Game Theory and Fantasy Sports

Breaking this out from the main thread to have a chat in here


An intro article on game theory and daily fantasy sports
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/11/game-theory-can-make-you-money-in-fantasy-football-too-19910.htm


We can debate the merits of game theory in a 26 round comp compared to daily fantasy comps.

But with the new $500 prize for the Thursday night match day comps it might be a great chance to start playing with some ideas for team selection in these comps.

Milchcow wrote:
Breaking this out from the main thread to have a chat in here


An intro article on game theory and daily fantasy sports
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/11/game-theory-can-make-you-money-in-fantasy-football-too-19910.htm


We can debate the merits of game theory in a 26 round comp compared to daily fantasy comps.

But with the new $500 prize for the Thursday night match day comps it might be a great chance to start playing with some ideas for team selection in these comps.

Great idea for a thread. 
I've always done something much like this in the origin and test match games. Something to note is that in those games I can't remember the prizes ever being split so the person who has won it has had a completely individual team which definitely supports the theory.

Krump wrote:
Great idea for a thread. 
I've always done something much like this in the origin and test match games. Something to note is that in those games I can't remember the prizes ever being split so the person who has won it has had a completely individual team which definitely supports the theory.

Agreed. While it certainly has merits over the season, it works much better in an isolated event such as Origin, or now the Thursday night comp

Beast From The Big East wrote:

Agreed. While it certainly has merits over the season, it works much better in an isolated event such as Origin, or now the Thursday night comp

Most people myself included are skeptical about the benefits during the regular season due to the chances of completely flopping early, is that really an issue though? If you believe your good enough to win the entire comp and don't than what's the difference between coming 35th and 3500th? My point I guess is that your going to have to take chances at some point so why not go all out from the beginning and give yourself the best possible chance of winning. It doesn't actually give you the best chance of a great ranking but there's a big difference between a great ranking and winning.

Krump wrote:
Most people myself included are skeptical about the benefits during the regular season due to the chances of completely flopping early, is that really an issue though? If you believe your good enough to win the entire comp and don't than what's the difference between coming 35th and 3500th? My point I guess is that your going to have to take chances at some point so why not go all out from the beginning and give yourself the best possible chance of winning. It doesn't actually give you the best chance of a great ranking but there's a big difference between a great ranking and winning.

Fair point but I would argue that by playing it safer early on you keep yourself in the hunt for longer. Basically you can't win the comp within the first 5 weeks but you can definitely lose it

I look forward to reading that article in full however not sure if it covers that there is also an element of luck in winning NRL Fantasy for example? Is that a common thought?

Beast From The Big East wrote:

Fair point but I would argue that by playing it safer early on you keep yourself in the hunt for longer. Basically you can't win the comp within the first 5 weeks but you can definitely lose it

I think youll find the winners (or even top 50) all took a big risk at the start of the season to win it, while the rest of us played safe and took weeks to make the trades to get those same guys.

I think you have to start winning it in the first 5 weeks (by that i dont mean rank 1 the whole time)

Bren wrote:I look forward to reading that article in full however not sure if it covers that there is also an element of luck in winning NRL Fantasy for example? Is that a common thought?

What "luck" do you mean. There are artilcle that go into it, they call it Variance

Shanbon wrote:

I think youll find the winners (or even top 50) all took a big risk at the start of the season to win it, while the rest of us played safe and took weeks to make the trades to get those same guys.

I think you have to start winning it in the first 5 weeks (by that i dont mean rank 1 the whole time)

I disagree. Obviously it is advantageous to be in front from the beginning, but the objective is to have the highest scoring players over the 26 weeks. I wouldn't necessitate a 5-week span to be conclusive of that.

Varnsen wrote:

I disagree. Obviously it is advantageous to be in front from the beginning, but the objective is to have the highest scoring players over the 26 weeks. I wouldn't necessitate a 5-week span to be conclusive of that.

The object is to beat everyone else over 26 weeks, imo that starts by trying to beat them from week 1. Not going with the same team as everyone else and then playing catch up on the leaders.

Bren wrote:I look forward to reading that article in full however not sure if it covers that there is also an element of luck in winning NRL Fantasy for example? Is that a common thought?

Most of the articles I've been reading are about daily fantasy NFL. But the whole point if this is to minimise luck and give you the best chance of winning.

But basically if you have a choice between a guy with an 80% chance of scoring 50 but 80% ownership.
Or a guy with a 20% chance of scoring 65 but only 10% ownership.

Picking the first guy may not help. If he succeeds, you still have to beat most other people in order to win the comp.
If the 2nd guy happens to do well then suddenly you are ahead of 90% of your competitors.

You have to make sure you get all your sums right though for this to work

Shanbon wrote:

The object is to beat everyone else over 26 weeks, imo that starts by trying to beat them from week 1. Not going with the same team as everyone else and then playing catch up on the leaders.

There is no point picking unpopular players from the get go for the sake of being different.

I think anyone within striking of the leader after the Origin period is in with a good chance, and that would be the time to take (calculated) risks.

Milchcow wrote:

Most of the articles I've been reading are about daily fantasy NFL. But the whole point if this is to minimise luck and give you the best chance of winning.

But basically if you have a choice between a guy with an 80% chance of scoring 50 but 80% ownership.
Or a guy with a 20% chance of scoring 65 but only 10% ownership.

Picking the first guy may not help. If he succeeds, you still have to beat most other people in order to win the comp.
If the 2nd guy happens to do well then suddenly you are ahead of 90% of your competitors.

You have to make sure you get all your sums right though for this to work

I think those kind of plays are definetly for your daily large tournaments. In a large daily tournament(or match days in NRL) you want high ceiling(even if the scoring is volatile) low ownership. In daily h2h you want to go with consistency(not the volatile guys) but still obviously a high scoring player.

In regards to the long 26 week tourny when i talk about ownership its only after all other research and only when comparing to similar players. IE deciding between 2 guns you think will score with 3-4 points of each other, or 2 mid rangers you have costing similar scoring similar and making similar profit.

Varnsen, out if interest, do you know where you were ranked after 5 rounds in VSDT last year?
Or what round you entered the top 100/50/10?

A bad round 1 won't necessarily hurt you, but I think you have to hit the top 100 fairly early if you want to win anything

Shanbon wrote:

The object is to beat everyone else over 26 weeks, imo that starts by trying to beat them from week 1. Not going with the same team as everyone else and then playing catch up on the leaders.

That's true but there is a reason certain guns are consistently the best players. In a one off week you could say Boyd Cordner will score more than Corey Parker and there would be a formula to calculate the percentage. But you would be hard pushed to find someone who would back Cordner to have scored more over say a 6 week period.

Trying to find areas to gain ground/differentiate yourself is all well and good but you need to be smart about it. Get your points, stay in touching distance and then decide when to make your move. Don't ruin your chances before the season even starts by trying to get clever

Beast From The Big East wrote:

That's true but there is a reason certain guns are consistently the best players. In a one off week you could say Boyd Cordner will score more than Corey Parker and there would be a formula to calculate the percentage. But you would be hard pushed to find someone who would back Cordner to have scored more over say a 6 week period.

Trying to find areas to gain ground/differentiate yourself is all well and good but you need to be smart about it. Get your points, stay in touching distance and then decide when to make your move. Don't ruin your chances before the season even starts by trying to get clever

Theres no way anyone is projecting Cordner and Parker to have the same output and then spliting on ownership %. im saying if you think Cordner and JDB will both score the same you have a better chance of winning if you were to pick Cordner (2% OS) instead of JDB (8%) but realistically your most likely to use it when splitting say Parker(25%) and Fifita(6%)

Milchcow wrote:

Most of the articles I've been reading are about daily fantasy NFL. But the whole point if this is to minimise luck and give you the best chance of winning.

But basically if you have a choice between a guy with an 80% chance of scoring 50 but 80% ownership.
Or a guy with a 20% chance of scoring 65 but only 10% ownership.

Picking the first guy may not help. If he succeeds, you still have to beat most other people in order to win the comp.
If the 2nd guy happens to do well then suddenly you are ahead of 90% of your competitors.

You have to make sure you get all your sums right though for this to work

But what are the scores for the 10% ownership in weeks when he doesn't score 65. While players price in relation to their average should theoretically be similar across all players, not all PODs are created equal. A solid floor and an easy enough price to trade from should they fail make for an attractive POD. A high ceiling, low floor and middling price (ie. Uate/Vatuvei) isn't as attractive prospect despite having a similar price to points average ratio

I think he was talking about daily fanatsy

Shanbon wrote:

Theres no way anyone is projecting Cordner and Parker to have the same output and then spliting on ownership %. im saying if you think Cordner and JDB will both score the same you have a better chance of winning if you were to pick Cordner (2% OS) instead of JDB (8%) but realistically your most likely to use it when splitting say Parker(25%) and Fifita(6%)

Then you aren't really taking the risk then. I agree with you on your logic using those players but it isn't like there is big variance with the pairings. Taking Cordner over Parker and using the extra cash elsewhere is the big, bold gamble that I think of when I was reading your points about differentiating your team early on.

Game theory would more fit with something like daily fantasy though where making a pick like Uate over Inglis would be the type of smart pick you are talking about

Shanbon wrote:I think he was talking about daily fanatsy

Ah sorry about that misread