| 0 |
Subject: March Madness 2011
Posted by: Chuck
- [36201422] Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 23:23
I figure I might as well start a thread (first one in... years?)... and my OCD likes that it will match the titles from the previous 4 years.
The Market Madness is the only "fantasy sport" I currently do, and I love it. Of course, having won a couple shirts over the years has helped my enjoyment of it.
I'm in Big 10 country and feeling like they'll be either bang or bust this year. And since I can't see a way that both Big East and Big 10 will do well, I'm splitting my picks:
1. Long on Big Ten and short on Big East
2. Long on Big East and short on Big 10
I use my 3rd entry to put together a non-basket entry of my favorite individual teams.
Of course there is more to it than that-- but I can't give away all my "secrets" yet.
When it comes down to it, I'll be rooting for upsets pretty much every stage of the game-- any success here is just bonus.
Just wondering how other people are seeing things so far... |
| 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 01:31
|
I see the favorites pretty much bullying their way to the top.
I was going to long the Big Ten (since I think OSU will go all the way), but Penn State and most of the others I think will get knocked off early, meaning that OSU will have to go very deep to make up the cost.
My Xavier Musketeers seem to be a cheap long, at only $5 but they seem to be in the Sweet 16 every year or so. Gonzaga (another tournament darling) seems a decent pickup at only a #11 seed.
|
| 2 | Great One
ID: 47252711
Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 10:25
|
I was gonna try and play this year. Still trying to figure out "the long and short of it"... and how all that works.
|
| 3 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 11:50
|
Some advice from the "news" page at the contest site:- For your shorts, look for first round upsets, and short the loser. For example, if you think that Hampton(16) will beat Duke(1), then short Kansas. You might also try shorting one or two of the top seed baskets (1-3). For example, shorting the #1 seeds gives you plenty of opportunities to profit from an early upset - as long as the tournament doesn't go too “chalky”!
- For longs, pick the 4 teams you expect to survive to the Final Four. In many instances, it's good to take those teams not only as single teams, but also in their basket forms - unless you think the other teams in those baskets are really overrated.
- Pick one or two double-digit seeds as longs. These will pay off well if they make it to the Sweet 16.
Actually, my best advice is to use the scoring simulator. Pick each of the games as you would for a typical bracket, and then let the simulator calculate the returns under your scenario. Use those returns as a basis for your picks - picking your longs from the top of the listing, and your shorts from the bottom. Or let the simulator do that for you (if you're running it while logged in to the contest site).Every year, there is a lot of attrition between the contest registrations and the actual entries. It's not unusual for as many as 25%-30% of the registrants to not submit a set of picks. I'm sure that some of that is simply forgetfulness, but I suspect a larger issue is the confusion factor. One of the dominant feedbacks that I get from people who play for the first year is that they felt pretty befuddled when making selections, but once they see how the tournament and the scoring play out, they can't wait for next year. The simulator was designed to help you get over that initial hump.
|
| 4 | TB
ID: 1001623
Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 20:36
|
For example, if you think that Hampton(16) will beat Duke(1), then short Kansas
lol
|
| 5 | The Beezer
ID: 72171522
Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 23:17
|
This is a blast every year. Love the scoring format, the strategizing, and the rise and fall of teams on the leaderboard throughout the tournament.
|
| 6 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 23:36
|
[4] oops
|
| 7 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 13:26
|
The simulator is a huge help, I remember the first year the game was available and SWAG probably described the vast majority of entries.
|
| 8 | Slowhand
SuperDude
ID: 056744223
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:07
|
While I agree the simulator is helpful the vast majority of ALL my fantasy picks are actually just WAG.
|
| 9 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 13:04
|
I've posted a sortable summary of contest selections for 2011.
A few quick observations- Favorite shorts are BYU, Florida, #2 seed basket, #5 seed basket, SEC basket, and Pitt. None of those are an overwhelming short, though, as some years have produced.
- Favorite longs are Kansas and Ohio State, followed by the #3 seeds, #1 seeds, and Duke. For a year when there hasn't been a consistently dominant team, that list looks rather chalky.
- Net longs (longs minus shorts) are headed by Utah State, followed by Kansas, Washington, Michigan State, and Gonzaga.
- Net shorts looks pretty much like the gross shorts.
- Most active units (long or short) are Pitt, Ohio St. Florida, #2 seeds, & BYU.
- Big East basket, with 11 teams and cost of $G95, attracted 88 shorts and 61 longs.
- Every unit got at least one long or shot.
Standings will be updated throughout the day.
|
| 10 | Great One
ID: 47252711
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 13:05
|
Damn, I was gonna do this this morning, but got tied up... gotta wait til next year i guess.
|
| 11 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 13:15
|
Not necessarily.
You can still submit an entry. It won't show up in the standings, but the system will calculate your score as the games progress.
|
| 12 | Donkey Hunter
ID: 432141715
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 16:14
|
Favorite shorts are BYU, Florida, #2 seed basket, #5 seed basket, SEC basket, and Pitt
Seems odd that the top 3 shorted teams are all in the same bracket. People must really like the 4 seed Wisconsin? No wait, they are the #7 shorted team and most shorted 4 seed.
|
| 13 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 23:09
|
I discovered (i.e., someone pointed out) tonight that the simulator was using incorrect prices for the ACC and Pac-10 basket units. Both were off by $2.
I do not believe any entries were impacted. The prices on the "make picks" sheet were correct (ACC=$44, Pac-10=$15). However, it is possible that this error caused the simulator to suggest a set of picks that was marginally suboptimal.
I don't think this was any big deal, and the error has now been corrected in the simulator. If you think that this somehow impacted your entry decision, let me know - but I probably won't be able to do anything about it.
|
| 14 | TB
ID: 1001623
Mon, Mar 21, 2011, 00:54
|
Not a Texas fan, but they got hosed in the closing seconds. Arizona gets a questionable fould called their way with about 5 seconds left, then Texas takes it down for the final shot and at least 3 fouls aren't called at the end. The push and then the double rebound mugging. I felt terrible watching a good game end that way.
|
| 15 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Mon, Mar 21, 2011, 09:23
|
There have been a number of games this year IMO where the officiating had huge impacts on the outcome of the game. Butler/Pitt being an example. The 3 calls in the last 2.4 seconds of that game were interesting and absolutely game changing. I can't that I have a problem with any of them, but how many other games occurred where the similar fouls occurred and the refs swallowed their whistles.
|
| 16 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Mar 21, 2011, 10:22
|
Have to disagree, TB. AZ's Williams absolutely was fouled when he went up for the shot. The "push" was a non-call and the rebound happened after the buzzer. AZ won that game fair and square. Are you sure TB doesn't stand for "Texas Backer"?
|
| 17 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Mar 21, 2011, 12:15
|
The Arizona guy got fouled, but I thought the Texas player at the end was fouled on the drive (got his legs halfway taken out while in the air).
Having triple-longed Texas as a Final Four pick, I may have had some bias there.
|
| 18 | TB
ID: 1001623
Tue, Mar 22, 2011, 19:39
|
I'm just saying, they are either both non-calls or they are both fouls near the end like that. I would have been fine seeing it go to OT.
|
| 19 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 00:46
|
I can't believe it, I'm leading the Madness in net Long returns! Woo Hoo!
PAC-10!
|
| 20 | Donkey Hunter
ID: 441162516
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 09:47
|
Looks like Gurus dog wins if UCONN wins and stritch12 wins if Butler wins.
|
| 21 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 23:37
|
That was one fuggly final game. Clark Kellogg summed it up best, "unparalleled ineptitude."
The only equally bad championship game I can remember was the Raiders vs. Tampa Bay Super Bowl. Yuck.
|
| 22 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 08:19
|
I think there were two issues. The NCAA uses new balls for the game, you could still see the sheen on TV, and the ball is extremely slick.
The officials might as well have not been on the court. I wasn't sure if I was watching a Rugby match or a basketball game. The let them play attitude of the officials led to the brutal style. I used to love college basketball, but that was more like an mid 90s Pat Riley Knicks game with tons of hand checking and contact and the mentality of just foul harder until they call something.
|
| 23 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 10:44
|
It's sad that Rufus is not a Gurupatron. What an ungrateful dog!
|
| 24 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 11:01
|
Rufus' winning score G$687 was less than half of the best possible score of $G$1474. Not surprisingly, that entry would have included the Final four teams as well as their seed baskets, plus the SEC and Pac 10 baskets. On the short side, it’s a collection of high seeds and conference baskets. The Big East basket ended up being neither a good long or a good short, with a net return of -10.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|