Competitions Pieman Mk II - Proof of Concept 2020

Remove this Banner Ad

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
20,314
30,325
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
Pieman Mk II Results Rd 13 v Melbourne

Not much discussion for now. It's late.

I'll just post the round results for now but will add the progressive scores a bit later, just for some added interest (and to encourage a week-by-week tactical approach to overhauling the leader and/or holding onto the lead).

Congrats to TempletonTheRat (129) who headed the points today by plonking for long shot Williams, and to first-timer DogBites (120) who came in second.

It's encouraging that there are no huge scores or blowouts, but we do need to know that it's possible to rack up a bigger score by taking a chance on multiples. I tried that but went for the wrong horse: if I'd gone 3xWallis and 1x Bruce instead of the other way around I'd have had 143 points, not 63.

As always I'd appreciate your feedback anytime on this form of the game. Also please let me know if you see any errors. It's just a makeshift spreadsheet for now so not much quality control.

1598110620666.png


We'll do it again next week. I hope you'll stay on board.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
20,314
30,325
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
For the duration of the trial I've decided to implement the 20 point bonus rule for getting at least four DIFFERENT goal scorers. Retrospectively too (hey, it's only a trial). There's no extra bonus for getting five different goalscorers ATM, but I guess that's something we could consider.

So here is this week's revised result based on the allocation of a 20 point bonus. I've also added the handicap total FYI (sum of each selected player's handicaps).

Sorry fat rat, but it means you slip down to third and debutant DogBites wins the weekly honours instead. Stiff cheese ... no more resting on your laurels.

1598248054545.png


And here's the season leaderboard to date. Green highlighting shows highest value in each column.

Kermit the surprise leader!

1598248176197.png
 

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
20,314
30,325
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
Bonus point rule hey - bet grassman75 came up with that one.

what about 5 bonus points for each individual goalkicker you have - the most a 3x2 combo could get is 10 points where a 1x5 can get up to 25 points

DogBites still gets the camembert as he nailed all of his
Haha, no it was all my own idea.

I was having a bit of fun but I was probably a bit harsh - you came top this week according to the rules when you entered so I shouldn't be depriving you of the credit. I just think that the bonus point thing gives entrants an incentive for a good spread of players and slightly offsets a perceived advantage in going 3+2, 2+2+1 or 3+1+1.

I can always go back and do a what-if analysis if it provides any value (e.g. how would the outcome differ if we had no bonuses?) The difficulty with that is the very existence of the bonus might affect people's choices. In fact the whole point of the bonus is that it's meant to influence choices.

I'm open to ideas as I've said, so giving 5 points for every different goalkicker is a new angle I hadn't considered. My first reaction though is that it waters down the benefit accorded to people who go for a spread of goalkickers, so those who go for 3x and 2x options can still pretty much get the best of both worlds. So maybe I should even limit the bonus only to those who went 5x1 (and get at least four)?

It's all part of the proof of concept. It's an opportunity to try out the most attractive ideas.

One thing that it seems to have achieved is we'll see none of the blowouts that can occur if somebody jags a player like Vandermeer with a huge pre-season handicap. Scores are going to be closer every week. However I do want to retain the possibility of some big scores so that we have as many people as possible feeling they are still a chance late in the season. With that in mind the 3+1+1 and 2+2+1 options are worth keeping and probably the 3+2 option as well. I'll certainly allow them for the rest of the trial so we can get a good look at them.

With this need in mind I'm contemplating having two - or as many as five - "power play" rounds that award double points. My first thought was to designate these rounds as say Round 12 and then Round 23, plus any finals we play in. However maybe it could be Rd 12 plus the final three H&A rounds (Rds 21-23)?

Anyway as the trial proceeds I'll be interested in the views of participants, not just my own thought bubbles. So if there is something that jars or something that's really attractive, do let me know. And I'm always interested in different ideas (but no promises I'll implement them).
 

TempletonTheRat

Premium Platinum
Dec 21, 2014
2,039
2,416
Central Coast
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
Haha, no it was all my own idea.

I was having a bit of fun but I was probably a bit harsh - you came top this week according to the rules when you entered so I shouldn't be depriving you of the credit. I just think that the bonus point thing gives entrants an incentive for a good spread of players and slightly offsets a perceived advantage in going 3+2, 2+2+1 or 3+1+1.

I can always go back and do a what-if analysis if it provides any value (e.g. how would the outcome differ if we had no bonuses?) The difficulty with that is the very existence of the bonus might affect people's choices. In fact the whole point of the bonus is that it's meant to influence choices.

I'm open to ideas as I've said, so giving 5 points for every different goalkicker is a new angle I hadn't considered. My first reaction though is that it waters down the benefit accorded to people who go for a spread of goalkickers, so those who go for 3x and 2x options can still pretty much get the best of both worlds. So maybe I should even limit the bonus only to those who went 5x1 (and get at least four)?

It's all part of the proof of concept. It's an opportunity to try out the most attractive ideas.

One thing that it seems to have achieved is we'll see none of the blowouts that can occur if somebody jags a player like Vandermeer with a huge pre-season handicap. Scores are going to be closer every week. However I do want to retain the possibility of some big scores so that we have as many people as possible feeling they are still a chance late in the season. With that in mind the 3+1+1 and 2+2+1 options are worth keeping and probably the 3+2 option as well. I'll certainly allow them for the rest of the trial so we can get a good look at them.

With this need in mind I'm contemplating having two - or as many as five - "power play" rounds that award double points. My first thought was to designate these rounds as say Round 12 and then Round 23, plus any finals we play in. However maybe it could be Rd 12 plus the final three H&A rounds (Rds 21-23)?

Anyway as the trial proceeds I'll be interested in the views of participants, not just my own thought bubbles. So if there is something that jars or something that's really attractive, do let me know. And I'm always interested in different ideas (but no promises I'll implement them).
wasn't concerned about the "win" as such - happy to trial different ideas (that what this is about isn't it?)

how about 5 points per player if all your individual players score - or maybe it should only be for a 5 out of 5 slam.
 

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
20,314
30,325
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
wasn't concerned about the "win" as such - happy to trial different ideas (that what this is about isn't it?)

how about 5 points per player if all your individual players score - or maybe it should only be for a 5 out of 5 slam.
My first reaction to that was yes, 5 out of 5 is the way to go, 25 points or nothing.
However it might be so much of an incentive that lots of people go for the same top 5 handicaps each week and there's not much variety in the teams. Something like Wallis, Naughton, Bruce, Vandermeer, Cavarra. In other words it might tip the balance too much toward people taking a 5x1 combination and also not being very adventurous with selections. There are two ways to respond to that - one is to leave it as 4 or more gets you 20 points, the other is to reduce the bonus for getting all 5 to a smaller number, say 10 points. But then is it actually going to be worth the trouble?

I think I'll sleep on that one.

One thing I will do: if anyone drops out in the trial I'll keep their team going (including bringing in replacements if any of their team is injured/omitted etc). That's so I can see how it would work in 2021 when someone might forget to enter. Forgetting for one or two weeks shouldn't cruel your whole season so you'll get last week's picks (or as near as possible) as a default.

There's already one instance of this: last week (R12) we had an entry from Acwmr who didn't enter any selections this week. I'll carry forward his/her selections into Rd 13 ... and beyond if necessary. A zombie team, of sorts. Again, it'll be reflected in next week's results. I'll adjust it now but I won't bother posting yet another revised table. (Spoiler: the Acwmr zombie team only got 43 points in R13 anyway).
 

grassman75

Premiership Player
Jun 16, 2008
4,635
5,893
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Hey DW - i'm loving this version and reading with interest about the bonus ideas etc

Would it work if any team picked 5 different players, they got say a 5 or 10% bonus of their total hcps on their total for the week. That might encourage people to go wide and pick a full team instead of doubling and tripling up?

Say Wallis, Naughty, Bruce, Hunter, Cav might be 10+8+14+32+20=84 plus 8.4% applied to the total (you could always just round down to the closest round number if it was too much work)

Just an idea
 

TempletonTheRat

Premium Platinum
Dec 21, 2014
2,039
2,416
Central Coast
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
Hey DW - i'm loving this version and reading with interest about the bonus ideas etc

Would it work if any team picked 5 different players, they got say a 5 or 10% bonus of their total hcps on their total for the week. That might encourage people to go wide and pick a full team instead of doubling and tripling up?

Say Wallis, Naughty, Bruce, Hunter, Cav might be 10+8+14+32+20=84 plus 8.4% applied to the total (you could always just round down to the closest round number if it was too much work)

Just an idea
a bonus weighted to the handicaps - I like the concept
 

BEaston

Hungry
Oct 9, 2013
6,127
6,332
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Has it been proven that the configs with less variation are stronger though?

I think the pros/cons of the different configurations are in the risk of exposure to goals. You pick less players, yes you get more points if they kick goals but you're increasing your score variance by having less goal kickers available. By picking more players you're reducing the risk of no goal kickers.

Remember that the likelihood of a player to kick a goal is factored into the handicap also.

Think we need a lot more data before we could say there's a strength in a certain configuration.
 
Last edited:

ScragCity

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 7, 2015
9,717
18,939
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Has it been proven that the configs with less variation are stronger though?

I think the pros/cons of the different configurations are in the risk of exposure to goals. You pick less players, yes you get more points if they kick goals but you're increasing your score variance by having less goal kickers available. By picking more players you're reducing the risk of no goal kickers.

Also remember that the liklihood of a player to kick a goal is factored into the handicap also.

Think we need a lot more data before we could say there's a strength in a certain configuration.
Yeah I agree. I went for a 3+2 strategy in week one and got lucky and took the lead. The second week I decided to go with a 2+1+1+1 as I perceived it to be less risk and wanted to play safe to maintain my lead from week one. I'm less numerate than most of you but I don't see any of the configurations being stronger per se, just different levels risk and reward.
 

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
20,314
30,325
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
Has it been proven that the configs with less variation are stronger though?

I think the pros/cons of the different configurations are in the risk of exposure to goals. You pick less players, yes you get more points if they kick goals but you're increasing your score variance by having less goal kickers available. By picking more players you increase you're reducing the risk of no goal kickers.

Also remember that the liklihood of a player to kick a goal is factored into the handicap also.

Think we need a lot more data before we could say there's a strength in a certain configuration.
Thanks for the feedback gm, TTR, BE.

A weighted bonus is worth considering and as long as it's a straightforward calculation (eg +10%) and with fairly uncomplicated qualification conditions then it shouldn't be too hard to implement. Having learned from the evolution of Pieman Mk I my leaning will be toward simplicity wherever possible. It helps with the programming/admin but also with getting new entries to the comp. If the rules look complex some might not bother trying to get their head around it.

The point about needing a lot more data is spot on. That's why the proof of concept this year is so valuable. You are all guinea pigs and I'm watching your behaviour (or in TTR's case you are all lab rats and I'm watching how you navigate the maze and respond to rewards). So thanks everyone for participating.

Naturally I have to make some initial assumptions about how people will behave but real life examples are more instructive and will definitely help fine tune it.

I agree there is no conclusive evidence that a 3+2 or a 3+1+1 is better over a whole season. These double/triple picks tend to be all-or-nothing outcomes. If your triple-bunger kicks 4 goals (as Wallis did last week) then there's every chance you'll win the Kelvin that week but if he kicks 0.3 (as happened to Wallis a week earlier) then you could well finish last. It may turn out that bonuses are unnecessary but I do like the idea of having something extra to hope/aim for each week. It adds an element of the unexpected and as I've said before it provides the chance to gain ground on the leaders rapidly.

The jury is still out on which combo is likely to work best. If - hypothetically - we had 30 teams each week and 10 always picked a 3+2 combo, 10 picked 2+1+1+1 and 10 went 5x1 then I'd expect most weeks the Kelvin would go to a 3+2 because out of those 10 teams at least one or two would be likely to pick the dominant goalkickers of the week. At the same time some of the 3+2s would also be at the bottom of the weekly table because they missed out on a goalkicker. So over the season the winner might well come from the 5x1s or the 2+1+1+1s who earn points less spectacularly but more consistently.

I'll post this week's handicaps later today. The side will be announced tomorrow night.
 

Top Bottom