And then we have fantasy football

[King of Queens]

Blackjack (assuming you play by the "rules") is 100% luck and 0% skill. Some people may like to invent that there is skill involved or may buy into the myth that other people at the table playing "the right way" can determine if they win or lose, but that is a total myth. The game is random, the cards are random... Yet people funnel a ton of money into something that is 100% luck.

That's it! Shut up, bitches!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxTngPDN ... ure=fvwrel

[Glenneration X]

I disagree with the blackjack statement from a previous poster.

Whether poker, blackjack, or fantasy football, it's all about increasing your "odds" for success. By playing the hand correctly in poker or blackjack or by choosing the right players in a fantasy football draft, in FAAB, or to start in your lineup, you put yourself in better position to win. The "luck" of the draw or the game may not always fall your way, but because of the increased "odds", it will more often than for those who don't play the odds correctly.

Unfortunately, because it doesn't "always" fall that way is why we get threads like we have here.

Luck is why we have a different overall winner every year. Skill is why we always see the same people in the hunt.

[Don Draper]

I think we all know that weekly point scores have a high level of “randomness”. Look at the examples I listed earlier in the thread. That’s why the value/importance of Won/Loss record has significantly deteriorated since the NFFC’s first year.

If people are making the argument there are people who have consistently good fantasy football results, let’s consider two factors:

One: How does one measure “consistently good fantasy football results”? If an owner plays in 25 leagues a year, it stands to reason; they will be in the winner’s circle more often than an owner who only plays in 5 leagues a year.

Likewise, if an owner plays in multiple Supers, Ultimates, and Diamond leagues, it stands to reason; they will be higher on the Career Earnings leaderboard than an owner who doesn’t play in any Supers, Ultimates, and Diamonds leagues.

Is there a perception that owners who win more leagues and have a higher Career Earnings placement are the ones that have “consistently good fantasy football results”? Of course there is.

Would a better gauge of “consistently good fantasy football results” be a Percentage of Leagues Won leaderboard and a Career Profit leaderboard instead of a Career Earnings leaderboard?

Two: In the 9 years the NFFC Classic has existed; please list the names of the owners who have finished:
A. First overall more than once (I know this is zero)
B. In the Top 5 overall more than once?
C. In the Top 10 overall more than once?

[BigBlueNation]

my $.02

When I talk about LUCK in fantasy football, I'm referring to "BAD" luck. There are lots of good owners out there that do their research, create their own spreadsheets, rank their own players, etc.... Those owners are not lucky when they win, they are "UNLUCKY" when they lose. The best fantasy owners will be competitive in any league they're in, unless they have "BAD" luck.

[Sandman62]

I was drafting this reply while Don Draper was replying too evidently, and I have the same questions he does.

I know personally I've had bouts of success, but certainly wouldn't claim any kind of consistency. And I'm still in the running in about 1/3 of my 15 leagues; so please understand that this isn't a sour grapes issue.

With no disrespect intended toward anyone, I'm curious how we define "consistently competitive and successful".

A: Overall earnings – and net or gross?
To my knowledge, only gross earnings are posted. And even if net earnings were published, as challenging and commendable an accomplishment it is to cash substantially in the big national events, or in a Diamond, Ultimate or Super league, doing so just a small portion of the time can certainly keep one in the positive for a long time, despite how many other leagues they were in, but didn't cash.

B: Playoff appearances?
At least that's easily identified for us in the overall standings. But how many entries did they have? IOW, what percentage of their teams actually made the playoffs? And what about all the owners who finished one or two places outside of the playoffs, often missing by just a few points even, as well as often to head-to-head winners who scored substantially fewer points?

C: Average total points scored?
At least this is the overall sum of one's efforts and isn't based upon standings or money earned. And I certainly wouldn't argue against the NFFC's lifetime points leader. Billy IS an excellent player.

Top Weekly Scoring Average, 2004-11
• Billy Wasosky, Richmond, VA, 127.49 (Lifetime Standings Leader)
http://nffc.stats.com/football/nffc/records.asp

That said, total points can be influenced by the caliber of players in leagues. We all know that all it takes is a couple "lesser prepared/involved" owners in a league for that league's top players to outscore another league's top players where the caliber/interest/effort was consistent for all owners. Though, over enough of a sampling size, the cream likely rises to the top, as in Billy's case.

I wouldn't mind seeing a deeper version of this list, maybe top-50 or something similar, perhaps separating into a few different categories even:
• Lifetime
• Past 3 (or 5) years
• Past 10, 25, 50 or 100 league entries. To me, this category could provide the most accurate picture, as the other two categories don't account for the fact that some players only enter one league per year, while others are in 150 and everywhere in between.

D: Average league scoring rank?
Though we don't cash for 3rd or 4th place in 12-team leagues (or 4th/5th in 14-teams), I know I personally feel better when I know that my team was near the top in scoring than when I finish in the bottom of a league. But without cashing, these are no more considered "successful" by our peers than having come in last place - because no one else in the NFFC knows about it beyond the members of each league.

One could argue that, over time, a player who came in 3rd place in points 50 times could be considered more "consistently competitive and successful" than someone who maybe came in 1st or 2nd once (and cashed), but also came in last place 49 times. Hmmm... this has tones of the whole "Who’s the better QB - Dan Marino or Trent Dilfer?" debate, based on the value of Super Bowl wins.

So what do you think? What most accurately reflects “consistently competitive and successful”? And how many players like this do we have and who are they? Some of this data might very well end up in the NFFC's Hall of Fame at some point. But what about before there is the 10 years of data that the HoF will be based upon? And what about players who may have had quite a bit of success long before completing 10 years? I have a hunch who some of them will be just because I know some of the top players I've competed against, as well as the names I keep seeing in the standings each year. But I also don't know how many other leagues they're in and their "consistency".

Interesting topic.

[particra]

I find it interesting that people find this topic so interesting, I'm probably the exception. I judge my success/failure solely on how much money I won (or lost). If I won alot of money because I was lucky, it would make no difference to me. Likewise, I it would make me feel no better if I lost money if it turned out I was a good player who was unlucky. Normalizing things to account for who plays how many games, what stakes, etc., seems like a masturbatory exercise.

Basically, being "ranked" as consistently good or bad would have no impact on how I felt about fantasy football independent from the $$$ I won or lost. Unless, of course, they start handing out extra checks for "Best Fantasy Football Player."

Obviously, to each their own.

[Jack_Bauer]

I disagree with the blackjack statement from a previous poster.

Whether poker, blackjack, or fantasy football, it's all about increasing your "odds" for success. By playing the hand correctly in poker or blackjack or by choosing the right players in a fantasy football draft, in FAAB, or to start in your lineup, you put yourself in better position to win. The "luck" of the draw or the game may not always fall your way, but because of the increased "odds", it will more often than for those who don't play the odds correctly.

Unfortunately, because it doesn't "always" fall that way is why we get threads like we have here.

Luck is why we have a different overall winner every year. Skill is why we always see the same people in the hunt.

Allow me to clarify my point. There is this notion in the world of BlackJack that if you get 4 people playing at a table who are all playing perfect percentage blackjack, and then one person sits down and plays "wrong" (like standing on 15 against a ten) that the person playing "wrong" is going to make everyone else at the table lose.

That is a myth. The cards are random. The house always has an edge even if you play perfect by the book blackjack. When someone plays "wrong" they do influence the cards. But they can influence them in a way that HELPS everyone at the table just as easily as they can influence them to hurt those at the table. It is all random luck. That is my point.

You certainly are right that playing the blackjack hand "right" increases your chances of winning as compared to someone who doesn't play right. That wasn't my point. I didn't word it very well.

You also worded something well. "luck plays a big part in who wins overall and why we have a different winner every year, but skill is why we see many of the same names in the hunt..."

[afv]

I don’t think we have enough observations to definitely say skill or luck dominates fantasy sports. I will say though, that we can all draft a losing fantasy team on purpose. So there must be some skill involved in this hobby. If you can't lose on purpose, think flipping coins, luck dominates skill.

Competitive parity also increases the role of luck. The idea is that as the skill levels of the participants converge, the standard deviation of skill narrows and luck becomes more prominent (in activities that allow for luck). Convergence of skill can result from weaker players getting better, the dissemination of cheaper and more uniform information, or from athletes approaching biomechanical limits, slowing the rate of improvement. You might call it the paradox of skill: high and uniform skill levels suggest that luck becomes a larger determinant of outcomes. In activities that have little luck, including running and swimming races, you simply get lots of very close finishes. http://www.lmcm.com/868299.pdf

[Sandman62]

I find it interesting that people find this topic so interesting, I'm probably the exception. I judge my success/failure solely on how much money I won (or lost). If I won alot of money because I was lucky, it would make no difference to me. Likewise, I it would make me feel no better if I lost money if it turned out I was a good player who was unlucky. Normalizing things to account for who plays how many games, what stakes, etc., seems like a masturbatory exercise.

Basically, being "ranked" as consistently good or bad would have no impact on how I felt about fantasy football independent from the $$$ I won or lost. Unless, of course, they start handing out extra checks for "Best Fantasy Football Player."

Obviously, to each their own.

So if you were ahead in money for a few years, but did so via H2H wins with underperforming points, would you keep playing year after year, figuring "I'd rather be lucky than good"? Conversely, if you were scoring well and just barely missing the playoffs for several years, would you just quit because "I suck at this [cuz I haven't won $]"?

IOW, maybe to some, the fact that they know they just missed cashing is enough to fuel continued interest and participation. There are times when many sure probably felt "consistently competitive" but not very "successful" (i.e. didn't cash). I suppose to continue on with such an endeavor very long is a bit of an act of madness - but then, this IS "gambling" and really, over the long haul, I suspect that, though there may be lots of "successful" folks (i.e. ahead in cash), there are likely few, if any, who are "consistently competitive".

[particra]

I find it interesting that people find this topic so interesting, I'm probably the exception. I judge my success/failure solely on how much money I won (or lost). If I won alot of money because I was lucky, it would make no difference to me. Likewise, I it would make me feel no better if I lost money if it turned out I was a good player who was unlucky. Normalizing things to account for who plays how many games, what stakes, etc., seems like a masturbatory exercise.

Basically, being "ranked" as consistently good or bad would have no impact on how I felt about fantasy football independent from the $$$ I won or lost. Unless, of course, they start handing out extra checks for "Best Fantasy Football Player."

Obviously, to each their own.

So if you were ahead in money for a few years, but did so via H2H wins with underperforming points, would you keep playing year after year, figuring "I'd rather be lucky than good"? Conversely, if you were scoring well and just barely missing the playoffs for several years, would you just quit because "I suck at this [cuz I haven't won $]"?

IOW, maybe to some, the fact that they know they just missed cashing is enough to fuel continued interest and participation. There are times when many sure probably felt "consistently competitive" but not very "successful" (i.e. didn't cash). I suppose to continue on with such an endeavor very long is a bit of an act of madness - but then, this IS "gambling" and really, over the long haul, I suspect that, though there may be lots of "successful" folks (i.e. ahead in cash), there are likely few, if any, who are "consistently competitive".

I would probably keep playing under either scenario. I would play more when I win more because I have more money to spend regardless of why I won.


Along these sames lines, I'm not sure what practical difference the luck/skill debate makes (other than making us feel better when our teams suck, of course). Let's say you could crack the code, control for all variables, run a regression analysis, and definitively conclude that FF is 22.6% skill and 77.4% luck or 41%/59% or 11%/89% or whatever number you want. Does it matter? Will you play less or more? Or will you attribute your success to the 22.6% of the game that is skill?