| RotoGuru Football Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Football Pickoff - Ideas for 2004/05 Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 11:41 Before we forget about it, feel free to leave your thoughts about possible improvements for Football Pickoff for next year. I know there are some ideas buried in the season discussion thread, but I thought a separate thread was a good idea. Among the ideas that are worthy of consideration: 1. Changing the bonus formula from a flat 50 points per game (for 10 or more correct picks) to a graduated scale - perhaps something like 10-20-30-40-50-60-70. Or maybe even 10-30-50-75-100-125-150. 2. Changing the tiebreaker criteria. Eliminate the "most correct winners picked" tiebreaker. (See post 37 in the thread linked above.) 3. Include a prize for the top result during the playoffs, just to encourage greater participation during the playoffs. Are there other ideas that could improve the game? These could be related to rules, prizes, or even site features. | |||||||
| 44 | MadDOG ID: 46739309 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 11:44 |
PD - Then how about bonus points only for picking x number of underdog winners correctly in a week? I'm not so sure I would like that either. That just shifts the best strategy in the other direction. Are you saying that if Guru gave out bonus points for picking underdogs, that picking all the underdogs is a viable strategy? I doubt that. You would lose way too many points on all the missed games where the favorite won. You couldn't overcome the lost points just with bonus points. Matter of fact, I don't think you would even be in the top 100 with that strategy. | ||||||
| 45 | Sludge ID: 54692111 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 12:08 |
MD - Are you saying that if Guru gave out bonus points for picking underdogs, that picking all the underdogs is a viable strategy? Depending on where the bonus would start, sure, but it wouldn't be the "best". I chose the word "viable" very carefully. "Viable" is not the same as "optimal" or "best". Let me put it this way. Consider the following game: Team A 25% - Team B 75% Suppose that you feel that Team B has a 74% chance of winning. In the expected value, that's a 1 point margin in favor of A. If no bonus points are awarded, your optimal decision is to select Team A. If bonus points are awarded simply for getting games right, then the optimal decision is to select the favorite, B. The more bonus points awarded for getting games right, the larger that margin can be in favor of A while still having B be the optimal selection. That's what I mean when I say that it is an easy tie-breaker for toss-ups, and what I mean when I say that the best strategy would shift. The reverse is also true. If you award bonus points for getting X underdogs right, then it would also serve as an easy tie-breaker for toss-ups (i.e. it would represent a shifting in the best strategy towards the underdogs). | ||||||
| 46 | Sludge ID: 54692111 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 12:18 |
TB - It is not just another pick'em game. In a normal pick'em game, whoever gets the most games correct, wins. In this game, you can pick 5 correct winners and score more points than the guy who picked 9 correct and even sometimes 10. Well, sure you can. But if that's such an attractive prospect to you, TB, then why are you arguing against getting rid of the bonus points? Surely you realize that awarding bonus points for getting games correct makes the above scenario less likely? (No, not impossible or even rare. Just less likely.) | ||||||
| 47 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 12:21 |
I never said picking all underdogs is any kind of strategy at all. I do believe that awarding bonus points only for picking a certain number of underdogs correctly makes underdogs slightly more attractive, adding to the "reward" while making little change in the "risk." Which is why bonus points for all Ws favors the favorites right now. The reward is given for any W, and typically the easiest way to get the W is to pick the favorite. And Sludge, we are not looking at the long run, since bonus points accumulate only for discrete periods (each week). Eliminating the bonus points for favorites doesn't change the risk for picking the favorite, but it makes underdogs oh so more attractive. This all might be moot, however, given the programming difficulties Guru points out might be incurred. pd | ||||||
| 48 | Sludge ID: 54692111 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 12:32 |
Ender - Sludge, you don't own a monopoly on exagerating for effect :) I wasn't exaggerating. Being a bit flippant? Yes. Exaggerating? No. Ender - I know sometimes you the probability doesn't warrant that and you should just grab the 15 points, but you know what I am talking about. You'd be surprised how often it is. It's a bit more than "sometimes". It is my experience that folks playing this game tend to slightly overpick the favorite. Why is that? In the first year, you might chalk it up to people being unfamiliar with the underlying principles, but we never got a chance to see if the collective would, after more familiarity, adjust to this. In subsequent years, the reason for it is simple: the availability of bonus points (did bonus points start in year 2, Guru?). I think you're basing your thoughts on what would happen if the bonus points were eliminated on the behavior of the past couple of years when bonus points were in effect. | ||||||
| 49 | MadDOG ID: 46739309 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 12:33 |
I would like for Sludge to prove to me that picking all underdogs is a viable strategy if Bonus points start with 4 underdogs. Sludge, you're making alot of claims but you have nothing to back it up. I doubt very much that you can even come close to winning this game by picking all underdogs when the bonus points start at 4 underdogs. Alot of these games come close to a 50/50 split on people picking them. And you're gonna lose close to 50 points for every game like that. How many games per week have a Vegas point spread of 3 or less? The answer is alot. And these are the games you are gonna lose alot of points when the underdog doesn't win. There is no way you will overcome that with bonus points. | ||||||
| 50 | MadDOG ID: 46739309 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 12:41 |
And since picking favorites IS a viable strategy to you because of the bonus points that means that 10 or more favorites are winning every week because you have to have 10 winners to get bonus points. How are you going to overcome more than 10 losses every week with bonus points starting at 4 underdogs? The answer is you won't. | ||||||
| 51 | Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 13:01 |
Here's my thinking: Suppose there are only four games, and all are 75/25. Person A picks all favorites, and 3 win. He earns 25 for each favorite win, and loses 75 for the loss. The net score is zero. Person B picks all underdogs. He gets 75 for the one that won, but loses 25 on each of the losses. The net score is zero. So far, both players have a score of zero. Now, since Player A got 3 games right, does he deserve to be ranked ahead of Player B (via some sort of bonus scheme, tiebreaker, or whatever)? If you think the player with 3 correct picks deserves a better result, then it seems that you want this to be more like a traditional pickem game. If you you say that no one should be ranked higher, then you are arguing that the fundamantal scoring process should not be biased in favor of picking winners, but only biased in favor of picking those who "outpicked" the odds. In this case, a tie seems appropriate. In an efficient market, the odds should actually reflect the bonus system. If a system is biased in favor of picking winners, then the odds for favorites should be slightly stronger, reflecting the higher bonus point opportunity. The results in 2003 don't seem to reflect this. However, I looked up the results from the past 4 years, all which used the same bonus formula. Although last year produced a 95%-ile result for picking all favorites, the other 3 years were not so kind to that strategy: Year &-ile 2000: 37%-ile 2001: 82%-ile 2002: 32%-ile 2003: 95%-ile So while I am reacting to the 2003 results, those do not appear to be the norm over the last 4 years. On that basis, perhaps the problem is not persistent, and a cure is not really needed. However, I do think that awarding a bonus for getting 10/16 is probably too generous, which gets me back to a formula adjustment. For 16 game weeks, more than 30% of entries earned a bonus last year. A simple adjustment would be to raise the bonus hurdle to 12 correct picks for a 16 game week. Using last year's results, only 10% of entries would have earned bonuses. We could leave the hurdle at 10 correct picks for 14 game weeks. Only 13% earned a bonus during those weeks last year. In summary, I'm not persuaded that eliminating the bonus formula makes the game more like other pickem games. In theory, I think the reverse is true. But thus far, there seem to be more people (in a very limited sample, I realize) who would like to retain the bonus system. How do you all react to this potential adjustment (i.e., raising the hurdle to 12 correct picks for 16 game weeks)? | ||||||
| 52 | MadDOG ID: 46739309 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 13:11 |
Sounds good to me. Very rarely are you gonna get to 12 wins without picking 3 or 4 underdogs. Guru, what about adding one more gimmick? Say one more double game. Or a triple game? Or a game of the week with some sort of bonus? | ||||||
| 53 | MadDOG ID: 46739309 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 13:15 | If you have a "triple game", people might try to put that on a favorite ,like a team picked by 75% to gain 75 points , where if they miss the results could be disastrous. (-225 points) | ||||||
| 54 | MadDOG ID: 46739309 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 13:40 |
I just checked the "Monday Night Football" schedule and there is alot of very close games on that schedule. Some sort of bonus related to the Monday Night game would add some excitement. Maybe picking the total score and getting a bonus if you can come within 3,4,5 points of the total score. 50 points if you can come within 5 points of the total score with no penalty? | ||||||
| 55 | MadDOG ID: 46739309 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 13:43 | Or just make the Monday Night game an "automatic double" like somebody has already suggested. | ||||||
| 56 | Sludge ID: 54692111 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 14:20 |
Guru - How do you all react to this potential adjustment (i.e., raising the hurdle to 12 correct picks for 16 game weeks)? My reaction should be fairly predictible, especially given my post #1. Anything that moves away from bonus points is fine with me. | ||||||
| 57 | MadDOG ID: 57203013 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 14:23 |
I really like the idea (mine- LOL) of if you hit the "Monday Night" game you get your worst score from the previous games eliminated. In effect you get a bonus in the amount of your worst score. Conversely if you miss the "Monday Night" game, you lose points equal to you best score from the previous games. In effect a penalty in the amount of your best score. This would be on top of the regular points you get/lose for the "Monday Night" game. It would be sort of a variable bonus. You might have to exclude the "doubled game" from this. That would really be cool if you could pull it off. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to program. | ||||||
| 58 | Cuc ID: 557223013 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 14:51 |
I'd like to see bonus points that go up progressively starting at 12 wins during a 16 game week. 50 bonus points for the 12th win 100 for the 13th win 150 for the 14th 200 for the 15th 250 for the 16th. This would be (your score)+50+100+150+200+250 This would keep people interested because anyone could vault into 1st place by picking a perfect slate (which rarely happens, but it's something to shoot for). This probably undermines the original purpose of the game, but it's just a thought. | ||||||
| 59 | Cuc ID: 557223013 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 14:52 | I like the "Monday Night Game of the Week" idea. | ||||||
| 60 | nate686 ID: 467323019 Mon, Aug 30, 2004, 20:32 | I love your pick'em Rotoguru, it is original and a very fun game to play. In my opinion, you shouldn't change a single thing about it, this pickoff is the best game goin on the Net today in terms of pick'ems. By eliminating bonus points altogether, then we simply have a pick'em mainly as upset picks will not be nearly as valuable and increasing the # of wins needed for bonus points will more than likely make more people pick the favourites because the risk/reward for picking an underdog may not allow the contestant to reach 12 victories. 10 was much more attainable, and I can tell you from someone who has not had great success in this game that it is difficult to pick in this game. Just look at my team, The Knuckles, I had a great week 8 or 9 I believe and I completely tailed off after. The %'s mixed with the bonus points MAKE you consider picking the underdog because you must analyze risk/reward. If there are no bonus points or the bonus points are difficult to achieve, I believe the masses will not pick many underdogs because the risk doesn't meet the reward. I don't have any stats to back me up, but that's just my opinion. | ||||||
| 61 | DR Stars ID: 46732106 Wed, Sep 01, 2004, 23:18 |
I know I'm late to the party, but here's my opinion: First off I think elevating the 10 pick threshold is a good idea, going to within 4 of the total is a more realistic "bonus" than 10/16. Adding a special game like the MNF or a triple game option sounds less attractive to me, it would put too much importance in one game where we should be looking at a more balanced outcome. IMO. And for Sludge in post #26, you say you'd have won if the rules were different, but maybe the rest of us would have used a different strategy in picking games if that were the case, so no one knows the answer to that. ;) | ||||||
| 62 | Sludge ID: 475323018 Wed, Sep 01, 2004, 23:45 |
DR - Yeah, that's why I said the following in post 23: "Just for kicks (since not having them would likely have changed the way people picked), who would have won last year if bonus points were removed?" | ||||||
| 63 | Sludge ID: 475323018 Thu, Sep 02, 2004, 00:36 |
And I would point out that you make my point for me. What "different strategy in picking games" would have been employed? It certainly wouldn't be relying even more heavily on the favorites, that's for sure. Just so we're clear, that's not pointed at you DR, as it's apparent that you, at least in part, agree with me. I also think you're a class act. Note to MadDOG: "in part" means that it looks like he agrees with some fraction between 0% and 100%, not inclusive. I thought I would make that clear since you seem to like to take things people say and automatically jerk their words and positions to an extreme. And as to the ridicule you tossed at me in posts 49 and 50, I would suggest doing a bit of homework yourself before posting things like that. Take a look back at the standings for the year before last. Even without bonus points, picking all consensus underdogs was a mere 80 points out of 50th place. With the most conservative possible assignment of the 101 underdog wins, a minimum of 1950 points would have been gained. Take away bonus points for the favorites, and there's no telling how high it would have been ranked. (I can't figure it up for sure without access to the week-by-week results.) So much for "I don't think you would even be in the top 100 with that strategy." Just to clear up something that's been nagging me, I never said or implied that picking favorites would place you near the top on a consistent basis. I've only ever been concerned with the effect on picking strategies that the bonus points has. As I have demonstrated rather nicely in the two years prior to last year, even the "optimal" (as close as I can get it) strategy can suck eggs some years. | ||||||
| 64 | Motley Crue ID: 181650 Sun, Sep 05, 2004, 15:11 |
Guru, I can't make any picks in Pickoff right now. It says it's too late to lock in picks. //MC | ||||||
| 65 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Sun, Sep 05, 2004, 15:51 |
Ditto. BTW, I set up an open division if anyone wants to put a team in there, "Perm Dude's Open Division." | ||||||
| 66 | Guru ID: 330592710 Sun, Sep 05, 2004, 17:19 | Oops - the system is set up tp automatically lock out all games at 1pm on Sunday. I forgot to tell it that today doesn't count. | ||||||
| 67 | MadDOG ID: 14820279 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 14:13 |
Looks like raising the bonus points to 12 correct picks has made the game more competitive. The top guy only has 869 points. I'm negative but I don't feel like I'm out of it at this point. | ||||||
| 68 | Motley Crue Leader ID: 439372011 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 14:34 |
You are, because you can't get any bonus points to catch up!! I have doubled a loser 3 weeks in a row now. I may just stop doubling altogether, since I am losing alot of points because of it (doubled Miami last night). I have picked pretty well otherwise. | ||||||
| 69 | MadDOG ID: 14820279 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 14:37 |
You can still have big weeks even without bonus points. And you can still get bonus points at 12. A couple big weeks in a row and your right back in it. | ||||||
| 70 | Motley Crue Leader ID: 439372011 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 14:38 | I was just messing with you. If you can consistently pick well, you'll be right back in it before the season's over. | ||||||
| 71 | MadDOG ID: 14820279 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 14:42 |
You're always messing with me. I'm gonna find out where you live and punch you in the face. :) | ||||||
| 72 | Motley Crue Leader ID: 439372011 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 14:44 | I live at TB's house. And I look just like him. Come get me. | ||||||
| 73 | MadDOG ID: 14820279 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 14:46 |
Hmmmmm you and TB are the same person. I did not know that. Why the double identity? | ||||||
| 74 | TB Leader ID: 031811922 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 20:48 |
Here is our secret address If I could go back in time, I would have waited to make pick-off teams until this week. Without going to look, I think they are all deeply negative. Is there a prize for the worst loser? If so, I know all my teams are in the running. | ||||||
| 75 | Motley Crue ID: 181650 Mon, Sep 27, 2004, 22:11 |
LOL! How you like them apples, Jerry?! | ||||||
| 76 | Perm Dude ID: 2343587 Tue, Sep 28, 2004, 10:50 |
After 3 weeks, I've picked 25 winners and have 31 points! I shouldn't fret--at least I'm still positive. | ||||||
| 77 | Motley Crue Leader ID: 439372011 Wed, Dec 29, 2004, 15:14 |
Guru, something strange is going on when I go into Pickoff to make my picks. The percentages are there in blue, but there are other numbers and percentages in black as well. I can't see that picture. Not sure if it's because I'm at work or something else. No problem making my picks. I just wanted to let you know that it looks different, in case something needs to be fixed. | ||||||
| 78 | Guru ID: 330592710 Wed, Dec 29, 2004, 18:11 | Should be OK now. | ||||||
| 79 | MadDOG ID: 41143108 Wed, Dec 29, 2004, 18:44 |
I think you should add the point spread to Pickoff. That would make it really interesting. Or make a point spread version of the game. Like you could have one login name but have a button where you could switch between the regular version and the point spread version. Each guy could play both games at the same time. | ||||||
| 80 | MadDOG ID: 41143108 Wed, Dec 29, 2004, 18:46 | You don't have to give out prizes for the point spread version. Just make it an option for people to compete in just for fun. | ||||||
| 81 | The Dan's Your Daddy Donor ID: 022792222 Mon, Jan 24, 2005, 15:14 |
I agree. It would raise participation in our Best Bets threads and attract the most serious of the sports fanatics: those who do it for a living! I pledge $25 for the establishment of this option! | ||||||
| 82 | Guru ID: 330592710 Wed, Aug 31, 2005, 12:34 |
I'm getting a late start at reviewing potential scoring change options for the 2005 season. Consequently, I don't have time at this late date to add a point spread option. Perhaps I can dabble with this idea and make it available on a trial basis for part of the season - although I make no commitment for that right now. I could tweak the bonus formula again, however. I just read through last year's comments on this topic, and I am still not persuaded that the bonus formula is necessary as a way to distinguish this game from other pick 'em games. I think the underlying game is already distinctive. I also see that a straight slate of picking consensus favorites last year produced approximately an 85%-ile result. Of the total 682 points earned for that strategy, 500 were from bonus points. However, given last year's feedback that bonus points seem to be a "desirable" feature, perhaps the best approach for this year is to again move incrementally to a level which makes bonus points less influential. For example, last year, bonus points kicked in for the 12th correct pick in a 16 game week, and with the 10th correct pick in a 14 game week. If I raised the bar by one correct pick (i.e., awarding the bonus starting with the 13th or 11th correct pick), the consensus favorite strategy would have only earned 150 bonus points. I'm going to do a bit more dabbling with this idea, but I thought I'd throw it out there, just in case there is an unexpected reaction. | ||||||
| 83 | Guru ID: 330592710 Wed, Aug 31, 2005, 12:59 |
Just to throw some more numbers out there... Last year, the average team earned 140 bonus points over the year. If we had used a bonus point scheme which required one more correct pick (as proposed in the post above), the average team would have earned a bonus of about 46 points over the whole season. (I realize that the adjusted bonus formula might have led to some changes in picks, but I suspect the differences would not have been significant.) Furthermore, if we had used the proposed bonus formula, the average total score for the season would have been -5. I suspect this is a bit skewed, since it includes some entries that were abandoned over the course of the season, and those probably had worse than average scores. So the average score of the persisting entrants was probably somewhat better. | ||||||
| 84 | Motley Crue Dude ID: 439372011 Wed, Aug 31, 2005, 13:53 |
Ah, how funny it is to read MadDOG's posts once again. | ||||||
| 85 | Nadim ID: 5522212 Fri, Sep 02, 2005, 08:28 |
If Bonus is included then, for games that are in the 55%-45% or similar range, one will pick the favorite since the -10 or so extra points are compensated for by the big gain in bonuses in case the favorite wins. This takes the fun out of these close games. IMHO, the pickoff game would be ideal if there was no Bonus. This makes picking the games (especially the close ones percentage wise) more challenging and more fun. Nadim :-) | ||||||
| 86 | youngroman ID: 298482214 Fri, Sep 02, 2005, 08:51 |
I thought of this last year, but didn't post it here: what if we not only can pick the winner of the 14/16 games per week but also some head-to-head battles between players, lets say: who throws more yards this week: Peyton Manning or Trent Green? who rushes more: Priest or LT? who creates more turnovers: BUF or BAL? this could be a seperated contest to the normal pickoff game but it may be fun to play. | ||||||
| 87 | Rick Zurbrick ID: 3183416 Sun, Sep 04, 2005, 17:03 | There are way too many possibilites to include any sort of a head to head match up. At least IMHO | ||||||
| 88 | Guru ID: 330592710 Sun, Sep 04, 2005, 20:21 |
Football Pickoff has been launched for 2005. For now, there are no rules changes from last year, other than the bonus formula adjustment described in post2 82-83. Please let me know if you encounter any apparent glitches in game operations. I have already adjusted the week 2 schedule to show N.O at NYG, rather than vice versa, as the game will apparently be moved to New York. If it is played on Saturday, the usual freeze rules will apply for early games. | ||||||
| 90 | Species Leader ID: 07724916 Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:30 | I have an idea: all of the rest of us just MAIL IT IN and declare Sludge the winner. Fxxxing statisticians! ;-) I can't compete with his statistical modeling!! | ||||||
| 91 | Sludge ID: 27751510 Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:38 | Bah. I'll come back to earth. If there's one thing that this game should have taught everyone by now is that there's no such thing as an insurmountable lead (the last couple of weeks excluded). This week was pure luck... an outlier. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. My method isn't geared towards instant results. It's about piling up consistent points over the long-run by figuring out which teams have been over-picked... or trying to anyway. | ||||||
| 92 | Species Leader ID: 07724916 Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:49 |
I hear you Sludge. Well, my strategy this year was to put 100 entries in, have them pick ALL of the Vegas favorites early in the week, then run an algorithm to switch ALL of those picks 2 minutes before kickoff, effectively screwing YOU...... ....allowing my legitimate picks to cruise to the finish line! ;-) | ||||||
| 93 | Sludge ID: 27751510 Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 14:00 | That strategy's been there for the taking since I told everyone exactly how I pick. Of course, I'm guessing Guru wouldn't take too kindly to it. But I don't think forming a bloc would be... | ||||||
| 94 | Guru ID: 330592710 Sat, Sep 17, 2005, 17:30 | Just a heads up - I will be away on Sunday, Sept. 18 from before noon until evening (8pm or so EDT), so I won't be able to do any game administration (update points, troubleshoot, etc.) during that period. I usually try to post scores from the early games shortly after they end, but that won't be the case tomorrow. | ||||||
| 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?) | ||||||||