Competitions Pieman Mk II - Proof of Concept 2020

[grassman75]

Can I change B Smith to Hunter thanks DW

 

[dogwatch]

Here is mine. Thanks for running it DW

Bont
B Smith
J McRae
Naughton
Keath

Welcome aboard!

 

[dogwatch]

Teams so far. Let me know if there are any errors.

ScragCity	Bontempelli	Bontempelli	Bontempelli	Dale	Dale
dogwatch	Bontempelli	Dunkley	Smith B	Cavarra	Dale
Acwmr	Bontempelli	Smith B	Macrae	Naughton	Keath
TempletonTheRat	Dale	Cavarra	West	English	Williams
Snarls Barkley	Dale	Dale	Bontempelli	Bontempelli	Dunkley
Sharkey66	Wallis	Wallis	Lloyd	Cavarra	West
X_box_X	Wallis	Dale	Dale	Bontempelli	Dunkley
grassman75	Wallis	Wallis	Dale	Naughton	Hunter
BEaston	Wallis	Dale	Dale	Richards	Lipinski

 

[BEaston]

Can I update my team please:

Wallis Dale Dale Cav Cav

 

[Next Waiting]

Hey DW

1/2 Gardner
1/2 R Smith
2 x Libba
1 x Bont
2 x Williams

 

[Kermit]

Wallis
Naughton
Cavarra
West
Lipinski

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Is it too late to triple Naughton?

 

[dogwatch]

Is it too late to triple Naughton?

Rd 13 v Melbourne? - no problem. Don't expect a handicap of 13 though!

 

[dogwatch]

I've got a backlog of Ching, Pieman and general gloating after a win but hope to post a write up of Pieman Mk II later this evening.

 

[dogwatch]

PIEMAN MK II TRIAL - RESULTS RD 12 v ADELAIDE

Thanks everyone who participated.
We had a good mix of tactical combinations - 4 took 1+1+1+1+1, 3 took 2+1+1+1, 3 took 2+2+1 and one person took 3+2. The only combo not used was 3+1+1.

Here are the results. ScragCity clearly did a lot better than the real Pieman where he came last this week with a zero.
I've added a "Combo" column for the trial so you can see at a glance what approach was used by each entry.



The other scoring option I have been mulling over is to allocate a 20 point bonus for getting four different goal scorers. Obviously the only way you can get a chance at that bonus is if you have at least four different players, meaning you must have either 1+1+1+1+1 or 2+1+1+1. And that's the whole point of it: while it's tempting to double up or triple up this is a potential reward for spreading out your picks.

The only one who would have qualified for that bonus this week was me which would have meant dogwatch was equal first with Scrag on 138 points. I'm guessing that not many would get the 4-scorer bonus most weeks because we often only have 5 or 6 goalscorers in total. However this week we had nine of them.

So this week Scrag topped the list with his 3+2 approach, but does that mean it's going to be the winning strategy every week? Not necessarily. It's a high stakes gamble. If for instance he'd picked Wallis (our most consistent goalscorer) instead of Bontempelli he'd have finished last instead of first. What the 3+2 option gives you is a chance to score quickly meaning you can still be a chance to win the comp with only a few rounds left even if you're a few hundred points behind. If Scrag had gone 3 x Naughton and 2 x Bontempelli he'd have scored 264!

I am undecided whether to outlaw the 3+2 combo but at this stage I'm leaning toward keeping it. It adds intrigue and unpredictability as well as the opportunity to make up a big deficit on the leaderboard. It's also available to everyone, every week.

That's why it's useful to have a trial over several weeks, because any one week could be exceptional in some way (very few goals / heaps of goals, one player kicks a bag / no multiple goalkickers, etc).

I'd be interested in your thoughts on all that. Does it work for you?

I also hope you'll be in it again next week. I'll post a progressive leaderboard commencing next week, so we can see how it might work over a full season and vie for Pieman Mk II Trial bragging rights!

I'll post the revised handicaps during the week. Spoiler: don't expect the Naughton handicap to be quite so generous.

 

[grassman75]

It was good DW - and I think being able to change your team each week is good - I got 3rd with a double Wallis who had 3 chances for goals and missed them all - even a sitter. I think this format allows for risk taking to the extreme. I made a change to Hunter when I saw his handicap, something I wouldn't be able to do in the current format.

Obviously Naughton will probably be single figures this week, but i'd like to see that offset somewhere else to allow us to take some risks - say Bruce comes back in, your handicap for him was 10 before he was left out, perhaps he drifts to 15, or Wallis who was 8, goes out to 11 or something like that

I really like the format

 

[dogwatch]

It was good DW - and I think being able to change your team each week is good - I got 3rd with a double Wallis who had 3 chances for goals and missed them all - even a sitter. I think this format allows for risk taking to the extreme. I made a change to Hunter when I saw his handicap, something I wouldn't be able to do in the current format.

Obviously Naughton will probably be single figures this week, but i'd like to see that offset somewhere else to allow us to take some risks - say Bruce comes back in, your handicap for him was 10 before he was left out, perhaps he drifts to 15, or Wallis who was 8, goes out to 11 or something like that

I really like the format

Yes that's roughly how it will work. Others will drift out, but maybe not quite as dramatically as you suggest.

One match doesn't wipe out the rest of recent form. So I'd be working more on a "moving average" approach which smooths out the jagged peaks and troughs of individual matches.

 

[Fossie 32]

Before I forget again can I pls have 2 Astros, one Bonti one Wallis one Cavarra and one Baz

 

[TempletonTheRat]

wasn't sure how I'd feel about it not being set and forget, or rather must be managed each week.

I'm warming to the concept, had an almost week - English 5 shots for 1.4, Bailey Williams had one of his shots on the run from 50 which he often nails. Others could say the same about Wallis with 0.3

 

[dogwatch]

Before I forget again can I pls have 2 Astros, one Bonti one Wallis one Cavarra and one Baz

Can do, but you'll have to leave one out. That's six. You're only allowed five in this version.

 

[Fossie 32]

Can do, but you'll have to leave one out. That's six. You're only allowed five in this version.

Ta ok one Astro, one Bonti one Wallis one Cavarra and one Baz

 

[grassman75]

This reminds me of the milk bar on a Saturday morning as a kid picking out my 20c of mixed lollies...

"ahh...i'll have 2 Wallises and 2 Astro's...no wait, make that 2 Smiths..."

(not my entry)

 

[dogwatch]

Here are provisional handicaps for this week's game against Melbourne. Again I'm publishing early due to the late naming of teams in 2020. It's so you can think about it before the official team is announced. The ones shaded are the 22 who played against Adelaide.

I reserve the right to make some changes when teams are announced.

I'll publish the final handicaps for the 26 named (incl emergencies) on Friday. Hopefully no change will be necessary between now and then.

 

[grassman75]

At first look my team will be (pending any changes)

Naughton, Naughton, Cavarra, Bont, Hunter

 

[Next Waiting]

Reckon I was a bee's away from romping it in with both Libba and Williams missing.

I like this format. You're alive every week..or at least until you're not

 

[dogwatch]

Pieman MK II Round 13 v Melbourne

Put your teams in here. I'll post the short list of handicaps soon,but no different to the above.

So far we have (Gr)assman75 - Naughton, Naughton, Cavarra, Bont, Hunter
and Fossie 32 - one Astro, one Bonti one Wallis one Cavarra and one Baz

Here are this week's handicaps for the named 26 (incl emergencies):

 

[TempletonTheRat]

English, English, Richards, Liberatore, Williams

 

[ScragCity]

2 x VDM
1 x Naughton
1 x Wallis
1 x Bruce

 

[Kermit]

Cavarra, Wallis, Liberatore, Vandermeer, Lipinski

 

[Northern Dogs]

I'll have a go this week - Cavarra, Bont, Bruce, Dunkley, Vandermeer