doesn't all-play tip the skill-luck balance more towards skill. get ready to jump on the bandwagon. Is quoting youself akin to talking in the 3rd person? I offered this is another thread...
We're talking about the all-play format here. Personally, I don't like assigning the top 7 teams a win and the bottom 7 a loss and I also do not like competing against the average, but I do see some benefit to literally playing every team, every week. I won't go pimping a competitor to Stats Inc here, but a major scoring service offers this feature as a bonus even if you use standard H2H and I make a point at checking how the league fared using this every week. So to anticipate the follow-ups, if the changes are with respect to instituting an all-play format, bring it on. If the changes are to bump more people with higher total scored into the playoffs, then I'll pass.
My primary beef is with the assumption that the highest scoring team is the the best team, owned by the most skillful owner.
As suggested, I have followed several leagues via the all-play format and have seen that the highest scoring team does not always win the all play format. Very often, middle of the pack teams with respect to points have outstanding H2H all play records if they were more consistent in their scores from week to week.
I'll come clean with this as well---I had a weekend to kill before I go into hibernation with my fantasy baseball stuff and wanted to have a little fun so I threw something out here for discssion, in part to see where it would go. I didn't make any of it up, they are my honest thoughts, but as demonstrated with this all=play comment, improvements are possible.
[ December 05, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
Another angle to consider
Another angle to consider
"No one cares about your team but you."
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Another angle to consider
what about playing against every team in your league every week. if you have the top score you go 13-0 for the week. if you have the second best score you go 12-1 and so on... doesn't that tip the scale to skill?
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
-
Route Collectors
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:00 pm
Another angle to consider
Todd
Your 1st thread was much better. Question: have you ever played in a 2 play format?
If not - would you so easily discard it? That would be like saying you don't like the taste of something you've never eaten -wouldn't it?
RC
Your 1st thread was much better. Question: have you ever played in a 2 play format?
If not - would you so easily discard it? That would be like saying you don't like the taste of something you've never eaten -wouldn't it?
RC
Another angle to consider
what about playing against every team in your league every week. if you have the top score you go 13-0 for the week. if you have the second best score you go 12-1 and so on... doesn't that tip the scale to skill? Yes--I went back and edited my previous post which directly addresses thus. I just hope that bandwagon has heavy duty shock absorbers. One may assume I am referencing the chance many others also jump on, but I am more referring to the fact that anything I jump on needs serious reinforcement.
"No one cares about your team but you."
Another angle to consider
Question: have you ever played in a 2 play format?
Lots of cyber-space crossing going on...
While you were asking this I was suggesing I favor this format.
In a nutshell, my entire beef can be summed up as I do not favor a system that assumes the highest scoring teams are the best and most deserved to make the playoffs thus provisions need to be enacted to make sure they get there. I am entirely in favor of a change that helps what I consider to be the best teams to get there, and all play does that. I just believe that by year's end, the best teams's don't always lead the league in points.
So when I said i was against changing the scheduling inequity, I was specifically referring to the plethora of ideas that involved jumping up the teams with the most total points. Perhaps I was not clear enough in that, and for that I apologize.
[ December 05, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
Lots of cyber-space crossing going on...
While you were asking this I was suggesing I favor this format.
In a nutshell, my entire beef can be summed up as I do not favor a system that assumes the highest scoring teams are the best and most deserved to make the playoffs thus provisions need to be enacted to make sure they get there. I am entirely in favor of a change that helps what I consider to be the best teams to get there, and all play does that. I just believe that by year's end, the best teams's don't always lead the league in points.
So when I said i was against changing the scheduling inequity, I was specifically referring to the plethora of ideas that involved jumping up the teams with the most total points. Perhaps I was not clear enough in that, and for that I apologize.
[ December 05, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
"No one cares about your team but you."
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
what about playing against every team in your league every week. if you have the top score you go 13-0 for the week. if you have the second best score you go 12-1 and so on... doesn't that tip the scale to skill? Legit question for you...
In Mid A, if we had this play everyone, would that be fair to your team? You have a solid team, and all had a horrid week.
Would that one bad week drop you too far down the standings to the point where it does not accurately reflect your ENTIRE season? I think it might.
what about playing against every team in your league every week. if you have the top score you go 13-0 for the week. if you have the second best score you go 12-1 and so on... doesn't that tip the scale to skill? Legit question for you...
In Mid A, if we had this play everyone, would that be fair to your team? You have a solid team, and all had a horrid week.
Would that one bad week drop you too far down the standings to the point where it does not accurately reflect your ENTIRE season? I think it might.
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by UFS:
Legit question for you... legit answer for you...
Originally posted by UFS:
In Mid A, if we had this play everyone, would that be fair to your team? You have a solid team, and all had a horrid week.Yes, of course.
Originally posted by UFS:
Would that one bad week drop you too far down the standings to the point where it does not accurately reflect your ENTIRE season? I think it might. no. it would be 100% correct.
Legit question for you... legit answer for you...
Originally posted by UFS:
In Mid A, if we had this play everyone, would that be fair to your team? You have a solid team, and all had a horrid week.Yes, of course.
Originally posted by UFS:
Would that one bad week drop you too far down the standings to the point where it does not accurately reflect your ENTIRE season? I think it might. no. it would be 100% correct.
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
Using your sum-zero argument, by leveling out the bad luck, the good luck becomes more of the deciding factor. Leaving things as is at least gives the chance for someone who has had good luck to also receive bad luck. If luck is a zero-sum game here, which it is, the following must be true: If overall bad luck is reduced, overall good luck must also be reduced by an equal amount. You are arguing the opposite which is simply impossible, unless you can also argue that luck is not random, which by definition you cannot.
There are two components in this game. Luck and skill. If luck becomes a smaller portion, skill becomes a bigger portion.
You wanted proof. You just got it. And the above is not proof in the sense that it is my opinion, it is proof in the sense of a mathematical/ logical proof. If you disagree, submit it to a professor of either discipline and I assure you he will agree with me.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Using your sum-zero argument, by leveling out the bad luck, the good luck becomes more of the deciding factor. Leaving things as is at least gives the chance for someone who has had good luck to also receive bad luck. If luck is a zero-sum game here, which it is, the following must be true: If overall bad luck is reduced, overall good luck must also be reduced by an equal amount. You are arguing the opposite which is simply impossible, unless you can also argue that luck is not random, which by definition you cannot.
There are two components in this game. Luck and skill. If luck becomes a smaller portion, skill becomes a bigger portion.
You wanted proof. You just got it. And the above is not proof in the sense that it is my opinion, it is proof in the sense of a mathematical/ logical proof. If you disagree, submit it to a professor of either discipline and I assure you he will agree with me.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Another angle to consider
If overall bad luck is reduced, overall good luck must also be reduced by an equal amount. You are arguing the opposite which is simply impossible, unless you can also argue that luck is not random, which by definition you cannot. No, that's not what I am arguing. I have already explained this. I am breaking the overall luck into two portions:
A. The good luck/bad luck balance with respect to scheduling (points against)
B. The good luck bad/bad luck balance with respect to your team's performance (points for)
So in a mathematical sense, the overall luck is indeed reduced, no argument. My contention is reducing the luck associated with A does not make this a better game unto itself, it depends upon the way the luck is reduced.
Many offered ideas to counter A. The ideas I have issue with are those that simply ignore the W-L record of a team with greater points and assume the bad luck with respect to scheduling kept them out of the playoffs so to make up for that, they put team into the playoffs, often at the expense of a team with a better record and sometimes in addition to one.
My follow up argument is those teams with the highest point totals are benefitted by the type of luck designated as B, the performance kind.
So if teams with greater points are favored over teams with better records, a team has benefitted twice. First, the bad luck they would have incurred in the current method no longer exists and the good luck they enjoy from performance thrusts them into the playoffs.
Mathematically speaking, lets say a team has +10 units of good luck with respect to performance and -10 with respect to scheduling. Adding these units up, they have zero and end up out of the playoffs.
If the bad luck is minimized, then the +10 good luck units remain.
I want the random scheduling effect present to occasionally balance the good luck a team gets from performance, that is my argument.
All that said, as I have specified, an all-play format would accomplish my goal, even if the impetus for its evolution emanated from philospophies I disagree with.
[ December 05, 2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
A. The good luck/bad luck balance with respect to scheduling (points against)
B. The good luck bad/bad luck balance with respect to your team's performance (points for)
So in a mathematical sense, the overall luck is indeed reduced, no argument. My contention is reducing the luck associated with A does not make this a better game unto itself, it depends upon the way the luck is reduced.
Many offered ideas to counter A. The ideas I have issue with are those that simply ignore the W-L record of a team with greater points and assume the bad luck with respect to scheduling kept them out of the playoffs so to make up for that, they put team into the playoffs, often at the expense of a team with a better record and sometimes in addition to one.
My follow up argument is those teams with the highest point totals are benefitted by the type of luck designated as B, the performance kind.
So if teams with greater points are favored over teams with better records, a team has benefitted twice. First, the bad luck they would have incurred in the current method no longer exists and the good luck they enjoy from performance thrusts them into the playoffs.
Mathematically speaking, lets say a team has +10 units of good luck with respect to performance and -10 with respect to scheduling. Adding these units up, they have zero and end up out of the playoffs.
If the bad luck is minimized, then the +10 good luck units remain.
I want the random scheduling effect present to occasionally balance the good luck a team gets from performance, that is my argument.
All that said, as I have specified, an all-play format would accomplish my goal, even if the impetus for its evolution emanated from philospophies I disagree with.
[ December 05, 2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]
"No one cares about your team but you."
Another angle to consider
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
quote: If overall bad luck is reduced, overall good luck must also be reduced by an equal amount. You are arguing the opposite which is simply impossible, unless you can also argue that luck is not random, which by definition you cannot. No, that's not what I am arguing. I have already explained this. I am breaking the overall luck into two portions:
A. The good luck/bad luck balance with respect to scheduling (points against)
B. The good luck bad/bad luck balance with respect to your team's performance (points for)
So in a mathematical sense, the overall luck is indeed reduced, no argument. My contention is reducing the luck associated with A does not make this a better game unto itself, it depends upon the way the luck is reduced. [/QUOTE]
OK
Many offered ideas to counter A. The ideas I have issue with are those that simply ignore the W-L record of a team with greater points and assume the bad luck with respect to scheduling kept them out of the playoffs so to make up for that, they put team into the playoffs, often at the expense of a team with a better record and sometimes in addition to one. I don't disagree with this either.
My follow up argument is those teams with the highest point totals are benefitted by the type of luck designated as B, the performance kind.
So if teams with greater points are favored over teams with better records, a team has benefitted twice. First, the bad luck they would have incurred in the current method no longer exists and the good luck they enjoy from performance thrusts them into the playoffs.
Mathematically speaking, lets say a team has +10 units of good luck with respect to performance and -10 with respect to scheduling. Adding these units up, they have zero and end up out of the playoffs.
If the bad luck is minimized, then the +10 good luck units remain.
I want the random scheduling effect present to occasionally balance the good luck a team gets from performance, that is my argument. Here is where I think your argument breaks down.
First, you cannot quantify and separate luck from skill when it comes to player performance, which I am sure even you will admit.
Second, aren't you assuming that luck is not random? The team that has +10 units of performance luck is just as likely to have -10 units of scheduling luck as he is +10 of scheduling luck.
All that said, as I have specified, an all-play format would accomplish my goal, even if the impetus for its evolution emanated from philospophies I disagree with. We agree on the all-play, although I think a modified all-play retains more marketability and enhances the consistency factor relative to the outlier high-score-week factor.
quote: If overall bad luck is reduced, overall good luck must also be reduced by an equal amount. You are arguing the opposite which is simply impossible, unless you can also argue that luck is not random, which by definition you cannot. No, that's not what I am arguing. I have already explained this. I am breaking the overall luck into two portions:
A. The good luck/bad luck balance with respect to scheduling (points against)
B. The good luck bad/bad luck balance with respect to your team's performance (points for)
So in a mathematical sense, the overall luck is indeed reduced, no argument. My contention is reducing the luck associated with A does not make this a better game unto itself, it depends upon the way the luck is reduced. [/QUOTE]
OK
Many offered ideas to counter A. The ideas I have issue with are those that simply ignore the W-L record of a team with greater points and assume the bad luck with respect to scheduling kept them out of the playoffs so to make up for that, they put team into the playoffs, often at the expense of a team with a better record and sometimes in addition to one. I don't disagree with this either.
My follow up argument is those teams with the highest point totals are benefitted by the type of luck designated as B, the performance kind.
So if teams with greater points are favored over teams with better records, a team has benefitted twice. First, the bad luck they would have incurred in the current method no longer exists and the good luck they enjoy from performance thrusts them into the playoffs.
Mathematically speaking, lets say a team has +10 units of good luck with respect to performance and -10 with respect to scheduling. Adding these units up, they have zero and end up out of the playoffs.
If the bad luck is minimized, then the +10 good luck units remain.
I want the random scheduling effect present to occasionally balance the good luck a team gets from performance, that is my argument. Here is where I think your argument breaks down.
First, you cannot quantify and separate luck from skill when it comes to player performance, which I am sure even you will admit.
Second, aren't you assuming that luck is not random? The team that has +10 units of performance luck is just as likely to have -10 units of scheduling luck as he is +10 of scheduling luck.
All that said, as I have specified, an all-play format would accomplish my goal, even if the impetus for its evolution emanated from philospophies I disagree with. We agree on the all-play, although I think a modified all-play retains more marketability and enhances the consistency factor relative to the outlier high-score-week factor.