| 0 |
Subject: Gravity
Posted by: emachine
- [26901610] Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 14:47
Does anyone know the triggers for a player going into/out of gravity? It looks like Troy Murphy has gone into gravity, but I thought that he was fairly widely owned(even through his bad schedule) and is lowly priced already.
At 2.8 mil he can't fall too far until his price is ridiculously low and/or his schedule heats up again, but it got me thinking. It seems like some players are not owned by anyone(Nash, Kurt Thomas) and don't go into gravity. If anyone could shed some light I would appreciate it
|
| 1 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 26112469
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 15:44
|
This article from 9/8/00 which was reposted to the forum is about the best explanation you are going to get. However, your specific questiosn will probably remain unanswered.
rfs
|
| 2 | emachine
ID: 26901610
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 15:45
|
Thanks rfs
|
| 3 | smartone
Donor
ID: 29135714
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 15:58
|
emachine, one of the problems of TSN, which I tried to enlight in the past, is the players held by the inactive teams. As we can all(?) see in our auto-divisions, a couple of teams, usually in the bottom of the division, already have 15 or so trades (there are 2 such teams in my auto division - with players like Kwame and Ginobili, which were popu;lar in the league's early going).
Obviously, one can argue that these managers are preserving their trades for "trainy" days, but it is obvious, that most of these managers have lost interest in the game for some reason or another. However, as long as these players are owned by these "sleeping" managers, it is more likely that they will not gravitate.
Therefore, my suggestion (AGAIN) to TSN is to calculate the gravity-able players according to their percentage in ACTIVE rosters. The definition of an active roster can either be according to the number of available trades (let's say that above 12 trades - the roster becomes effectively inactive) or according to the last time that the account has been accessed (maybe 3 weeks). Obviously, if the manager was out of town/saving trades/etc, his team will continue to collect points, so the gravity is the ONLY thing that will be affected by this "active-inactive" status flag.
Frankly speaking, I don't think that it is so hard to implement it
BTW, TSN, I really like the RV & the number of trades columns in the Division Standing... could you add the same columns in the "TOP MANAGERS" tables as well.... thanks!
|
| 4 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 26112469
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 16:05
|
smartone: I think a better definition of "inactivity" would be "28 days since last trade executed" Anyone that has made no moves for a month is inactive as far as I'm concerned.
I like your idea.
rfs
|
| 5 | xpdutmind
ID: 18108214
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 16:07
|
emachine,I have noticed that K Thomas hasn't been affected by gravity which leads me to beleive that he is owned by at least the minimum % of managers to keep his price from falling.
What puzzles me is that the percentage of gurupies who own him is less than 1%.This might not be a representative sample of the population,but even at 3% ownership,it should not keep him out of gravity.
|
| 6 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 16:39
|
I doubt if Troy Murphy's current drops are gravity related. Just coincidentally $30K for 2 days. There's no evidence that he's shed most of the buys he got in late November.
|
| 7 | hi_mom
ID: 91112100
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 17:02
|
Would it be too much to sample all 5303 Ultimate teams to figure out the minimum ownership that stops gravity?
|
| 8 | smartone
Donor
ID: 29135714
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 17:17
|
my guess is that Gravity starts below 1% ownerhip
ATTN rfs: any "inactivity" factor will be better than the current situation
|
| 9 | RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 42121814
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 19:06
|
Gravity is around 4.5%, I think.
I have Murphy at 18.7% and Thomas at around 2.2% total ownership.
|
| 10 | gibby88
Donor
ID: 50451220
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 19:59
|
9.8 m/sec squared
|
| 11 | xpdurmind
Donor
ID: 9922123
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 20:27
|
RSF,
In your Gurupies Collaborative Efforts post dated 11/7/2001 you supplied a link to a division tracker spread sheet which I'm unable to access.Is it possible to get a copy?
Thx
|
| 12 | bd
Donor
ID: 261033715
Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 20:45
|
Ditto on XPDURMIND's request.
|
| 13 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 26112469
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:20
|
Here is an interesting example of "gravity"
I bought Larry Hughes (call me crazy!) expecting a $30K loss per day. Fine. To my surprise, he gained $10K yesterday (on an off day). Now he plays today, but lost $30K again. Now, I can't believe the $30K loss was from sells since no way yesterday's buyers (the few of us) would have sold him without even getting 1 game... which leads me to belive he is back in gravity.
So, it's possible to escape gravity for a day and still have such a small ownership % to be in gravity the next day - even though (theoretically) there were no sells)?
signed,
confused rfs
|
| 14 | smartone
Donor
ID: 29135714
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:26
|
rfs, my ONLY explanation is that Hughes was yesterday owned by 1.001% of the managers (assuming 1% gravity threashold), and a couple of new members joined the game today (more than 300 new managers joined after the season started), none of them picked Hughes, so his ownership level dropped to 0.999%... I don't have any other explanation...
|
| 15 | KnicksFan
Donor
ID: 439341814
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:30
|
Maybe a certain number of buys in a day can thrust a player out of gravity even if his ownership is still below the minimum %. Today there were less buys and his percentage of ownership was still too low so he went back into gravity.
|
| 16 | culdeus
Donor
ID: 461027711
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:32
|
Maybe daily buys take precedence over gravity. Gravity only kicks in on days of no or very low trading activity.
If we knew how many buys/sells there were to for Hughes today it would help. Running the whole SW universe proved too tall a task for my poor computer.
|
| 17 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:33
|
Price gain is calculated by % of buys. If the % of buys translates to a 10K increase then that's what you'll see. The number of buys that creates that may still not be enough to breack the gravity threshold so the next day he will still be in gravity.
|
| 18 | RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 42121814
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:40
|
1% is not the gravity level.
rockafellerskank, I believe that price gains are independent of gravity. If the number of buys is enough to register a gain, then you will get the gain, whether that player has reached the gravity threshold or not.
In my relatively small frozen roster sampling, I had Hughes at 0.0056% (yes, miniscule) two days ago. He gain owners to 0.0089% (yes, still miniscule, but a definite gain.) Was that gain enough to increase +10K. I dunno, but it was a positive movement in total ownership.
Since his total ownership is well below the gravity threshold (I propose around 4.5%), and he had no ownership changes, I experienced gravity today.
Make sense? Just my 2% of a dollar.
|
| 19 | RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 42121814
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:42
|
Man, I'm a slow typist.
|
| 20 | culdeus
Donor
ID: 461027711
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:52
|
.0056% translates to less than one team.
|
| 21 | culdeus
Donor
ID: 461027711
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:53
|
You must mean .56%
|
| 22 | RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 42121814
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 12:58
|
Sheesh. Yep, that is what I was trying to say. I wrote the decimal notation rather than the percentages.
|
| 23 | Hamid Toliyat
ID: 31141411
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 13:35
|
culdeus-
Did you do that math in your head?
|
| 24 | rage_22@work
ID: 2842719
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 13:50
|
I doubt I'm right, but the way I have interpreted a situation where a player briefly goes out of gravity with a loss of less than 30K or a gain is this: if a player is in gravity, and gets what would equate to 40K in gains for a player not in gravity, the -30K of gravity would have 40K added to it, therefore a 10K gain. But if he still is not on enough rosters to elude gravity, the next day he will be back to -30K. This theory depends though on how many rosters a player must be on to stay out of gravity and how many purchases equal the amount of buys for, in this example, 40K worth. One thing that makes me think this is for example, when players are in gravity at -30K for a long time, then they fluctuate to -20K or -40K, which says to me that they had a few gains or had a few sells on each day, respectively. I don't know if what I am saying actually makes sense, but I hope it does.
I don't know if this is what other people are thinking, I could just be misinterpreting what others have said.
|
| 25 | Tortfeasor
Donor
ID: 55912113
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 16:15
|
Rage-
My understanding was that a player is either in gravity or not in gravity. Your idea makes me rethink that. You have a good idea that hadn't occurred to me. That indeed would explain a -10K from a player that seemingly would be in gravity.
|
| 26 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 16:25
|
Or it could be that he had enough sells to creat a -10K change. I don't think it is a net effect between price changes and gravity. I think that any net + or - buy/sell (5 sells and 5 buys would have no effect) activity turns off gravity for that day and then fravity is determined the following day(s) on whether the player has crossed the threshold due to those transactions. Of course, I don't have any raw data to back that up, but it seems to be true based on several years of playing. Still, rage's theory could be correct.
|
| 27 | KnicksFan
Donor
ID: 439341814
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 16:28
|
Ender, I like your theory. If it is correct, then when I have a player in gravity, it is best for him to be sold enough that his losses are less than gravity's 30K/day. Of course in the long run it just makes it more difficult for the player to get out of gravity.
|
| 28 | Tortfeasor
Donor
ID: 20383113
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 20:02
|
Ender-
That had always been my understanding of it Ender. But Rage's idea would expalin some things, such as why a player who had previously been in gravity for a long period suddenly lost on 10K (rather than 30K) in a day. I'm pretty sure I've seen that before.
|
| 29 | Tortfeasor
Donor
ID: 20383113
Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 20:04
|
That post had an extra amount of grammar and spelling errors.
|
| 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?)
|