NRL Fantasy Fanatics

A forum for discussion of NRL Fantasy / Dream Team / Supercoach as well as discussions about other sports, ex Sportal.

    Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Share

    Oz Sport Mad

    Posts : 1106
    Reputation : 261
    Join date : 2015-09-28

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Oz Sport Mad on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:09 am

    @Milchcow wrote:
    The problem with taking Parker and not captaining him - if he scores big (70+) then you need to hope your captain goes bigger otherwise you will not win. That's as low odds as just not picking Parker in the first place


    Gillett outscored Parker 4 times last year
    Manu Ma'u outscored him twice (although 2 of Manu's top 3 scores were weeks Parker didn't play)

    So if you pick Parker and Captain him and he scores well, you still have to beat half the comp. Your chances of winning have not improved much.

    If you pick Gillett and captain him, in most cases you won't do well. But if he does outscore Parker (19% chance based on last years stats) then suddenly you are going to have a jump on the rest of the pack.

    In comps like this there are no prizes for second place. There is zero value in putting up a credible high score that falls only 10 points short.

    Captain Parker every week and you'll do OK. Get yourself a decent score each week.

    Take a strategy like Captain Gillett though, and on a week to week basis you will probably struggle,
    but in the 2-3 weeks of the year that Gillett goes big then suddenly you look Ok for the money.

    Round 1 last year Gillett outscored Parker by 31 points (Hunt by 38, McCullough by 17, Peats by 46) If you captained him, you would have done super well. The big downer would be you'd lose to someone who captained Radradra (14 more than Gillett)

    I think if you want to go for the high risk high reward strategy picking a winger as captain is a  good way to go too. because the week you pick the guy that scores a hattrick is the week you can win the prize.

    If you want to just pick the big scoring players - that is fine, but its not the type of strategy being discussed in this thread.

    Yeah it gets interesting when you start looking at the actual stats.

    I would assume that Semi outscored Parker more times than Gillett did last year (although I don't actually know) and that is I guess where I was coming from with my sub-optimal selection.

    Having said that, I would also assume more people would captain Semi than Gillett, so you also have to get your other ducks to line up at the same time.

    Regardless, it's a poor example because in reality the Broncos would fucking annihilate the Eels, so the best strategy would be to play it as you see it and load up on Broncos outside backs.....

    avatar
    Scouter

    Posts : 351
    Reputation : 67
    Join date : 2015-11-26

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Scouter on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:11 am

    You only take the risky (c) option if you are slightly behind the 8 ball are your opponent has an overall stronger side. If you have the stronger lineup you go for the safe choice in order to try and reduce the amount of variables that could work against you.
    avatar
    Beast From The Big East

    Posts : 1640
    Reputation : 89
    Join date : 2015-09-21

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Beast From The Big East on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:12 am

    @Milchcow wrote:
    The problem with taking Parker and not captaining him - if he scores big (70+) then you need to hope your captain goes bigger otherwise you will not win. That's as low odds as just not picking Parker in the first place


    Gillett outscored Parker 4 times last year
    Manu Ma'u outscored him twice (although 2 of Manu's top 3 scores were weeks Parker didn't play)

    So if you pick Parker and Captain him and he scores well, you still have to beat half the comp. Your chances of winning have not improved much.

    If you pick Gillett and captain him, in most cases you won't do well. But if he does outscore Parker (19% chance based on last years stats) then suddenly you are going to have a jump on the rest of the pack.

    In comps like this there are no prizes for second place. There is zero value in putting up a credible high score that falls only 10 points short.

    Captain Parker every week and you'll do OK. Get yourself a decent score each week.

    Take a strategy like Captain Gillett though, and on a week to week basis you will probably struggle,
    but in the 2-3 weeks of the year that Gillett goes big then suddenly you look Ok for the money.

    Round 1 last year Gillett outscored Parker by 31 points (Hunt by 38, McCullough by 17, Peats by 46) If you captained him, you would have done super well. The big downer would be you'd lose to someone who captained Radradra (14 more than Gillett)

    I think if you want to go for the high risk high reward strategy picking a winger as captain is a  good way to go too. because the week you pick the guy that scores a hattrick is the week you can win the prize.

    If you want to just pick the big scoring players - that is fine, but its not the type of strategy being discussed in this thread.

    But if Parker goes for an average score (for him), you still need your POD to be able to put up a great score for their standards. Say you captain Semi or whoever, and go for a POD like Matt Gillett. Parker has had a poor game by his standards (below 55) 3 times last year. Gillett has only scored higher than 55 8 times, 33%. Scott, Moeroa and Thaiday between them only scored greater than 55 5 times. The likelihood of Parker having a dud game is low enough, then you have to factor than barely any alternative came close to matching Parker's low points besides Gillett and even then he only achieved it 33% of the time. Why sacrifice logical points just to give you more chances of difference. Even if Semi goes big you would still have to make up all the points you lost by gambling on someone like Moeroa.

    In games where there are not as many gun players, such as Titans vs Knights for example it is much easier to use the POD strategy you don't have to deal with 1 or 2 players getting consistently high scores than are so much better than the alternatives. But in some cases it might be better to accept that you effectively have a dead position as will everyone else you compete with and go for the bold captaincy move instead or look for the PODs in other, less one man dominant position because otherwise you aren't betting on your player doing well, but rather on the gun, Parker, doing poorly and statistically he doesn't do that.
    avatar
    Beast From The Big East

    Posts : 1640
    Reputation : 89
    Join date : 2015-09-21

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Beast From The Big East on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:14 am

    @Scouter wrote:You only take the risky (c) option if you are slightly behind the 8 ball are your opponent has an overall stronger side. If you have the stronger lineup you go for the safe choice in order to try and reduce the amount of variables that could work against you.

    For weekly head to head matches sure, but in DFS you would be better off going with a POD choice.
    avatar
    rhinoceroo

    Posts : 1632
    Reputation : 286
    Join date : 2015-09-30

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by rhinoceroo on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:14 am

    My impulse is that in daily comps with large numbers of competitors you have to captain the guy who's most likely to get 90, not the one you're sure will get 70 (who will be captained by a many more people). So you have Parker in your team but captain Hunt/Milford. Haven't done the maths to back this up yet...
    avatar
    Milchcow
    Moderator

    Fantasy Fanatics VSDT Overall Group Winner : 2017
    Posts : 5297
    Reputation : 1548
    Join date : 2015-07-31

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Milchcow on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:15 am


    Semi only outscored Parker 4 times last year (also scored a 77 a week Parker didn't play)

    But, importantly, when he did outscore Parker it was by a much bigger margin than when Gillett did, which is what you want.
    Picking a guy that is 2 points better off then the pack is nice, but it won't win you the comp by itself.

    Captain the guy that scores 20 points more than anyone, and you are looking much better.

    Semi and Parker are different in that they are different positions so you can have both in your team.

    What we should be looking to find, is the alternatives to McCullough, Parker, Hunt, that are low ownership, but a realistic chance of outscoring the popular choice.

    Milford is potentially a good choice, but i think he might have good ownership, depending on how he goes in the WCC.

    Foran might be a good choice if you think he might become fantasy useful at Parra.
    avatar
    Shanbon

    Posts : 1718
    Reputation : 190
    Join date : 2015-09-30

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Shanbon on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:21 am

    I'll try dig out the formula I found for increase in chances of winning based on ownership and I'm sure our maths boffins can add in the 20% chance gillett out scores Parker and work out which option would increase your odds of winning.
    avatar
    Beast From The Big East

    Posts : 1640
    Reputation : 89
    Join date : 2015-09-21

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Beast From The Big East on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:25 am

    @Milchcow wrote:
    Semi only outscored Parker 4 times last year (also scored a 77 a week Parker didn't play)

    But, importantly, when he did outscore Parker it was by a much bigger margin than when Gillett did, which is what you want.
    Picking a guy that is 2 points better off then the pack is nice, but it won't win you the comp by itself.

    Captain the guy that scores 20 points more than anyone, and you are looking much better.

    Semi and Parker are different in that they are different positions so you can have both in your team.

    What we should be looking to find, is the alternatives to McCullough, Parker, Hunt, that are low ownership, but a realistic chance of outscoring the popular choice.

    Milford is potentially a good choice, but i think he might have good ownership, depending on how he goes in the WCC.

    Foran might be a good choice if you think he might become fantasy useful at Parra.

    Exactly. But in some cases like Parker and Smith will be the same, there are just some games where it isn't worth going for the alternative because their high score is not that much greater than the high ownership's low, but their low is much lower than the high ownership's high.

    I like the Milford choice as an alternative to Hunt. I agree Milford could be a common choice but I think seeing Hunt there will make many pick him.
    avatar
    Shanbon

    Posts : 1718
    Reputation : 190
    Join date : 2015-09-30

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Shanbon on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:40 am

    here’s the crucial aspect of daily fantasy sports that I think so many people overlook—and a major reason embracing randomness and employing game theory is so vital: we’re not always trying to maximize projected points. That’s a really vital idea and component of my approach to daily fantasy sports—a keystone to a lot of my philosophies and strategies. The goal isn’t to maximize points, but to maximize win probability (and ultimately profit).

    http://www.fantasylabs.com/articles/using-game-theory-in-daily-fantasy-tournaments/

    Same article with the math breakdown


    Again, the math: the running backs’ value is equivalent to C(P), where ‘C’ is the chances of hitting their ceiling and ‘P’ is the probability of winning if they perform at that level. RB1’s value would then be 0.25(0.2), or 0.05, whereas RB2’s value would be 0.15(0.5), or 0.075. In this scenario, RB2 would offer around 50 percent more usable value than RB1—i.e. a 50 percent greater chance of being in the winning lineup (on a per-lineup basis)—despite being worse value in terms of strict dollars-per-point.

    avatar
    Shanbon

    Posts : 1718
    Reputation : 190
    Join date : 2015-09-30

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Shanbon on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:47 am

    Sorry on my iPhone so half the maths stuff is missing from the copy paste
    avatar
    Shanbon

    Posts : 1718
    Reputation : 190
    Join date : 2015-09-30

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Shanbon on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:57 am

    Let's assume there's 1000 teams in tourny. 800 have Parker who out scores Gillett, who is owned by 50 teams, 4 out of 5 games.

    If Parker outscores Gillett you chances are now 0.00125
    If Gillett outscores Parker your chances are now 0.02


    Parker = .80 x .00125 = .001
    Gillett = .20 x .02 = .004

    Therefore Gillett is the better match day play based on this ownership %
    avatar
    Beast From The Big East

    Posts : 1640
    Reputation : 89
    Join date : 2015-09-21

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Beast From The Big East on Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:14 am

    @Shanbon wrote:Let's assume there's 1000 teams in tourny. 800 have Parker who out scores Gillett, who is owned by 50 teams, 4 out of 5 games.

    If Parker outscores Gillett you chances are now 0.00125
    If Gillett outscores Parker your chances are now 0.02


    Parker = .80 x .00125 = .001
    Gillett = .20 x .02 = .004

    Therefore Gillett is the better match day play based on this ownership %

    Shit. Can't argue with the math there
    avatar
    Shanbon

    Posts : 1718
    Reputation : 190
    Join date : 2015-09-30

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Shanbon on Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:21 am

    Beast play around with the ownership, as Gillette goes up or Parker goes down it obviously affects the result.

    I think it's a good exercise as these 2 are on the same time and will be an option everytime they have a Thursday match day
    avatar
    Krump

    Posts : 2411
    Reputation : 391
    Join date : 2015-07-31

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Krump on Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:26 am

    @Beast From The Big East wrote:

    Exactly. But in some cases like Parker and Smith will be the same, there are just some games where it isn't worth going for the alternative because their high score is not that much greater than the high ownership's low, but their low is much lower than the high ownership's high.

    I like the Milford choice as an alternative to Hunt. I agree Milford could be a common choice but I think seeing Hunt there will make many pick him.
    The low doesn't matter if you aren't going to win by having CP or CS anyway. Your putting to much stock into scoring the most points and not enough into winning, they are 2 very different things.
    avatar
    Milchcow
    Moderator

    Fantasy Fanatics VSDT Overall Group Winner : 2017
    Posts : 5297
    Reputation : 1548
    Join date : 2015-07-31

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Milchcow on Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:37 am

    @Beast From The Big East wrote:. Why sacrifice logical points just to give you more chances of difference. Even if Semi goes big you would still have to make up all the points you lost by gambling on someone like Moeroa.

    The whole theory here is that too many people choose the 'logical' points. So even if Parker scores his solid 65, it hasn't helped you because you are still equal with half the com

    There still has to be some sort of value pick. You aren't going to get very far waiting for Kodi Nikorima to outscore Andrew McCullough. It's all about maximising scoring potential while minimising ownership.
    Easier said than done.
    avatar
    Krump

    Posts : 2411
    Reputation : 391
    Join date : 2015-07-31

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Krump on Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:48 am

    The more I read the more fascinating this gets. I would not be at all surprised to see someone from this thread win at least one of the thursday games
    avatar
    Krump

    Posts : 2411
    Reputation : 391
    Join date : 2015-07-31

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Krump on Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:50 am

    @Milchcow wrote:

    The whole theory here is that too many people choose the 'logical' points. So even if Parker scores his solid 65, it hasn't helped you because you are still equal with half the com

    There still has to be some sort of value pick. You aren't going to get very far waiting for Kodi Nikorima to outscore Andrew McCullough. It's all about maximising scoring potential while minimising ownership.
    Easier said than done.
    Depends how many teams you have Very Happy
    avatar
    Shanbon

    Posts : 1718
    Reputation : 190
    Join date : 2015-09-30

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Shanbon on Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:12 pm

    On the Parker v Gillett if ownership changes to 50% Parker 15% Gillette then Parker becomes the better play. Boils down to Gillette needs to be owned by less the 1/4 of the amount of Parker owners.

    Milchy can you throw out the number of games Norman out scores Hunt and the number of games he outscores Milf please
    avatar
    Beast From The Big East

    Posts : 1640
    Reputation : 89
    Join date : 2015-09-21

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Beast From The Big East on Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:36 pm

    @Krump wrote:
    The low doesn't matter if you aren't going to win by having CP or CS anyway. Your putting to much stock into scoring the most points and not enough into winning, they are 2 very different things.

    It doesn't but surely simple logic would dictate that if someone scores a 55 and someone else scores a 55 then it shouldn't matter who you have as they are equal. You don't get rewarded more points because you happen to have a low ownership team. You should still need to factor in the scoring potential both high end and low end when comparing your POD choice with the more obvious option for the rest of the comp.

    The difference to me comparing say a Broncos side with a Roosters is that some teams and in some games there are clear obvious picks who are far and away better scorers. The Roosters for example would be a good team for this type of exercise because they have a multitude of options both starting and on the bench who can all score highly, yet none are consistenly dominant. The general public will probably look at guys like JWH, Cordner and Guerra, yet Moa, Napa, Tauk, Liu are all options who can go big on their day while the big names can struggle.
    avatar
    Beast From The Big East

    Posts : 1640
    Reputation : 89
    Join date : 2015-09-21

    Re: Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

    Post by Beast From The Big East on Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:38 pm

    @Shanbon wrote:On the Parker v Gillett if ownership changes to 50% Parker 15% Gillette then Parker becomes the better play. Boils down to Gillette needs to be owned by less the 1/4 of the amount of Parker owners.

    Milchy can you throw out the number of games Norman out scores Hunt and the number of games he outscores Milf please

    Yea the ownership number is key for the maths.

    Does anyone know if ownership percentage showed up when looking at players in the past during the Origin and ANZAC test special events?

      Current date/time is Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:24 am