for greg and tom, rule opinion

[JohnZ]

20 of 26 (77%) owners pick up Max for $10 two weeks ago.



The other 6 pick him up this week for an average of $400?



Any arguments with that? Seems fair to me.





There is $390,000 total faab money in the game.



(400-10)*20 = $7800 not spent this week because Max went to those teams two weeks ago.



That's 2% of all possible faab.



Even if ALL 26 teams pick him up for $10, it's only 2.6%



Some of that would have already been spent on the 20-26 players waived ($50-??)



I just don't see the huge effect on the game. I don't see why draft picks have to be protected. The vast majority of picks after #23 get waived anyways.



You had me until vicory. Don't like that at all. It rewards those that are extremely risk adverse.



[ May 02, 2008, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]

[triple a]

thanks greg, just always remember a controvesy the first year, where some guy was stashing minor leaguers like lastings miledge in single a on his reserve all year and he never came up, as well as a few other minor leaguers from one particular team. I think some people had a problem with that so i always thought it was possible back then. thanks for clarifying. not sure why you say FAAB should be such a big part of winning the nfbc. should rather be a contest more about forecasting when players will come up from minors to get a leg up on other teams. everyone having a shot at a player all at once is luck to me.



i agree with liquidhippo on his faab rule change. i think it would be better. have always thought that.



he says "Actually, FAAB should be moved to the superior system adopted by tout wars. There's a name for it....Vickrey system....or something like that. The winning bid is only 1 more than the runner up bid....should probably start another thread for that one.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by triple a:

thanks greg, just always remember a controvesy the first year, where some guy was stashing minor leaguers like lastings miledge in single a on his reserve all year and he never came up, as well as a few other minor leaguers from one particular team. I think some people had a problem with that so i always thought it was possible back then. thanks for clarifying. not sure why you say FAAB should be such a big part of winning the nfbc. should rather be a contest more about forecasting when players will come up from minors to get a leg up on other teams. everyone having a shot at a player all at once is luck to me.



i agree with liquidhippo on his faab rule change. i think it would be better. have always thought that.



he says "Actually, FAAB should be moved to the superior system adopted by tout wars. There's a name for it....Vickrey system....or something like that. The winning bid is only 1 more than the runner up bid....should probably start another thread for that one. No problem Artie. I don't remember anyone stashing Lastings Milledge in 2004 since he was in Class A that year, but I may just be getting old and can't remember things anymore. Either way, the rule has always been the same in the NFBC and any minor-leaguer who wasn't drafted on Draft Day remains off limits until he gets called up to the majors. Simple enough.



As for Vickrey, I think I can easily say that it will NEVER be part of the NFBC. Talk about being rewarded for being in a more inactive league than others, the controversy over that in a national contest would be bigger than you can imagine. In Vickrey, winning bids are $1 more than the runner-up bid. So you could bid $1,000 for Max Scherzer and if the next guy bid $950 you get him for $951. But if the next guy in your league bid only $111, you get him for $112. Talk about folks comparing one league against another, this would be a nightmare.



I know Ron and Tout Wars like this method, but for a national contest it would be a nightmare. Plus I will admit I'm not a big fan of it. If you want Scherzer badly, you'll make an aggressive bid for him and be happy with him at the price you paid for him. Why should you receive a discount because nobody else in your league valued him the same way?? I don't get it.



It seems like we have two methods to save FAAB money. Again, FAAB is very valuable and it's a key part of winning your league title and the overall title.



But good discussions all around. I appreciate the ideas.

[sportsbettingman]

While I hate blind bidding...I do so because it's hard.



I'd hate the +1 even more for the resons you mentioned.



I'd bet there are more bids in the 80-120 range that have ZERO as the runner-up bid, than there are 80-120 bids with a runner up.



Very frustrating to guess what is needed to win...but it's as fair as can be.



~Lance

[DOUGHBOYS]

Vickrey rewards playing a phase of the game badly.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

"If he (Mike Scioscia)raced his pregnant wife, he'd finish third!" Did Tommy Lasorda really say that??? That's hilarious.



[ May 04, 2008, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

[Liquidhippo]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

While I hate blind bidding...I do so because it's hard.



I'd hate the +1 even more for the resons you mentioned.



I'd bet there are more bids in the 80-120 range that have ZERO as the runner-up bid, than there are 80-120 bids with a runner up.



Very frustrating to guess what is needed to win...but it's as fair as can be.



~Lance Wow, I will have to respectfully submit that I couldn't disagree more. These competitions are always going to be a mix of skill and luck. But FAAB stands out as capricious, random, and the most unpredictable element of the game. I agree its a necessary evil, but the vicory would mitigate SOME of the luck. IN my humble opintion, the FAAAB is a complete crapshoot, each and every week of every year. Very little skill and mostly luck here. A guy can go for $1 in one league and $255 in another, seems like these wild swings happen every week.



Let's say you are a FAAB Savant. And you know that John Doe's market value in FAAB is $5, however, you know his REAL value in terms of production is of the Ryan Braun type, so you'd be willing to bid as much as it took.



Vicory rewards those with this knowledge, where as the 'non-vicory' leaves it to blind luck. And no, it doesn't even out over time, as the I've seen the bizarre twists of FAAB fate last an entire season. Consistently being outbid a $1-$4 week after week after week on impact players, and checking other FAAB's in other leagues to confirm that week after week after week, you've been dead on in gauging the market, but you just happen to be in that 'one crazy league' where the guy went for big bucks.



I could write a teatise on this, but I'll close for now at the risk of being too verbose.



Vicory rewards knowledge and skill and takes SOME of the luck out of FAAB.

[JohnZ]

Originally posted by Liquidhippo:



Vicory rewards those with this knowledge, where as the 'non-vicory' leaves it to blind luck. And no, it doesn't even out over time, as the I've seen the bizarre twists of FAAB fate last an entire season. Consistently being outbid a $1-$4 week after week after week on impact players, and checking other FAAB's in other leagues to confirm that week after week after week, you've been dead on in gauging the market, but you just happen to be in that 'one crazy league' where the guy went for big bucks. I consistently win close bids. Like I said in my first post, it rewards those that are too risk adverse.



If you're consistently losing bids by a little, then you just don't want the guy bad enough.



Who cares about other leagues? The only thing hat matters are the needs in your league. The crazy guy has a larger need than you and you need to figure that out before you bid and then adjust if you really want the guy bad enough.

[sportsbettingman]

Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

While I hate blind bidding...I do so because it's hard.



I'd hate the +1 even more for the resons you mentioned.



I'd bet there are more bids in the 80-120 range that have ZERO as the runner-up bid, than there are 80-120 bids with a runner up.



Very frustrating to guess what is needed to win...but it's as fair as can be.



~Lance Wow, I will have to respectfully submit that I couldn't disagree more. These competitions are always going to be a mix of skill and luck. But FAAB stands out as capricious, random, and the most unpredictable element of the game. I agree its a necessary evil, but the vicory would mitigate SOME of the luck. IN my humble opintion, the FAAAB is a complete crapshoot, each and every week of every year. Very little skill and mostly luck here. A guy can go for $1 in one league and $255 in another, seems like these wild swings happen every week.



Let's say you are a FAAB Savant. And you know that John Doe's market value in FAAB is $5, however, you know his REAL value in terms of production is of the Ryan Braun type, so you'd be willing to bid as much as it took.



Vicory rewards those with this knowledge, where as the 'non-vicory' leaves it to blind luck. And no, it doesn't even out over time, as the I've seen the bizarre twists of FAAB fate last an entire season. Consistently being outbid a $1-$4 week after week after week on impact players, and checking other FAAB's in other leagues to confirm that week after week after week, you've been dead on in gauging the market, but you just happen to be in that 'one crazy league' where the guy went for big bucks.



I could write a teatise on this, but I'll close for now at the risk of being too verbose.



Vicory rewards knowledge and skill and takes SOME of the luck out of FAAB. [/QUOTE]No way.



Vicory is a joke.



If you want to "win by one" then have live bidding, or add in a "you are not the highest bidder" function like ebay.



To blindly bid out higher amounts, and have the excess money returned to you to bid the following week shows absolutely zero skill.



~Lance

[Liquidhippo]

Originally posted by UFS:

quote:Originally posted by Liquidhippo:



Vicory rewards those with this knowledge, where as the 'non-vicory' leaves it to blind luck. And no, it doesn't even out over time, as the I've seen the bizarre twists of FAAB fate last an entire season. Consistently being outbid a $1-$4 week after week after week on impact players, and checking other FAAB's in other leagues to confirm that week after week after week, you've been dead on in gauging the market, but you just happen to be in that 'one crazy league' where the guy went for big bucks. I consistently win close bids. Like I said in my first post, it rewards those that are too risk adverse.



If you're consistently losing bids by a little, then you just don't want the guy bad enough.



Who cares about other leagues? The only thing hat matters are the needs in your league. The crazy guy has a larger need than you and you need to figure that out before you bid and then adjust if you really want the guy bad enough. [/QUOTE]Well, the other leagues are relevant to gauge the 'FAAB Market' and whether a FAAB was accurate.



Just bid more you say? Of course, you could just bid $500 on a guy that you know will go for $1 in most leagues. But really, that only guarantees you about 2 pickups per year. In my opinion, that tips the scales in 'luck' direction.

[sportsbettingman]

Below are just the examples of players 25 dollars or more that would have been had for $1 (no runner up bids).



This is just from the last three weeks.



Add in all of the money above the bids with runner ups, and all the smaller bids etc...and you'd PUNISH the frugal and wise bidders by giving back 80% or more of the bidding dollars to the owners that felt the price was a just one to begin with.



I just don't see the skill in giving money back.





Team Player Bid Runner-Up

Scott Podsednik (CF) 125

Matt Diaz (LF) 32

Colby Rasmus (RF) 26

Mike Mussina (SP) 25

Ryan Ludwick (RF) 122

Andy LaRoche (3B) 33

Vicente Padilla (SP) 29

Livan Hernandez (SP) 27

Justin Speier (MR) 23

Jack Hannahan (3B) 77

Reed Johnson (CF) 61

Chris Burke (1B) 56

Matt Treanor (C) 45

John Danks (SP) 42

Chris Iannetta (C) 33



[ May 04, 2008, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

[JohnZ]

Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

quote:Originally posted by UFS:

quote:Originally posted by Liquidhippo:



Vicory rewards those with this knowledge, where as the 'non-vicory' leaves it to blind luck. And no, it doesn't even out over time, as the I've seen the bizarre twists of FAAB fate last an entire season. Consistently being outbid a $1-$4 week after week after week on impact players, and checking other FAAB's in other leagues to confirm that week after week after week, you've been dead on in gauging the market, but you just happen to be in that 'one crazy league' where the guy went for big bucks. I consistently win close bids. Like I said in my first post, it rewards those that are too risk adverse.



If you're consistently losing bids by a little, then you just don't want the guy bad enough.



Who cares about other leagues? The only thing hat matters are the needs in your league. The crazy guy has a larger need than you and you need to figure that out before you bid and then adjust if you really want the guy bad enough. [/QUOTE]Well, the other leagues are relevant to gauge the 'FAAB Market' and whether a FAAB was accurate.



Just bid more you say? Of course, you could just bid $500 on a guy that you know will go for $1 in most leagues. But really, that only guarantees you about 2 pickups per year. In my opinion, that tips the scales in 'luck' direction. [/QUOTE]Why $500? You only need $1-4.. LOL...



$2000 faab $$ might be out of another league that's not out of mine. Over time, the bids in that league will be lower, and you're using the data to make your bids, which is why they might be a little low. The only thing that matters is the need for that player in your league. When I don't see a lot of need, I lower my bid then, not because of some other league.



I'm in three leagues with FAAB. If I'm first in K's on one, and 8th in another, I doubt my bid for Max would be the same.

[Liquidhippo]

Originally posted by UFS:

quote:Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

quote:Originally posted by UFS:

quote:Originally posted by Liquidhippo:



Vicory rewards those with this knowledge, where as the 'non-vicory' leaves it to blind luck. And no, it doesn't even out over time, as the I've seen the bizarre twists of FAAB fate last an entire season. Consistently being outbid a $1-$4 week after week after week on impact players, and checking other FAAB's in other leagues to confirm that week after week after week, you've been dead on in gauging the market, but you just happen to be in that 'one crazy league' where the guy went for big bucks. I consistently win close bids. Like I said in my first post, it rewards those that are too risk adverse.



If you're consistently losing bids by a little, then you just don't want the guy bad enough.



Who cares about other leagues? The only thing hat matters are the needs in your league. The crazy guy has a larger need than you and you need to figure that out before you bid and then adjust if you really want the guy bad enough. [/QUOTE]Well, the other leagues are relevant to gauge the 'FAAB Market' and whether a FAAB was accurate.



Just bid more you say? Of course, you could just bid $500 on a guy that you know will go for $1 in most leagues. But really, that only guarantees you about 2 pickups per year. In my opinion, that tips the scales in 'luck' direction. [/QUOTE]Why $500? You only need $1-4.. LOL...



$2000 faab $$ might be out of another league that's not out of mine. Over time, the bids in that league will be lower, and you're using the data to make your bids, which is why they might be a little low. The only thing that matters is the need for that player in your league. When I don't see a lot of need, I lower my bid then, not because of some other league.



I'm in three leagues with FAAB. If I'm first in K's on one, and 8th in another, I doubt my bid for Max would be the same. [/QUOTE]I think you misunderstood the intention of my reference to other league bids. Looking at other league bids, AFTER the fact, when all the bids are already completed, they give an objective gauge as to whether a bid was too high or too low, on average, to get a certain player.



If I bid $75 for a player and got outbid, say some guy paid $380 for him. Yet, you check and in every other league in the NFBC the max price he went for was $62. I'd say you did a pretty good job of appraising the market value for a player, and it was just bad luck that some guy went crazy for him.

[Liquidhippo]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Below are just the examples of players 25 dollars or more that would have been had for $1 (no runner up bids).



This is just from the last three weeks.



Add in all of the money above the bids with runner ups, and all the smaller bids etc...and you'd PUNISH the frugal and wise bidders by giving back 80% or more of the bidding dollars to the owners that felt the price was a just one to begin with.



I just don't see the skill in giving money back.





Team Player Bid Runner-Up

Scott Podsednik (CF) 125

Matt Diaz (LF) 32

Colby Rasmus (RF) 26

Mike Mussina (SP) 25

Ryan Ludwick (RF) 122

Andy LaRoche (3B) 33

Vicente Padilla (SP) 29

Livan Hernandez (SP) 27

Justin Speier (MR) 23

Jack Hannahan (3B) 77

Reed Johnson (CF) 61

Chris Burke (1B) 56

Matt Treanor (C) 45

John Danks (SP) 42

Chris Iannetta (C) 33 Lance, ironically, i believe this actually helps to prove my point. When guys like this are had at certain levels, such as these in most leagues, and you put in a bid that would get them in 95% of leagues, I'd say that's pretty skillful, but if you're in that one 'crazy' league where he went for more, its just bad luck, and I've seen this 'bad luck' last 26 weeks.



As for not seeing the skill. I've already explained that one, but perhaps it got overlooked, as its easy to do in these long threads.



But if you have the 'skill' to accurately gauge the market value of a player at, say $5, yet you know his 'real' value is radically higher than that, it allows the skillful player to maximize his knowledge both of the market and his knowledge of how certain players will produce.

[BigHurt]

Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

[QUOTE]If I bid $75 for a player and got outbid, say some guy paid $380 for him. Yet, you check and in every other league in the NFBC the max price he went for was $62. I'd say you did a pretty good job of appraising the market value for a player, and it was just bad luck that some guy went crazy for him. So why should that "crazy guy" get $304 back? Under the vicory system he could continue to make crazy bids. The current system provides a penalty for crazy bids.



[ May 05, 2008, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: BigHurt ]

[Liquidhippo]

Originally posted by BigHurt:

quote:Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

[QUOTE]If I bid $75 for a player and got outbid, say some guy paid $380 for him. Yet, you check and in every other league in the NFBC the max price he went for was $62. I'd say you did a pretty good job of appraising the market value for a player, and it was just bad luck that some guy went crazy for him. So why should that "crazy guy" get $304 back? Under the vicory system he could continue to make crazy bids. The current system provides a penalty for crazy bids. [/QUOTE]I guess it depends on what your preference is, penalizing a 'crazy bidder' or rewarding the fantasy player with the most knowledge of the FAAB market and potential prospect production over the course of a season. I'm for whatever can be realistically done to diminish luck and reward skill.



A flip side to your comment is, I don't see it as 'getting back' the $304, as that money is never gone until its spent.



Furthermore....calling it a penalty....I see what your saying, in theory, but then again, how much 'penalizing' can really be implemented when, as it is, its little more than a crapshoot, in my humble opinion. I've seen the 'crazy guy' swoop in with $5 steal after $5 steal, so in actual practice, I've seen very little of 'penalties' being doled out, except in the rare case of someone spending every single dollar remaining of their FAAB budget.



Anyway, from Greg's post a while back, he doesn't foresee an NFBC shift to the Vickrey system in the near future. And there hasn't exactly been a ground swell of support for the idea in this thread. I think people like what they're used to in this case. But over time, I think people will begin to see the merits of the CLEARLY superior Vickrey system.

[sportsbettingman]

Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

But over time, I think people will begin to see the merits of the CLEARLY superior Vickrey system.



Your most important statement here was the "wink".



~Lance