Actually, I just noticed I've no bets remaining between 18 and 117, so that takes care of the clever comment for the week: 153 Ner Clb 3 Dal Lag 131 Col Rsl 118 Sje Chi 7 Ner Met 154 Clb Rsl 12 Cvs Col 162 Sje Dal 11 Lag Kcw
86 Ner Clb 117 Dal Lag 188 Col Rsl 155 Sje Chi 156 Ner Met 118 Clb Rsl 77 Cvs Col 163 Sje Dal 129 Lag Kcw
158 Ner Clb 129 Dal Lag 157 Col Rsl 156 Sje Chi 155 Ner Met 130 Rsl Clb 131 Col Cvs 132 Sje Dal 133 Lag Kcw
125 Ne Clb Ner 42 Dal Lag 99 Col Rsl 5000 Sje Chi 126 Ner Met 66 Rsl Clb 78 Col Cvs 4999 Sje Dal 104 Lag Kcw
Yes, I'm committed to revisiting things every year and reaching a consensus. If you mean what I think you mean, wouldn't it be hard to do things like Weekly Cup? (let alone Play of the Week?) Wouldn't the person who bet the most usually win? I'm open to suggestions and hope to hear input from many of you. One possibility might be modifying the system to place less emphasis on "season management" and more focus on the week-to-week.
Personally I like it the way it is. I do find it's easier to manage the bets by using a spreadsheet rather then your list. Of course, you still have to guess right, which I haven't done very well.
181 Col Cvs 172 Col Rsl 173 Ner Clb 164 Dal Lag 166 Sje Chi 167 Ner Met 168 Clb Rsl 72 Sje Dal 37 Lag Kcw
I remember having a bunch of suggestions at one point that I thought were good suggestions at the time. Of course, I was much wiser then than I am now, so I'm not so sure anymore. Also, being older now, I can't remember what the suggestions were anyway. Who was it that said: I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.
Being young (relatively speaking) and naive, and basically sick of seeing my CLB over NE picks ruined by late Twellman goals, I have a suggestion for next year that might not fly with participants and our beloved conductor. it involves ties. i like the current system, as it rewards those wise enough to use their low wagers on the games they feel likely to be ties. however, i feel that the 1/2 wagered points awarded per tie seems to be not the fairest system, for those crazy (or is it wise) enough to let's say pick a CLB over NE. my proposal involves weighing the percentage of points awarded for a tie in inverse proportion to the number of players in a week who made predictions on each game. As an example: let’s say you (poster A) bid 50 CLB NE and some other player (poster B) bid 50 NE CLB. During this week’s thread, there were 20 players, 16 of them picked NE to win, 4 picked CLB to win. The game results in a tie. Under the current system, if my understanding is correct, both poster A and B receive 25 points for their wager. Under my proposal, poster A would get 40 points (an 80% rate of return by wagering against the prevailing trend) and poster B would get 10 points (or only a 20% rate of return rule for following the herd). In the case of a tie -- Poster A (for being in the minority) would get rewarded with a majority percentage return on their bid while Poster B (for being with the majority of players on this particular game’s prediction) would earn only the corresponding minority percentage as a return. Or, you could modify this proposal, by saying everyone (even those in the majority on a game’s prediction), is guaranteed the 50% return for a tie. So there is no penalty for being in the majority. The bonus could apply above the 50% (in some appropriate relation) to those players in the minority for a game’s prediction. picking an upset by going against the prevailing line of bidding, even in the case of a tie result on the field, is worth slightly more than picking the favored team in most posters’ view. Still those who do pick CLB over NE would pay if NE wins the game, and those who pick NE would lose their wagered points should CLB win. This proposed change would only apply to how points for ties (draws, if you will) are awarded. Of course this would require more work and computing by dred, (and not all ties will be as number-friendly and pretty as this listed example) so I will defer to his (and the group's) wishes.
Thoughtful post. Thanks, tab5g. Though perf has a complexity to it, the main building block of scoring, points awarded, is pretty simple. That's a nice feature of dred's current system. Now, I agree that in a draw, having picked the underdog beforehand is somehow a more astute(?) pick than having picked the prevailing favorite. On the other hand, I don't favor your first proposal. Having to factor in how many folks picked which way takes a way from the simplicity of the current system. One modification that would address this concern (somewhat) and your main point would be to say something like: If your team ties, you win half your bet. If your team ties and you picked in the minority, you win a bonus of one-quarter of your bet. That might also be straightforward to program. Dunno. Things that key off of other people's picks are inherently problematic. There's bound to be the time where someone sends ahead their picks pre-vacation and it doesn't register, the minority/majority switches after dred makes the correction, etc. Another counter argument to the proposal would be something like: "Look, be happy with half your bet. 80% of the players would have expected you to come away with no points, so you made out just fine..." Another idea, one that doesn't key off of other people's picks: dred identifies the underdog (in italics or something), and a tie when you pick that team gets you half your bet plus the quarter bonus. It's an idea, but just because it can be done doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's entirely up to dred. Dude puts in an awful lot of time on this stuff, and he has seen fit to modify things before, to make them more sensible (see this year's adjustment in the perf calculation). I'm not sure that there's really a problem with the current system, and it seems like extra work for whatever benefit it provides. Wonder what dred thinks...
excellent points, OGx3. i really do agree with your thoughts on the subject and appreciate your reply. i'm not really expecting any changes to the system, just want to see what others thought on the "tie" matter, and will be good to see if dred deems this area worthy of farther discussion or possible alteration. i can certainly see why your below point is a key factor in keeping the status quo: and there certainly are a handful of complexities that would be involved with introducing a vairable into the system that is based on minority/majority preferences per each game.
155 Ner Met (NJ is desperate for points, but I think NE will hold on for a win) 2 Clb RSL (Clb looks good but I'm not willing to bet more on them) 44 Col Cvs (Col needs this game but it will be tough for them to win) 174 Sje Dal (SJ will clinch home field advantage in style) 96 Lag Kcw (Insert your own cliche here)