| 0 |
Subject: Tonight's 2/21 Gino Shuffle Action
Posted by: Mike D
- Leader [041831612] Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 22:29
Ginobili with 44 real points, including the about-to-be game winner. |
| 1 | Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 22:37
|
Miami sucks. It's a win for them when they keep it close.
|
| 2 | bd
ID: 31281917
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:03
|
Wow...watson up $440K. Did they change the way they're doing price changes?
|
| 3 | qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:04
|
that's wrong...they clearly have the prices screwed up...someone better be looking into that
|
| 4 | kentucky indians
ID: 611511118
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:05
|
..and Rhondo -200k??? did I miss an injury there????
|
| 5 | dpr
ID: 1733917
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:06
|
i dont know how u didnt see the clear move into watson...
|
| 6 | qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:07
|
i guess the only thing is it's so haphazard that noone can really take advantage of it
|
| 7 | bd
ID: 31281917
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:08
|
Didn't something similar happen last year with Baron Davis. He went up like $500K one night.
|
| 8 | Dean Martin
Donor
ID: 489552616
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:19
|
Up until the all star break I don't recall any price swing greater than 220k. First Udrih goes up 290k on Tuesday now Watson? What's up?
|
| 9 | Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:20
|
dpr, you make it sound like grabbing Watson was the move of the year. And I'm not saying it was a bad move, I have hime sprinkled around on some teams.
Whether or not there was a clear move into Watson has nothing to do with the fact that his price change is bizarre.
And I think TSN should correct it.
|
| 10 | qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:21
|
I think he was being sarcastic
|
| 11 | reebbertxx
Leader
ID: 561124720
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:27
|
It is either a bug or a change in formula, either way it needs to be addressed by TSN. No way should there be a formula change mid-season.
|
| 12 | Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:36
|
qwert, that isn't the point.
I emailed TSN ( and I do own Watson ). And I think maybe others should also. It's obviously wither a glich in the pricing mechanism or a mistake, but it isn't in the best interest of the game, IMO.
coutram@sportingnews.com
Quite honestly,I was trying to decide on whether to hold Kobe or not, and if I knew we could have had that kind of profit, I would have traded him for Watson.
|
| 13 | bd
ID: 31281917
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:42
|
speaking of Watson, I'm not watching the game, but he's not in foul trouble, seemed to be getting good numbers, but hasn't been at all in the 2nd qtr. Is he OK?
|
| 14 | reebbertxx
Leader
ID: 561124720
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:51
|
I'm with Dave on this one. E-mail coutram as he is the only one at TSN that actually seems to get back to you and actually address the issue.
On a side note I went to the TSN hockey boards and they had 1 day with no price change and another in basic where a player lost 1 million in 1 day. I don't play this game so I'm not sure how relevant it is, but the people on the board acted like it was out of the norm. TSN never addressed the 1 million price swing that I could find.
|
| 15 | Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:55
|
Coutram's the man.. got a response already:
I’ll fix this right away … there is no way he should have raised to 440. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was working on it earlier today and it seemed to be all lined up correctly, but I must have been mistaken.
Thanks again,
Chris
|
| 16 | reebbertxx
Leader
ID: 561124720
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 23:55
|
From Coutram on the TSN boards:
Hey all ,
I'm freezing trading right now and looking into this.
Thanks for the emails bringing this to our attention. We'll get this settled soon .
coutram
|
| 17 | qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 00:01
|
Dave...i realize that's not the point...i totally agree...just pointing out that I think dpr realizes that too
anyway...good to hear they're looking into it so quickly...thanks for sending the emails guys
|
| 18 | Bond, James Bond
Sustainer
ID: 04352469
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 00:18
|
Furthermore, Coutram stated that Watson's gain should have been 200k not 440k and they'll be restructuring the roster values of teams that have him.
|
| 19 | qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 00:25
|
looks like maybe aldridge read the sports guys' trade checker article claiming he's got a 17 and 8 ceiling.
fwiw...i completely disagree with him. if he's already at 17 and 7.5 in his second year, why sell him so short?
|
| 20 | Yehosh
Sustainer
ID: 181082023
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 00:26
|
I get a feelign Udirh should not have gone up 290K, but we didnt' bring it up in time
on another note, Roy went for questionable to sensationable
|
| 21 | qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 00:30
|
and it's a damn good thing...a dnp really would have put a damper on my team
|
| 22 | Bond, James Bond
Sustainer
ID: 04352469
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 00:36
|
Not to get off topic that much but can someone tell me why Cleveland and Chicago have not played against each other yet this year even though they're in the same division? That just doesn't seem right.
|
| 23 | qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 00:53
|
if earl watson gets a 3D and 440K, i think coutram should just remove him from everyone's roster...k?
|
| 24 | Dean Martin
Donor
ID: 489552616
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 01:43
|
If there was a glitch with the pricing ,wouldn't it be logical to assume that price swings for all players tonight were out of sync ?
|
| 25 | deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 07:46
|
In Basic the opposite happened, no player changed more than 80k(up or down), that is kinda weird too imo.
|
| 26 | Maineac
ID: 581149517
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 08:08
|
I agree with 24. Why would Rondo be down 200K unless he passed on and I missed it.
|
| 27 | deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 08:25
|
24
Just sent this message to coutram... Ill keep you guys informed if I hear something.
Ultimate:
Watson was corrected from going up 440k (which is insane) to 200k.....
Now my 3 questions:
1.Rondo lost 200k, is that correct?
Or was that an error too and should it be less?
2. Beno Udrih the day before gained 290k, was that correct since it was the highest price mover of the year?
3. Are the rest of price changers even correct?
Could somebody look into that, please?
And I would like to get an answer.
The credibility of the game is at stake IMO.
|
| 28 | Dave R
SuperDude
ID: 3010361110
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 08:56
|
I don't think it is all unreasonable that Rondo dropped 200K. There were 200K worth of buyers for Watson and 100K worth of buyers for Roy, etc. Paul also went up 120K on a day he didn't play ( I find that a little odd ).
Thursday night are usually noted for strange price changes to begin with. Call it instant gratification . And with a cheap option ( Watson ), a " cheap " near stud option ( Roy ) starting a very dense schedule and maybe even some Rondo => Paul moves, coupled with KG's return and a perception that Rondo's level of production is likely to take a down turn..... seems possible to me.
I might have moved Rondo myself if I had been smart enough to own him.
|
| 29 | deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 09:07
|
Well it could be it's correct, but I still have my doubts.
Beno the other day was out of proportion too.
One of my teams that has Watson, the RV is still wrong too, 240k too much. Agreed Watson displays 200, but it still reflects 440k....
|
| 30 | qwert
Donor
ID: 2910242819
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 11:25
|
I like we have to let the Beno thing go. People have made trades with plans, etc. and it's pretty late to go taking away 90K from them.
I think the Rondo drop is right on. Paul's gain too...I think people thought they would go without him, then he put up 70+...they saw a bad game from Smooth and two days off for Kobe...and there they are.
To me, the only mover that seemed strange was watson.
|
| 31 | deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 13:08
|
Well I got a reply.... and they say the rest is all correct, even Beno appears to be correct.
Still dont buy it, but anyway.
|
| 32 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 13:22
|
Under the generic pricing formula that we've reverse engineered over the years, a gain of $290 is mathematically implausible. More than likely, something around $170-180 was the correct number. In any event, a gain of $290 should have set off alarms that something was wrong.
And assuming the same error was impacting Rondo, his actual loss probably should have been around -$140.
I'm not suggesting they necessarily should have fixed these. But it seems like the statement that they are the "correct" values is probably dishonest. A better response would have been "the magnitude of the other errors were not worthy of a manual adjustment."
|
| 33 | deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 14:34
|
To me it seems they just guessed the 200k of Watson and moved on.
I find it unacceptable, but who am I...
|
| 34 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 14:49
|
If the error is that the dampening factor was not applied (as seems likely), then you can estimate the "should be" price by dividing the actual price by 100, taking the square root, and then multiplying the result by 100.
In the case of Watson, then, an unadjusted increase of $440 becomes an adjusted increase of $209, so the $200 figure seems pretty good to me.
For price changes of $100 or less, the impact is negligible.
|
| 35 | CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 18:25
|
2 bd
I would suspect that with more and more dead teams it leaves just us and that means serious price swings because all are so good and on top of what needs to get done.
|
| 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?)
|