
|
On January 27 2013 02:25 cjin wrote:I actually had some old version stashed away, but don't remember if there's any errors + Show Spoiler +WEEK 1
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +5 RorO ±0
JangBi +8 Dear ±0
free +8 Best -1
Wooki +11
Speed +7
soO +8
CJ Entus +3 Trade Tax ±0
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +49
Score Total +49
WEEK 2
Trades
Wooki ->RorO
soO ->HerO
RorO ->soO
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +17 soO ±0
JangBi +11 Dear ±0
free +11 Best ±0
HerO +6
Speed +8
RorO +7
CJ Entus +8 Trade Tax -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +65
Score Total +114
WEEK 3
Trades
free ->Bogus
Speed ->ZerO
Dear ->Speed
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +5 soO ±0
JangBi +5 Speed ±0
ZerO +12 Best ±0
HerO +10
Bogus +10
RorO +10
CJ Entus +4 Trade Tax -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +53
Score Total +167
I dont know if this version is older or newer than the one you presented to me , but if you want i still have that version?
|
On January 28 2013 06:01 Chr15t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 02:25 cjin wrote:I actually had some old version stashed away, but don't remember if there's any errors + Show Spoiler +WEEK 1
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +5 RorO ±0
JangBi +8 Dear ±0
free +8 Best -1
Wooki +11
Speed +7
soO +8
CJ Entus +3 Trade Tax ±0
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +49
Score Total +49
WEEK 2
Trades
Wooki ->RorO
soO ->HerO
RorO ->soO
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +17 soO ±0
JangBi +11 Dear ±0
free +11 Best ±0
HerO +6
Speed +8
RorO +7
CJ Entus +8 Trade Tax -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +65
Score Total +114
WEEK 3
Trades
free ->Bogus
Speed ->ZerO
Dear ->Speed
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +5 soO ±0
JangBi +5 Speed ±0
ZerO +12 Best ±0
HerO +10
Bogus +10
RorO +10
CJ Entus +4 Trade Tax -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +53
Score Total +167 I dont know if this version is older or newer than the one you presented to me , but if you want i still have that version?
It is newer than that. Looks like it is missing only check for having someone who can be captain and some improvemenets for search that only save some time.
Best team for round 2 scores 202 points
+ Show Spoiler +WEEK 1
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +5 TaeJa -1
free +8 sSak -1
Jaehoon +4 Best -1
ZerO +7
Speed +7
soO +8
KT Rolster +12 Trade Tax ±0
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +48
Score Total +48
WEEK 2
Trades
KT Rolster ->CJ Entus
soO ->RorO
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +17 TaeJa ±0
free +11 sSak ±0
Jaehoon +10 Best ±0
ZerO +4
Speed +8
RorO +7
CJ Entus +8 Trade Tax -2
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +63
Score Total +111
WEEK 3
Trades
free ->Dear
Speed ->Bogus
TaeJa ->soO
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Hydra +5 soO ±0
Bogus +10 sSak ±0
Jaehoon +4 Best ±0
ZerO +12
Dear +7
RorO +10
CJ Entus +4 Trade Tax -3
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +49
Score Total +160
WEEK 4
Trades
Hydra ->Effort
ZerO ->Flash
Main Team Pt Anti Team Pt
Flash +8 soO ±0
Bogus +3 sSak ±0
Jaehoon +9 Best ±0
Effort +7
Dear +8
RorO +8
CJ Entus +1 Trade Tax -2
-----------------------------------------
Score Week +42
Score Total +202
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
