County Fantasy Manager 2015

[Red Devil]

ok -I've taken a look and if we give everyone 500k extra then we get a very broad brush approach because players left are cheaper and the gaps in amount spent are quite large

anyway - opening cost per player left (based on adding 500)

bhavesh = 660/18 = 36.7k
brendy = 500/14 = 35.7k
CF = 1100/16 = 68.8k
Colly = 580/14 = 41.4k
Ian = 500/2 = 250k
Ntini = 500/8 = 62.5k
powelly = 530/13 = 40.8k
RD = 500/10 = 50k
sussex = 640/7 = 91.4k

so we just start with Ian

[ianp1970]

Won't that mean that I get the 1st pick (250K) and the 2nd (125K) fill my squad of 30 then leave everyone else to

[hopeforthebest]

ok -I've taken a look and if we give everyone 500k extra then we get a very broad brush approach because players left are cheaper and the gaps in amount spent are quite large

anyway - opening cost per player left (based on adding 500)

bhavesh = 660/18 = 36.7k
brendy = 500/14 = 35.7k
CF = 1100/16 = 68.8k
Colly = 580/14 = 41.4k
Ian = 500/2 = 250k
Ntini = 500/8 = 62.5k
powelly = 530/13 = 31.2k
RD = 500/10 = 50k
sussex = 640/7 = 91.4k

so we just start with Ian

Personally I think that anyone who is getting players from the lottery for free should be darned grateful and stop arguing over the way the players were awarded.

[sussexpob]

Thanks Ian....

Looked through my bids and no one I successful bidded on i missing, so I think I need another player

[Red Devil]

Ian, based on my last post

Ian gets Ali and Anderson
sussex gets all the players from Bell to Stokes
CF gets all the players from Williamson to Leach
Ntini gets all the players from Lees to Arafat
RD gets all the players from Berg to Jones
Colly gets all the players from Marshall to Wakeley
powelly gets all the players from Wells to Hatchett
Bhavesh gets Hosein to Arshad
brendy gets Bailey to Gubbins

quite coarse and maybe not ideal (although maybe it is, I don't know) because we could play with the amount to add on, but don't have time.

still better though i think, because before we had Colly and bhavesh getting quite a few top players to augment their (smaller) superstar teams, which didn't seem right and seemed to tilt the balance.

[sussexpob]

Not followed this conversation, but if we already drew we should stick to it. Maybe we can tweak next year

[st_brendy]

Well if Ian's is wrong, that is surely even more so. There doesn't seem to be any taking into account the fact that once a player has been allocated to a manager, that manager's value-per-slot changes (just like in Ian's Trescothick example).

I'm sort of with Hope and Sussex here. I'd say we accept Ian's (very in depth!) work and move on from there.

[Red Devil]

we can stick with the original, but it seems very odd that bhavesh, brendy and colly who were the 3 biggest spenders per player pre-lottery will walk away with some of the best players from the lottery as well.

[Red Devil]

Well if Ian's is wrong, that is surely even more so. There doesn't seem to be any taking into account the fact that once a player has been allocated to a manager, that manager's value-per-slot changes (just like in Ian's Trescothick example).

It does, it's just that the gaps in spending to start with are quite big and hence it doesn't affect the overall rank. later on, the cost of players drops and the average amount left per player actually starts to go up with each allocation.

[Dr Cricket]

TBH I was quite shocked with the players I ended up with in the lottery.

[Red Devil]

TBH I was quite shocked with the players I ended up with in the lottery.

yeah - I reckon the original lottery took you into being a strong favourite, and did the same for Colly and maybe Brendy - that's my point!

anyway - I'm with Hope - we should scrap the lottery next year, even if it means having a round 5 ... and should just say that everyone has to buy 30 players in total (you could just buy 15 players at 10k and then buy 15 superstars).

for this year, I struggle with the fact that Ian's version of the lottery seems to advantage some of the highest spenders, however my version does appear coarse or too coarse (whilst it does rectify the point about advantaging high spenders)

Apologies again Ian, and happy for you to stick to your original version if you believe it achieves a fairer outcome. Time to go to bed soon - another early start awaits

[ianp1970]

Thanks for your input guys

I think we're going to go with the squads as posted (along with with an extra transfer window between M/W 1/2)

For the 1st M/W post your teams on here in order from 1 to 30. From next week I will expect Google Docs to be used.

[Dr Cricket]

Although what ever decision Ian takes I be happy with since I am happy with whatever squad I get.
Although I reckon everyone F**cked up their strategy since no one really should be getting 4-8 players in a row at the lottery.
in the football game the lottery generally rotated between players like a draft system.
it seem like what ever system ian does someone will have a horrible lottery.
in the original one 2-3 team are given some shockers, in Red Sussex looks like having a poor one and probably the team in the bottom.

Looking at the draft list all the best players are in the middle.

[ianp1970]

Early thought for next year is to scrap the lottery altogether. Rounds 1-4 to run the same, with some kind of automated draft to finalise squads.

[ianp1970]

Postby ianp1970 » Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:44 pm

Thanks for your input guys

I think we're going to go with the squads as posted (along with with an extra transfer window between M/W 1/2)

For the 1st M/W post your teams on here in order from 1 to 30. From next week I will expect Google Docs to be used.

If posters could name their team in the same style as the spreadsheets, it would make it so much easier for me.