|
On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability?
No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D
|
United States23455 Posts
On December 23 2014 05:18 Sephi BBZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 04:53 R1CH wrote:
Picking popular players for your anti-team is rarely a good idea, however you'll find the less popular players are also low point values. If you'd read the scoring before signing up you should have known this. For you it is logical ? For example, I don't know, Stork does not play in the 1st round. Stork gives you 0 point cause he is 0-0. Yoda played in the 1st round and he is 1-1 with the Ace match lost. Yoda in your anti-team gives you -2 points. For me, it is obvious that: 1/ being 2-0 is better than 2/ being 1-1 with the Ace match won which is better than 3/ being 1-0 which is better than 4/ being 0-0, which is better than 5/ being 0-1 which is better than 6/ being 1-1 with the Ace match lost which is better than 7/ being 0-2 (Note that it is maybe possible to switch 2/ and 3/ and to switch 5/ and 6/, however, 4/ is clearly between these 2 groups) Of course for the anti-team, we just have to reverse this ranking. So, if the game was correctly done, we should earn points according to that.
Yes logically the creators of FPL should have listened to your random assignment of point value to losing an ace match in order to create the perfect scoring system
0-1 better than 1-1 with ace match loss well I just dunno kev
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 23 2014 05:53 Sephi BBZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability? No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D
Whether or not you have a PhD (which I doubt you do) doesn't really matter if you think going 1-1 and losing the ace match is better than going 0-1. One definitely loses your team the match, the other doesn't. Difference of opinion, maybe, but it seems strange to argue that.
|
On December 23 2014 06:09 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 05:53 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability? No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D Whether or not you have a PhD (which I doubt you do) doesn't really matter if you think going 1-1 and losing the ace match is better than going 0-1. One definitely loses your team the match, the other doesn't. Difference of opinion, maybe, but it seems strange to argue that.
It is precisely that.
Moreover, as I said, you can reverse 2 with 3 and 5 with 6 if you want.
But you probably did not read this.
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 23 2014 05:53 Sephi BBZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability? No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D
I doubt it was applied mathematics then. Even a gambling junkie could see how revising the system under your constraints would make it a mess.
|
United States23455 Posts
On December 23 2014 06:17 Sephi BBZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 06:09 Zealously wrote:On December 23 2014 05:53 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability? No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D Whether or not you have a PhD (which I doubt you do) doesn't really matter if you think going 1-1 and losing the ace match is better than going 0-1. One definitely loses your team the match, the other doesn't. Difference of opinion, maybe, but it seems strange to argue that. It is precisely that. Moreover, as I said, you can reverse 2 with 3 and 5 with 6 if you want. But you probably did not read this.
So you are saying... that logically... Yoda should have earned fewer points than Terror
stop hurting my brain like this I just can't keep up with that logic
|
On December 23 2014 06:50 Darkhorse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 06:17 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 06:09 Zealously wrote:On December 23 2014 05:53 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability? No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D Whether or not you have a PhD (which I doubt you do) doesn't really matter if you think going 1-1 and losing the ace match is better than going 0-1. One definitely loses your team the match, the other doesn't. Difference of opinion, maybe, but it seems strange to argue that. It is precisely that. Moreover, as I said, you can reverse 2 with 3 and 5 with 6 if you want. But you probably did not read this. So you are saying... that logically... Yoda should have earned fewer points than Terror stop hurting my brain like this I just can't keep up with that logic
In my opinion, yes, since he lost the Ace, so he lost the match.
But as I said, this is not really the point since I said you can reverse 2-3 and 5-6.
The thing I really don't understand, is the fact that Yoda's score, is better than Stork's score.
It is better to lose an Ace match than to don't do anything.
This is non sense.
|
On December 23 2014 06:55 Sephi BBZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 06:50 Darkhorse wrote:On December 23 2014 06:17 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 06:09 Zealously wrote:On December 23 2014 05:53 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Your logic doesn't make any sense
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability? No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D Whether or not you have a PhD (which I doubt you do) doesn't really matter if you think going 1-1 and losing the ace match is better than going 0-1. One definitely loses your team the match, the other doesn't. Difference of opinion, maybe, but it seems strange to argue that. It is precisely that. Moreover, as I said, you can reverse 2 with 3 and 5 with 6 if you want. But you probably did not read this. So you are saying... that logically... Yoda should have earned fewer points than Terror stop hurting my brain like this I just can't keep up with that logic In my opinion, yes, since he lost the Ace, so he lost the match. But as I said, this is not really the point since I said you can reverse 2-3 and 5-6. The thing I really don't understand, is the fact that Yoda's score, is better than Stork's score. It is better to lose an Ace match than to don't do anything. This is non sense.
Yoda's score is better than Stork's because he won a game which got them to the ace match. That's pretty logical to me
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 23 2014 06:17 Sephi BBZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 06:09 Zealously wrote:On December 23 2014 05:53 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability? No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D Whether or not you have a PhD (which I doubt you do) doesn't really matter if you think going 1-1 and losing the ace match is better than going 0-1. One definitely loses your team the match, the other doesn't. Difference of opinion, maybe, but it seems strange to argue that. It is precisely that. Moreover, as I said, you can reverse 2 with 3 and 5 with 6 if you want. But you probably did not read this.
But aren't you saying that player A (going 1-1) should be rated lower than player B who went 0-1, but didn't lose the ace match? I don't think that's really fair point distribution, either.
|
On December 23 2014 06:59 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 06:17 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 06:09 Zealously wrote:On December 23 2014 05:53 Sephi BBZ wrote:On December 23 2014 05:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 23 2014 04:50 Sephi BBZ wrote:
Okay this game is bad.
It is better for you that the guys in your anti-team do not play rather than they play and have maybe 60% chance to lose.
Ridiculous.
When a guy in your anti-team is playing, it should not making you lose points, you should lose points only if he wins.
For example, today picking Yoda in your anti-team was bad :D
Yoda is 1-1 but lost the Ace, so it was a very good thing to take Yoda in your anti-team logically, he made his team lose the match. But no, taking Yoda in your anti team give you -2 points.
If you picked someone who did not play, it gives you 0 point.
It is better to pick a guy who does not play than a guy who loses Ace match :D
Next time, before making a game, maybe think a little ?
Bybye (-; ...duh? Do you not understand basic probability? No, I made a Ph.D in mathematics, but it was only luck :D Whether or not you have a PhD (which I doubt you do) doesn't really matter if you think going 1-1 and losing the ace match is better than going 0-1. One definitely loses your team the match, the other doesn't. Difference of opinion, maybe, but it seems strange to argue that. It is precisely that. Moreover, as I said, you can reverse 2 with 3 and 5 with 6 if you want. But you probably did not read this. But aren't you saying that player A (going 1-1) should be rated lower than player B who went 0-1, but didn't lose the ace match? I don't think that's really fair point distribution, either.
I was just trying to give my opinion on this.
I mean yes, losing the Ace is really the baddest thing no ?
BUT IT IS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST.
The main thing I don't understand is the fact that it is better to lose an Ace match than don't do anything.
You don't see what it means ?
It means that your goal for your anti-team is to find players that won't play, and not player that will lose.
You really think this is logical ?
I mean, being "1-1 losing Ace match" cannot be better than being "0-0" ...
The things are made such that in your anti-team, you should try to have players that won't play.
This is the point of my contribution, I disagree with this.
|
Taking Stork (who did not play) in anti-team gives more points than taking Yoda (who lost an Ace match) in anti-team (0pt vs -2pt).
But it seems that everybody finds this logical, so, okay, it is me who is probably strange.
At least I gave my opinion, see you on another topic (-:
|
On December 23 2014 07:09 Sephi BBZ wrote:
It means that your goal for your anti-team is to find players that won't play, and not player that will lose.
You really think this is logical ?
I mean, being "1-1 losing Ace match" cannot be better than being "0-0" ...
The things are made such that in your anti-team, you should try to have players that won't play.
This is the point of my contribution, I disagree with this.
I think this is why the point value requirement for the anti-team is set high enough that you can't really do this for your whole anti-team - most people are still having to pick out at least a 6 or 7-pointer who they think will do badly. And not playing is related to performance/skill anyway. If a player is not doing well in matches, or not doing well in their teamhouse, then they aren't going to play, so people still need to work out who these underperformers are. If a player is just not expected to play much because they will be away from Korea, then they have low point values so you need to pick others to make up for them anyway.
|
United States15275 Posts
If you have a Ph.D. in mathematics, the answer should be obvious. A change to the scoring system according to your criteria would produce the following results:
A) The changes turn main team selection into a very specific optimal process.
B) The changes make anti-team selection trivial.
|
I MISSED IT! DARN YOU HOLIDAY WEEKEND! THE FIRST TIME I MISSED FPL SINCE I JOINED  (
|
Hi, I'm new to this fantasy proleague thing. Could someone explain to me quikly why I got -1 for Sora (Anti team but didn't play yesterday) and 0 for Creator (Anti team and lost to Leenock)?
|
Creator lost. You want that.
CJ Entus won, and Sora is on CJ, so that gains him one point value.
|
I think the Anti-Team should add points to your score if you choose correctly, When i read the guidelines for this fantasy league, in the strategy section for anti-team it suggests to choose players you think are overrated or not playing as well. Which leads me to believe if you were to pick lets say Maru for your anti-team who is ranked highest at 9 and he were to lose, you should get some sort of points for making a calculated risk, as he is more likely to play and could make you lose a lot of points were he to win.
But REALLY the way its setup now, the strategy should be to pick players that are least likely to play.
Either way i still love it and thank you very much for setting this up :D
|
Ok I see its more complicated than I initially thought.
I thought that if I had maru in my anti team and he lost I would get 9 points, while a less worth player (Creator for instance) would be less risky to have in my anti team, hence giving me less points when he lost.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
people are failing to grasp the concept of opportunity cost. you do gain points from picking Maru in certain situations.
if you pick Maru for your anti team, you get to pick 2 2pters that are unlikely to play.
not picking Maru means you have to pick a different anti team that will sum to 13. say, instead of Maru you pick Hush and Bbyong, and then Leenock for the 4 remaining points. all those playes won last night, and that's a total of 13 pts lost just for last night.
even if Maru wins today, you only lose 4 points assuming Jin Air wins. the 2 2pters could earn 1 pt between them, for a total of 5 lost points. that's 8 points better for choosing Maru as the crux of your anti team instead of a bunch of 4/5 pters.
there are limited slots (3) and there is a required value (13) for anti teams. those limitations make opportunity cost have a greater impact. the reason there are complaints of "choose the player that doesnt play" is because this is round 1 and rosters arent predictable yet. we have no idea who will likely play and who won't. values will adjust given time and you will be forced to pick between players that do play for your anti team, as all non-playing players will have depreciated values.
there are some strategies that involve trading away anti team players that play each week for players that don't but again there is opportunity cost.
each trade receives a -1 trade tax. a non playing player can earn +1 at most, 0 at least. that means he will net you 0 or -1 points. would you choose trading away for that 1 pt gain over trading someone on your main team who can earn more points? with only 2 trades per week, you can't just reshuffle your deck each time.
TL;DR OPPORTUNITY COST SHEESH
|
I still definitely think a better way of doing the Anti team would be to make it so that players on your Anti get a point (counts for you, not against you) for being on the lineup so that picking solid players like Skyhigh (4) who may not get played nearly as much will not be as good of an anti as someone who plays often, but does poorly. He will still likely be used at least a few times, given that he recently reached the Ro4 of GSL, but I doubt he will ever be one of their core players, being sent out each time. [edited for clarity]
I think we should just ignore Round 1, because it's clearly flawed!! (I'm not just saying this because I picked San on Anti and now have -5 points!)
Originally, before I had really studied up to understand the rules for this, I had planned on picking Creator (6), Seed (4), and Center (3), but all 3 of those were getting played in the first week, being representative of more frequent showtime, so I replaced with the 3 players I thought would be played least in Proleague (Taeja, Stork, San)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
