free agents

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:50 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

It will consider the dollar amount. A personal priority list would just take precedence over the amount of money bid. dan - please tell me how the bids would be processed (in what order) in this example using the system you guys are pushing for...

Owner A

1. Lannan $50

a. Washburn $120

b. Kuo $5

Owner B

1. Washburn $130

a. Lannan $1

b. Kuo $5

Owner C

1. Kuo $6

a. Lannan $1

b. Washburn $120

Owner D

1. Kuo $5

a. Washburn $200

b. Lannan $100 [/QUOTE]Owner A gets Lannan.

Owner C gets Kuo.

Owner D gets Washburn.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:52 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

It will consider the dollar amount. A personal priority list would just take precedence over the amount of money bid. dan - please tell me how the bids would be processed (in what order) in this example using the system you guys are pushing for...

Owner A

1. Lannan $50

a. Washburn $120

b. Kuo $5

Owner B

1. Washburn $130

a. Lannan $1

b. Kuo $5

Owner C

1. Kuo $6

a. Lannan $1

b. Washburn $120

Owner D

1. Kuo $5

a. Washburn $200

b. Lannan $100 [/QUOTE]This is exactly what I meant by not being 100% transparent.

Owner D is going to scream about not getting Washburn and Greg/Tom will have to explain this stuff repeatedly every week.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:56 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

It will consider the dollar amount. A personal priority list would just take precedence over the amount of money bid. dan - please tell me how the bids would be processed (in what order) in this example using the system you guys are pushing for...

Owner A

1. Lannan $50

a. Washburn $120

b. Kuo $5

Owner B

1. Washburn $130

a. Lannan $1

b. Kuo $5

Owner C

1. Kuo $6

a. Lannan $1

b. Washburn $120

Owner D

1. Kuo $5

a. Washburn $200

b. Lannan $100 [/QUOTE]Owner A gets Lannan.

Owner C gets Kuo.

Owner D gets Washburn. [/QUOTE]This proves my point Lance. he way you processed it is exactly how it is done now.

I see

A - Lannan

B- Washburn

C- Kuo

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:58 am

His example is a poor one for starting bids with low priority "a" dollars, and with higher secondary bids losing due to not "being there" any longer once your low value bid is processed as the winner.

~Lance

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:59 am

John,

Kuo- owner c- $6

Washburn-owner d- $200

Lannan- owner A- $50

Where's the beef?

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:01 am

If Owner C had bids like

Kuo $6

Lannan $51

Washburn $250

...it would make the point.

~Lance

[ April 24, 2008, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:02 am

Dan/lance - walk me through how the computer would evaluate those bids, step-by-step. In other words, the computer would evaliate which bid first and why?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:03 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

If Owner C had bids like

Kuo $6

Lannan $51

Washburn $250

...it would make the point.

~Lance True.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:05 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

His example is a poor one for starting bids with low priority "a" dollars, and with higher secondary bids losing due to not "being there" any longer once your low value bid is processed as the winner.

~Lance If your logic is good, it has to work for EVERY case.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:06 am

Your priority would be important.

If you lose a player due to setting your priority wrong...you take that risk.

The way it is now...your priority is meaningless.

Isn't it?

The programmers are paid to explain how to do it.

It would add no extra effort to the players.

~Lance

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:09 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

John,

Kuo- owner c- $6

Washburn-owner d- $200

Lannan- owner A- $50

Where's the beef? How does the program know to start with Team C first?

If it starts with B first, then Washburn goes to B.

If no one else has Washburn as it's top pick, then why doesn't he get him?

Beef to chew on.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:09 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Your priority would be important.

Owner B was the only one to list washburn as his first pick, yet he doesn't get him? How is priority important??? Hehehe

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:12 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Your priority would be important.

Owner B was the only one to list washburn as his first pick, yet he doesn't get him? How is priority important??? Hehehe [/QUOTE]ROFLAMO.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:15 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Your priority would be important.

Owner B was the only one to list washburn as his first pick, yet he doesn't get him? How is priority important??? Hehehe [/QUOTE]If it ran through the "priority #1's" ...it would pause on some bids and process others that were both priority #1 as well and highest bid...eliminating those from the equation before moving on.

~Lance

Liquidhippo · Post by **Liquidhippo** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:17 am

There's no question they CAN do this, its only a matter if they will CHOOSE to do this. As some have mentioned it would just involve additional code. True, it might involve a significant amount of programming by Stats, I dunno.

As far as the complexity, that would only effect the programers. As for the user/fantasy player, they can choose to use the aforementioned bidding strategy, or not, so there's no added complexity on their part if they don't want there to be.

But to me, I don't see it as complex. Its very straight forward. From day one I've wished this was possible. It rewards fantasy knowledge.

If you have 7 pitchers in mind, all of which project to have about the same fantasy value, and all of which project to have little no 'market value' for FAAB bids, and you have an 8th pitcher that's your last priority, because, you know that he's not as good as the other 7, however, his 'market value' is much higher.

Overriding all of this, is the fact that the most important thing is you pick up SOMEONE.

Current system, there's more luck involved, and you just have to waste FAAB money, somewhat arbitrarily, due to system limitations.

However, with the bidding option proposed in this thread, with that additional flexibility in bidding, it allows you to capitalize on this knowledge. No need to blow $150 on a player just to ensure you get SOMEONE. You can spend as your knowledge dictates.

If implemented, it will reward the fantasy player with more knowledge. Which is the way it should be....

in my humble opinion.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:17 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Your priority would be important.

Owner B was the only one to list washburn as his first pick, yet he doesn't get him? How is priority important??? Hehehe [/QUOTE]If it ran through the "priority #1's" ...it would pause on some bids and process others that were both priority #1 as well and highest bid...eliminating those from the equation before moving on.

~Lance [/QUOTE]How do you program that Lance?

How do you explain that to the masses?

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:19 am

Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

Overriding all of this, is the fact that the most important thing is you pick up SOMEONE. Not always!!

I didn't lose Fuentes last week!!

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:20 am

Maybe making "priority" be a freaking priority for the programming to even consider?

Explain to the masses???

I'm missing all of the confusion here.

~Lance

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:26 am

They're overthinking this, Lance.

All it is, is making a list of who you want first by name rather than bid. Please refer to the Lannan, Washburn example in a previous post.

Simple really.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:26 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Maybe making "priority" be a freaking priority for the programming to even consider?

Explain to the masses???

I'm missing all of the confusion here.

~Lance Lance, every week, in every league, there will be at least one owner with a Washburn listed as his FIRST priority that does not get him. That will be very confusing and on top of everything, just plain wrong.

And Liquid made a nice post, all valid and such, but there is HUGE skill in learning not to overpay by $150.

You can easily bid $2 on all those $1 players until you get someone.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:29 am

Originally posted by UFS:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Maybe making "priority" be a freaking priority for the programming to even consider?

Explain to the masses???

I'm missing all of the confusion here.

~Lance Lance, every week, in every league, there will be at least one owner with a Washburn listed as his FIRST priority that does not get him. That will be very confusing and on top of everything, just plain wrong.

And Liquid made a nice post, all valid and such, but there is HUGE skill in learning not to overpay by $150.

You can easily bid $2 on all those $1 players until you get someone. [/QUOTE]You're not getting it, John.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:41 am

Dan - instead of saying we "don't get it", please walk me through my example as a computer program would process the bids step-by-step under the system you are pushing. If u don't want to do that, please post the process as it would appear in the rules section of the nfbc.

No offense, but I'm not understanding your methodology. Going through my example step-by-step would clear up who "gets it"

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:49 am

Hey Dan...

I think this is where I'm supposed to nudge you with my elbow and snicker Hehehe and ROFLMAO.

~Lance

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:56 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Hey Dan...

I think this is where I'm supposed to nudge you with my elbow and snicker Hehehe and ROFLMAO.

~Lance Sure u would. I'd like to see YOU explain the methodology you are pushing. That would be a hehehe, ROFLMAO, and a kick to the jimmy all at the same time!

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:05 am

I'm not sure which system I prefer, but the Fantasy Jungle guys have programmed a system whereby higher preferences can exceed higher bids, and it works very well. One requirement for such a system is to safeguard against laddered bidding for the same player.

Such a system I assume would require greater programming sophistication, in that it must look at higher preferences before higher bids rather than simply processing the highest player bids and working down from there. It can be done. The two questions would be: (1) can STATS do it (and would they)?; and (2) is it a better system?

Personally, I don't have a strong preference and I wouldn't put any such change in the top 10 of things I'd like to see STATS fix/change.

[ April 24, 2008, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]