Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not at all. It’s only a trial so you can enter any week you like. More weekly entries is good.Is it to late to join in?
Surprise leader?? Remarkably consistent and expected leader I think...
Haha, no it was all my own idea.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).
My first reaction to that was yes, 5 out of 5 is the way to go, 25 points or nothing.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.
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
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.
Thanks for the feedback gm, TTR, BE.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.