Forum: golf
Page 2500
Subject: RotoGuru Golf

  Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Thu, May 06, 2004, 13:46
I'm thinking of building my own golf game. The TSN game is not well supported, the repricing formula has gone haywire, and the PFT format sucks.

Here are the basic parameters I'm contemplating:
1. Free to enter. No prizes (unless someone wants to organize a separate pool).

2. Standard best ball format for scoring. You start each tournament with a foursome, and there will be no trading during the tournament. Having your golfers make the cut will be an important success factor.

3. Each golfer will be priced, and you will have a fixed pot of money to buy your initial foursome. After that, golfer prices will vary from week to week (and correspondingly your "franchise value") based on weekly performance, not trading. The repricing formula will be "open book", and work something like this:
  • A player who enters the tournament and fails to make the cut will have a fixed price decline. This might be a flat dollar amount, or perhaps a percentage of the price.
  • A player who makes the cut will have a price increase based upon his performance in the post-cut (usually Saturday & Sunday) rounds. Factors influencing price change will be number of birdies and eagles, and perhaps a bonus increase for finishing in the top X.
  • Players who are not entered in the current tournament will have no price change.
4. You will have a fixed number of trades during the season. They will probably all be doled out on opening day, but I would consider a weekly allotment if you think that has merit.

5. Golfer trading will occur during Monday-Wednesday. Prices must be reset after the final round, and rosters will be frozen at the opening tee time. I hope to make trading "flexible" during that period, meaning that you can undo a trade as long as rosters have not yet frozen.

6. Scoring will solely be based on best ball format. Price gains/losses will only influence your roster's affordability from week to week.

7. For tournaments which use multiple courses for the opening rounds, I would like to include those rounds by consolidating scores from each course, rather than each round. I'll have to solve some programming issues, but this shouldn't be unduly burdensome.

Essentially, I've tried to include the best aspects of the TSN format, and exclude the worst.

Initially, the game site would be pretty bare-bones. I would use the same general template that I use for Football Pickoff, with obvious modifications for the golfer selection process and scorekeeping functions. I would not do much in the way of statistical anaylsis. You can use other sources (such as PGATour.com) for that. As I develop a fuller database, however, I might begin to offer some stats that are better tailored to anaylsis of this game.

Depending on your level of interest (and mine), the game could probably be ready to launch sometime in June, perhaps in time for the U.S. Open, which would be an interesting tournament to start with. The season would continue into the fall. (I'll have to look ahead for a reasonable end date.) In future years, the season would start sometime in the winter.

Before committing to such an undertaking, I'd like some feedback. Here are my questions:

1. Would you play?

2. Are there other game features that should be included?

3. Do you have any suggestions for the repricing formula?

4. What suggestions do you have for number of trades?

I'm hoping to lure back some of the old time regulars who have abandoned the TSN game for obvious reasons. I'd also like to recruit some Gurupies from other sports. It would be a nice side effect if this game could rejuvenate the golf forum as well. If you know others who might be interested, please invite them to this thread.
 
1leggestand
      Sustainer
      ID: 451036518
      Thu, May 06, 2004, 14:03 		1. I would play.

2. None that I can think of. Once the game is launched, I am sure people will have suggestions, though, for the next season.

3. I like the pricing format mentioned above. Rewards you for having people make the cut.

4. I think something along the lines of 1-2 trades per week would be a good maximum. I would rather see the total # of trades implemented up front, but I don't think it is a big deal if they are replenished weekly.
 
2Wheatridge
      ID: 7940421
      Thu, May 06, 2004, 16:53 		Count me in.

1. I thought that the Small World concept of 2 trades per week issued added another level of skill to the game. It took great planning and luck to get into and out of the British Open each year, as an extreme example.

2. I would pay to enter if only to generate a prize pool which would add another important dimension the game.
 
3Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 2856618
      Thu, May 06, 2004, 20:42 		1. I'd be in too
2. Game plan sounds good.
4. The 2 trades per week formula made the game a lot more interesting when SW/TSN did it that way.

3. Repricing.
Would the repricing take place after the next tournament's tee-off, or concurrent with the event triggering the change (missed cut, top 10 finish, etc.)? I would vote for the price change occuring at the start of the next tourney, allowing people to dump their dogs (at the expense of a valuable trade).
 
4Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 06, 2004, 20:48 		The repricing would take place before you could dump your dogs. That's the point!

The repricing would usually occur on Sunday night (assuming no delayed rounds), and would go into effect before you could trade for the next tournament. Trading would only be enabled after the repricing took place.

I don't understand the rationale for waiting until after the next freeze to reprice.

Eseentially, if you picked up a player that missed the cut, you'll not only get hurt by their lack of weekend scoring, you'll also get hurt by their price drop.
 
5sarge33rd
      ID: 49610
      Thu, May 06, 2004, 20:51 		ditto wheatridge's comments for me. (and pretty sure that katie would too.)
 
6sarge33rd
      ID: 49610
      Thu, May 06, 2004, 20:57 		1 thing I might add, owuld n be that for any benefit to be earned, a full squad of 4 must be fielded. (This owuld prevent the 'sandbagging" of taking for ex, Woods/Mick for the US Open and noone else. Sure, no points since a less than full squad, but ea is fairly xcertain to make the cut AND finish well, yielding lots of $$ gains for future use. To block/prevent that, require a full squad. Less than a full squad could still suffer price drops, but no gains would be credited to roster value. (This might further enhance the benefit of sound trade management as well.)
 
7Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 2856618
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 00:57 		The rationale for repricing before the next freeze is that you have an additional incentive to trade --- to make money. And in a trade-limited game, that's a big deal. If your golfer stinks it up, you have a big decision. Burn a trade and make money or save a trade and lose money. Under the proposed instantaneous price-change system, your only reason to trade is to fill a roster spot. If your golfer did good last week and is playing next week, why trade him in a trade-limited game? If he did bad last week, therefore losing money, and is playing next week, if you traded him, you'd have to pick up an equal or lessor golfer (price-wise, since he lost money), so why trade him?

 
8beerrun
      Leader
      ID: 16859717
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 06:19 		Count me in.

I think 2 trades/week works well and would prefer to have them all up front.
 
9Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 09:46 		Balrog[7] - I believe you are giving a rationale for repricing after the next freeze...

While I understand your point, it also creates an environment in which you essentially know what the upcoming price changes will be. You know that by picking up golfers who did well in the last tournament, you are guaranteed to make money. It seems to me that this could trivialize the money making aspect, and would also lead to significant roster convergence.

In the TSN game, you gain wealth by following the crowd. Choosing lesser known golfers is a bad way to generate wealth. Roster convergence is rampant.

In a "Balrog" game, you would gain wealth by picking golfers who did well last week. You could get a nice price boost by picking a "long shot" who did well, but so can everyone else, by grabbing him a week later. Similarly, if a golfer does well and then doesn't play the next week, the ensuing gains are wasted.

It still seems to me that price changes should be immediate. I see more flaws in Balrog's approach than I see benefits. But other opinions on this would be helpful.
 
10leggestand
      Sustainer
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 10:15 		I would rather have price changes be immediate, for the same reasons mentioned above in post #9.
 
11StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 10:30 		1) Count me in. I love the idea. Being free should draw more interest.

2) Not sure about Game Features. I am assuming that up to 3 teams will be allowed, similar to pick-off? Even though there are other tools available for searching stats, etc. It might be helpful to at least have a set of links from the page, to make it easier for newbies to find them.

3) repricing formula. I see both points about repricing. The money aspect of the TSN game is terrible. I think Guru is right. Since the $$ will be based on finish it would be way too easy to simply take last weeks winner, especially if he was a surprise winner. I like the repricing idea prior to the next "buy" period. Of course, with the "Balrog" approach, if you did buy last weeks winner and he didn't start the next tournament, then you would have wasted a trade.

Guru's "long shot" comment has me thinking as well. If there were a way to encourage roster diversity, then so much the better. If there could be a formula (along the ideas of pick-off) that had a risk/reward to it for money, then I would like that too. An idea might be to rate the players according to their rank, or even ownership like pick-off. A lower ranked/owned player would have a bigger increase and less decrease in price movement than say a Tiger Woods caliber player. Tiger should have more risk. If he were to miss the cut, there should be a high penalty to pay relative to an unkown. This would add another element to consider.

I also like the idea of some type of bonus based on finish. Another type of idea different than above would be to have the price change relative to finish. Therefore the 70th place finisher would gain slightly more than even, while the first place finisher gained the max. The others would be linear between them.

4) Trades. 2 per week works well with maybe a few extra depending on how many "Major" events where the golfers don't play before or after. All at once allows better management for experienced managers, but may force some managers to quit early once they burn all their trades.

5) Other. I think some type of bragging right needs to be established for the winner. Maybe a GuruGolf plaque with the winners name inscribed, that would circulate to a new winner each year could be lots of fun. We have that in our deep football/baseball/basketball leagues run by rfs and ref and it gives incentive to win. Last year's winner to engrave the new name and mail it on.
 
12Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 10:34 		TSN's repricing formula is based on 2 trading periods. After each trading period, prices are adjusted accordingly. Reason for having the after freeze price adjustments. Simple as that. (Unforuntately the past few weeks the TSN 2nd roster freeze price adjustment does not appear to reflect in any way what my 200 team sampling does as far as the price decliners.)

With Guru's performance based repricing then obviously the repricing should occur after the golfers have performed, IE after the last round of the tournament.

Guru

In the TSN game, you gain wealth by following the crowd. Choosing lesser known golfers is a bad way to generate wealth. Roster convergence is rampant.

In a "Balrog" game, you would gain wealth by picking golfers who did well last week. You could get a nice price boost by picking a "long shot" who did well, but so can everyone else, by grabbing him a week later. Similarly, if a golfer does well and then doesn't play the next week, the ensuing gains are wasted.

Don't you think overall the crowd will follow the performing golfers and the rosters will not end up with anymore diversification than TSN?!!? :>) (This question is not a attempt to slight your suggested game in anyway)

 
13Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 10:41 		FWIW, TSN has indicated to me that they are aware of the problems with the repricing and are working to adjust their formula for Season 2.
 
15smallwhirled
      ID: 3031919
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 11:30 		Good idea, I'll play. I'm all for pushing for a US Open start date.
 
16Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 2856618
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 11:37 		The more I think about it, the more I like Guru's original repricing plan. If you're going to base repricing on performance, which I like, then immediate re-pricing is the only way to go. I hereby dis-avow the "Balrog Plan"! :>

Thanks for putting this together, Guru!
 
17Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 12:07 		Challenger[12] - it probably is inevitable that there will be a significant degree of roster convergence, even under this format. The difference, however, is in the rewards.

In the TSN game, if everyone picks last weeks winner, then a big price gain is assured, regardless of whether that player does well in the following week. In my game, a popular pick has no automatic gain potential. He'll still have to make the cut to be rewarded with a price gain. So there is at least a little more to think about.

I do like the idea of repricing golfers vs. some sort of expectations. If Tiger does well, there is a little reward, but if he bombs, there is a bigger hit. Similarly, if a cheapie does well, there should be a big reward, while he should lose only slightly for failing to make the cut. There are certainly ways to do this, and I'm going to have to experiment with some models.

There are two important aspects to getting this up and running. One is to program the infrastructure, so that the game will function. At inception, this will probably be fairly bare-bones, but I can continue to tweak it as the season progresses, adding more links, player data, analysis, etc.

The other is to design the initial pricing and repricing mechanism. This is more fun, but probably also more maddening. Perhaps the safest way to do this is to set up some set of "target" prices based upon performance, and then have players migrate toward those targets based on each week's performance. This would help assure that top players don't inflate excessively, and should produce greater rewards for picking lower priced players who do well.

Something to think about.
 
18TD
      Donor
      ID: 36331011
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 13:10 		1. I would play. I like basing the price changes on performance rather than popularity.

2. None.

3. Current golfer price should be a factor in the repricing formula. If a high priced golfer performs well, there should be a lower price increase than a lower priced golfer performing at the same level.

There should be a minimum player price.

Initial prices should not be set arbitrarily, but based on a formula that uses statistics from the last year including birdies/round, eagles/round, percentage of tournaments won, percentage of tournament top 10 finishes, percentage of cuts made. The list of golfers should include all golfer who played at least 10 (or some other number) of tournaments in the last year. No new golfers should be added during the season.

4. 2 trades/week doled out at the beginning of the season.
 
19FRICK
      ID: 441551913
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 13:26 		I would be interested. At first I wasn't sure about all of the trades being dispensed at the beginning of the season, a key factor is knowing who is planning which events. I know that a lot of top players don't play every week. Is there a website that lists who is entered in upcoming events to allow to plan ahead and hold onto one player for multiple weeks.

I think teams would burn all of their trades early to increase roster value, buy the best possible team and then just let it ride.

 
20sarge33rd
      ID: 49610
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 13:39 		one method of illustrating/employing the risk-reward notion, would be to tie the price change into a formule involving cuts made and top 10 finishes.

for ex:

assuming a base weekly change of 100k,
assuming a cuts made history of 70%,
assuming a top 10 finish history of 10%,


assuming player makes the cut AND finishes in top 10:

(base change)-(base change x cuts made %) + (base change x (top 10 %x 10,000))

100,000-(100,000x.70)+(100,000-(.10x10,000))

100,000-70,000+(100,000-10,000)=30,000+90,000=

120,000 net gain

assuming the same golfer, makes cut, finishes OUT of top 10:

simply delete the last set from the equation, ie that part of the formula dealing with the top 10 is omitted from the next computation:

you will then end with a 30k gain. (This would have the benefit of truly rewarding those players who finish in the top 10, and those who do so consistently, would soon become prohibitive in price to acquire 3 or 4 of for your squad. This would enhance I think, roster diversification.

assuming same golfer, MISSED cut:

(base change) - (base change x (1-cuts made %)

100,000-(100,000(1-.70))=

100,000-30,000=70,00 net loss

a 50% cuts made player, would only lose 50k, while an 80% cut maker, would lose 80k for a mixxed cut. (Essentially, a player would lose their cuts made percentage, in terms of thousands of dollars.)

A further modificastion to that could be (in order to enhance penalties for the truly excellent golfer who misses a cut or to reduce the penalty for a truly marginal golfer who misses the cut:

IF Cuts made >60%

(gross loss +((gross loss)x(2x(1-cuts made percentage)))

70,000+70,000(from above example)x (2x(1-.7)=

70,000+(70,000x(2x.3))=70,000+(70,000x.6)=

70,000+42,000=112,000 loss

If cuts made <=60%, this 'enhancement' would not apply. By not applying the formula or modification to those with a drastically reduced chance of making the cut, y9u inherently reduce the negatice impact of the infrequent cut makers having missed a cut. Comparing a 20% cut maker for ex, creates a loss of 20k. SUBSTANTIALLY less than the modified 112k lost by our theoretic 70% cut maker who misses a cut.

assuming a 20% cut maker with no top 10 finishes ytd, makes cut AND finishes top 10:

100,000-(100,000x.2)+(100,000-(0x10,000))=

100,000-20,000+100,000=180,000 net gain.

So, while our 70% cut maker with a 10% Top 10 histriy generates an attractive 120k gain, our 20% cut maker with hjis first top 10 finish of the year, gets a gain that is fully 50% GREATER than out first golfers gain.

With apologies to those who are truly gifted at math if my methods encumbered this more than was necessary. :)
 
21Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 13:45 		Let's get some thoughts on the range of player prices.

Assume that a "respectable" golfer (not a star, not a scrub) costs $1 million. You have $4m to assemble your initial roster.

How pricey should the most expensive players be? These would obviously be guys like Tiger, Vijay, Mickelson.

What should be the minimum price?

And then, what sort of player should be defined as "respectable", and therefore worth about $1 mil?

Without a lot of forethought, let me toss out some ideas to get the discussion started.

The top golfers should be priced around $2.5 million. (Side issue: Should this be a maximum price as well, or should they be able to appreciate above that level?)

The minimum price should be $500K. You could start with one stud and three scrubs if you want.

A respectable golfer, priced at $1m, should be someone who makes the cut about 67% of the time, and who averages in the low-to-mid 3s in birdies per round. I'm not sure just who represents this profile - perhaps Aaron Baddeley, or Steve Lowery, or Kevin Sutherland are reasonable proxies so far this year.

Feedback?
 
22leggestand
      Sustainer
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 14:33 		We could use the world golf rankings (at a snapshot in time) and make a value that is tied to each position in order to make our IPO's. Tiger would be $2.5 million, as it is a good maximum, and we could decrease each player's value based on their rank. Don't ask me how to turn this into a formula, though.

This would enable us to get our starting prices, and we would reprice every week based on Post #17. Although there are hot and cold players, the world golf rankings take a significant time period (50-60 weeks) to provide pretty accurate starting positions for us to work with.
 
23leggestand
      Sustainer
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 14:34 		We would also have to make a cut off for $500,000 players. After looking at the rankings, it looks like we should only price the top 125 to 150, and have everyone else be $500,000.
 
24Tosh
      Sustainer
      ID: 57721710
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 15:58 		I like most of the thoughts already contributed, and will leave it to you guys to work out the kinks. I love the idea of the game!

Count me in!
 
25TD
      Donor
      ID: 36331011
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 16:12 		I don't think there should be a max price, but to move above 2.5 million, a golfer would need to have a very high number of birdies/eagles during that tournament. Currently Mickleson is averaging 5.05 birdies per round in 2004. A golfer would have to average 6 or more birdies/round in a tournament to move above the 2.5 million price.

You may want to base the price formula on a golfer's over/under of the average birdies per round in a given tournament. Some courses are much harder than others.

Another suggestion I have is choosing a team of 6 golfers, but only activating 4 each week. That way you could keep hot golfers thru weeks that they do not play, and you wouldn't have to make as many trades based on schedule. If you implement this, then less trades are required.
 
26leggestand
      Sustainer
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 16:46 		Another suggestion I have is choosing a team of 6 golfers, but only activating 4 each week. That way you could keep hot golfers thru weeks that they do not play, and you wouldn't have to make as many trades based on schedule. If you implement this, then less trades are required.

I like that suggestion. It would throw a curve into the starting roster value, and we would have to increase it to $5 or $6 million, though.
 
27Madman
      ID: 2143628
      Fri, May 07, 2004, 21:00 		Why no prizes?

Why not make it a cheap pay game and payout like 80% to the winners maybe the top ten or something and keep 20% for Rotoguru.com.

Prizes make every game more interesting.

I don't think you have to worry about taxes unless the prizes are over like $600 bucks or something.
 
28sarge33rd
      ID: 9424718
      Sat, May 08, 2004, 01:18 		the problem with prizes, is that they are taxed differently from state, to state to state. From what i've read for ex, FL is a royal pain regarding 'prize money' and the like, from anything that the states atty gen can concoct to fall under the general heading of 'gambling'.

For guru's sake, I'd strongly suggest skipping prizes.
 
29sarge33rd
      ID: 9424718
      Sat, May 08, 2004, 01:20 		btw, the computer at the local hospital will not go to rotoguru.com. A header comes up and informs you that 'gamblking sites' are filtered and restricted. If rotoguru.com shows under the keyword 'gambling', that may well ba all a pigheaded AG needs to declare the games as 'gambling' and therefore covered under that states gambling laws. Thus I suggest negating the idea of prizes.
 
30 jdeeney
      ID: 207328
      Sat, May 08, 2004, 08:43 		I would play
 
31Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, May 08, 2004, 10:12 		leggestand[26] - I not inclined to try that approach now, as I think it changes a lot of the strategy dynamics in ways that I can't fully anticipate. How many trades would be ample? How should pricing be changed (i.e., could you stuff 2 cheapies on you bench and then go with better golfers as your active squad?) It also complicates administration (programming), and I need to get this thrown together rather quickly.

From past experience, we know that the 4 golfer/no bench approach works well. For now, I want to keep it simple. Maybe some day we can test different options.
 
32Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, May 08, 2004, 10:34 		Prizes are a stcky issue. If I charge a price to play for prizes, then my legal advisors tell me that I may be construed to be a gambling site in some states. To be safe, I would need to research the laws of each state (and possibly other foreign jurisdictions), and determine whether I am at risk or whether the game can be tweaked to comply.

In addition, once I charge for a game, the size of the pool of players significantly diminshes. There are a lot of people who will play for free, but many would not be willing to invest even a marginal amount of money. For fantasy golf, even an enterprise the size of TSN could not make the game financially viable as a pay game.

So, legal fees would easily outstrip any marginal revenue that I would earn.

The point of the game is to offer an enjoyable amusement to the RotoGuru community that has been lacking in recent years. If participants want to organize an informal pool on the side, that's fine.
 
33Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, May 09, 2004, 14:47 		I'm going to move ahead with this. I believe I can be ready in time to start with the U.S.Open, and maybe even have the game site up for some beta testing the week before. The season will probably continue through the Tour Championship held the first week of November.

I have some pretty good ideas about how to initially price, and may post a proposed list of prices in advance for some early feedback. I have some ideas on repricing as well, although I need to test some of those out on myself first. All of the ideas listed above have been helpful.

Right now, I think the ball is pretty much in my court (in my fairway?). If I need more feedback, I'll let you know.

One pressing issue remains, though? What should we call this game? The only thing I've come up with is "Make the Cut", but that lacks imagination, IMHO.

 
34Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, May 09, 2004, 14:49 		Oh, BTW, I think I'll go with 2 trades allocated per week, but with an extra 2 to start. In other words, you'll have 4 trades available immediately after the first tournament, and then get 2 more after each successive freeze. That'll give a little extra flexibility coming out of the gate.

Does that sound like a workable approach? Not too tough, not too easy?
 
35Liters
      ID: 15402916
      Sun, May 09, 2004, 16:48 		Geting into this a little late, love your idea Guru of Geting Back to Basics. I personally like the early small world format of repricing every day. That made you do your homework, sell off on Sunday morning, hoping to pick the hot buy and watching your money increase Monday, Tuesday, etc. I know that is a lot of work for the programing and the player. I think the format you came up with is an excellent start, espicially if you can program for multi course tourny's. Since its your idea, your work and upkeep why not just call it GURU GOLF.
 
36Wheatridge
      ID: 7940421
      Sun, May 09, 2004, 17:59 		Guru, the idea of issuing 2 trades up front is a good move. We talked SW into doing that one year when it would be almost impossible to get in and out of the British Open without extra trades.
 
37TaRhEElKiD
      ID: 150521415
      Sun, May 09, 2004, 23:55 		I normally don't follow too much golf except for the Majors which I follow/bet on heavily. Maybe this would change that...

I am sure I would check it out the first season to see if I would be interested in the future.

THK
 
38StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Mon, May 10, 2004, 12:21 		The biggest consideration in my mind towards pricing is what do you want at the end of the season and then work backwards from there with some kind of price modeling (as suggested in #17).

Let's say the season ran 20 weeks (an arbitrary figure). What would we want as far as a roster by the end of week 20? If the idea is that by week 15 we should be able to buy all the top golfers, then the model should reflect that. If the idea was that we should be able to buy 2 top golfers and 2 mid to upper golfers by week 20, then the model should reflect that.

I'm not sure what a reasonable end point is, but one could expect that with good management and some luck, then you should have some advantage over your competition that didn't manage as well. I'm not sure that a maximum player price is better or not either. The more important issue than maximum price of a player might be maximum weekly gain by a player? Knowing maximum weekly gains probably would help to set an upper limit on season gains.

I think this has the potential to be a great game. Not sure what a good name would be, but will give it some thought. My first thoughts would be Guru Golf or Gurupie Golf, but there must be some kind of clever name out there.
 
39JeffG
      Leader
      ID: 1584348
      Mon, May 10, 2004, 12:31 		I'd play. I used to play the TSN game until it went pay-for-play. I enjoyed scouring the leaderboard for my 'foursome' each day.

Instead of each golfer having a price, to be consistent with golf lingo, call it their guru-handicap. We have to gather a group of players keeping them below a certain combined handicap (instead of salary cap). PErhaps then, you could even allow us to go over the 'salary cap' at a cost of X amount of strokes for each Y we are over the handicap-cap. Perhaps award our team a few bonus strokes for each tournament stop for each X we are under a handicap.

Prizes and fees: Being 'enshrined' in the Guru hall of fame, is prize enough. I'd tend to stay out if fees were involved.

Trades: 2 seems right. Many of the "A" golfers are tough to pick because they do not commit to too many consecutive tournaments. This kind of forces you to have guys on yor roster who play every week looking to keep their PGA card.

Would love to have an added feature where we have a provisional trade, which we could specify an alternative golfer which can be picked up (at the cost of a trade) if any of our golfers has a late withdrawl from the current event. The cost would be one trade (if we have one in the bank), or getting one less trade in the next allocation. Playing the TSN game a few years ago, I was surprised how often this happened.

Another brain storm thought: We be allowed to keep up to 1 player on a 'bench', so that weeks they are not playing we can pick up a replacement using half a trade (since we add but not drop), and the system charges us only half a trade for weeks we have the player on the bench. Bench players do not count towards the cap. But to drop a player when we want to activate the bench player, would then also cost us half a trade.

What to call the game: I have nothing too creative to add. Guru-links, Guru-'FORE'-somes.

Thanks Guru!
 
40blackjackis21
      Leader
      ID: 34837521
      Mon, May 10, 2004, 12:49 		If you're still gauging interest - count me in.
 
41Species
      Leader
      ID: 7724916
      Mon, May 10, 2004, 13:29 		Damn. If the game had been up I would've had Joey Sindelar and Oberhauser on my team last week - would've been HUGE price gainers! ;-)
 
42MadDOG
      ID: 2143628
      Mon, May 10, 2004, 17:17 		GURU Golf seems like the perfect name.
 
43culdeus
      ID: 514531017
      Mon, May 10, 2004, 20:59 		Easy solution to pricing, tie pricing to $$$ Earnings. And tie scoring to best ball like old times.

This would promote a new way of playing for people who do well every week as well as allowing for the up and down players you need for best ball.

No need to track the trades, could swamp the database and I've got a serious case of the tired head when it comes to TSN price changes/trains.
 
44 Rex Davidson
      ID: 32471213
      Wed, May 12, 2004, 16:08 		I would play.

Re: Pricing. It would seem that having a % or $ price drop for missing the cut as well as price movement linked to "ownership" would be unnecessarily complicated. Who should be penalized more . . . a medium level player who misses a cut but is playing four more weeks in a row (suffering little or no ownership change)or a high priced player who makes the cut but finishes near the bottom of the field and won't be playing for three or four weeks? I suggest ownership level will reflect the value of players who miss a lot of cuts all by itself without any help from additional price adjustments.

Am in the TSN game and don't like the way they are adjusting salaries this year. Last year, despite doing well, I could never own the four highest salaried players on the same team. This year I suspect there are a number of people like myself who could have the top four in the line-up with tons of cash to spare. Lots of teams have more than $12MM to spend and Tiger, Vijay, Phil and DL3 are worth $11.3MM.

As to trades, I suggest starting out with four or six adding two each week. The reason I suggest starting with more than two is the degree of difficulty in determining who is playing from week to week. If you watch the Golf Channel, you might learn of a player or two who will be playing a number of weeks in a row but the next week's field isn't posted at pgatour.com until after 5:00pm on the previous Friday and will still change after that. Even checking the previous year's results to see who finished well is not always that helpful. One could easily lose all four golfers from one tourney to the next. This isn't skill, research or knowledge but pure luck.

Good luck with the programming for those multi-course tourneys. As the scores are tracked to par hole by hole and each course will have a different par on many of the corresponding holes, you'll probably have to have a different method of scoring than TSN does. It's probably pretty tricky which is why they don't do it. Kudos if you can.

Finally, thanks for the site. My contrib on its way. As a CANUCKlehead, I am sending a moneyorder. I find PAYPAL a pain in the a##.
 
45 oscobool370
      ID: 54426156
      Sat, May 15, 2004, 08:17 		I'd be very interested in playing.

I like your suggestion of scoring all rounds for multiple courses. Tricky part to programming this would appear to be how to best determine which course each player is on for a given day. PGATOUR.COM has this stored somewhere as they will display the correct course when you view a players score for any particular round. Not sure if you can retrieve this data for the programming of this.

Like the idea of starting with a certain number of trades and getting 2 additional each week.
 
46Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 1211117
      Sat, May 15, 2004, 08:31 		Im in
 
47Checker
      ID: 44012210
      Wed, May 19, 2004, 17:25 		Count me in.
 
48Go Sweden
      ID: 54427204
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 05:27 		I'm also in. :-)
 
49StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 11:01 		I have an idea for a "tool" that could eventually be developed for this game. A first pass tool could probably be pretty simple. Along the lines of the Market Madness projector. The user would enter a number of golfers, projected birdies, projected eagles, projected place finish, and the tool could predict price gains/losses (based on the user input and the risk/reward pricing formula for the golfer). Something along those lines anyway.
 
50Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 11:11 		The problem with that is that tournament pricing is graded on the curve. So you need to know not only how your targeted golfer will do, but also everyone else who makes the cut.

Example: Suppose the golfer has a final score of -10 and has 30 birdies and no eagles. If the course turns out to be a tough one and those are way better than the rest of the field, then that golfers price change would be much better than if the course turns out to be easy and there are lots of low scores.

 
51sarge33rd
      ID: 204501423
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 12:19 		the live scoring is just TOO cool Guru!

Sorta begs an answer to the question we players put to TSN repeatedly...Why it sometimes took them 3 or even 4 days, to update scoring.
 
52Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 12:49 		The answer is very simple...

because I care, and they obviously don't.
 
53StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 13:19 		#50, I hadn't fully comprehended that aspect of the pricing. I think I have a better understanding now though and that aspect would indeed make it difficult to project prices.
 
54Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 14:05 		That's one reason (or at least, benefit) of the preseason. It should help to clarify (by example) how the repricing will operate.

Hopefully, I'll be able to make the repricing formula a but more of an open book, but for now, I'm more focused on getting the scoring programmed.
 
55Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 16:00 		BTW, if anyone wants the golfer prices in a file, you can always access it here:

http://rotoguru1.com/golf/stats/prices.prn

You should be able to easily import it into Excel or any spreadsheet program. The first column is simply a numeric identifier for each player, and then the next columns show each weekly price, with the most recent price on the left. Although this is the first official preseason week, I actually started calculating prices several tournaments ago, so they reflect the results of the previous two tournaments.

I'll also post the link at the game site, as I'm sure some of you will want to import it weekly.
 
56StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 20:06 		Any way to display the "projected cut" on cut day? That would be a nice feature.
 
57Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 20, 2004, 20:16 		That's not a trivial project. I'll put it on the "to do" list.
 
58FRICK
      ID: 441551913
      Fri, May 21, 2004, 16:13 		A couple of other ideas as I watch the live updates. Would it be possible to put the players total to par score in another column to see if they would make the projected cut? I know you are working on having the cut line on the page, but currently it isn't completely obviously if a player will be in for the week end.

Also would it be possible to have an active/alive feature similar to the Market Madness tourney to see how many players are active on other teams. This would also be useful for the season to see if someone had burned to many trades and started the weekly tournament with out a full foresome.

Just some ideas for improvements.

Thanks for the game, its been a lot of fun already.
 
59Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, May 21, 2004, 16:49 		Will consider.
 
60FRICK
      ID: 554282118
      Fri, May 21, 2004, 19:30 		Guru, I don't know if you had the first suggestion already done, but thanks either way. Easier to see if your players made the cut.

 
61Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, May 21, 2004, 22:13 		The first suggestion was relatively easy to implement, and I'd been thinking about it already.
 
62Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, May 24, 2004, 13:02 		Standings now list the count of golfers who entered the current tourney, and the number who survived the cut. As mentioned in a different thread, you can also position your cursor over the team name to see a list of the golfers in the frozen roster.
 
63Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, May 25, 2004, 11:44 		I've added a couple of new features on the "My Account" page.

1. You will now see a list of the current foursome for each team, along with a ‡ indicator for any golfer who is not in the current field. This should be a good reminder if you have golfers that you need to sell, and should also help you remember your various roster configurations by displaying all team rosters on a single page.

2. I set up a freeze reminder email service. If you sign up, you will receive a reminder email each Wednesday morning. Hopefully, this will help to keep you from forgetting to check your roster the day before each freeze.

 
64TB
      Leader
      ID: 31811922
      Wed, May 26, 2004, 16:11 		My suggestion: Limitless trades. You can change out all four golfers every week. I do believe that the more knowledgeable managers will rise to the stop of the standings, but there really is a lot of luck involved with this game and picking your golfers every week. Trying to figure out who is gonna play this week and next week, or finding out I only have 2 or 3 golfers going on any given week because someone dropped out or I don't have the trades to set-up a full line-up is depressing.

Okay, just my 2 cents. Bash away. =)
 
65Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, May 26, 2004, 16:28 		Interesting thought. I'd like to hear from others on this.

What is the value to the game of limiting trades?
 
66Liters
      ID: 15402916
      Wed, May 26, 2004, 16:54 		I remember when I won when we had daily pricing and 2 trades per week. There was a lot of effort in research and guessing the market.There was also a lot of luck in picking the right foursome and having them all make the cut. Since we are not trading after the intial lockdown, there will still be a lot of luck in getting 4 to survive, without having to worry about trades, due to who dropped out etc. I for one would second the unlimited trades proposal as I would not think it takes that much away from the game and you then don't have to overthink it either.
 
67Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, May 26, 2004, 17:24 		Another possibility is to allow teams to "buy" extra trades when needed. Trades would be paid for by reducing your roster cash - not with real money. If you got caught short-handed, you wouldn't be stuck with less than four golfers to open, but you might have to spend $10 or $20 per trade to fill those last 2 slots.

 
68StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Wed, May 26, 2004, 19:10 		My first reaction to limitless trades was a big no. Upon further reasoning though it might not be all that bad, as long as the $$ is held in check. If I had enough roster value, there would be little point in my mind not to choose Woods, Lefty, Singh, Els, etc, or at least the ones that committed to several tournaments in a row. Defeats the point of diversity and following the Zack Johnson, Justin Rose, Luke Donald's of the world. If however, it was not possible to have but one or two of the top golfers each week, throughout, or took nearly the whole season to reach that point, then it might not be bad.

It definitely would effect my strategy for a week like this week when you could afford almost anyone. Players with multiple commits would really not be a concern at all like it is now. Changing to such a strategy would probably have big implications for the game overall.

The idea of spending roster value for trades has always intrigued me and still does, but it seems there should be some minimum roster value required before you would even be allowed to "buy" a trade. These things should be carefully considered if they were to be implemented, IMO.
 
69Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 09:42 		The more I think of it, the more I'm inclined to try it. I do think the cost of a purchased trade needs to be enough to make it worth avoiding, however. Maybe $50 per trade. (Or even more?)

The advantage of this is that it still rewards those who can manage within the 2 trade-per-week budget, but doesn't punish the others quite as harshly as having a DNP (or two). This is the first attempt at fantasy golf for a fair number of managers, and learning how to forecast future commitments can be as much art as science sometimes. Some gamers will be unable (or unwilling) to devote the effort to look ahead. This at least allows them to stay in the game, albeit with a bit of a handicap.

My biggest concern is how this might affect the endgame. There is no way to know today how much roster values will have inflated by the end of the season. If they get too high, then spending roster cash for extra trades will be no impediment.

Even so, I'm inclined to give it a try. But I would like to hear other feedback on this issue.
 
70Dave R
      Dude
      ID: 3010361110
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 10:13 		Well I finally remembered to staff some teams this week. Guru, VERY COOL , thanks for putting this together.

Just browsed though some of the above comments, in particular the ones regarding "buying" of trades. My first reaction was that I didn't like it, but thats the purist in me.

However it does warrant consideration and upon thinking further it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. I would suggest that there be a season long limit as to the number of trades a player can buy in addition to the financial restraints of the roster value. Food for thought.

The "in progress scoring" is super, gives me something else to waste time on during the day :)
 
71Barrington
      Sustainer
      ID: 51637110
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 10:46 		I have always liked including the challenge of managing trades, and would prefer to keep it in the game somehow. However, but it does take time if the number of trades is too restrictive and being too restrictive also sometimes leads to everyone having the same golfers for some tournaments.

I think the idea of buying trades with roster value dollars might be a good compromise if the cost were priced properly and might add another strategy element to the game.

 
72blackjackis21
      Leader
      ID: 34837521
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 11:31 		Thumbs up on trade-buying - my initial thought is to make it more costly though, maybe $100? Given the price changes last week, $50 just doesn't seem like much to be able to buy a new player (or more than one) from week to week.

Just my $.02 and at any rate thanks for a great TSN-alternative Guru!
 
73Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 11:39 		I generally prefer the "Keep it simple" principle for game rules (Market Madness notwithstanding), but here are a few price alternatives to consider for extra trades. Remember that there would never be a need to buy more than 2 trades on any given week.

A - $50 per extra trade
B - $100 per extra trade
C - $50 for first extra trade, $100 for the second (per week)
D - $100 for first extra trade, $200 for the second (per week)

E - the price per trade should increase as the season wears on.

F - the price per trade should be a function of your franchise value. Teams with higher values should pay more (like a progressive tax).

Unless there is a compelling reason, I'd probably opt for the simplicity of A or B.
 
74Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:39 		I say no to unlimited trades which seems toi have no support anyway.

As far as buying extra trades I agree and it would keep the rookies interested in the game. Afterall, you need a solid base to build from.

How much per trade? How about a percentage of the team's roster value? This in effect would have virtually the same penalty consequence on every team. Say 1% of the TRV at the time the trade is bought. You could round it to the nearest $5 if you wish to KIS (Keep It Simple)

just my thoughts
 
75Jazz Dreamers
      ID: 11402712
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 13:00 		Guru, my opinion is that options B or D look the best. I wouldn't be opposed to $200 for each extra trade. My main reason is that, as I understand, a lot of the top players don't play week-to-week. So having to pay for trades will give incentive to consider a lesser-known player who might be committed to some consecutive tournaments.

As I understand it, this week is kind of a fluke in the small number of players in the field? So it's not like it will be that difficult to find players who will play back-to-back weeks. And even though again this week is a bit of a fluke, note that everyone could already afford the top 4 this week, so the pay-for-trade dynamic makes RV relevant throughout the season. Otherwise, RVs might easily reach a point where they can always afford any foursome (except for big events like majors).

Also, have you given any consideration to making majors count more in the scoring? Such as being worth double points? I'm not sure it's a good idea, but I figure it's worth suggesting.

Anyway, great job Guru and a check will be on its way shortly to support this great endeavor!
 
76Barrington
      Sustainer
      ID: 51637110
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 13:45 		Personally I like "D" option the best (I think). $50 seems too low and a percentage of roster value sounds more complex and would penalize the better captains (which intuitively doesn't make sense to me).
 
77TB
      Leader
      ID: 31811922
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 14:24 		Now that it's been out there for a little bit, I want to add some additional comments on why I don't like limiting trades. IMO, it makes you take players you wouldn't normally want on your team. Many of you still play the Smallworld/TSN games and are very used to that format. It is a challenging aspect to that game. I know that regardless of what the rules are to any game, everyone is on equal footing. It is much easier in other sports to make trades knowing that the "stars" you pick will be playing in every game unless they are hurt (or the occasional days off in baseball). It is a matter of preference of who you want to start Vs who you have to start.

I am novice enough at this game that I don't think anyone will mind me posting who I chose for this week's tourney. I have Triplett, Riley, Senden, and Herron. I don't know how everyone else makes their picks, but I looked at how they are playing this year and at their scores from this event from last year. I pulled up a chart that shows the leaders in birdies per holes played thinking that might be a better indicator for success in this game than overall ranking. Even if all four played great this week and are scheduled to play next week, what is the harm in letting me change all of them? Truthfully, I don't know and might just be envisioning a completely different style of game like KKB's 6-pack games.

Limiting trades limits the flexibility that we all have in our rosters. Just like every TSN game, the same players end up on the majority of rosters every week. I would rather have no increase in roster amount, meaning a fixed roster value for the season, with the ability to change all my players every week than have to manage trades and play a golfer I don't like three weeks in a row because he can help me save a trade.

Certainly there is challenging aspect to both formats. With trades you have to look ahead and plan your moves. There will be more roster convergence because of the limiting format. Without trades, you have to decide what four players will do best that week and fit them into your salary cap.

Guru, I do appreciate the game however the format ends up. Also, as a sidenote, the link for Guru Golf does not show up in the Other Golf Links inside this thread.
 
78Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 14:47 		The link doesn't appear in this thread because it was created before the game was available.
 
79TB
      Leader
      ID: 31811922
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 15:09 		Speaking of links, I question the value for two of the ones listed? I started clicking on them to see how I missed Riley withdrawing from the tour and here is what I found:

The AJR newslink takes you to a site where you must click on one of two links. One leads to newslink.com and the other link is invalid but should take you to ajr.org. I didn't see anything about golf at either site.

The Golf Society Online, at the bottom, leads you to www.searching.net, one of those search pages where you can click around and buy something (Travel, Finance, health, Internet, Homes, etc.)
 
80Rex Davidson
      ID: 37492717
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 18:10 		Guru, I'm for either unlimited or purchased trades. First a technical question though. Is a trade used when you sell a player (as it is with TSN) or when you buy a player? If it is the former, there will be a double penalty if you don't buy a trade, because your inability to remove a player, especially a popoular one, from your roster will cost you franchise value as well as not having a golfer contribute to your score. If it's based on $$, then you should be able to release any or all golfers each week and use the trades to acquire new ones. You would, of course, have to allow less than full roster to still score. Don't know if you've programmed it this way.

An alternative I think might be interesting is a flat price for a trade but it should cost you strokes, not franchise value since the winner will be the best score, not the greatest franchise value. Maybe you add 4 strokes to a team's score for each additional trade. Then the question becomes will this golfer improve my four round score by more strokes than it costs me to acquire him? The first buy might be a no brainer as a third golfer in better ball should add enough value . . . but will the fourth?

Love the game so far. Thanks
 
81Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 21:31 		A trade is when you sell a player. Buys do not count as trades.

I don't follow your point about losing franchise value, though. An inactive player will have no price change, so there is only an opportunity loss, but not a real loss. Remember, price changes are based on tournament performance, not buys and sells.
 
82Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, May 28, 2004, 11:08 		I'm inclined to try option D. $100 for the first extra trade (per week), and $200 for the second.

Rationale: I'd like to retain the value of limited trading, but still offer a reasonable escape valve. I want the price of extra trades to be non-trivial, but not so high as to be uneconomical, should the need arise. For starters, I want to err on the side of conservatism, and $100/$200 seems both simple and conservative.

A well-chosen $100 trade could actually end up making money, as the top gaining golfers each week will gain more than that. A $200 trade will probably not break even financially, but still could be worth it if you end up with 4 no-shows some week, and have no surplus of trades built up.

If, during preseason, team value inflation appears to make these costs too steep or not steep enough, we can amend prior to the regular season.

The idea of charging (4) strokes rather than $ is intriguing, but I thought perhaps too punitive. In any week, you can field a winning roster even with substandard funds. But a stroke charge seems very difficult to properly calibrate and/or overcome. Just call me a traditionalist. We'll keep the idea open for next year, though, if the $ plan seems flawed.

Perhaps there is no need to limit trades, but I have found this aspect of the TSN game to be challenging, and I'd like to retain it in some form. This seems like a reasonable approach. But until the regular season starts, all rules are written in pencil, not ink.
 
83Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Fri, May 28, 2004, 21:49 		Guru, Here is some info about changes concerning the Las Vegas tournament which might interest you.


VIVA LAS VEGAS:@ The Las Vegas Invitational is cutting the tournament from 90 holes to 72, and swapping out one of the courses for the Jack Nicklaus-designed Bear's Best.

The Las Vegas event will be played Oct. 7-10 and retain its pro-am format for the first three days. Players will compete on the TPC Canyons, the TPC at Summerlin and Bear's Best, with the final round held at Summerlin.

Tournament chairman John Sullivan said one reason for the change to 72 holes is to accommodate those playing the American Express Championship in Ireland the previous week.
 
84Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, May 28, 2004, 22:28 		Thanks. That will help me out. Now I don't have to worry about any 5 round tournaments until next year.
 
85Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Jun 05, 2004, 11:58 		At the bottom of the tournament recap page is a list of all tournaments for the rest of the season. I inserted an extra line in between the last preseason tourney and the U.S. Open, which starts the regular season. I called it "Flag Day", and it is simply a place holder which allows me to efficiently blank out all roster data without destroying preseason data.

So no, there really is no Flag Day tournament. Just ignore it.
 
86Farn
      Sustainer
      ID: 451044109
      Sat, Jun 05, 2004, 12:05 		You plan to empty the rosters right? I like that idea so people who had a roster during the preseason aren't rewarded with points in the 1st week if they forget to enter a roster for the open.
 
87Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Jun 05, 2004, 12:09 		Yes, rosters will be emptied, trades will be unlimited for that week (and then reset to 4 for the start of week #2), and cash will be reset to $4000. I'll retain the preseason history, but everything will be cleared out for the start of the regular season.
 
88Motley Crue
      Sustainer
      ID: 439372011
      Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 16:55 		I'm sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere, but do trades roll over like they do in the TSN/SmallWorld games? As in, I have 4 trades, and use 3 this week, do I get to keep one going into next week?
 
89Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 17:38 		Yes, trades roll over.

Motley, I sent you an email last week. Maybe I have an obsolete address? Could you please send me an email at davehall@rotoguru2.com?

Thx.
 
90Motley Crue
      Sustainer
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 11:08 		Guru,

I moved in May so all of my contact information changed. I did, however, receive an e-mail from you last night. I suppose you found my new e-mail address. At any rate, I will reply to your e-mail with my current information.

MC
 
91Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 11:15 		Yeah, when I saw your new GuruGolf registration, I had a new option to track you down!
 
92TaRhEElKiD
      ID: 150521415
      Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 15:16 		Guru-
Is it possible to deleted one of the teams I created? I only want to play with my team named "THK" and would like the "THK (-6 wins)" to be deleted. -6 wins just refers the the US Open prediction and isn't relevent for the entire Golf season.

Thanks,
THK
 
93Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:35 		It's not easy - especially since it's in the top slot among your teams. Just ignore it.
 
94TaRhEElKiD
      ID: 150521415
      Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 18:30 		Will do Guru. I love the Golf Majors and I am already feeling confident about my squad with this scoring system! ;-)

Good luck all,
THK
 
95youngroman
      ID: 59242611
      Wed, Jun 16, 2004, 15:46 		Gutu, i noticed a typo: Deutche Bank Championship

i found this on the rules page and on the grecap.cgi-page too.

it should be Deutsche Bank Championship (with an s in Deutsche)
 
96youngroman
      ID: 59242611
      Wed, Jun 16, 2004, 15:48 		and there was a typo from me, too. Sorry for that t, Guru!
 
97Gutu
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jun 16, 2004, 16:06 		Fixed. Thanks.
 
98Wheatridge
      ID: 435582710
      Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 10:33 		Dave, I have just selected my golfers for the Booz Allen Classic and noticed that I still had my Open roster and its value. My listing was not set back to 4,000,000 dollars, etc. I was a little short changed for the opening tournament.
 
99Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 10:50 		Maybe I don't understand what you just said, but what's the problem?

Why shouldn't you still have your Open roster? And since your team lost $30 in the Open, why shouldn't you have a little less than $4000?

The U.S. Open was the opening tournament.
 
100Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 10:57 		Perhaps you've misunderstood the "reset" function?

This simply allows you to undo all trades made since the last freeze. So, if you reset today, your roster reverts to its state for the U.S. Open.

If you want a true "do-over" with a blank roster and $4000, then you need to create a new team. You can do that on the "My Account" page.
 
101Wheatridge
      ID: 435582710
      Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 15:43 		Sorry about that. I thought the Open was the last in the practice series, and that the new seasonstarted with Booz Allen, just as TSN has started over.
 
102Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 15:50 		Since the initial discussion of the game, I've always said that the game would start no later than the U.S. Open. All rosters were cleared before the Open, and trades and values were reset. I thought it was pretty obvious.

 
103Species
      Leader
      ID: 7724916
      Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 17:24 		Man, this field is UGLY! Had to burn 3 trades on all 3 teams. The highest price guy is only like 1100-something.

Makes for an interesting decision....do you try to clean up on everyone else who conserves trades? Or do you maybe leave an inactive golfer and hope you squeak out a decent score? Decisions, decisions.
 
104StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 17:39 		I had 2/2/3 trades on each of my 3 trades. Trade conservation can really burn you if you choose the wrong "long term" hold. 1) they play multiple tournaments and miss the cut every time, 2) they miss the cut in the first tourney and then drop out for the next, meaning they were a 1 week hold anyway. With the British Open just a few weeks off this could get interesting...
 
105TaRhEElKiD
      ID: 150521415
      Thu, Jun 24, 2004, 00:30 		I am going week by week just for the hell of it.....LoL. Just started work and don't have time to research that much!!!

THK
 
106Twarpy
      Leader
      ID: 386242821
      Mon, Jun 28, 2004, 21:01 		Guru my Tdotters team seems to have only 2 trades left but my numbers I only used 3 trades last week and should have 3 trades this week. Maybe I'm wrong/done something to use that extra trade but if you could investigate I'd appreciate it.
 
107Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Jun 28, 2004, 22:45 		Twarpy - When I checked the log of transactions last week, I see the following:

sell Clarke, Darren
sell Garcia, Sergio
sell Toms, David
buy Scott, Adam
buy Howell III, Charles
sell Howell III, Charles
buy Howell III, Charles
buy Sabbatini, Rory

Obviously, you did not intend to buy Howell, then sell him, and then buy again. But if you do that, you need to reset your roser back to the last freeze status and then retrade.

I just reset your trade balance back to 3 as of the last freeze. If you have made any trades already this week, you'll need to reset your roster to reclaim that trade.
 
108Twarpy
      Leader
      ID: 386242821
      Mon, Jun 28, 2004, 23:56 		Ahh, thought it might be someting similar to that. Appreciate it, will try to remember that in the future.
 
109leggestand
      Sustainer
      ID: 451036518
      Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 15:42 		Guru, I have a question I can't figure out. Looking at the teams with the higher RV, dviox is on top with 4500+. But, I can't tell if it is taking into account generated income from before the US Open starting date. If you click on his team, it looks like he has generated income since the Memorial? Rex Monterra seems to have been generating income since the Colonial?

 
110Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 16:15 		Using the link in Post 55

I show dviox gain 190, 170, & 150 for a total of 510 gain

Seems right to me.
 
111leggestand
      Sustainer
      ID: 451036518
      Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 16:24 		Thanks Challenger, I now see how it works. I thought all rosters reset, so, that when the "real" game started you wouldn't even see the practice tourneys. Everyone's team still reset, even if the old rosters are still shown.
 
112Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 16:29 		Your welcome. Having the preseason results showing sometimes confuses me, mainly because I did better.

Guru, do you think you could add a column to our recap sheet showing our weekly RV gains/losses?
 
113Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 16:57 		I should probably make it clearer that the rosters and values were reset before the U.S. Open.

And adding a column for gain should be simple. I should have it done shortly.
 
114Challenger
      Donor
      ID: 481126818
      Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 23:25 		Thanks, much better & clearer