| RotoGuru Baseball Forum View the Forum Registry |
| |
| 0 |
Subject: Baseball Game Idea Posted by: Madman - [29246911] Thu, Mar 15, 17:40 Just wanted to shoot this idea past people. Most fantasy baseball games revolve around buying and selling players. What about a game that was specifically designed around teams? Here's the idea: At the beginning of the year, every manager is given $500*162 dollars, and 22 "free passes" for a 184 day season. Over the course of a season, on a day-to-day basis, you select and "buy" a team for that day. If the team wins, you get a win. If the team loses, you get a loss. The manager with the best winning percentage at the end of the year wins. Tie breaker is which manager spent the least amount of money to get those wins. Each team costs a dollar amount equal to it's current winning percentage (i.e., a .534 costs $534). Therefore, you can't just buy the Yankees for all 162 games. You'll have to buy some bad teams and some good teams. During the 184 day season, you can choose to use your 22 free passes whenever you please. If you don't feel confident about any of the matchups, use a free pass. If you forget to login, you use a free pass. If you use up all your money before the season is over, each day that you don't have a pick, you get an automatic loss (after your supply of free passes runs out). Very straight forward, very simple. But not so easy to win, I'm betting. Plus, there are a number of variations you could do (maybe selling teams short rather than buying them, maybe making the decision period a weekly selection, maybe making the overall cap more restrictive, maybe making 1 game for each franchise, so that you can "manage" your favorite team (i.e., bet for or against it -- this would take a bit more rule making). Anyway, just wanted to throw the idea out there. Just trying to come up with potential Guru-games. Maybe there's some obvious hole in this idea that would make it boring. I don't see it right away, however. Several days will have extremely popular game matchups. But with the salary limitations, I don't think this will be too much of a problem over the long haul. (oh, I figure that the 2000 winning percentages should perhaps be locked for the first month or so, until each team's winning percentage calms down. Or maybe not.) | ||||||
| 40 | Guru ID: 1445416 Sat, Mar 17, 12:52 |
YR - I think we need to avoid having to track the winning percentage of pitchers. This would be a significant administrative burden, and would also introduce a number of difficulties when the starting pitcher was different than the announced starter. Jessica - you are correct, but I think that very few games would actually be priced by the percentage selected. This approach would only adjust the price of very heavily selected games - which, of course, is its purpose. If you were near the end of the season, and cutting things that close, then just stay away from a game that you can't afford. But over the course of the season, I think very few games would attract a heavier proportion than the underlying team's winning percentage. So the biggest problem with my suggestion is that you would need to check back close to game time to verify that the price was still attractive. Although it would impose an extra programming challenge, this could be solved by setting up the system to allow the manager to set a cap on the price he/she is willing to pay. For example, let's say you want to buy a Pedro start, and you are willing to pay up to $750 for it. At the time you make your picks, 70% of the managers have selected Boston, which would work out to a $700 cost. But it is possible the price will continue to rise if more managers pick the Sox. So you also indicate that if the price is above $750, you don't want that game. Once the freeze is past, the system screens out any picks that are above their limit price. As those picks are tossed out, the percentage also adjusts downward, but eventually a state of equilibrium will be met. It would be simple for the program to determine that level. This would allow you to pick a team in advance without worrying that the price might be driven up above a reasonable (or affordable) level. | |||||
| 41 | Myboyjack ID: 4443038 Sat, Mar 17, 12:57 | You could tie the prices for games to the Vegas line for the game, thus making them both team and pitcher sensitive. Great idea, Madman. | |||||
| 42 | Guru ID: 1445416 Sat, Mar 17, 13:06 |
KKB - our posts overlapped. (BTW, this really is me, in spite of the different ID. I'm just using a different browser.) Adding a constant to the price for popular picks is simple, but still might undershoot the fair value. I haven't worked out the numbers, but assume that the Red Sox win 75% of the games that Pedro starts (he was 18-6 last year, and if they also won 75% of his no-decisions, that sounds reasonable). In this case, even if the game is priced at $700, it's a bargain. And it doesn't necessarily require you to then find a $300 game to balance it out. You could still make ends meet with one $700 game and four $450 games. So adding a flat amount onto the price of a popular game might still make it a good deal. My approach allows for a variable boost, but still keeps the programming palatable (I think). It should drive the price of stud games to a level which is closer to their fair value. The real question would seem to be whether the extra complexity (which seems minor, in this case) is worthwhile. | |||||
| 43 | Guru ID: 1445416 Sat, Mar 17, 13:08 |
Myboyjack - again, using betting lines imposes a significant administrative burden on the programming which I'm sure makes it a non-starter. I do expect, however, that betting lines will be a good source of info for assessing which games are attractively priced. | |||||
| 44 | Guru ID: 1445416 Sat, Mar 17, 13:14 |
Perhaps a trial period using a simple rule (like a flat price adjustment for popular picks) would help us determine whether there is any reason to seek a better solution. In theory, I like my approach. But in practice, it may be unwarranted. It's probably best to start simple, and then add complexity incrementally only if it seems worthwhile. | |||||
| 45 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 51521713 Sat, Mar 17, 13:30 |
Guru, upon further review (and getting away and just letting it sit for a moment), I think the idea of the "greater of 2" may work quite nicely. As you said, it puts "fair market value" into play without actually adding the element of players. I really liked *Jessica*'s plan, but then I thought: If you add $20/pitcher win, then at the end of the season, you've made any pitcher who has won 10 or more games un-buyable (add $200 even to PHI and that's $601). But even if you reduce it to $5/pitcher win, it won't effect buying BOS on Pedro days until he racks up 10-15 wins (end of the season). So basically, $5 method doesn't keep people from buying BOS on Pedro days until the end of the season, and the $20 method means you'll be buying no-names with 2 wins for CHC at the end of the season. I don't think either of those will appeal to the players of the game. As Smallworld found out, you have to keep people involved, which is why they made the "ultimate" line up so easy to acheive this season. Programming the "greater of 2" method would be very easy and it could be setup such that you can see the current price for that team if you buy them. In other words, If 75% of people have BOS, and you would make 80%, then the price displayed would be $800. However, this price would be subject to fluctuation (both up and down depending on future picks) up until deadline time. Add in the "If you don't have enough money for your pick at deadline time, you get a refund" rule and it seems very reasonable to go this way. | |||||
| 46 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 51521713 Sat, Mar 17, 13:42 |
Guru, I just re-read your post and realized that I missed the "cap" part. I'm not sure this idea would be as easy as what it looks like at first glance. For instance, what happens if BOS price ends up $750 and 10 people put a cap of $700 and by removing those 10, the price becomes $650, but then that means that the price hasn't reached those 10 peoples "cap". And you can't just remove selected picks out of those 10 (not even based on time) or it becomes unfair. Also, the price can't be set at deadline time. In other words, if 75% of players are interested in BOS, you can't set BOS's price for that day at $750 regardless of the number of "caps" that will adjust that number because players will then signup for a team, even if they don't want it, just to raise the price for other players. I, and 25 other people, buy BOS and set a "cap" of $700, knowing that it will be higher just to raise the price that much more. It becomes a catch-22. This also isn't just a problem with the "cap", but with the "greater of 2" method in general. Even using my proposed method of refunding money, the above problem exists. So now I'm just arguing my previous post! Great! UGH! ;) What was that about "simple"? ;) | |||||
| 47 | Guru ID: 330592710 Sat, Mar 17, 14:11 |
KKB - Rules could easily be established to solve the circular issues you raise in 46. But, they might unduly complicate the description of the rules. As I suggested in 44, it is probably best to start simpler (with a constant $ boost for popular games) and see whether that seems sufficient. Move to a variable approach only if the simple method seems to be sufficiently flawed. During the trial period, we could tinker with the flinch point for determining where the boost should kick in. | |||||
| 48 | Ender ID: 13443221 Sat, Mar 17, 14:44 |
This is all very interesting and I think it would be very enjoyable. I like the April is practice idea. I also like dividing the season into 2 parts. Perhaps a 100 game ... game (for lack of a better word, I feel like Austin Powers "Please allow myself to introduce ... myself") from May until ASB then a 162 game game post ASB would fit the bill. As far a premium for popular games why not simply add $1 for ever player that chooses that team? I suppose if we have over 500 players it could pose a problem :) It should be easy to program. I suppose there may be a cap issue to consider but I think given the number of people we have on the boards that it wouldn't reach an exhorbitant level anyway. In fact, if we had 100 people playing perhaps a $2 premium would be better. I'll put more thought into this and follow up, but the idea popped into my head reading all the other posts. I think this is a simple solution. As I consider it further (here I go again, but it's an evolving idea :), you could kick the premium in at a certain % level, but I don't think that's necessary. Basically if I choose a team with a .450 W% I know it will cost me at least $451 (using the $1 premium). That's a negligible penalty if very few people choose the same game, but if 75 people choose the game then it now cost $525. Ah well, I'll mul it over and see what develops :) | |||||
| 49 | James K Polk ID: 32012715 Sat, Mar 17, 15:16 | Another problem with tying prices to pitchers' win % would happen when the SP has few decisions on record. For example, even stud pitchers, for their first game (or possibly first few games) have a win % of .000, which would create a huge discount for those games early on. Conversely, a late-season callup for the Cubs who wins his first game goes into his second game with a 1.000 win %, which would force you to pay a bizarre premium. | |||||
| 50 | James K Polk ID: 32012715 Sat, Mar 17, 15:24 |
Perhaps this is more of an interface thought, but what about this: Say you log in to the game with your user name, and this pulls up a page that shows each of the next day's matchups. Next to each team name is current price and a check box to designate whether you want to pick them to win. This would remain dynamic until whenever the freeze point is. Then, if you log in to see if the price of your pick has risen, you have the option of "unchecking" that pick if the price has gotten too high for you. I like the idea of coupling this with a "cap" that users can set, to automatically disable picks that go above a certain price, because it allows for a hands-on management option. | |||||
| 51 | James K Polk ID: 32012715 Sat, Mar 17, 15:50 |
Just wanted to raise this one more time -- KKB addressed this a little bit in one of his posts, but not much other discussion. What about weighting scores based on the winning % of the teams you pick to win? I think it's possible to solve the stud problem by making it possible to "outscore" stud picks by picking the hidden gems. At its essence, what this approach says is that, if two teams are tied with 100 wins at the end of the year, but Team A generated them by picking mostly BOS, ATL, NYY games and Team B generated them by picking mostly KC, MIN, CHC games, then Team B was managed more "skillfully." Seems like a reasonable assumption to me. This would also eliminate the need for team prices that fluctuate all the way until a freeze point. That type of real-time change in prices is something I suspect most managers would prefer to avoid -- even with the "cap" ability, it becomes hard to just make a pick the night before and walk away, and tends to reward those managers who can log in just before freeze to judge whether a game is really going to be a good value. Anything we can do to eliminate advantage based on when a player can log in is good, I think. So in practice, weighting scores based on team win % provides "extra credit" for more risky picks. Maybe the scoring formula I mentioned before was a little weird, but what about this: Base value for picking a win is 1, which is then modified based on the team's distance above/below .500. Or maybe there's a better formula still. I suppose what this could even end up doing is eliminating the need for the use of $$$ on picks. The scoring possibilities become the motivating factor for picks, rather than the pricing. Seems like weighted scores probably could work with or without the $$$ element. And since we're already talking about dynamic, weighted prices, I don't think this adds any more complexity than that. But maybe it's just a bad idea on its own merits. :) I can live with that, but I just wanted to see if anyone had any more comments on it. | |||||
| 52 | Rogue's Strikers ID: 300382817 Sat, Mar 17, 16:19 |
Hey, just found this thread... and I like it! Don't really know what I can add that hasn't already been said... except that I agree with James that fluctuating prices can be unfair to those who can't be there to decide at the last minute on a game's value. I think the best way to simplify this would be to have a fixed rate $ addition if a certain % of people pick a game. For example, if over 25% of people take Boston, add 25$. If over 50%, add 50$. (35% would still be 25$, not 35$. There are pricing brackets... 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, etc.) So you can try and estimate if you think a game is going to be popular, and add what you think will be the extra fee to your cost. If you think a Pedro-started Boston game is going to be very popular, don't take it unless you think you can afford a 75$ fee. It adds a small stradegy element to the game, but not a huge one. If you miscalculate and think there will be a 50$ fee, and instead there is a 75$ fee, its not a huge deal. Next time you'll know better. ;) Who knows? Maybe you'll plan in a 75$ fee and there will only be a 25$ one. Realistically, if we can get over 100 people to play the game, the chances of 75%, or even 50%, of people selecting the same game is rare. That makes this a perfect penalty for selecting a Randy or Pedro game, which is likely to be the only widely held games. A simple solution, which adds a bit of stradegy but not much math to the problem. Just my .015 useless Cdn. cents.. ;) | |||||
| 53 | swami ID: 3322413 Sat, Mar 17, 16:53 |
A couple of ideas swimming around in my head. 1) Limit the number of times you can select a certain team over the course of the playing period. The one problem I came up with was that it limits the game to your ability to pick the poorer teams correctly. 2) Make the picks locked in for a week. Even if you pick up a NYY, they are bound to have at least one tough series in a week. 3) Invoke the SW trading policy where you get 2 trades for a week for your "roster." This idea could give us a weekly roster of 3-4 teams. It could also limit your ability to grab the Pedro start when Nomo, Castillo, etc are following him in the rotation. I like the pricing idea of winning percentage subtacted from 1000 to get the teams price. I think that last year's winning percentage should be used for the first 15-20 games. As far as weighting the system towards picking a team not widely "owned" we could have the picking blind each week, and award the players that select scarcely "owned teams. I haven't figured out a way to do this. Hopefully my ideas can spark something in the minds of the smarter (and I use that word loosley) gurupies around here. GO HAMPTON! | |||||
| 54 | Gary ID: 381157822 Sat, Mar 17, 17:12 |
If you look at Madman's original post he has taken care of the basic problem already. Take his train of thought and add in Guru's idea of starting in May or the All Star Game and you take care of the bulk of the problem. Everyone starts out with a set amount of cash so not only do you have to pick the winning team but you also have to budget you $. So who cares if 75% pick a specific Pedro start for they can only take so many of his starts before they have little or no cash. So a wise manager may decide to choose not to take a Pedro start so that he can have the Pedro start down the road (say 3 or 4 weeks later). Maybe I am looking at this from a whole different angle but I believe everyone has forgotten that they only have a set amount of cash for the year, kinda like SW in the beginning giving only X trades to be used as you see fit through out the year. Some ran out of trades before the all star break. Just my $.02 Gary | |||||
| 55 | *Jessica* ID: 574112114 Sat, Mar 17, 17:19 | Let me just toss out that I like Guru's idea to start simple, experiment for a short amount of time, and then see what needs to be tweaked. Maybe we could have two or three 3-week-long trials, with input throughout in the hopes that we'd be ready to put the final draft to a test for the second half of the season. Experience is the best teacher! | |||||
| 56 | HooeyPooey ID: 122181615 Sat, Mar 17, 17:35 | I agree with that... let's go with the original simple rules to start with. That is what I liked about the game idea. | |||||
| 57 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 51521713 Sat, Mar 17, 18:00 |
The more I read this, the more I agree: Let's start simple. Some of these ideas, not that they're bad, would take a heck of a lot more programming and thought than the original idea. So, let's give votes, yes or no, based in a few general areas: #####----- VOTING ISSUES -----##### Vote 1: 3 "seasons" this year divided into a 50-game "season" for the month of April, a 100-game "season" from May to ASB, and a 162-game "season" from ASB to end of regular season. Vote 2: Starting cash in the amount of the number of games times $500 ($25k, $50k, $81k) Vote 3: Pick as many teams to win as you like on any given day. Vote 4: The cost of a team is their current winning percentage times 1000, such that a team with .525 winning percentage costs $525 for that day. Vote 5: The cost of EVERY team for the first week of the 50-game "season" is $500. Actual winning percentages will be used from that point on, including the start of the subsequent 2 "seasons" Vote 6: Scoring will be 1000 minus the amount you paid for a correct pick, such that if you pick a team for $525 and they win, you get 475 points for that pick. Vote 7: No vacation picks/locks. (Due to Vote 3 allowing "catch up" or "plan ahead") #####----- VOTING ISSUES -----##### I'll go ahead and start the voting: These are not set in stone. I'm just trying to get a sense of if this is what most people can agree on for at least the 50-game "season". Everything will be revisited during, and after, that "season". | |||||
| 58 | Madman ID: 29246911 Sat, Mar 17, 18:51 |
Wow. This what I deserve for not checking rotoguru.com for 24 hours! This has really taken off. I'll begin at the end . . . vote 1-5 Yes. 6 No. 7 Yes. Explanation for 6: I like the original "if they win, you win" scoring concept. This scoring system is over-kill when coupled with the budget constraint, IMO. They both address the desirability of sub .500 picks. The one good thing about proposal 6 is that it would solve the Stud pitcher problem by itself -- you probably would never find it optimal to pick a +.500 team, even if their stud was going (it depends on how much of an impact the stud makes, but I'm betting that this is a likely result). At any rate, I think the budget constraint + the point issue turns this into a "bottom feeder" game only (i.e., sub 500 teams). I like the idea of having to figure out when the "winning" clubs are going to win, too. Or at least having the safer harbor of their selections less damaging. But I haven't worked the math out. This is just my instinct. ------------------------- I like a number of swami's suggestions. And others. We should keep this thread handy while we work through the kinks in April. ---------------------- One note on the "Pickoff Fair Market Value" -- the incentives in that game worked to turn the probability of winning into the probability that the team was picked. This isn't a requirement here unless you change the scoring system to a pickoff reward system (100-number of pickers) AND get rid of the budget constraint. There is a problem with the fixed fee for a stud start. Basically, you need to make sure that the fee is small enough to make sure that the threshold number of managers would still buy the game. Otherwise, I like the idea. The actual price addition could be calibrated based on the increase that a Pedro/RJ gives to winning percentage. However, I think the best solution is no solution. Let's see how big of a problem it will be. As we go along, that will likely indicate how we should solve it. As I said before, if everyone votes yes on both 5 & 6, I think this is a non-issue. Geez. So much more to say, but I'll yield the floor. Thanks to all who've put work into this (and are going to in future tense). This is becoming a true Gurupie project! ----------------------------- Wait! We need to vote on April prices . . . Referrendum Item 1 (RI1): $500 fixed through April 15? Yet another good reason for April to be "spring training" -- this budget constraint issue doesn't apply as well in April. | |||||
| 59 | Guru ID: 330592710 Sat, Mar 17, 18:54 |
I vote against No.6. I think the score should just be a won/loss record. You buy teams, and get a win or a loss. If you fail to buy a full schedule, you get losses for the shortfall in games. Once again, keep it simple. | |||||
| 60 | James K Polk ID: 355352418 Sat, Mar 17, 19:03 |
I had to leave for work right after my last post, so I didn't get to finish thinking/writing through a copule things. A quick thought: One possible advantage to going with weighted scoring is that you could eliminate the programming/tracking issue involved with the proposed bank accounts. No dynamic pricing, no extra data to keep track of, etc. This would take a huge burden off programmers, administrators, and even game players -- if you think about it, in a full game where you're starting with $81,000 to manage over 162 picks, it will take an extreme amount of attention to detail to leave yourself with a proper amount of cash for the end of the season. (If the game does go this direction, I would encourage a field on the login screen that always displays the average cash per pick that you have left.) I think all of us almost expect to use some sort of cash model because of Swirve/Smallworld, but that's no reason why a game can't be just as challenging without it. The reason being, the cash was simply designed to make sure players couldn't only choose the best teams with all 162 picks. They would have to mix in some poor teams as well. This is exactly the same thing that a weighted scoring model achieves. I'm starting to think, in terms of the big picture (from programming to maintenance to actual gameplay) it might be better to go the cashless route. Hey, it's not anathema, it's just something we're not used to. But it would make for a simpler game in all phases, and a much easier one to technically produce. All that said, I certainly would play the game whether there's a money model or not. It sounds fun, and like Madman, I'm excited by the thought of a game that revolves around teams, not players. I just wanted to point out the possible merits of simplifying things even further than we're talking about. As for the issues KKB listed for voting, in the game's current incarnation, I would vote YES across the board. But I would encourage further discussion of going cashless. | |||||
| 61 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 51521713 Sat, Mar 17, 19:03 |
Madman, Vote 5 addresses the issue of April prices, but I think I like "to April 15" instead of "the first week of April". I also agree with what you said about 5 and 6 being linked, and what Guru said about keeping it simple. Therefore, with the above changes, I say "Yes" on 1-5 and 7, and "No" to 6. | |||||
| 62 | James K Polk ID: 355352418 Sat, Mar 17, 19:11 |
Hmmm, since KKB can change his vote, I think I will too. Madman points out that the synergy between 5 and 6 could turn it into a "bottom feeder" game, and I think he's right on. If the game goes with pricing, I'd have to vote no on 5. But like Madman also points out, 6 solves a lot of issues by itself (and makes programming simpler). And if everyone else really likes the cash model, I promise I will shut up. :) | |||||
| 63 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 51521713 Sat, Mar 17, 19:15 |
Pres, it's not big deal either way with regards to cash or cashless. Either way, the winning percentage of the teams would have to be entered (manually or dynamically) each day, whether for use in pricing or use in weighting scores. Realistically, it would be the same sort of database setup, but just a slightly different way of handling the data within the code. One way says, "Deduct this number from the users cash and add 1 point to their total points if it was a correct pick" where the other way says, "Deduct this number from 1000 and then add that number to their total points if it was a correct pick." Not much difference either way. I think people, in general, would be more comfortable with a pricing model, just because it's what they're used to. I'm not saying that it has to be this way though. Also, I was already a step ahead of you on having the $/remaining picks listed. ;) I think we're all thinking the same thing at this point, it's just a matter of what minor tweaks we'll make once we do the first run. There will always be room to learn and build on the idea. | |||||
| 64 | James K Polk ID: 355352418 Sat, Mar 17, 19:23 |
KKB -- I think people, in general, would be more comfortable with a pricing model, just because it's what they're used to. This is exactly one of the reasons I'm pressing the cashless idea :) It would be nice to have a truly different feel to this game. As for the programming burden, that's great that it wouldn't be too much either way. I guess I was still locked into thinking about the real-time price changes that were being discussed earlier, but that's not an issue anymore. | |||||
| 65 | Roo ID: 5405365 Sat, Mar 17, 19:33 |
What a great thread! yes, yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes. I think the fixed price to start the season should be last year's not .500. It's not that much more complicated, but makes it harder to find value in the market early on, and that value comes from spotting improved teams, rather than just good ones. | |||||
| 66 | Guru ID: 330592710 Sat, Mar 17, 19:51 |
I agree with Roo that last year's winning %'s be used at the beginning, rather than a flat $500. Since it's only spring training, it doesn't really matter. But, having som price differentiation might get us into a proper perspective a bit quicker. | |||||
| 68 | *Jessica* ID: 574112114 Sun, Mar 18, 10:30 | I'm on the same page - count me in. | |||||
| 69 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 51521713 Sun, Mar 18, 11:33 |
Give it a test ride. Keep in mind that this has only been barely tested at all, so it's bound to break and bust. Right now, you can submit picks and it will update your cash flow. You can submit as many times as you like up until the deadline. I will insert the code later to show your current day's picks along the left side below your "stats" so that you know if you want to change them or not. Click Here | |||||
| 70 | Gary ID: 381157822 Sun, Mar 18, 11:39 |
I tend to agree with Roo 1-4 yes, 5-6 no, 7 yes. KISS:Keep It Simple Stupid;)LOL | |||||
| 71 | *Jessica* ID: 574112114 Mon, Mar 19, 08:27 | Sorry KKB, I'm confused -- is the "test" Madman's game? Or is it something you're trying on your own (which I'd be happy to participate in :) | |||||
| 72 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 431156218 Mon, Mar 19, 08:43 |
The "test" is Madman's game which I offered to program way back in post #16 (seems like ages ago, eh?). It works out to be VERY similar to the "Let's Pick the Scores" programming that I had already done, so I was able to "program" (re-program) it in about a day or two. Still some kinks to work out, but I think it's getting closer. | |||||
| 73 | jumpball ID: 33050298 Mon, Mar 19, 10:43 |
This has come a long way since I last checked on Friday! It looks good KKB! Count me in. And I agree with the votes so far -- yeas on all but 5 and 6. Use last season's winning percentage for the first two weeks and 1 point per win. | |||||
| 74 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 431156218 Mon, Mar 19, 10:48 | Anybody thought of a cool name for this game? | |||||
| 75 | Perm Dude ID: 28059111 Mon, Mar 19, 10:56 |
Rollerball! | |||||
| 76 | Wilmer McLean ID: 487331412 Mon, Mar 19, 12:24 | Budgetball | |||||
| 77 | jumpball ID: 33050298 Mon, Mar 19, 13:32 | "Just Win Baby" | |||||
| 78 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 431156218 Mon, Mar 19, 13:39 | Winners Only | |||||
| 79 | James K Polk ID: 32012715 Mon, Mar 19, 14:10 | Team Chemistry | |||||
| 80 | Gary ID: 381157822 Mon, Mar 19, 14:23 |
How about "Toprate Baseball" Gary | |||||
| 81 | winmiller ID: 107452613 Mon, Mar 19, 15:12 |
I like MadBall. It credits Madman for his idea, implies credit to the Krazy KKB for the implementation, and will probably describe how I will feel about the way most of my picks will work out. ;-) What a great game idea. Is registration open yet? | |||||
| 82 | Rogue's Strikers ID: 300382817 Mon, Mar 19, 15:15 |
How about Rogue's Game? ;) Seriously, I like MadBall too. It credits the creators, while at the same time sounds cool for new people who don't know you guys. | |||||
| 83 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 431156218 Mon, Mar 19, 15:22 |
MadBall is pretty sweet. Registration is not open yet. I'm finalizing work on the "Scoring" admin page and I need to do some testing of that before I open registration. I figure that registration should be fully open by the weekend. | |||||
| 84 | jumpball ID: 33050298 Mon, Mar 19, 15:50 |
KKB, don't forget the name . . . "MADball" !! | |||||
| 85 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 431156218 Mon, Mar 19, 15:53 | Question: Since this has potential to carry over into other sports (Football, Basketball, and Hockey), should it be "Baseball MadBall", "MLB MadBall", or just "MadBall"? | |||||
| 86 | jumpball ID: 33050298 Mon, Mar 19, 15:56 |
Good point KKB . . . Maybe MADBases, to go along with MadFeet, MadHoops, and MadPucks. | |||||
| 87 | Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Mar 19, 15:58 |
I'd probably stick with MadBall for now. When we get to the next sports season, we can decide if an additional adjective is warranted. Of course, if there is a strike/lockout next year, we may have to change it to SadBall... | |||||
| 89 | Ender ID: 52438315 Mon, Mar 19, 16:03 | Or Noball :( | |||||
| 90 | JeffG ID: 40451227 Mon, Mar 19, 16:18 |
I have been lurking in this thread since it started. Sounds fun, and does not take up too much time to play. My votes, keeping in mind I do not have to do the programming: 1 - Yes 2 - Yes 3 - No, cap at 3 max picks per any given day. 4 - Yes. 5 - No. I like the idea of using last year's winning percentage until 4/15. You may want to put a maximum/minumum of .750 to .250 for those who possibly fall out of the boundaries in late April. I think the price should consider the "Perdo factor": If a game is picked one sided (say more than 80% pick team A than team B with a minimum of 25% of the people selecting that game, add $100 to the price of one and subtract it from the other. 6 - No. Count wins until the allocated money runs out. Most wins win. Period. 7 - No. I'd like advance picks. Other thoughts. Stop Mulligan players. No one should be allowed to set up a second ID after the season starts if they are unhappy with how their first ID is doing. Props to Madman for this concept and thanks to KKB for running with the ball. | |||||
| 91 | bookie ID: 4111388 Mon, Mar 19, 17:39 | What an amazing group of people we have on these boards. Kudo's to all for the ideas, especially Madman for the original concept and KKB for the incredibly rapid turnaround. I'll give it a go, when you get it going.... | |||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | ||||||
| |||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | |||||||