| 0 |
Subject: are TSN player prices too high?
Posted by: cancermoon
- [53248219] Sat, Jul 27, 2002, 06:56
I am new to fantasy football, but I have just been trying to make a team on TSN, and found that it is impossible to make a team of starters for the salary cap 30k. I was testing the players prices before i joined Ultimate.
The lowest starting price for a QB starter is just under 5 mil, same for a RB, if you want to get a defence under 5 mil it has to be one of the 5 worst in the league, the only chance to save money is on WR's, and even then you will either all have the same few players, or have to take a bunch of part timers.
I started making my roster with the cheapest possible starters, thinking I will then upgrade a few positions with the money that's left over, but with a QB and a RB still to fill, I just have 5 mil left, that is when i have players like Vicks, Stallworth, Glenn, (def)Washington (arrgghhh), and still no money for my last two spots .
Is TSN football usually like this? It seems like It may be worth while to just throw in a few of the cheapest players possible that may not even play at all, and just play the game based on the scores of a few studs.
I guess I am just wondering if this is how TSN football is played, Certainly noone will be owning any of the studs for a long way into the season, it just isn't possible due to the pricing structure. |
| 1 | dgrooves
ID: 364522113
Sat, Jul 27, 2002, 10:06
|
cancermoon asking for advice on the boards? I dont belive it. Surely youve figured out all possible strategies, as you did in baseball.
Seriously though, you cant make a team full of the top #1 RBs and WRs at this point in the game. Go cheap on TE and K, fairly cheap at WR, and grab a sleeper RB and QB to bookend with steadier players. Watch preseason battles...a number of players, with low TSN prices, will emerge as starters for their teams.
|
| 2 | cancermoon
ID: 53248219
Sat, Jul 27, 2002, 10:19
|
dgrooves, lol, I always ask for advice, usually it ends in a tainted discussion (arguement) , but i learn from it all, and that is always my goal in everything i do. LEARN.
Thankyou, I honestly can understand your advice, just can't imagine how it will happen yet.
|
| 3 | cancermoon
ID: 53248219
Sat, Jul 27, 2002, 10:23
|
Oh another question, and i might aswell stick to the same thread.
I read many times Gurupies in the baseball forum bemoaning the football version, because they say it is more about luck than skill. Is this true?, is it just the lucky people that will be on top at the end of the season, or do the more skilled fantasy players still come out ahead in football as they do in baseball???
|
| 4 | Motley Crue
Donor
ID: 276182418
Sat, Jul 27, 2002, 10:47
|
The prices in Ultimate seem real high right now. It looks like most of the good players are very expensive. But as dgrooves said, things will change in a month and a half. I started putting a team together and I couldn't finish when I got down to the last 2 roster spots (both WR's) and I only have $6M left. I couldn't really find one guy at that price I wanted!
I think you'll find that luck plays a MUCH bigger role in Fantasy Football than it does in baseball. But so does injury. Football is a completely different animal--don't forget weekly price changes instead of daily--and with fewer games, you have fewer chances to rectify big mistakes. For example, a couple of years back, the Chargers named Ryan Leaf the starting QB after training camp. Small World had priced him as the backup because they (and most of us) assumed that Harbaugh was going to start. Well, all of the dumbies out there (me included) went out and jumped on his $1.9M price, so we could beef up on the rest of our rosters. After Leaf scored a negative in Week 1 (and his subsequent price hit), I wish I had gone with a $500K backup who had no chance of playing, but also no chance of a negative score or a price drop!
|
| 5 | Mark L
Leader
ID: 4444938
Sat, Jul 27, 2002, 10:51
|
Compared to bases and hoops, football depends more on luck, but I suck at football.
It's no doubt true that the drastically decreased number of games in football cuts your chance of recovering from a mistake down to just about zero. I can't say that that really equates to luck, though. A couple years ago I was in the top 30 with a month to go; I then proceeded to outsmart myself (e.g., refusing to get Eddie George when he was red-hot because I had persuaded myself that his foot injury was going to knock him out of a game and I would gain because the most of other leaders had him). That and a couple of similar choke jobs dropped me to about 330.
IIRC, many of the Gurupies who do well in both bases and hoops either don't play football, or don't turn in their typical top-100 performances if they do play. But, also IIRC, you do see some of the same people doing well in football year after year, which from my perspective is inconsistent with football being a matter of luck.
|
| 6 | dgrooves
ID: 364522113
Sat, Jul 27, 2002, 10:58
|
I really dont see it as luck. Well, there is always some luck in fantasy sports, but I dont think football requires any more of it than other fantasy sports. In my opinion, the biggest knock on fantasy football is the low amount of games played. In football, it is much harder to recover from a poor start, but it certainly isnt impossible. Two years ago, one of my SmallWorld teams was ranked over 100,000 in the world, but it finished the season with a ranking just over 2000.
|
| 7 | cancermoon
ID: 53248219
Sat, Jul 27, 2002, 11:27
|
Good, I hate playing games of luck, I really am an unlucky person, i need to know that the game i am playing will reward me if i use my brain or study hard, not just reward anyone who's having a lucky week and no capabilities to think straight.
|
| 8 | tduncan
ID: 423452813
Sun, Jul 28, 2002, 12:09
|
Vick, Michael ATL $5,150,000
Dilfer, Trent SEA $3,400,000
--------------
Davis, Stephen WAS $7,500,000
Taylor, Fred JAC $6,100,000
--------------
Finneran, Brian ATL $3,250,000
Ferguson, Robert GB $500,000
--------------
Dallas DAL $3,550,000
How about that? not bad I think.
|
| 9 | Jeddi
ID: 21557114
Sun, Jul 28, 2002, 12:25
|
About the prices being too high. In football, there are always players that come out of nowhere with cheap prices. Last year, Shaun Alexander and Tom Brady were two examples. These help you fill out a roster in ways you wouldn't have been able to in preseason. Plus, injuries will happen in the preseason that makes it easier to fill in a roster. Much of this depends on TSN listing a lot of players early on, so when a guy gets hurt they can't automatically list their backup at 5 million. They seem to have done a good job at this, this year.
|
| 10 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sun, Jul 28, 2002, 20:06
|
Jeddi's point illustrates another complaint I have about football. When a Shaun Alexander comes along you HAVE to have him and EVERYONE (or at least the ones you will be truly competing against) has him. That's why it turns into a crapshoot (too much for my taste anyway) IMO. Your roster shrinks in effect to half it's original size.
I'll admit that this problem exists in hoops and baseball to an extent and is exacerbated by daily price changes. However the season is much longer and you can not only choose how long to have such a player, but you CAN get away with not having them at all in most cases (though it would be foolish to avoid the cheap trains altogether). In football last year I would be shocked if the eventual winner went without Alexander and Brady.
|
| 11 | Jeddi
ID: 21557114
Sun, Jul 28, 2002, 20:41
|
I was looking at the winner's roster last year and he didn't have Brady once. You don't need to get every cheap guy that comes along, however not having Alexander would have been stupid in hindsight. He is one of the top three running backs in fantasy football right now, and he was under 2 million last year. Thats the only time that will ever happen.
I like football because you don't have to be a brainiac with a million spreadsheets to win. You just have to have a decent knowledge about football and some luck. I personally think some of the elite players here don't like football because they can't game the game so to speak.
|
| 12 | tduncan
ID: 423452813
Sun, Jul 28, 2002, 20:59
|
I totaly agree with you Jeddy.
The only difference between football and hoops/basbeall is that in football, you can't ensure yourself a top spot by strategizing only (schedule in hoops, RV and money in baseball). It's all about picking the right players. If you can't handle it, that fine, but don't call it a crap shot.
BTW, do you think you would have had any chance to win the hoops game withgout Gasol?
|
| 13 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sun, Jul 28, 2002, 22:21
|
Trying to decide which cheap receiver will do well in any given week is a crap shoot. You are forced to have cheap WR espacially early in the season.
I conceded that there are cheap players that you "have" to have in baseball and hoops. You completely ignored the part about havig a choice about when to carry them and when to get in and out. In football there are players you pretty much have to put on your roster and hold.
You can disagree if you want, that's your right, but the "if you can't handle it" line was pretty weak. I have played and have been very successful in the past, but there's too many factors that I have no control over in football. I play head to head leagues. I enjoy them and do well. Draft leagues require you to do a lot of work leading up to an during the season. I find the TSN format too restrictive and too chance based for my tastes. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of playing, but I was frustrated with the format when it cost me nothing. I'm certainly not going to pay for it now (I don't in anyway begrudge them their right to charge for it. I just take advantage of my right not to pay:)
You knock the strategy element of baseball and hoops and imply that you needn't know anything about the players or teams themselves. The strategy element is what I love most because I have control over strategy. The strategy in TSN Football amounts to matchups and that's fine, but not as satisfying to me as mixing long and short term strategies over the course of a lengthy season. Football by design requires short term strategy only (unless you are in a keeper league, but we're talking TSN only here). Plus, I would argue that you DO need to know the teams and players if you want to excel because schedules and matchups alone won't win.
|
| 14 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Mon, Jul 29, 2002, 00:43
|
TSN Ultimate: 50 million
2 QB
3 WR
3 RB
1 TE
1 K
1 D
TSN Free: 30 million
2 QB
2 WR
2 RB
1 D
The difference of 20 million goes for 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 K, and 1 TE.
With this extra 20 mil you can buy a 8 mil RB and WR with still 4 mil left for a K and TE. With a cheap TE, you can get the best K there is and with a top RB and the best WR you can buy.
I believe the TSN free game isn't given enough money for this comparision alone.
THK
|
| 15 | Phyrre56
ID: 44692210
Mon, Jul 29, 2002, 09:45
|
I think it's been established that the free TSN game this year is just all kinds of bad, beginning with the low # of trades and the opportunity to buy more trades (equating your wallet to your ranking).
The beefed up prices fall right in line with all that...because prices are high, you are forced to take more risks. With limited trades, trying to pick sleepers is a scary business. Now you're worried about injuries AND your player never panning out.
TSN is obviously losing money on the free game. This is common practice in the business world really...when you're not making money but still have a market, just raise prices and shoot the service to hell. The worst case is that you lose your market...you stop losing money. The other case is that everyone pays more for less and you start making money. It's a win-win for everyone but the casual fantasy gamer.
|
| 16 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 09:59
|
Whoa -- not exactly. The Free game and the Ultimate game serve different audiences. One is for a casual gamer, the other for someone who wants a deeper, more intricate interaction. I've said this before on many different boards, and I'll say it again -- we couldn't run a free game of the same type next to our pay game and stay in business. They hybrid model we've developed has allowed us to stay in business, improve the quality of our ultimate games, and still offer our users a free game to try.
-ESB
|
| 17 | Phyrre56
ID: 44692210
Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 11:15
|
Erik, (and I'm just trying to having a nice, clean discussion here...no hard feelings, nothing personal, etc),
You split the market into two groups: casual manger and serious manager. What about the distinction of manager who is willing to pay for fantasy sports, and manager who is not? It's a more important distinction than casual vs. serious, and I know many very serious managers who more or less refuse to pay for fantasy because it's just a game. If there came a point when free internet fantasy no longer existed, I would set up an "offline" league with my compadres and go it the old fashioned way.
I appreciate the Ultimate game for those who want to pay for a well-run fantasy experience. But it's pretty clear that the free game is just a complement to the Ultimate game. Using your casual vs. serious split, a new manager would try things out with the free game, perhaps realize that he enjoys it (as most first timers do) and then upgrade to the pay game next season mostly to get rid of the frustrations of the free game.
The problem is that managers who are used to free fantasy games will see your ads, think you've got a genuine, complete, enjoyable free game and join only to find that it has serious flaws and that it gets very low priority when it comes to fixing those flaws. Only newbies could truly enjoy the free game experience because they wouldn't know any better.
I'm not saying TSN is doing anything underhanded or devious or malevolent, I just think that it's becoming increasingly obvious that TSN only cares about fans that are willing to pay the big bucks for fantasy and is trying to shoo away the free gamers. Good for the shareholders, bad for PR.
(Good lord, this is going to get some inflammatory responses...sorry everyone but I just feel like voicing my opinion today...)
|
| 18 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 11:29
|
Phyrre:
I've been down this road before on several threads. And here are a few big counter-points:
1) 380,000 teams signed up for our free baseball game. So far, 250,000 (or so) have signed up for season II. Given that interest is much smaller during the second-half of the season, the message is clear -- a fair chunk of people are playing the game, having a good time, and coming back.
2) The unfortunate reality is that supporting "serious" users who won't pay for anything is not a very interesting business model. In fact, if we did support them consistently, we'd go out of business, and then we wouldn't have a free game, we wouldn't have a pay game -- we wouldn't have anything!
Again, I'm sorry to be short, but I've hit these issues in other threads before.
-ESB
|
| 19 | Phyrre56
ID: 44692210
Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 11:34
|
OK, I'm sure you've had this argument before...sorry for the redundency. I'm just being a greedy consumer, and I got into fantasy sports back when paying for it was unheard of. I guess I'm just not adjusting very quickly to the newer reality.
And everything aside, I like TSN and hope it does well as a company and can keep providing the public with solid sports news!
|
| 20 | Bungers
Leader
ID: 286222617
Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 13:40
|
Erik, you know I have heard all the debates before, but I don't remember anyone asking the Econ 101 question before, so here goes:
Why does each piece of each game need to be profitable? Only the whole of all the games needs to be profitable. Or actually all the games could lose money as long as TSN as a whole is making money. You make it sound like free games could put you out of business. Not if you are making the money you need to from the pay versions.
In business, not every branch or outlet of a retail store makes money, but the lesser or non-profitable ones are still often kept open and running as a customer convenience and/or marketing tool. WalMart and Burger King come to mind.
I think the real questions is why does the free/PFT version of the game have to be so weak? I don't get worse product or service at those struggling Burger Kings. Besides, I believe it is technically easier to make an exact copy of the pay game into the free game and just change the trade stucture slightly, rather than these silly reduced rosters and reduced salary caps and minimal lump sum trades.
Oh, and BTW as a paying customer in the Golf game I was wondering if the Top Divisions link was ever going to be updated again? :)
|
| 21 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 13:48
|
Bungers:
A fair point. The games division needs to be profitable on its own. The strategy for PFT (and why it has a different structure) is to differentiate the pay game from the free game. The more similar they become, the harder it is for us to build up an ultimate business. It's true, though, that we could make the PFT game more complicated over time, and we might.
-ESB
|
| 22 | Bungers
Leader
ID: 286222617
Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 13:59
|
Thanks. I just thought the games could be more similar, but with radically different prize stuctures. Make the free games top heavy in prizes, with maybe only the top few getting some real dough. That'd make the PFT obsessed player go for those top spots like crazy. Not many of the Gurupies are buying trades, so maybe an impressive first place prize would get a top manager like blackjackis21, Dave R, KB8ers, El Tel, etc. back into the PFT frenzy. Just an idea.
Keep the pay games as is for the most part with a flatter prize stucture, but still damn nice stuff at the top.
BTW, how about that golf Top Division link update...and my 3rd place check for Season 1???
|
| 23 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 32655306
Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 06:02
|
God help me, but I have to side with TSN on this one.
If the free game had the same options, the same tech. support priority level, the same rules, then why create the pay game? Would anyone play the pay game if they were nearly identical?
Its the same reason why there is shareware for computer software. You have the free software with only so many attributes, but you can upgrade to the full version for "X" amount of dollars. Sometimes its worth it, sometimes its not.
Look at it this way, the know-nothing lemmings ruined many a season during the old school days of everything is free. People who had no clue what was going on or no original thought influenced the player pricing for all of us. IMHO, it means more to play against 2000 or so people who are intelligent and are serious managers. If paying is one possible way to filter them out, then fine by me.
No offense to TSN, but look at them like drug dealers. Sure the first bag of dope is free, but its probably full of garbage. They get you on the comeback where you get the good stuff, but it costs you.
|
| 24 | Bungers
Leader
ID: 286222617
Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 08:59
|
Cosmo, much of the shareware I have tried is full-featured, just limited for say, 30 days of use.
You make some great points about playing with good managers rather than lemmings. But the games don't have to be as different as you think. They could even be virtually identical if there were NO prizes in the free game and BIG prizes in the pay game. Playing with the best managers in the world for big prizes should migrate talented newbies into the pay game. So I still maintain that it may be in TSN's best interest to show a true taste of the games, not a bastardized version.
Hey, I just came up with another idea. Make a version of each game that is just like the pay game, only the game ends in 30 or 60 days. You then have an option of paying and being added to the real game. Just like some of that shareware I have tested. I know...I know...the drawback is that Rotoguru managers and many others would create tons of free game teams just to get off to a good start on some of them, and then only pay for the best of those teams to continue. Oh, well, back to the drawing board!
|
| 25 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 10:31
|
Bungers and Cosmo's:
Y'all sound like you were participants in several conversations we had at our offices. We're not saying that we've found the perfect balance (yet) -- but I can say that we've thought carefully about your points, customer satisfaction and financial stability as a division.
-ESB
GM/TSN Games
|
| 26 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 10:44
|
Erik, I know this always happens and I don't like tangents myself, but I'll do it anyway :)
I am still surprised that after I sell a player and do a search of any kind for a new player to buy the money I have avaialable to me is never shown. For example, I sell Pedro. I do a search for Randy. On the next screen that comes up with about 15 Johnson's, I have no clue whether I have enough money to buy the Big Unit. As an experienced manager I, of course, do know. It just seems like that it's a piece of information that should be there.
|
| 27 | Bungers
Leader
ID: 286222617
Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 15:06
|
15 Johnsons and the Big Unit sounds like the all-male concert answer to Lilith Fair. :)
|
| 28 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 19:27
|
That took far longer than I thought :) I figured I might as well set up a few good one liners while we wait for Erik's response.
|
| 29 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 32655306
Thu, Aug 01, 2002, 08:01
|
Bungers: You make a very good argument about increasing the similarites between the two games. However, if the two games were identical except for the prizes, who would pay? You'd have to be talking about some serious prizes.
Honestly, I don't think the prizes alone would cause enough people to pay-to-play. At least not me.
Let's be honest, the system is flawed, but TSN offers a great service. They know that and they are most likely not stupid. Well, maybe except for the people who set the initial player prices. :)
I have noticed an extreme increase in reliability since it has turned into a pay service. Remember the nightmare days of when they'd crash, score points incorrectly, etc?
What I would really like to see is an All-Star Team game in addition to the current offerings. Example, at the beginning of the season, Randy Johnson is 5 million instead of 12. It may not be as exciting or require as much thought, but wouldn't it be fun? I really think that would be a good way to introduce newbies into the game.
|
| 30 | Bungers
Leader
ID: 286222617
Thu, Aug 01, 2002, 09:36
|
Thanks for the softball Ender! I was in and out of a meeting from 9am until just after 3pm yesterday, but I got to the one-liner as quickly as I could. Good thing Mike D wasn't around or he'd a stolen my thunder. :)
Cosmo, I like your ideas, especially the All-Star thing, in all games!
|
| 31 | Scarecrow
Donor
ID: 59454517
Thu, Aug 01, 2002, 23:45
|
I would agree w/ some of the above thoughts that the pay game has been more reliable and I feel better when I'm ranked high against solid competition versus the overly casual player. I too see the free game as a watered down version that is primarily there to wet your appetite and draw you towards the pay game. Is there a better way that TSN could illustrate to the free users the added benefits of playing the pay game? I actually am enjoying the challenge of putting a solid team on the field. If it were too easy, the satisfaction for doing well would be less for me.
Scarecrow
|
| 32 | lunkhead57
ID: 46741323
Wed, Aug 14, 2002, 00:02
|
As an aside to all of you fine people:
It is so refreshing to read a message board where there is honest, frank discussion. No name calling, no outright lunacy, no abusing the folks who may not be as up to speed as a lot of you obviously are on the fantasy football subject.
I used to consult a Yahoo message board for a stock that I hold. It got so completely out of hand with name calling, flights of fantasy, and sheer stupidity that I ceased checking it out. If I want to hear name calling, I just go to work!
I completely enjoyed reading this thread! You guys are the greatest! Thanks to the Guru for providing a forum for people who have sports vocabularies beyond expletives and the ability to form a coherent written argument or rebuttal of someone else's opinion.
Thanks!
Lunkhead
|
| 33 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Aug 14, 2002, 00:14
|
Lunkhead, welcome to the boards. There are plenty of tools in the pull down menus to help you with strategy and some of the finest TSN (and of course other formats as well) players around on these boards. Thinks do get goofy at times, but they always correct themselves :)
|
| 34 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 32655306
Wed, Aug 14, 2002, 06:08
|
Lunkhead:
Wait until you are around here for a little bit. Don't build us up. This site has its share of sheer lunacy, stupidity, people who inflate themselves, etc, etc, etc.:)
Just wait until you post a roster. Some people may freak. It happened to me a couple of moons back.
I look at these boards like Diana Fosse and the gorillas. Not that these people are gorillas, that's not what I'm saying. It may take you awhile, but sooner rather than later you'll be sleeping with them. That didn't come out right. I think you get my point.
Anyway, welcome to the boards. Don't be afraid to create a new post or thread.
|
| 35 | lunkhead57
ID: 46741323
Wed, Aug 14, 2002, 07:19
|
Ender & Cosmo-
Thanks for the welcome! Looking forward to picking your brains for my own devious plan to crush all of my FFL opponents! :-)
By the way- Cosmo- Cool name! I haven't seen the words "Cod Piece" in a long time! I think a good team name would be the Piscataway Cod Pieces. I have an evil friend who once fielded a team called the Pittsburgh Priapisms. Yeah...I had to look it up, but when I did, I got a hoot out of it!
Hip to the gorilla reference. Best to watch creatures in their native habitats!
Thanks again guys. Best of luck in the coming campaign!
Lunkhead
|
| 36 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Aug 15, 2002, 10:02
|
Haven't chimed in here for awhile. Let's see -- Bungers, we DO have that feature now. At least, I know we have it on Ultimate Football. When you sell a player, at the top, it shows you how much cash you have remaining. Yes?
-ESB
GM/TSN Games
|
| 37 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Thu, Aug 15, 2002, 10:56
|
I think that wa my question, actually. I am not playing Ultimate Football so if it's there I wouldn't have seen it. I'll take your word for it and say "nice job." :)
|
| 38 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Thu, Aug 15, 2002, 11:02
|
There are plenty of tools in the pull down menus to help you with strategy
There are also plenty of tools that will bug the heck out of you. Normally they are scared off by intelligent conversation which is why there aren't any present in this thread.
|
| 39 | ukula
ID: 347141510
Thu, Aug 15, 2002, 12:57
|
Eric,
I have been wondering about the prize structure for Ultimate Baseball. The top 100 teams win prizes totaling $5,600. I estimate that there are approx. 600 leagues of 20 teams (12,000 total) that win an additional $30,000 (600 x $50). Total prizes of around $36,000. 12,000 teams times the discounted price of $15 gives TSN revenue of at least $180,000. I have no problem with TSN making money, but I was wondering if TSN ever thought about increasing the overall cash prizes to get more in line with other contests. Doubling the overall prizes, an additional $5,600, would only require an additional 373 teams to sign up. If the prizes were increased I'm sure it would also lead to more intense competition among Gurupies in particular. Your thoughts?
|
| 40 | TBRaiders
ID: 9726150
Thu, Aug 15, 2002, 13:51
|
I don't play TSN games anymore, but I always wondered why they didn't have a free game that offered no prizes. None, Zero, Zilch. If the free game already doesn't offer prizes I am way out in left field, but if they do offer prizes, then make that the cost cutting move to seperate the "serious" and "casual" fantasy football player.
Your reward for the free game is getting to play. If you win it all you can kick yourself for not paying and winning a prize.
I liked the old format. No buying trades and 50 million for 2 QB, 3 RB, 3 WR, 1 K, 1 TE, and a D. Competing against friends was my motivation to play, not prizes. In my own definition that makes me a casual player, albeit one who competed to win.
Just my 2 cents.
TB
|
| 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?)
|
|