Fantasy football takes no skill (1 Viewer)

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The schedule is not "a" thing. It's THE thing. It's so powerful I can control everything with that one thing. Skill cannot overcome it. But you're right. Not really relevant. I just think it's interesting (total points fan).

Any card game or dice game can be "controlled" if you can control the cards or dice in retrospect; that's really not an interesting question.

I'm saying in six months I can take a human being who has never watched professional football and they can compete with "champions" who visit this board. Six months with a person who doesn't know a punt from pass interference against a lifelong NFL fanatic. And by the numbers you wouldn't know who was who. No significant skill involved: Just interest, energy and access.

In six months I can take a human being who has never done IT support and turn them into am IT support person, by forcing them to develop their skills. It is only by forcing them to develop their skills that they can improve.

I disagree. In your cards and dice game example, you're controlling the thing that matters most-- and by doing so, you admit that the schedule means more than anything else. Playing cards is about playing people, not the cards. The randomness of the cards cannot make or break you. You can win with 2-7 or lose with A-A. But the schedule can sink you no matter how good your team, is. I think it's interesting that people willingly throw their fortunes to something so random before they select their first players. You can teach someone to do IT work in six months, but they won't hold a candle to the best in that field. But a novice at football can compete with fantasy league champions in six months. There's more to IT than knowing how things work. You need to interact with the humans who screw it up (or the co-workers who do) and communicate with them in a meaningful way. Not so with fantasy football except for trading, which isn't a big enough part of the game to merit the skill as being among the most critical factors.

 

[proninja]

It's all luck. You nerds who are trying to convince other people that it's all skill just got lucky this year.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Zod, you're not demonstrating that there's no skill involved in fantasy football, you're just demonstrating that with the Internet, anyone can piggyback off of someone else's skill. Anyone can take Henry's preseason projections, and pair them with Dodds' weekly rankings, and waltz to a championship. That's true, but it's irrelevant- it doesn't prove that no skill is required, it just proves that Henry and Dodds are incredibly skilled. I could give a 3rd grader a pocket chess computer and enter him in a chess tournament, and he'd dominate despite not knowing a fork from a pin. Does this mean that chess doesn't require skill, or does this mean that if you borrow someone else's skill, you don't need any of your own?I think if you spend a lot more time in non-traditional formats (survivor, best ball, weird scoring systems, salary cap, dynasty), you'll observe the skill gap much more clearly. With a sudden dearth of widely-available expert skill off of which one can piggyback, you'll quickly find out who intuitively understands value, and who is a fraud who can't make his own decisions without first consulting the Internet.

No, I don't mean use the Internet to copy someone's cheat sheet. I mean use it to gather all the information possible and be as up to date as anyone in the league. That includes premium content, but not necessarily someone's skill in saying who to draft. The pocket chess comparison works with giving a bad player a cheat sheet, but not the same as giving a novice six months to compete with the best of the board. Every advantage "good fantasy football players" have can be taught to someone who has never seen the game in around half a year. And not just one random person out of 10. Ten out of 10. All of them. The game isn't a game of skill. It's a game of educated guesses, hypothetical match-ups, artificial drama and camaraderie. It's a great game. Just not a game of skill.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

You guys are nerds. You can draft all the right players, but there is no guarantee that they will all perform well in the same given week that happens to be week 16. NO ONE has the skill to predict this.

The only thing nerdy is the assumption that somebody with more skill ALWAYS wins. Nobody who has argued that skill is a major component of fantasy sports is arguing that skilled players always win--the argument is that a skilled owner is more likely to win than a non-skilled one. Luck is buying a lottery ticket and winning--it's purely random chance. With fantasy sports--you have some control over who you draft, the moves you make during the season, and the lineups you submit--if you are a skilled player--your lineup should have a better chance of winning in the long run. This doesn't mean that some opponents team can't go off against you in a given week. If skill had nothing to do with it--then you should basically have a computer randomly do your draft,and randomly set your lineups--remove the skill element completely and see how your team does. Saying that skill has no place in it is quite possibly the nerdiest thing in this entire post. Actually, I take that back--calling a bunch of people that you have most likely never met "nerds" actually takes the cake. If you can't type a post without calling people names and contributing anything useful--perhaps you shouldn't even comment.

It's nerdy that you even took the time to type all of that.

You should really post even more stuff. You are doing a wonderful job making yourself look intelligent. Well done!!

 

[jvdesigns2002]

You guys are nerds. You can draft all the right players, but there is no guarantee that they will all perform well in the same given week that happens to be week 16. NO ONE has the skill to predict this.

The only thing nerdy is the assumption that somebody with more skill ALWAYS wins. Nobody who has argued that skill is a major component of fantasy sports is arguing that skilled players always win--the argument is that a skilled owner is more likely to win than a non-skilled one. Luck is buying a lottery ticket and winning--it's purely random chance. With fantasy sports--you have some control over who you draft, the moves you make during the season, and the lineups you submit--if you are a skilled player--your lineup should have a better chance of winning in the long run. This doesn't mean that some opponents team can't go off against you in a given week. If skill had nothing to do with it--then you should basically have a computer randomly do your draft,and randomly set your lineups--remove the skill element completely and see how your team does. Saying that skill has no place in it is quite possibly the nerdiest thing in this entire post. Actually, I take that back--calling a bunch of people that you have most likely never met "nerds" actually takes the cake. If you can't type a post without calling people names and contributing anything useful--perhaps you shouldn't even comment.

It's nerdy that you even took the time to type all of that.

You should really post even more stuff. You are doing a wonderful job making yourself look intelligent. Well done!!

I'm sure you're proud of your championship. Keep practicing during the off-season and I'm sure you'll be able to repeat!

Oh good--you posted again. Thank you for continuing to show us your vast knowledge!! You should keep posting!!

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I drafted:

Drew Brees

Adrian Peterson

Trent Richardson

Roddy White

Dez Bryant

...as the base of my team. These are the guys who produced and I just filled in the holes elsewhere. That was plan, that was skill. Your draft is 90% of your season. It's a lottery ticket. Hit early and often, the later rounds don't matter too much...

What skill did it take out of you to draft those guys? The skill of reading? The skill of researching? The skill of knowing where to read and where to research? Congrats, you're a skilled reader and researcher. You're also skilled at Fantasy Golf and Soccer, and you don't even know it yet!I skillfully had my internet connection die here in Asia, which had me leave Kyle Rudolph in my line up when I was going to replace him with Chris Givens. I won today by the margin of their point difference. I got skills!

This game is educated guessing with sprinkles of luck on top. Period. The End.

Knowing and understanding value is not a skill? Managing a team and understanding when it's a good time to buy low or sell high in a certain situation is not a skill? Doing proper research to make the best decisions possible is luck? The fact that doing research actually helps your chances of winning proves exactly that it's more skill than luck. If the game was pretty much all luck--then you could put random names in a bag and draft--and your odds of winning would be the same. I think we could all agree that the odds of winning your fantasy league would probably not occur utilizing that strategy. The people on the "luck" side of this argument are confusing "luck" with small sample size. A lot of people bring up the poker analogy in this debate--and I think there is one very important similarity. A good poker player will tend to get his money in good (he'll typically get his money in when he is the favorite to win against his opponent) more often than not. Over the long run (hundreds or thousands of hands), the law of averages would benefit him/her heavily. This is the same reason why Las Vegas casino's take into account average bet, and how many hours a day one gambles when issuing comps. They would rather have a blackjack player play $25 a hand for 40 hands versus somebody who walks up and bets $1000 in one hand. Every hand that blackjack player plays, the casino is a slight favorite--so their goal is to get you to sit at those tables. The more hands you play--the more they tend to benefit--it's the same concept as a good poker player. In fantasy football, you are looking at a 14 week regular season, and a 2-3 week playoff (where it's one and done),so there is a very small sample size. It is this small sample size that creates the variability and in a sense limits the advantage that "skill" gives a certain owner. Tell a poker professional to play 16 hands at a time and measure his results, versus 1600 hands at a time. You'll find that there will be a lot more variance in the 16 hand results. The point is, don't underestimate skill because of small sample size. Even in a short 16 week season-- one should still prefer to go into each week as the slight favorite and hope his team holds up-- versus believing in pure randomness (which is in essence what luck is). There is a giant difference between the two.

Don't think of it as pure randomness. Luck is the difference between two prepared teams. I think you're confusing preparedness with skill. * Could I hire a person off the street who knows nothing about football and pay them to "get prepared" for six months in the offseason...and compete in your league? I bet I could. I don't know if they'd win, but they'd field a competitive team. And they didn't know a thing about football until I plucked them off the street. That's not a skill.

* Could I take the team with the best record in your league, play with the schedule and keep them out of the playoffs? Could I do the reverse with a lottery team? I bet I could. The schedule itself is random.

* Could I take the worst owner in your league and give him the information YOU use, and limit you to the information THEY use...and switch your fortunes? I bet I could. Part of your success is the attention you pay to the game.

Being prepared is not a skill. Paying attention is not a skill. Obtaining information is not a skill in 2012. You still deserve your success (like the prepared and disciplined employee who earns their success by working hard), but you're not "skilled" at fantasy football. You are smart enough to do the things to put yourself in a position to benefit from good luck or overcome bad luck.

You earned it, but it's not a skill.

So according to your logic--anything that does not require athletic ability or manual labor is not a "skill". Daniel Negreanu is not a "skilled" poker player because he just reads books by Doyle brunson and other Poker historians to get good--He's just a "prepared" poker player. Somehow muscle memory is skill--but acquiring knowledge and making good decisions are no longer related to "skill". A "skilled" fantasy football player will draft players in draft positions that give them value. They will make moves just at the right time to strengthen their team at every possible moment. They will look at other teams and see if they are suffering any weaknesses that they can use to their advantage---if you see a team that has injuries at a certain position, but is very strong in another position--you can try to make a move that capitalizes on that situation for yourself. I think you are grossly misinterpreting what skill is versus what luck is. Taking available information, computing it to create a strategy that benefits yourself the most, and acting upon that strategy is indeed a skill. What does an offensive or defensive coordinator in the NFL do?--they look at tapes of their opponents (which are available to the public)--they look at their own personnel and compute this information to design a strategy that puts them in an optimum position to win--this is a skill. I'm a skilled salesman because I know the product, I take into account each of my customers needs, I manage and assess their personalities to come up with a strategy that optimizes my chances of making a sale and proceed accordingly. Fantasy football is a game--and just as in any game--there are players who are more skilled than others--and for the most part--the odds are that these more skilled or better players have a higher chance of winning. The only role that preparation makes in fantasy football is in obtaining the information that we normally would not have access too--I don't have the money or time to fly to each team's practice facility to see how each player is looking. However, this information does not necessarily diagram what I need to do to maximize making my team the best it can be--I still need to come up with the best strategy to make my team as good as possible. We more or less agree on a lot of things--but I disagree that it is all preparation--the skill is in using that information to create a strategy that gives on the best chance of wining. In my world--that is a skill--not just time spent reading what running back looks healthy in practice.

Negreanu's skill has little to do with the cards. He is a master-- an absolute master-- at reading people. It cannot be taught. You can learn cues and try to glean info from it, but I could study it for 10 years and not be in his league. Totally different.And I disagree with you about sales. I can learn your product until I know it better than you do. I can organize my time and day so I'm seeing 25 percent more people than you. I can set up a schedule so I'm up to date with the industry's trends before you check your Inbox in the morning. Give me time and money and I'm sure I can do all those things as well or better than you.

But you know what you do better, right now? You relate to your clients. You make a prospect feel comfortable. You exude confidence and a willingness to help. You're friendly and sincere. And if you're a success in sales, it's because you do those things better than the people the client met before you. You can't teach that. People make a living pretending you can, and they sell books and seminars and other garbage. But relating to people and convincing them that your product is something they need is a skill. And you simply can't teach it effectively. You can mimic it, but you can't really teach it.

Preparedness is not skill. It requires effort and discipline, but it's not a skill. And there's nothing you do as a fantasy football champion that I can't teach a complete novice to do in a few months. Not the same in your sales career, and not the same in poker.

Where do you think Negreanu learned to be a "master"?--he became a skilled poker player through preparation and hard work. He reads his opponents patterns and assesses situations--including his cards and the way the table perceives him--and comes up with a strategy that optimizes his chance of winning a pot. This process of creating the strategy is the skill. He wasn't a master poker player when he was ten years old--his "skill" increased as he prepared more and expanded his experience. Discounting the hard work he had to put in to obtain his skill is nothing short of insulting. The same thing goes with being a sales person--the skill is not in knowing the product--its about being able to quickly evaluate your potential buyer--and coming up with a strategy that will increase your chances of making the sale. You are confusing skill with preparation. The preparation is just a seed or a tool that leads to skill. I don't understand why you choose to draw this separation between preparation leading to becoming more "skilled" at something. The information that is out there in regards to the fantasy world is available to everybody--so how come everybody that utilizes it has completely different results when it comes to their leagues? The reason is because the information in itself doesn't make somebody a good fantasy owner--it's how the owner uses that information to benefit them the most---this process is the skill. The fact that you can teach a novice to be better at something in a few months is not only obvious--but it doesn't strengthen your point of view one bit. A blacksmith can teach a novice for a few months and that novice will acquire some skill in metal fabrication. Just because something can be taught---doesn't mean it is not a skill--so what is your point exactly?

No, sir. He did not learn to read people through a book or hard work. Surely preparation makes him better at it. But you cannot take a Neil B. Zod and turn them into a Daniel Negreanu. I do not have the skill to read people like he does. I can mask it with being more prepared, but in the end it's a tool that's not really in my poker toolbox. I can get better, but never really good.Yes, at 10 years old I believe he was good at reading people. Better than others his age, most likely. For some people with that skill, they become good at business. Others become pastors or politicians. He became a poker player. But his ability to read people-- the skill he has that most opponent's don't-- is what really sets him apart. No doubt he puts in the work, but being prepared isn't a skill. It's hard work, and I have no doubt he does it.

Maybe you didn't read what I said about sales, but I already asserted it's not about product. I can outlearn you regarding your product and outwork you in prospecting. But that doesn't mean I'll outsell you. Being more prepared than you doesn't mean I'll be a better seller. You likely have a skill I don't have.

You asked why people with the same info have different results in fantasy football. Here's your answer: They don't. They have the same ACCESS to info, but not the same info. Not the same time pressures, and not the same interest in the game. Most 12-team leagues aren't really 12 equal teams. Two or three teams are casual players who enjoy the camaraderie. Maybe they fall into a great team and win once in a blue moon. But they don't really care as much about it. Their lives are occupied with other things. Nothing wrong with that, but they simply aren't as prepared. They don't put the time in to staying on top of things. They hear about Alfred Morris and Danario Alexander once they've lost to them in their opponent's lineup. They do enough to not embarrass themselves but don't keep up with the top teams.

And those top teams? The ones who make the playoffs most years and dominate? They out-work everyone else. They follow it closer. They stay on top of things. They're better-prepared. That's not an insult; it's a compliment. But it's not a skill.

Finally, my point is NOT that I can teach a novice to be decent at fantasy football. My point is that I can take a novice and have them keep up with you in just six months. They'll make the playoffs just as much as you and win titles as much as you. I wouldn't simply make them better. I'd make them you.

Not because I'm brilliant, or because I'm so super-awesome. It's because what you think is skill is just being prepared, and anyone can out-prepare you if they want it badly enough. Anyone-- even someone who has never seen the game.

If anyone can do it and be among the best in a group (not just better or okay, but a champion) it's not a skill.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I drafted:

Drew Brees

Adrian Peterson

Trent Richardson

Roddy White

Dez Bryant

...as the base of my team. These are the guys who produced and I just filled in the holes elsewhere. That was plan, that was skill. Your draft is 90% of your season. It's a lottery ticket. Hit early and often, the later rounds don't matter too much...

What skill did it take out of you to draft those guys? The skill of reading? The skill of researching? The skill of knowing where to read and where to research? Congrats, you're a skilled reader and researcher. You're also skilled at Fantasy Golf and Soccer, and you don't even know it yet!I skillfully had my internet connection die here in Asia, which had me leave Kyle Rudolph in my line up when I was going to replace him with Chris Givens. I won today by the margin of their point difference. I got skills!

This game is educated guessing with sprinkles of luck on top. Period. The End.

Knowing and understanding value is not a skill? Managing a team and understanding when it's a good time to buy low or sell high in a certain situation is not a skill? Doing proper research to make the best decisions possible is luck? The fact that doing research actually helps your chances of winning proves exactly that it's more skill than luck. If the game was pretty much all luck--then you could put random names in a bag and draft--and your odds of winning would be the same. I think we could all agree that the odds of winning your fantasy league would probably not occur utilizing that strategy. The people on the "luck" side of this argument are confusing "luck" with small sample size. A lot of people bring up the poker analogy in this debate--and I think there is one very important similarity. A good poker player will tend to get his money in good (he'll typically get his money in when he is the favorite to win against his opponent) more often than not. Over the long run (hundreds or thousands of hands), the law of averages would benefit him/her heavily. This is the same reason why Las Vegas casino's take into account average bet, and how many hours a day one gambles when issuing comps. They would rather have a blackjack player play $25 a hand for 40 hands versus somebody who walks up and bets $1000 in one hand. Every hand that blackjack player plays, the casino is a slight favorite--so their goal is to get you to sit at those tables. The more hands you play--the more they tend to benefit--it's the same concept as a good poker player. In fantasy football, you are looking at a 14 week regular season, and a 2-3 week playoff (where it's one and done),so there is a very small sample size. It is this small sample size that creates the variability and in a sense limits the advantage that "skill" gives a certain owner. Tell a poker professional to play 16 hands at a time and measure his results, versus 1600 hands at a time. You'll find that there will be a lot more variance in the 16 hand results. The point is, don't underestimate skill because of small sample size. Even in a short 16 week season-- one should still prefer to go into each week as the slight favorite and hope his team holds up-- versus believing in pure randomness (which is in essence what luck is). There is a giant difference between the two.

Don't think of it as pure randomness. Luck is the difference between two prepared teams. I think you're confusing preparedness with skill. * Could I hire a person off the street who knows nothing about football and pay them to "get prepared" for six months in the offseason...and compete in your league? I bet I could. I don't know if they'd win, but they'd field a competitive team. And they didn't know a thing about football until I plucked them off the street. That's not a skill.

* Could I take the team with the best record in your league, play with the schedule and keep them out of the playoffs? Could I do the reverse with a lottery team? I bet I could. The schedule itself is random.

* Could I take the worst owner in your league and give him the information YOU use, and limit you to the information THEY use...and switch your fortunes? I bet I could. Part of your success is the attention you pay to the game.

Being prepared is not a skill. Paying attention is not a skill. Obtaining information is not a skill in 2012. You still deserve your success (like the prepared and disciplined employee who earns their success by working hard), but you're not "skilled" at fantasy football. You are smart enough to do the things to put yourself in a position to benefit from good luck or overcome bad luck.

You earned it, but it's not a skill.

So according to your logic--anything that does not require athletic ability or manual labor is not a "skill". Daniel Negreanu is not a "skilled" poker player because he just reads books by Doyle brunson and other Poker historians to get good--He's just a "prepared" poker player. Somehow muscle memory is skill--but acquiring knowledge and making good decisions are no longer related to "skill". A "skilled" fantasy football player will draft players in draft positions that give them value. They will make moves just at the right time to strengthen their team at every possible moment. They will look at other teams and see if they are suffering any weaknesses that they can use to their advantage---if you see a team that has injuries at a certain position, but is very strong in another position--you can try to make a move that capitalizes on that situation for yourself. I think you are grossly misinterpreting what skill is versus what luck is. Taking available information, computing it to create a strategy that benefits yourself the most, and acting upon that strategy is indeed a skill. What does an offensive or defensive coordinator in the NFL do?--they look at tapes of their opponents (which are available to the public)--they look at their own personnel and compute this information to design a strategy that puts them in an optimum position to win--this is a skill. I'm a skilled salesman because I know the product, I take into account each of my customers needs, I manage and assess their personalities to come up with a strategy that optimizes my chances of making a sale and proceed accordingly. Fantasy football is a game--and just as in any game--there are players who are more skilled than others--and for the most part--the odds are that these more skilled or better players have a higher chance of winning. The only role that preparation makes in fantasy football is in obtaining the information that we normally would not have access too--I don't have the money or time to fly to each team's practice facility to see how each player is looking. However, this information does not necessarily diagram what I need to do to maximize making my team the best it can be--I still need to come up with the best strategy to make my team as good as possible. We more or less agree on a lot of things--but I disagree that it is all preparation--the skill is in using that information to create a strategy that gives on the best chance of wining. In my world--that is a skill--not just time spent reading what running back looks healthy in practice.

Negreanu's skill has little to do with the cards. He is a master-- an absolute master-- at reading people. It cannot be taught. You can learn cues and try to glean info from it, but I could study it for 10 years and not be in his league. Totally different.And I disagree with you about sales. I can learn your product until I know it better than you do. I can organize my time and day so I'm seeing 25 percent more people than you. I can set up a schedule so I'm up to date with the industry's trends before you check your Inbox in the morning. Give me time and money and I'm sure I can do all those things as well or better than you.

But you know what you do better, right now? You relate to your clients. You make a prospect feel comfortable. You exude confidence and a willingness to help. You're friendly and sincere. And if you're a success in sales, it's because you do those things better than the people the client met before you. You can't teach that. People make a living pretending you can, and they sell books and seminars and other garbage. But relating to people and convincing them that your product is something they need is a skill. And you simply can't teach it effectively. You can mimic it, but you can't really teach it.

Preparedness is not skill. It requires effort and discipline, but it's not a skill. And there's nothing you do as a fantasy football champion that I can't teach a complete novice to do in a few months. Not the same in your sales career, and not the same in poker.

Where do you think Negreanu learned to be a "master"?--he became a skilled poker player through preparation and hard work. He reads his opponents patterns and assesses situations--including his cards and the way the table perceives him--and comes up with a strategy that optimizes his chance of winning a pot. This process of creating the strategy is the skill. He wasn't a master poker player when he was ten years old--his "skill" increased as he prepared more and expanded his experience. Discounting the hard work he had to put in to obtain his skill is nothing short of insulting. The same thing goes with being a sales person--the skill is not in knowing the product--its about being able to quickly evaluate your potential buyer--and coming up with a strategy that will increase your chances of making the sale. You are confusing skill with preparation. The preparation is just a seed or a tool that leads to skill. I don't understand why you choose to draw this separation between preparation leading to becoming more "skilled" at something. The information that is out there in regards to the fantasy world is available to everybody--so how come everybody that utilizes it has completely different results when it comes to their leagues? The reason is because the information in itself doesn't make somebody a good fantasy owner--it's how the owner uses that information to benefit them the most---this process is the skill. The fact that you can teach a novice to be better at something in a few months is not only obvious--but it doesn't strengthen your point of view one bit. A blacksmith can teach a novice for a few months and that novice will acquire some skill in metal fabrication. Just because something can be taught---doesn't mean it is not a skill--so what is your point exactly?

No, sir. He did not learn to read people through a book or hard work. Surely preparation makes him better at it. But you cannot take a Neil B. Zod and turn them into a Daniel Negreanu. I do not have the skill to read people like he does. I can mask it with being more prepared, but in the end it's a tool that's not really in my poker toolbox. I can get better, but never really good.Yes, at 10 years old I believe he was good at reading people. Better than others his age, most likely. For some people with that skill, they become good at business. Others become pastors or politicians. He became a poker player. But his ability to read people-- the skill he has that most opponent's don't-- is what really sets him apart. No doubt he puts in the work, but being prepared isn't a skill. It's hard work, and I have no doubt he does it.

Maybe you didn't read what I said about sales, but I already asserted it's not about product. I can outlearn you regarding your product and outwork you in prospecting. But that doesn't mean I'll outsell you. Being more prepared than you doesn't mean I'll be a better seller. You likely have a skill I don't have.

You asked why people with the same info have different results in fantasy football. Here's your answer: They don't. They have the same ACCESS to info, but not the same info. Not the same time pressures, and not the same interest in the game. Most 12-team leagues aren't really 12 equal teams. Two or three teams are casual players who enjoy the camaraderie. Maybe they fall into a great team and win once in a blue moon. But they don't really care as much about it. Their lives are occupied with other things. Nothing wrong with that, but they simply aren't as prepared. They don't put the time in to staying on top of things. They hear about Alfred Morris and Danario Alexander once they've lost to them in their opponent's lineup. They do enough to not embarrass themselves but don't keep up with the top teams.

And those top teams? The ones who make the playoffs most years and dominate? They out-work everyone else. They follow it closer. They stay on top of things. They're better-prepared. That's not an insult; it's a compliment. But it's not a skill.

Finally, my point is NOT that I can teach a novice to be decent at fantasy football. My point is that I can take a novice and have them keep up with you in just six months. They'll make the playoffs just as much as you and win titles as much as you. I wouldn't simply make them better. I'd make them you.

Not because I'm brilliant, or because I'm so super-awesome. It's because what you think is skill is just being prepared, and anyone can out-prepare you if they want it badly enough. Anyone-- even someone who has never seen the game.

If anyone can do it and be among the best in a group (not just better or okay, but a champion) it's not a skill.

First of all--Happy Holidays to you--and thank you for giving us your insight on your point of view. It's nice that we can have opposing points of views in a civil way. Yes--I did read what you said about sales--but you are not seeing my point. My point is that the "skill" in fantasy football is determined by one's ability to come up with a strategy that gives them the best chance of winning against the other owners in their league. While you can teach somebody the ins and outs of fantasy football, you can show them where to go to get the best information, and you can teach them some basic strategies--but you can't teach them to know exactly when it comes to pulling the trigger on a trade..etc. Your point is that I'm confusing "skill" with preparedness--that the people who tend to be good owners are good because they put the most time and energy into it. My point is that the skill is in devising the best strategy--and the best strategies are built upon the best and more accurate information---which is where the time and effort come in. By definition a skilled fantasy owner will try to monitor situations in his league and keep up to date on player situations within the NFL and always try to use this information to maximize their potential. It's the same as a good general manager in professional sports--they look at the situation within their own team--they hire scouts to obtain as much information as possible, they monitor situations among other teams--and devise a strategy to benefit themselves the most. There are lots of general managers in professional sports who work their butts off that don't produce results. While they might be great hard-workers, and great information gatherers, they are just less skilled at coming up with strategies to build a successful team. My point is that the best strategies are built by the best and most accurate information--which takes time to and effort to obtain--but this information by itself means little or nothing if it is not used in a way to benefit one's team--and this can't be taught. You cannot teach somebody when the perfect time to make a specific move is--because every league is different. There are different owners with different personalities to manage, who value different players differently..etc. This is not to say that you can't get an average novice and work with them over a few months and they won't improve--but again--who doesn't improve at something when somebody who is good at it teaches them stuff? I'm not saying this game requires a ton of skill--or that the skill involved here is insanely complex--but there is skill involved.

 

[Backside Pursuit]

With humility and respect:

Losing is mostly bad luck, but winning is all skill.

This is a humorous (but accurate) tongue-in-cheek exaggeration of the attribution bias that clouds our objectivity and leads most of us to overvalue our “skill” at this game.

70-80% skill to get to the playoffs. 40-45% skill to win the title. IMHO.

Cut those numbers in half...and you’d still be too high. (In my humble opinion.)

First of all--Happy Holidays to you--and thank you for giving us your insight on your point of view. It's nice that we can have opposing points of views in a civil way.

Thank you both and Happy Holidays to you both! I am really enjoying this conversation and I wish that our online discourse could always be so insightful and respectful.

I'm not saying this game requires a ton of skill--or that the skill involved here is insanely complex--but there is skill involved.

I guess my position on this is that it certainly takes some skill but a great deal less than we imagine or proclaim. We want to believe that we have developed a skill; we overvalue our own abilities.Pardon my brief interruption here. Please carry on; I’m enjoying this.

 

[proninja]

How much skill does it take to read a few websites and throw a dart at a board?

You guys who are hot #### at fantasy football have a lot of free time. Not skill. Skill is what the players have.

 

[CalBear]

70-80% skill to get to the playoffs. 40-45% skill to win the title. IMHO.

Cut those numbers in half...and you'd still be too high. (In my humble opinion.)

So you think that a completely randomly chosen set of players would get to the playoffs 40% of the time, and win the title 20% of the time?

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

70-80% skill to get to the playoffs. 40-45% skill to win the title. IMHO.

Cut those numbers in half...and you'd still be too high. (In my humble opinion.)

So you think that a completely randomly chosen set of players would get to the playoffs 40% of the time, and win the title 20% of the time?

Impressive!The rare reading comprehension fail/math fail combo!

 

[xander756]

It's all luck. You nerds who are trying to convince other people that it's all skill just got lucky this year.

Yep this is exactly right. If you think fantasy football takes skill, that is sad.

 

[Backside Pursuit]

So you think that a completely randomly chosen set of players would get to the playoffs 40% of the time, and win the title 20% of the time?

No, this is not quite accurate. The act of completely randomly selecting a group of players would represent 0%, not 40%. It would be like claiming that if I put a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, eventually they would produce a novel. I would wager that if I gave my highly-motivated grandmother a preseason fantasy football magazine and a subscription to FBG, she would make the playoffs in at least 60% of the leagues she joined.

Two other points I’ll make on this topic:

1. I betcha it takes a LOT less skill to win at fantasy football in 2012 than it did in 1994. For whatever that’s worth. (A LOT less.)

2. I also betcha that if we gave an FBG subscription to a statistics geek who detests football and wouldn’t know Tom Brady if he ran into him at an airport or a local restaurant, that statistics geek could become very, very good at this FF thing. Would he possess a skill? Yeah, I think so. But it wouldn’t be a talent evaluation skill; it would merely be a numbers and probabilities assessment skill. And maybe that’s kind of the other thing we have to remember about this hobby: some of us imagine ourselves (perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly) to be skillful at talent evaluation as we (mostly) just learn a little from, and repeat the jargon we heard from, a professional scouting expert. A trendy day trader—not a dilettante but not a talent evaluator; a determined, avid (“prepared”) reader—can easily mimic and compete against (and enjoy equal or nearly equal success as) an actual talent evaluator in fantasy football.

 

[djmich]

So you think that a completely randomly chosen set of players would get to the playoffs 40% of the time, and win the title 20% of the time?

No, this is not quite accurate. The act of completely randomly selecting a group of players would represent 0%, not 40%. It would be like claiming that if I put a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, eventually they would produce a novel. I would wager that if I gave my highly-motivated grandmother a preseason fantasy football magazine and a subscription to FBG, she would make the playoffs in at least 60% of the leagues she joined.

Two other points I’ll make on this topic:

1. I betcha it takes a LOT less skill to win at fantasy football in 2012 than it did in 1994. For whatever that’s worth. (A LOT less.)

2. I also betcha that if we gave an FBG subscription to a statistics geek who detests football and wouldn’t know Tom Brady if he ran into him at an airport or a local restaurant, that statistics geek could become very, very good at this FF thing. Would he possess a skill? Yeah, I think so. But it wouldn’t be a talent evaluation skill; it would merely be a numbers and probabilities assessment skill. And maybe that’s kind of the other thing we have to remember about this hobby: some of us imagine ourselves (perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly) to be skillful at talent evaluation as we (mostly) just learn a little from, and repeat the jargon we heard from, a professional scouting expert. A trendy day trader—not a dilettante but not a talent evaluator; a determined, avid (“prepared”) reader—can easily mimic and compete against (and enjoy equal or nearly equal success as) an actual talent evaluator in fantasy football.

I would disagree with the bolded. It is much harder in 2012 to consistently win at fantasy football because of the fact that there are so many resources available, assuming your league is competitive. As has been said many times everybody has access to massive amounts of information now, so consistently winning despite the evening out of information requires more work and skill.Overall would say that consistently winning in fantasy footbal (winning defined as top 30% W-L record) is driven by 1) Work 2) Skill 3) Luck. Reverse those when it comes to winning in the playoffs. Playing in deep dynasty league increases the importance of work & skill.

 

[CalBear]

So you think that a completely randomly chosen set of players would get to the playoffs 40% of the time, and win the title 20% of the time?

No, this is not quite accurate. The act of completely randomly selecting a group of players would represent 0%, not 40%. It would be like claiming that if I put a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, eventually they would produce a novel.

If the game is 100% luck, completely random selection would result in a win 50% of the time. What percentage of the time do you think completely random selection would win in fantasy football?

I would wager that if I gave my highly-motivated grandmother a preseason fantasy football magazine and a subscription to FBG, she would make the playoffs in at least 60% of the leagues she joined.

In other words, she could develop the skill necessary to play, by leveraging advice from highly skilled professionals. OK.

 

[squistion]

It's all luck. You nerds who are trying to convince other people that it's all skill just got lucky this year.

Yep this is exactly right. If you think fantasy football takes skill, that is sad.

Actually, not nearly as sad as a guy who wins one league and points to that as proof positive that there is no such thing as skill in fantasy football. Can you say small sample size?

 

[proninja]

Guys, I'm not sure you know just how skilled I am at watching football on tv while drinking a beer. I'm really good at it.

 

[CurlyDumps]

You guys are nerds.

What do you expect from a place where people refer to themselves as "sharks" and the people in their league "guppies?"lol...Dungeons and Dragons clubs think this place is full of nerds.

 

[RavenLunatic]

Absolutely a lot of luck involved. Much like football, FF uses an oblong "ball" that take odd bounces. And just like real football there are teams that are perennial contenders and perennial losers.

Luck will always factor in...and injuries...to both the real and fantasy sport.

Use your research to grab potential and ultimately go with your gut and hope the chips fall your way.

For me this will be my finest fantasy season ever. Three championships out of seven leagues. Two of which were IDP dynasty team in my first year of those leagues taking over orphaned teams. Skill gets you in contention where other owners walked away.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

How much skill does it take to read a few websites and throw a dart at a board?You guys who are hot #### at fantasy football have a lot of free time. Not skill. Skill is what the players have.

Happy Holidays to you. I have to say that it's ironic that you--somebody who has posted 20,000+ times on a fantasy football website is calling out other people for having too much time on their hands? If you look at any game of chance (look at blackjack for example) is that a skilled player can increase the odds in their favor a bit. In regards to blackjack--a highly skilled player can card count--they can place a value on the cards that have already been dealt out to see the probability of if there are more high or low cards remaining in a deck. Once they computer the probabilities--they bet more when the odds are in their favor, and they bet less when the odds are in the house's favor. There is no guarantee that the cards that probability dictates WILL come out--but the idea is that they bet the most when they are the favorite--and bet the least when they aren't favored. In fantasy football, there are far more variables than cards being dealt out--there are injuries, trades, off of the field issues, bye weeks..etc--so the computations that we have to make are not as reliable. However, just because the game has more variables--doesn't mean that no skill is involved. I think you are a smart person--if you think skill is not involved--you are basically saying that a computer could randomly pick a team for you--and randomly set your lineups--and you yourself would not do ANY better on average. Even with your rude comment of calling people you don't even know hot ####, I still think you are intelligent enough to do better than a random lineup.

 

[SSOG]

The schedule is not "a" thing. It's THE thing. It's so powerful I can control everything with that one thing. Skill cannot overcome it. But you're right. Not really relevant. I just think it's interesting (total points fan).

Any card game or dice game can be "controlled" if you can control the cards or dice in retrospect; that's really not an interesting question.

I'm saying in six months I can take a human being who has never watched professional football and they can compete with "champions" who visit this board. Six months with a person who doesn't know a punt from pass interference against a lifelong NFL fanatic. And by the numbers you wouldn't know who was who. No significant skill involved: Just interest, energy and access.

In six months I can take a human being who has never done IT support and turn them into am IT support person, by forcing them to develop their skills. It is only by forcing them to develop their skills that they can improve.

I disagree. In your cards and dice game example, you're controlling the thing that matters most-- and by doing so, you admit that the schedule means more than anything else. Playing cards is about playing people, not the cards. The randomness of the cards cannot make or break you. You can win with 2-7 or lose with A-A. But the schedule can sink you no matter how good your team, is. I think it's interesting that people willingly throw their fortunes to something so random before they select their first players. You can teach someone to do IT work in six months, but they won't hold a candle to the best in that field. But a novice at football can compete with fantasy league champions in six months. There's more to IT than knowing how things work. You need to interact with the humans who screw it up (or the co-workers who do) and communicate with them in a meaningful way. Not so with fantasy football except for trading, which isn't a big enough part of the game to merit the skill as being among the most critical factors.

No it can't. If your team is the highest scoring team, you will win no matter how the schedule is rejiggered. If you're #1 in 11 weeks, and three of those weeks are week 14, 15, and 16, then you are walking away with the trophy regardless of what anyone does to the schedule. And if this is your main argument- that the importance of schedule demonstrates the lack of skill required- then it stands to reason that your argument falls apart completely in all play and total point leagues, neither of which have a schedule.

No, I don't mean use the Internet to copy someone's cheat sheet. I mean use it to gather all the information possible and be as up to date as anyone in the league. That includes premium content, but not necessarily someone's skill in saying who to draft.

The pocket chess comparison works with giving a bad player a cheat sheet, but not the same as giving a novice six months to compete with the best of the board. Every advantage "good fantasy football players" have can be taught to someone who has never seen the game in around half a year. And not just one random person out of 10. Ten out of 10. All of them. The game isn't a game of skill. It's a game of educated guesses, hypothetical match-ups, artificial drama and camaraderie.

It's a great game. Just not a game of skill.

In that case, I strongly disagree with the entire premise. There's no way in 6 months you could get anyone ready to compete with the likes of Dodds, Henry, or the high-stakes WCoFF guys without any access to cheat sheets or projections.

 

[Backside Pursuit]

If the game is 100% luck, completely random selection would result in a win 50% of the time. What percentage of the time do you think completely random selection would win in fantasy football?

I guess we are talking past each other here. What is “luck”? If I purchase a lottery ticket and win the jackpot, is it lucky? What if I DO NOT purchase the lottery ticket and I win the jackpot? Randomness and luck are not synonymous. A lucky event is not one that is comprised entirely of randomness; it is one that features randomness in part.The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. I’m not talking about a coin toss here. I’m not talking about monkeys at typewriters. It is not a binary choice between luck and skill.

Fantasy football is most certainly not 100% luck. “Completely random selection” would win in fantasy football only slightly more often than monkeys randomly producing a novel. I do not think of “luck” in these binary terms that you present.

In other words, she could develop the skill necessary to play, by leveraging advice from highly skilled professionals. OK.

Which indicates that my grandmother possesses the skill to read and no other skill as it pertains to football—fantasy or otherwise. I really think this part here might be the crux of why I see this “skill” thing so differently than you and I really would like to think about this for a day or two before I comment further. Generally speaking (forget football for a moment), if I possess and retain very little information yet I possess the resources to obtain large quantities of information, do I possess knowledge? Sure, knowledge of a type. But I’m not a genius; I simply have access to genius. Is it a skill to have access to skill? (“Knowledge is a skill.”)

Maybe my grandmother is a voracious reader; maybe she cross-references expert opinions and plays the odds. Is literacy a skill? I think it is. Can we develop critical thinking as a skill? Sure we can. Critical thinking is a wonderful skill. Or maybe my grandmother simply hires someone to do her thinking for her. Either way, she wins. Are both of these choices equally skillful? If not, why not? (“Knowledge of knowledge is a skill.”)

Imagine that my grandmother hires a financial expert who invests in a small startup company and my grandmother makes a fortune. Is she a “skilled” investor? Is her financial advisor a skilled investor or did he get lucky? (How do we measure this?) By “investing” in a skilled investor, does this make my grandmother equally skilled? (How do we measure this?)

Let me think on this for a day or two…

1. I betcha it takes a LOT less skill to win at fantasy football in 2012 than it did in 1994. For whatever that’s worth. (A LOT less.)

I would disagree with the bolded. It is much harder in 2012 to consistently win at fantasy football because of the fact that there are so many resources available, assuming your league is competitive. As has been said many times everybody has access to massive amounts of information now, so consistently winning despite the evening out of information requires more work and skill.

And this brings us back to the same question being intelligently explored by Neil Beaufort Zod and jvdesigns2002: Are “work ethic” and “skill” comparable or identical? Is perseverance a skill? (I am not contending that it isn’t. I’m not being, or not trying to be, obtuse here. I am sincerely asking the question. My guess is that you and I (and Neil Beaufort Zod and jvdesigns2002) may have different intuitive leanings in response to that question.)And even if perseverance is a skill, (separate question) does FF require more perseverance now to win or does it only require more perseverance from those who are trying? In other words, is FF easier to win for those who lack perseverance, even in competitive leagues? (And I think each of our personal experiences may color our answers to this question. Boy, do I have stories...)

I’m not sure that we disagree about the environment in which we participate; we simply disagree, retrospectively, when assigning a comprehensible narrative to events. You imagine that the field has leveled and that those with superior skills need to separate themselves from those with almost equally excellent skills. I imagine that the field has leveled and that those with significantly inferior skills (of which I may be one) have equally good odds (much greater odds now than we did 20 years ago) at winning.

Again I see a powerful attribution bias at work here in all of this discussion. (“I work harder. I am smarter. I am responsible for all of my success. Interference from others and bad luck are responsible for holding me back.”) But I say that merely to describe my perspective and not to suggest that it is the correct perspective. I humbly submit that a casual football fan can dominate a league of self-described “sharks”—in the short term (but that’s where randomness comes in)—and that many of us imagine ourselves to be sharks when we win and unlucky when we lose. (“94% of all experts within a field consider themselves to be ‘above average’ when compared to other experts within that field.”)

I think you are a smart person--if you think skill is not involved--you are basically saying that a computer could randomly pick a team for you--and randomly set your lineups--and you yourself would not do ANY better on average.

I like this one. And it provides a good example, I think. I believe that a computer (with an intelligent FBG app) could indeed draft a very competitive team, could drop players with an “IR” designation, could drop players on a weekly “downgrade” report for a comparable player (with a statistically superior forecast) on a weekly “upgrade” report, and could set weekly lineups based upon Fantasypros consensus. You know those fans sitting in luxury boxes who don’t know anything about the game? That’s what I see as entirely possible in FF. They will become “owners” in name only. There may be people (and I may be one of them!) who are incapable of original ideas or talent assessment or situational knowledge as it pertains to football and who can now compete equally or nearly equally with humans who do possess this kind of expert knowledge—even humans whose knowledge pans out more often than it doesn’t. A computer like this could play against the sharkiest of sharks and win the championship at least once every 12 years (in a 12-team league). The forecasting is created by (admittedly fallible) human experts; the results are compiled electronically and the computer has an equal or nearly equal chance of winning the league. Does the computer possess a skill? No. It simply compiles a bunch of statistics and forecasts and spits out a lineup. The people who design the application are tremendously skilled but the computer itself is not.

So, if I (as a human) am a good compiler of information, do I possess a skill? What if I purchase a computer application to compile all of the exact same information? Do I still possess a skill? I guess that’s all I’m trying to ask here.

 

[cstu]

How much skill does it take to read a few websites and throw a dart at a board?You guys who are hot #### at fantasy football have a lot of free time. Not skill. Skill is what the players have.

Does Warren Buffett have skill?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The schedule is not "a" thing. It's THE thing. It's so powerful I can control everything with that one thing. Skill cannot overcome it. But you're right. Not really relevant. I just think it's interesting (total points fan).

Any card game or dice game can be "controlled" if you can control the cards or dice in retrospect; that's really not an interesting question.

I'm saying in six months I can take a human being who has never watched professional football and they can compete with "champions" who visit this board. Six months with a person who doesn't know a punt from pass interference against a lifelong NFL fanatic. And by the numbers you wouldn't know who was who. No significant skill involved: Just interest, energy and access.

In six months I can take a human being who has never done IT support and turn them into am IT support person, by forcing them to develop their skills. It is only by forcing them to develop their skills that they can improve.

I disagree. In your cards and dice game example, you're controlling the thing that matters most-- and by doing so, you admit that the schedule means more than anything else. Playing cards is about playing people, not the cards. The randomness of the cards cannot make or break you. You can win with 2-7 or lose with A-A. But the schedule can sink you no matter how good your team, is. I think it's interesting that people willingly throw their fortunes to something so random before they select their first players. You can teach someone to do IT work in six months, but they won't hold a candle to the best in that field. But a novice at football can compete with fantasy league champions in six months. There's more to IT than knowing how things work. You need to interact with the humans who screw it up (or the co-workers who do) and communicate with them in a meaningful way. Not so with fantasy football except for trading, which isn't a big enough part of the game to merit the skill as being among the most critical factors.

No it can't. If your team is the highest scoring team, you will win no matter how the schedule is rejiggered. If you're #1 in 11 weeks, and three of those weeks are week 14, 15, and 16, then you are walking away with the trophy regardless of what anyone does to the schedule. And if this is your main argument- that the importance of schedule demonstrates the lack of skill required- then it stands to reason that your argument falls apart completely in all play and total point leagues, neither of which have a schedule.

No, I don't mean use the Internet to copy someone's cheat sheet. I mean use it to gather all the information possible and be as up to date as anyone in the league. That includes premium content, but not necessarily someone's skill in saying who to draft.

The pocket chess comparison works with giving a bad player a cheat sheet, but not the same as giving a novice six months to compete with the best of the board. Every advantage "good fantasy football players" have can be taught to someone who has never seen the game in around half a year. And not just one random person out of 10. Ten out of 10. All of them. The game isn't a game of skill. It's a game of educated guesses, hypothetical match-ups, artificial drama and camaraderie.

It's a great game. Just not a game of skill.

In that case, I strongly disagree with the entire premise. There's no way in 6 months you could get anyone ready to compete with the likes of Dodds, Henry, or the high-stakes WCoFF guys without any access to cheat sheets or projections.

It seems strange that you keep moving the goalposts. I'm not talking about Dodds. I've never said anything about Dodds. I don't know if I can make a novice as good as Dodds in six months. I know I can make them as good as YOU in six months. However "skilled" you think you are at fantasy football, I can make a person who has never seen the game just as successful as you. That's not a knock on you. It's an indication that your success has everything to do with your effort and preparation, and little to do with any skill. I'm not saying I can just make them decent or better than they were. I can make them competitive. I can make them you. They have whatever access you have and they become you with enough time and effort. You don't stand out based on any skill. Not just "you" you, but all of us. That's what I'm saying.

Regarding the schedule, it doesn't matter if you have the top score in weeks 15 and 16 if you're not in the playoffs. Let me control the schedule and I'll keep you out of it. But yes, if you're the highest-scoring team for 11 out of 16 weeks then you're absolutely right. And if that's your typical fantasy experience, then you're right. Is that your typical fantasy season?

Not the same in total points. The highest-scoring team wins every time. All play takes more of that luck out of it as well. Being prepared can help you mitigate the damage from bad luck, and that includes the randomness of the schedule.

Also not the same in poker. You can give the best a 2-7 and they can get K-K to fold. Why? They have people-reading skills. You can't do that in fantasy football-- you can't get your opponent to fold. If we could, I'd entertain the idea of skill playing a bigger role. But really it's just being prepared, and anyone can do that. The fact that they don't is a credit to the champions who put forth the effort others don't, won't or can't. Over time, they'll put themselves in better position to take advantage of good luck, and mitigate bad luck (like the schedule).

 

[JohnnyU]

It takes skill to make the playoffs consistently, but winning the title is mostly luck.

 

[CalBear]

If the game is 100% luck, completely random selection would result in a win 50% of the time. What percentage of the time do you think completely random selection would win in fantasy football?

I guess we are talking past each other here. What is "luck"? If I purchase a lottery ticket and win the jackpot, is it lucky? What if I DO NOT purchase the lottery ticket and I win the jackpot? Randomness and luck are not synonymous. A lucky event is not one that is comprised entirely of randomness; it is one that features randomness in part.The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. I'm not talking about a coin toss here. I'm not talking about monkeys at typewriters. It is not a binary choice between luck and skill.

Fantasy football is most certainly not 100% luck. "Completely random selection" would win in fantasy football only slightly more often than monkeys randomly producing a novel. I do not think of "luck" in these binary terms that you present.

You were initially responding to someone who said that making the playoffs was 70-80% skill, winning was 40-45%. You suggested that the numbers were half of that. OK, fine, let's hear your definition; what does it mean for fantasy football to be 35% skill? If it's 0% skill, everyone has a 50% chance of making the playoffs (if 6 out of 12 make it). If it's 100% skill, the best player will make it every time and the worst player will fail every time. To say it's 35% skill would suggest that the best player in the world has a one-in-three advantage over random selection. If that's not what you meant, you should clarify your terms.

A computer like this could play against the sharkiest of sharks and win at least once every 12 years (in a 12-team league). The forecasting is created by (admittedly fallible) human experts; the results are compiled electronically and the computer has an equal or nearly equal chance of winning the league. Does the computer possess a skill? No. It simply compiles a bunch of statistics and forecasts and spits out a lineup. The people who design the application are tremendously skilled but the computer itself is not.

Is a computer playing chess or backgammon skillful? Computers can beat the best human player at either. Is backgammon primarily not a game of skill because computers can play it well and there's a large random factor? If so, you should be OK playing for money against Kit Woolsey. (My money's on Kit).

 

[SSOG]

Imagine that my grandmother hires a financial expert who invests in a small startup company and my grandmother makes a fortune. Is she a “skilled” investor? Is her financial advisor a skilled investor or did he get lucky? (How do we measure this?) By “investing” in a skilled investor, does this make my grandmother equally skilled? (How do we measure this?)

This is a good analogy, actually. The takeaway from this is not that your grandmother is a skilled investor. More importantly, the takeaway is not that investing does not take skill. The takeaway is that the expert to whom she outsourced her investment decisions is skilled, and she piggybacked off of that skill. Likewise, the fact that some schlub off the street can win in fantasy does not prove that he is skilled at fantasy, nor does it prove that fantasy does not require skill. Rather, it simply means that he is able, thanks to the Internet, to outsource his fantasy decisions to someone else far more skilled than he.

It seems strange that you keep moving the goalposts. I'm not talking about Dodds. I've never said anything about Dodds. I don't know if I can make a novice as good as Dodds in six months. I know I can make them as good as YOU in six months. However "skilled" you think you are at fantasy football, I can make a person who has never seen the game just as successful as you. That's not a knock on you. It's an indication that your success has everything to do with your effort and preparation, and little to do with any skill. I'm not saying I can just make them decent or better than they were. I can make them competitive. I can make them you. They have whatever access you have and they become you with enough time and effort. You don't stand out based on any skill. Not just "you" you, but all of us. That's what I'm saying. Regarding the schedule, it doesn't matter if you have the top score in weeks 15 and 16 if you're not in the playoffs. Let me control the schedule and I'll keep you out of it. But yes, if you're the highest-scoring team for 11 out of 16 weeks then you're absolutely right. And if that's your typical fantasy experience, then you're right. Is that your typical fantasy season? Not the same in total points. The highest-scoring team wins every time. All play takes more of that luck out of it as well. Being prepared can help you mitigate the damage from bad luck, and that includes the randomness of the schedule. Also not the same in poker. You can give the best a 2-7 and they can get K-K to fold. Why? They have people-reading skills. You can't do that in fantasy football-- you can't get your opponent to fold. If we could, I'd entertain the idea of skill playing a bigger role. But really it's just being prepared, and anyone can do that. The fact that they don't is a credit to the champions who put forth the effort others don't, won't or can't. Over time, they'll put themselves in better position to take advantage of good luck, and mitigate bad luck (like the schedule).

I'm not moving the goalposts, you are. If fantasy doesn't require skill, then it shouldn't matter whether this guy is facing me, Dodds, Henry, or whoever- skill is irrelevant, so the fact that Dodds is more skilled should logically be irrelevant. If you are arguing that you can make this guy as good as me, then the argument you're making isn't that fantasy doesn't require skill, it is that I am not skilled at fantasy (or, alternately, that I am skilled at fantasy, but my skill level is extremely low and any guy off the street could match it in 6 months if so motivated). That's a completely different argument.So if I understand your argument, you are conceding that since all play or total points doesn't feature a schedule, then they require skill? Look, I'm not arguing that luck doesn't play a role in fantasy football. I'm not arguing that luck doesn't play a HUGE role in fantasy football. Luck plays a huge role in a wide array of activities that are still games of skill. Luck plays a HUGE role in poker (or else we'd see the same guys at the final table in the WSoP every year). Luck plays a huge role in football- look at Denver's fumble recovery rates early in the season, or the end of the GB/Sea game. Or look at college football, where Georgia's second best win was against Vandbilt, while Vanderbilt represented Florida's FIFTH best win, but Georgia made the SECCG because they missed out on LSU, A&M, and Alabama. That's huge schedule luck that almost got Georgia into the national championship over superior teams. Is college football suddenly not a game of skill? Is poker not? Is the presence of luck incompatible with something being a game of skill?In fantasy football, as in poker, more highly skilled players will win more often than not. You are right that effort can also increase a player's chances of winning, but again, this does not rule out skill. If you have two players who exert equal effort, the more skilled one will still win more often. That's true in the stock market, too- traders who work 16 hour days do better than guys who spend 15 minutes on the weekend, but even between guys working 16 hours a day, some will do better than others. Trading stocks still takes skill, even if strong effort and good luck can both improve your chances.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Imagine that my grandmother hires a financial expert who invests in a small startup company and my grandmother makes a fortune. Is she a “skilled” investor? Is her financial advisor a skilled investor or did he get lucky? (How do we measure this?) By “investing” in a skilled investor, does this make my grandmother equally skilled? (How do we measure this?)

This is a good analogy, actually. The takeaway from this is not that your grandmother is a skilled investor. More importantly, the takeaway is not that investing does not take skill. The takeaway is that the expert to whom she outsourced her investment decisions is skilled, and she piggybacked off of that skill. Likewise, the fact that some schlub off the street can win in fantasy does not prove that he is skilled at fantasy, nor does it prove that fantasy does not require skill. Rather, it simply means that he is able, thanks to the Internet, to outsource his fantasy decisions to someone else far more skilled than he.

It seems strange that you keep moving the goalposts. I'm not talking about Dodds. I've never said anything about Dodds. I don't know if I can make a novice as good as Dodds in six months. I know I can make them as good as YOU in six months. However "skilled" you think you are at fantasy football, I can make a person who has never seen the game just as successful as you. That's not a knock on you. It's an indication that your success has everything to do with your effort and preparation, and little to do with any skill. I'm not saying I can just make them decent or better than they were. I can make them competitive. I can make them you. They have whatever access you have and they become you with enough time and effort. You don't stand out based on any skill. Not just "you" you, but all of us. That's what I'm saying. Regarding the schedule, it doesn't matter if you have the top score in weeks 15 and 16 if you're not in the playoffs. Let me control the schedule and I'll keep you out of it. But yes, if you're the highest-scoring team for 11 out of 16 weeks then you're absolutely right. And if that's your typical fantasy experience, then you're right. Is that your typical fantasy season? Not the same in total points. The highest-scoring team wins every time. All play takes more of that luck out of it as well. Being prepared can help you mitigate the damage from bad luck, and that includes the randomness of the schedule. Also not the same in poker. You can give the best a 2-7 and they can get K-K to fold. Why? They have people-reading skills. You can't do that in fantasy football-- you can't get your opponent to fold. If we could, I'd entertain the idea of skill playing a bigger role. But really it's just being prepared, and anyone can do that. The fact that they don't is a credit to the champions who put forth the effort others don't, won't or can't. Over time, they'll put themselves in better position to take advantage of good luck, and mitigate bad luck (like the schedule).

I'm not moving the goalposts, you are. If fantasy doesn't require skill, then it shouldn't matter whether this guy is facing me, Dodds, Henry, or whoever- skill is irrelevant, so the fact that Dodds is more skilled should logically be irrelevant. If you are arguing that you can make this guy as good as me, then the argument you're making isn't that fantasy doesn't require skill, it is that I am not skilled at fantasy (or, alternately, that I am skilled at fantasy, but my skill level is extremely low and any guy off the street could match it in 6 months if so motivated). That's a completely different argument.So if I understand your argument, you are conceding that since all play or total points doesn't feature a schedule, then they require skill? Look, I'm not arguing that luck doesn't play a role in fantasy football. I'm not arguing that luck doesn't play a HUGE role in fantasy football. Luck plays a huge role in a wide array of activities that are still games of skill. Luck plays a HUGE role in poker (or else we'd see the same guys at the final table in the WSoP every year). Luck plays a huge role in football- look at Denver's fumble recovery rates early in the season, or the end of the GB/Sea game. Or look at college football, where Georgia's second best win was against Vandbilt, while Vanderbilt represented Florida's FIFTH best win, but Georgia made the SECCG because they missed out on LSU, A&M, and Alabama. That's huge schedule luck that almost got Georgia into the national championship over superior teams. Is college football suddenly not a game of skill? Is poker not? Is the presence of luck incompatible with something being a game of skill?In fantasy football, as in poker, more highly skilled players will win more often than not. You are right that effort can also increase a player's chances of winning, but again, this does not rule out skill. If you have two players who exert equal effort, the more skilled one will still win more often. That's true in the stock market, too- traders who work 16 hour days do better than guys who spend 15 minutes on the weekend, but even between guys working 16 hours a day, some will do better than others. Trading stocks still takes skill, even if strong effort and good luck can both improve your chances.

Total points and all play removes a giant meteor of randomness that can devastate a fantasy season-- or catapult it to great success. Removing it removes a giant truckload of luck.I don't want to use someone like Dodds is because, as a successful businessperson who has made fantasy not only a hobby but partially a career, he has other skills on the business side that might or might not translate to analyzing the game itself. I don't know, so I'd rather not muddy the waters with that variable. I'm talking about you. You and me and other people on the board who win titles and think they might be "good" at fantasy football. I'm saying what people consider "skill" is really being prepared and putting in the time and effort, and I can recreate it in anyone. I didn't say it was absolutely zero percent skill. Dealing with owners and getting trades done requires people skills. Maybe some owners attend team practices and can evaluate talent on a professional level, and it helps them nab that rookie in a dynasty league. I can't say the number is zero. But when people talk about fantasy football "skills," they're talking about being prepared and on top of things. That's not skill. That's hard work.I don't like the fantasy football/poker analogy. I get that many players also play poker, so it sounds nice to pretend they're similar. But in reality, you can win often without the best cards. You can't win often with an inferior team. You can't choose your cards. You choose your players. You can opt to mitigate losses by folding; you can't opt out of a certain matchup.Good poker skills aren't about things anyone can do. Anyone can calculate percentages and determine odds. It's important, but it doesn't make you a good poker player. Reading people and fooling them is what makes a good poker player. Not everyone can do that, and it can't really be taught. The best have that skill AND they do the hard work to know the odds of each situation. Then it's up to luck. In fantasy football, preparation and staying on top of things is like knowing the odds in poker. It's important but anyone can do it. But there's NO comparable skill for reading people. Poker isn't a skill because someone knows they's a 63 percent favorite after the flop. Poker is a skill because they can somehow fold K-K when it looks like it's the best hand by a long shot, and save their chips. There's nothing like that in fantasy football, and it can't be taught. Just about everything you need to be successful in fantasy football can be taught to any stranger off the street. The role "skill" plays in the game is small enough that you wouldn't be able to tell your numbers from the novice's numbers after six months. I won't say it's absolute zero, but I will say that the vast, vast majority of times, when a person on the board talks about skill they're really talking about something anyone can do. Anyone, given enough time, interest and effort. If anyone can do it, it's not a skill. If you disagree with the definition, that's cool. If I say "prepared" and you say "skill," but we're saying the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.

 

[CalBear]

The role "skill" plays in the game is small enough that you wouldn't be able to tell your numbers from the novice's numbers after six months. I won't say it's absolute zero, but I will say that the vast, vast majority of times, when a person on the board talks about skill they're really talking about something anyone can do. Anyone, given enough time, interest and effort. If anyone can do it, it's not a skill. If you disagree with the definition, that's cool. If I say "prepared" and you say "skill," but we're saying the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.

The conventional definition is that skills are learned and learnable. If you mean something else, you'll have to come up with a different word.

 

[[icon]]

In a 16 team $250 league I've finished 2nd 3rd 2nd and 1st the last 4 years. I average 2nd but should average 8th/9th.

In a 10 team $125 office league I've finished. 2nd 1st 1st and 4th the last 4 years... Averaging 2nd but should 5th/6th.

This isn't saying that I'm some fantasy expert... It's more a function of weak competition. That said, more often than not its the same folks in the playoffs In each league every year.

Not saying luck isn't a factor but skill is more of a factor than many in here are giving credit for.

 

[Sea Duck]

This thread is a "who's who" of shart pool awfulness.

 

[SSOG]

Imagine that my grandmother hires a financial expert who invests in a small startup company and my grandmother makes a fortune. Is she a “skilled” investor? Is her financial advisor a skilled investor or did he get lucky? (How do we measure this?) By “investing” in a skilled investor, does this make my grandmother equally skilled? (How do we measure this?)

This is a good analogy, actually. The takeaway from this is not that your grandmother is a skilled investor. More importantly, the takeaway is not that investing does not take skill. The takeaway is that the expert to whom she outsourced her investment decisions is skilled, and she piggybacked off of that skill. Likewise, the fact that some schlub off the street can win in fantasy does not prove that he is skilled at fantasy, nor does it prove that fantasy does not require skill. Rather, it simply means that he is able, thanks to the Internet, to outsource his fantasy decisions to someone else far more skilled than he.

It seems strange that you keep moving the goalposts. I'm not talking about Dodds. I've never said anything about Dodds. I don't know if I can make a novice as good as Dodds in six months. I know I can make them as good as YOU in six months. However "skilled" you think you are at fantasy football, I can make a person who has never seen the game just as successful as you. That's not a knock on you. It's an indication that your success has everything to do with your effort and preparation, and little to do with any skill. I'm not saying I can just make them decent or better than they were. I can make them competitive. I can make them you. They have whatever access you have and they become you with enough time and effort. You don't stand out based on any skill. Not just "you" you, but all of us. That's what I'm saying. Regarding the schedule, it doesn't matter if you have the top score in weeks 15 and 16 if you're not in the playoffs. Let me control the schedule and I'll keep you out of it. But yes, if you're the highest-scoring team for 11 out of 16 weeks then you're absolutely right. And if that's your typical fantasy experience, then you're right. Is that your typical fantasy season? Not the same in total points. The highest-scoring team wins every time. All play takes more of that luck out of it as well. Being prepared can help you mitigate the damage from bad luck, and that includes the randomness of the schedule. Also not the same in poker. You can give the best a 2-7 and they can get K-K to fold. Why? They have people-reading skills. You can't do that in fantasy football-- you can't get your opponent to fold. If we could, I'd entertain the idea of skill playing a bigger role. But really it's just being prepared, and anyone can do that. The fact that they don't is a credit to the champions who put forth the effort others don't, won't or can't. Over time, they'll put themselves in better position to take advantage of good luck, and mitigate bad luck (like the schedule).

I'm not moving the goalposts, you are. If fantasy doesn't require skill, then it shouldn't matter whether this guy is facing me, Dodds, Henry, or whoever- skill is irrelevant, so the fact that Dodds is more skilled should logically be irrelevant. If you are arguing that you can make this guy as good as me, then the argument you're making isn't that fantasy doesn't require skill, it is that I am not skilled at fantasy (or, alternately, that I am skilled at fantasy, but my skill level is extremely low and any guy off the street could match it in 6 months if so motivated). That's a completely different argument.So if I understand your argument, you are conceding that since all play or total points doesn't feature a schedule, then they require skill? Look, I'm not arguing that luck doesn't play a role in fantasy football. I'm not arguing that luck doesn't play a HUGE role in fantasy football. Luck plays a huge role in a wide array of activities that are still games of skill. Luck plays a HUGE role in poker (or else we'd see the same guys at the final table in the WSoP every year). Luck plays a huge role in football- look at Denver's fumble recovery rates early in the season, or the end of the GB/Sea game. Or look at college football, where Georgia's second best win was against Vandbilt, while Vanderbilt represented Florida's FIFTH best win, but Georgia made the SECCG because they missed out on LSU, A&M, and Alabama. That's huge schedule luck that almost got Georgia into the national championship over superior teams. Is college football suddenly not a game of skill? Is poker not? Is the presence of luck incompatible with something being a game of skill?In fantasy football, as in poker, more highly skilled players will win more often than not. You are right that effort can also increase a player's chances of winning, but again, this does not rule out skill. If you have two players who exert equal effort, the more skilled one will still win more often. That's true in the stock market, too- traders who work 16 hour days do better than guys who spend 15 minutes on the weekend, but even between guys working 16 hours a day, some will do better than others. Trading stocks still takes skill, even if strong effort and good luck can both improve your chances.

Total points and all play removes a giant meteor of randomness that can devastate a fantasy season-- or catapult it to great success. Removing it removes a giant truckload of luck.I don't want to use someone like Dodds is because, as a successful businessperson who has made fantasy not only a hobby but partially a career, he has other skills on the business side that might or might not translate to analyzing the game itself. I don't know, so I'd rather not muddy the waters with that variable. I'm talking about you. You and me and other people on the board who win titles and think they might be "good" at fantasy football. I'm saying what people consider "skill" is really being prepared and putting in the time and effort, and I can recreate it in anyone. I didn't say it was absolutely zero percent skill. Dealing with owners and getting trades done requires people skills. Maybe some owners attend team practices and can evaluate talent on a professional level, and it helps them nab that rookie in a dynasty league. I can't say the number is zero. But when people talk about fantasy football "skills," they're talking about being prepared and on top of things. That's not skill. That's hard work.I don't like the fantasy football/poker analogy. I get that many players also play poker, so it sounds nice to pretend they're similar. But in reality, you can win often without the best cards. You can't win often with an inferior team. You can't choose your cards. You choose your players. You can opt to mitigate losses by folding; you can't opt out of a certain matchup.Good poker skills aren't about things anyone can do. Anyone can calculate percentages and determine odds. It's important, but it doesn't make you a good poker player. Reading people and fooling them is what makes a good poker player. Not everyone can do that, and it can't really be taught. The best have that skill AND they do the hard work to know the odds of each situation. Then it's up to luck. In fantasy football, preparation and staying on top of things is like knowing the odds in poker. It's important but anyone can do it. But there's NO comparable skill for reading people. Poker isn't a skill because someone knows they's a 63 percent favorite after the flop. Poker is a skill because they can somehow fold K-K when it looks like it's the best hand by a long shot, and save their chips. There's nothing like that in fantasy football, and it can't be taught. Just about everything you need to be successful in fantasy football can be taught to any stranger off the street. The role "skill" plays in the game is small enough that you wouldn't be able to tell your numbers from the novice's numbers after six months. I won't say it's absolute zero, but I will say that the vast, vast majority of times, when a person on the board talks about skill they're really talking about something anyone can do. Anyone, given enough time, interest and effort. If anyone can do it, it's not a skill. If you disagree with the definition, that's cool. If I say "prepared" and you say "skill," but we're saying the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.

It sounds to me that the only things you consider "skills" are reading people, starting a business, and evaluating talent. Performing complex calculations on the fly is not a skill. Remembering large amounts of information is not a skill. Accumulating a large amount of information from the internet is not a skill (actually, I agree with that). Sorting through that information to find what is relevant is not a skill. Analyzing that relevant information and accurately estimating its impact is not a skill. Understanding your leaguemates and knowing when you can ignore ADP during the draft is not a skill. Needless to say, I disagree. There are more "skills" involved in fantasy football than just evaluating talent (or, bizarrely enough, starting a business ), just like there are more skills involved in poker than just reading people. I find your argument far too reductive to hold much weight.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The role "skill" plays in the game is small enough that you wouldn't be able to tell your numbers from the novice's numbers after six months. I won't say it's absolute zero, but I will say that the vast, vast majority of times, when a person on the board talks about skill they're really talking about something anyone can do. Anyone, given enough time, interest and effort. If anyone can do it, it's not a skill. If you disagree with the definition, that's cool. If I say "prepared" and you say "skill," but we're saying the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.

The conventional definition is that skills are learned and learnable. If you mean something else, you'll have to come up with a different word.

Actually, I've seen enough definitions to be comfortable with how I use the word. I'm pretty sure I don't have to do anything at all. But I appreciate the fact that you might call something a skill when it's just preparation and something anyone can do. If we're saying that "fantasy football takes skill" and "fantasy football takes something anyone on the street can do, whether they watch football or not," I'm good with that comparison. I also understand why the former might sound better to some folks, when the latter is actually the case.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Imagine that my grandmother hires a financial expert who invests in a small startup company and my grandmother makes a fortune. Is she a “skilled” investor? Is her financial advisor a skilled investor or did he get lucky? (How do we measure this?) By “investing” in a skilled investor, does this make my grandmother equally skilled? (How do we measure this?)

This is a good analogy, actually. The takeaway from this is not that your grandmother is a skilled investor. More importantly, the takeaway is not that investing does not take skill. The takeaway is that the expert to whom she outsourced her investment decisions is skilled, and she piggybacked off of that skill. Likewise, the fact that some schlub off the street can win in fantasy does not prove that he is skilled at fantasy, nor does it prove that fantasy does not require skill. Rather, it simply means that he is able, thanks to the Internet, to outsource his fantasy decisions to someone else far more skilled than he.

It seems strange that you keep moving the goalposts. I'm not talking about Dodds. I've never said anything about Dodds. I don't know if I can make a novice as good as Dodds in six months. I know I can make them as good as YOU in six months. However "skilled" you think you are at fantasy football, I can make a person who has never seen the game just as successful as you. That's not a knock on you. It's an indication that your success has everything to do with your effort and preparation, and little to do with any skill. I'm not saying I can just make them decent or better than they were. I can make them competitive. I can make them you. They have whatever access you have and they become you with enough time and effort. You don't stand out based on any skill. Not just "you" you, but all of us. That's what I'm saying. Regarding the schedule, it doesn't matter if you have the top score in weeks 15 and 16 if you're not in the playoffs. Let me control the schedule and I'll keep you out of it. But yes, if you're the highest-scoring team for 11 out of 16 weeks then you're absolutely right. And if that's your typical fantasy experience, then you're right. Is that your typical fantasy season? Not the same in total points. The highest-scoring team wins every time. All play takes more of that luck out of it as well. Being prepared can help you mitigate the damage from bad luck, and that includes the randomness of the schedule. Also not the same in poker. You can give the best a 2-7 and they can get K-K to fold. Why? They have people-reading skills. You can't do that in fantasy football-- you can't get your opponent to fold. If we could, I'd entertain the idea of skill playing a bigger role. But really it's just being prepared, and anyone can do that. The fact that they don't is a credit to the champions who put forth the effort others don't, won't or can't. Over time, they'll put themselves in better position to take advantage of good luck, and mitigate bad luck (like the schedule).

I'm not moving the goalposts, you are. If fantasy doesn't require skill, then it shouldn't matter whether this guy is facing me, Dodds, Henry, or whoever- skill is irrelevant, so the fact that Dodds is more skilled should logically be irrelevant. If you are arguing that you can make this guy as good as me, then the argument you're making isn't that fantasy doesn't require skill, it is that I am not skilled at fantasy (or, alternately, that I am skilled at fantasy, but my skill level is extremely low and any guy off the street could match it in 6 months if so motivated). That's a completely different argument.So if I understand your argument, you are conceding that since all play or total points doesn't feature a schedule, then they require skill? Look, I'm not arguing that luck doesn't play a role in fantasy football. I'm not arguing that luck doesn't play a HUGE role in fantasy football. Luck plays a huge role in a wide array of activities that are still games of skill. Luck plays a HUGE role in poker (or else we'd see the same guys at the final table in the WSoP every year). Luck plays a huge role in football- look at Denver's fumble recovery rates early in the season, or the end of the GB/Sea game. Or look at college football, where Georgia's second best win was against Vandbilt, while Vanderbilt represented Florida's FIFTH best win, but Georgia made the SECCG because they missed out on LSU, A&M, and Alabama. That's huge schedule luck that almost got Georgia into the national championship over superior teams. Is college football suddenly not a game of skill? Is poker not? Is the presence of luck incompatible with something being a game of skill?In fantasy football, as in poker, more highly skilled players will win more often than not. You are right that effort can also increase a player's chances of winning, but again, this does not rule out skill. If you have two players who exert equal effort, the more skilled one will still win more often. That's true in the stock market, too- traders who work 16 hour days do better than guys who spend 15 minutes on the weekend, but even between guys working 16 hours a day, some will do better than others. Trading stocks still takes skill, even if strong effort and good luck can both improve your chances.

Total points and all play removes a giant meteor of randomness that can devastate a fantasy season-- or catapult it to great success. Removing it removes a giant truckload of luck.I don't want to use someone like Dodds is because, as a successful businessperson who has made fantasy not only a hobby but partially a career, he has other skills on the business side that might or might not translate to analyzing the game itself. I don't know, so I'd rather not muddy the waters with that variable. I'm talking about you. You and me and other people on the board who win titles and think they might be "good" at fantasy football. I'm saying what people consider "skill" is really being prepared and putting in the time and effort, and I can recreate it in anyone. I didn't say it was absolutely zero percent skill. Dealing with owners and getting trades done requires people skills. Maybe some owners attend team practices and can evaluate talent on a professional level, and it helps them nab that rookie in a dynasty league. I can't say the number is zero. But when people talk about fantasy football "skills," they're talking about being prepared and on top of things. That's not skill. That's hard work.I don't like the fantasy football/poker analogy. I get that many players also play poker, so it sounds nice to pretend they're similar. But in reality, you can win often without the best cards. You can't win often with an inferior team. You can't choose your cards. You choose your players. You can opt to mitigate losses by folding; you can't opt out of a certain matchup.Good poker skills aren't about things anyone can do. Anyone can calculate percentages and determine odds. It's important, but it doesn't make you a good poker player. Reading people and fooling them is what makes a good poker player. Not everyone can do that, and it can't really be taught. The best have that skill AND they do the hard work to know the odds of each situation. Then it's up to luck. In fantasy football, preparation and staying on top of things is like knowing the odds in poker. It's important but anyone can do it. But there's NO comparable skill for reading people. Poker isn't a skill because someone knows they's a 63 percent favorite after the flop. Poker is a skill because they can somehow fold K-K when it looks like it's the best hand by a long shot, and save their chips. There's nothing like that in fantasy football, and it can't be taught. Just about everything you need to be successful in fantasy football can be taught to any stranger off the street. The role "skill" plays in the game is small enough that you wouldn't be able to tell your numbers from the novice's numbers after six months. I won't say it's absolute zero, but I will say that the vast, vast majority of times, when a person on the board talks about skill they're really talking about something anyone can do. Anyone, given enough time, interest and effort. If anyone can do it, it's not a skill. If you disagree with the definition, that's cool. If I say "prepared" and you say "skill," but we're saying the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.

It sounds to me that the only things you consider "skills" are reading people, starting a business, and evaluating talent. Performing complex calculations on the fly is not a skill. Remembering large amounts of information is not a skill. Accumulating a large amount of information from the internet is not a skill (actually, I agree with that). Sorting through that information to find what is relevant is not a skill. Analyzing that relevant information and accurately estimating its impact is not a skill. Understanding your leaguemates and knowing when you can ignore ADP during the draft is not a skill. Needless to say, I disagree. There are more "skills" involved in fantasy football than just evaluating talent (or, bizarrely enough, starting a business ), just like there are more skills involved in poker than just reading people. I find your argument far too reductive to hold much weight.

I'm sorry it sounds that way to you, but it doesn't exactly bother me, either. I accept that you disagree, and I'm sure many others will as well. It rarely sits well with people that what they do well isn't really a skill at all, but a simple function of time and energy that anyone in their league, or office, or family, or neighborhood could do equally as well given enough incentive and time. It's almost like simple hard work isn't good enough anymore. But in the end, that's all it is. It doesn't change whether people accept it or not. Merry Christmas.

 

[Underachievers]

In a 16 team $250 league I've finished 2nd 3rd 2nd and 1st the last 4 years. I average 2nd but should average 8th/9th. In a 10 team $125 office league I've finished. 2nd 1st 1st and 4th the last 4 years... Averaging 2nd but should 5th/6th. This isn't saying that I'm some fantasy expert... It's more a function of weak competition. That said, more often than not its the same folks in the playoffs In each league every year. Not saying luck isn't a factor but skill is more of a factor than many in here are giving credit for.

It is just as likely that the managers that reach the playoffs on a consistent basis are those that spend more time prepping their teams before and durng the season. THAT is not a skill.

 

[xander756]

In a 16 team $250 league I've finished 2nd 3rd 2nd and 1st the last 4 years. I average 2nd but should average 8th/9th. In a 10 team $125 office league I've finished. 2nd 1st 1st and 4th the last 4 years... Averaging 2nd but should 5th/6th. This isn't saying that I'm some fantasy expert... It's more a function of weak competition. That said, more often than not its the same folks in the playoffs In each league every year. Not saying luck isn't a factor but skill is more of a factor than many in here are giving credit for.

So you have had some good luck. What exactly does that prove?

 

[FUBAR]

The role "skill" plays in the game is small enough that you wouldn't be able to tell your numbers from the novice's numbers after six months. I won't say it's absolute zero, but I will say that the vast, vast majority of times, when a person on the board talks about skill they're really talking about something anyone can do. Anyone, given enough time, interest and effort. If anyone can do it, it's not a skill. If you disagree with the definition, that's cool. If I say "prepared" and you say "skill," but we're saying the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.

The conventional definition is that skills are learned and learnable. If you mean something else, you'll have to come up with a different word.

Actually, I've seen enough definitions to be comfortable with how I use the word. I'm pretty sure I don't have to do anything at all. But I appreciate the fact that you might call something a skill when it's just prepIaration and something anyone can do. If we're saying that "fantasy football takes skill" and "fantasy football takes something anyone on the street can do, whether they watch football or not," I'm good with that comparison. I also understand why the former might sound better to some folks, when the latter is actually the case.

Does running A marathon require skill? Winning the marathon? Finishing an ultra race?

 

[HurryUpSundays]

The same folks are always in the playoffs because they spend the most TIME.

FF takes time if you are in a league of sharks. And because so much time is invested, everyone wants to translate that into 'skill'.

Time + Educated guessing + Luck = FF success

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

STOP BUMPING THIS WORTHLESS THREAD.

THIS IS A FANTASY FOOTBALL MESSAGE BOARD AND PEOPLE COME ON HERE BECAUSE THEY LIKE FANTASY FOOTBALL NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HERE HOW IT'S ALL A CRAPSHOOT AND ITS WORTHLESS TO PUT ANY TIME INTO IT.

END THIS THREAD IM SO SICK OF SEEING IT ON THE FIRST PAGE.

IF YOU BELIEVE FANTASY FOOTBALL IS ALL LUCK THEN STOP PLAYING AND FIND A MORE SKILLFUL GAME... IF YOU FEEL OTHERWISE SWITCH YOUR FOCUS ONTO OTHER TOPICS.

THE OP IS CLEARLY ONLY INTERESTED IN GETTING TRAFFIC... IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIS POINT THEN STOP GIVING HIM ATTENTION.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Last year it was skill. This year it was luck.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

The same folks are always in the playoffs because they spend the most TIME. FF takes time if you are in a league of sharks. And because so much time is invested, everyone wants to translate that into 'skill'. Time + Educated guessing + Luck = FF success

In what world is gathering information, creating a strategy that optimizes the odds of success, making good decisions based on that strategy, and then executing that strategy not skill? Are Defensive/offensive coordinators nothing more than unskilled information gatherers? Are championship building coaches in professional sports just unskilled workaholics--because after all-- apparently evaluating talent, doing research on yourself and opponents, creating and executing a strategy that optimizes your chances of winning are not "skill". Yes--there are tons of uncontrollable variables in the game of fantasy football--injuries, trades, suspensions--and these variables (along with a small sample size of games)-- can limit the upside advantage that skill can give an owner--but this doesn't mean that some owners aren't more "skilled" than others. Saying that there is no skill in fantasy football is just as ignorant as saying there is no luck in it.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

STOP BUMPING THIS WORTHLESS THREAD. THIS IS A FANTASY FOOTBALL MESSAGE BOARD AND PEOPLE COME ON HERE BECAUSE THEY LIKE FANTASY FOOTBALL NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HERE HOW IT'S ALL A CRAPSHOOT AND ITS WORTHLESS TO PUT ANY TIME INTO IT.END THIS THREAD IM SO SICK OF SEEING IT ON THE FIRST PAGE. IF YOU BELIEVE FANTASY FOOTBALL IS ALL LUCK THEN STOP PLAYING AND FIND A MORE SKILLFUL GAME... IF YOU FEEL OTHERWISE SWITCH YOUR FOCUS ONTO OTHER TOPICS. THE OP IS CLEARLY ONLY INTERESTED IN GETTING TRAFFIC... IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIS POINT THEN STOP GIVING HIM ATTENTION.

Why can't we think it's not really skill but still enjoy it? I like the NFL, but with fantasy football I'm interested in every game. It makes something I already like better, allows for some fun camaraderie and is a relatively healthy way to spend some free time. Why can't that be good enough even if I don't consider what it takes to be good a skill? It's still hard work and the champions should be congratulated.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

In a 16 team $250 league I've finished 2nd 3rd 2nd and 1st the last 4 years. I average 2nd but should average 8th/9th. In a 10 team $125 office league I've finished. 2nd 1st 1st and 4th the last 4 years... Averaging 2nd but should 5th/6th. This isn't saying that I'm some fantasy expert... It's more a function of weak competition. That said, more often than not its the same folks in the playoffs In each league every year. Not saying luck isn't a factor but skill is more of a factor than many in here are giving credit for.

It is just as likely that the managers that reach the playoffs on a consistent basis are those that spend more time prepping their teams before and durng the season. THAT is not a skill.

Thanks for saying in a couple of sentences what I usually require a couple of paragraphs to convey.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

STOP BUMPING THIS WORTHLESS THREAD.

THIS IS A FANTASY FOOTBALL MESSAGE BOARD AND PEOPLE COME ON HERE BECAUSE THEY LIKE FANTASY FOOTBALL NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HERE HOW IT'S ALL A CRAPSHOOT AND ITS WORTHLESS TO PUT ANY TIME INTO IT.

END THIS THREAD IM SO SICK OF SEEING IT ON THE FIRST PAGE.

IF YOU BELIEVE FANTASY FOOTBALL IS ALL LUCK THEN STOP PLAYING AND FIND A MORE SKILLFUL GAME... IF YOU FEEL OTHERWISE SWITCH YOUR FOCUS ONTO OTHER TOPICS.

THE OP IS CLEARLY ONLY INTERESTED IN GETTING TRAFFIC... IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIS POINT THEN STOP GIVING HIM ATTENTION.

Why can't we think it's not really skill but still enjoy it? I like the NFL, but with fantasy football I'm interested in every game. It makes something I already like better, allows for some fun camaraderie and is a relatively healthy way to spend some free time. Why can't that be good enough even if I don't consider what it takes to be good a skill? It's still hard work and the champions should be congratulated.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.I'm saying that I find it extremely disrespectful to come on here and start a thread completely trashing what so many of us spend the entire year concentrating on.I know a lot of people(myself included) that spend the whole year writing, studying, talking and working on developing new ideas. For him to come in here (the biggest fantasy football message board) and trash the idea that all the hard work people put into this is for nothing is what I have a problem with.

This would be the same as me starting a blog about a Dragon Ball Z role playing game (mr.Alexander Hinkley is the creator of http://alexsdbzrpg.com/ ).... finding a message board created solely for that game(http://forum.alexsdbzrpg.com/index.php?)... and starting a thread claiming it takes no skill, with a clear amateur perspective.

 

[sporthenry]

Last year it was skill. This year it was luck.

Next year?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

STOP BUMPING THIS WORTHLESS THREAD.

THIS IS A FANTASY FOOTBALL MESSAGE BOARD AND PEOPLE COME ON HERE BECAUSE THEY LIKE FANTASY FOOTBALL NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HERE HOW IT'S ALL A CRAPSHOOT AND ITS WORTHLESS TO PUT ANY TIME INTO IT.

END THIS THREAD IM SO SICK OF SEEING IT ON THE FIRST PAGE.

IF YOU BELIEVE FANTASY FOOTBALL IS ALL LUCK THEN STOP PLAYING AND FIND A MORE SKILLFUL GAME... IF YOU FEEL OTHERWISE SWITCH YOUR FOCUS ONTO OTHER TOPICS.

THE OP IS CLEARLY ONLY INTERESTED IN GETTING TRAFFIC... IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIS POINT THEN STOP GIVING HIM ATTENTION.

Why can't we think it's not really skill but still enjoy it? I like the NFL, but with fantasy football I'm interested in every game. It makes something I already like better, allows for some fun camaraderie and is a relatively healthy way to spend some free time. Why can't that be good enough even if I don't consider what it takes to be good a skill? It's still hard work and the champions should be congratulated.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.I'm saying that I find it extremely disrespectful to come on here and start a thread completely trashing what so many of us spend the entire year concentrating on.I know a lot of people(myself included) that spend the whole year writing, studying, talking and working on developing new ideas. For him to come in here (the biggest fantasy football message board) and trash the idea that all the hard work people put into this is for nothing is what I have a problem with.

This would be the same as me starting a blog about a Dragon Ball Z role playing game (mr.Alexander Hinkley is the creator of http://alexsdbzrpg.com/ ).... finding a message board created solely for that game(http://forum.alexsdbzrpg.com/index.php?)... and starting a thread claiming it takes no skill, with a clear amateur perspective.

You're getting all the respect in the world-- for your hard work and dedication. Not for a skill that doesn't really exist in most champions in any significant form. I don't know why hard work isn't good enough anymore, but for some reason people want it to be about more than that. That's a shame, but it doesn't change the truth. The reason you're good at fantasy football is because you do something most of your league mates aren't willing or able to do. But if I gave them the necessary time and resources, they'd be just as good as you. So would your parents and your great uncle and your neighbor who spends way too much time on his lawn. See, the problem is you think I'm trashing you and being disrespectful. I'm not. I'm giving you credit for a lost art-- hard work, focus and determination. Anyone can do it...but they don't. A few do, and those are the owners in your league who always seem to gravitate toward the top. I don't know why that's so offensive to some people.

You admitted you spend the whole year concentrating on it. You write, you study, you work at it. In a typical 12-team league, how many owners do that? Three or four? And guess what-- people point to the same three or four owners succeeding year after year and they conclude it's a "skill." It's not. You outwork them. It's really that simple. Luck can sometimes derail you, or propel a different owner into the spotlight. But, given enough time, it will be you guys who end up succeeding.

I'm sorry if you think that means your hard work is for nothing. It's quite the opposite. It's for everything. It's the reason you're successful. Maybe you didn't realize it's basically the only reason...but there it is.

I don't think my perspective is amateurish in any way. I've played for nearly 20 years, won plenty of titles, lost plenty more times than that, and had a lot of fun. I've played with excellent owners, and many garbage owners. The ones who are consistently good put the time into it. When life makes it harder to devote that time...they magically lose a lot of their skill. When a newbie gets their bearings and gets sick of being mocked on draft day and making mistakes, they invest a lot more time and energy into it and...magically they have skill.

Please understand that when I say "it's not really about skill" I'm not saying "it's all luck." I'm saying it's spending the time and energy into being prepared. And yes, anyone can do it. That doesn't make you special. What makes you special is you DO do it when others don't. You spend a lot of time on a hobby you enjoy based on a sport you like. And you get to win accolades, bragging rights and a little pocket money, too. That should be enough.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

STOP BUMPING THIS WORTHLESS THREAD.

THIS IS A FANTASY FOOTBALL MESSAGE BOARD AND PEOPLE COME ON HERE BECAUSE THEY LIKE FANTASY FOOTBALL NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HERE HOW IT'S ALL A CRAPSHOOT AND ITS WORTHLESS TO PUT ANY TIME INTO IT.

END THIS THREAD IM SO SICK OF SEEING IT ON THE FIRST PAGE.

IF YOU BELIEVE FANTASY FOOTBALL IS ALL LUCK THEN STOP PLAYING AND FIND A MORE SKILLFUL GAME... IF YOU FEEL OTHERWISE SWITCH YOUR FOCUS ONTO OTHER TOPICS.

THE OP IS CLEARLY ONLY INTERESTED IN GETTING TRAFFIC... IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIS POINT THEN STOP GIVING HIM ATTENTION.

Why can't we think it's not really skill but still enjoy it? I like the NFL, but with fantasy football I'm interested in every game. It makes something I already like better, allows for some fun camaraderie and is a relatively healthy way to spend some free time. Why can't that be good enough even if I don't consider what it takes to be good a skill? It's still hard work and the champions should be congratulated.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.I'm saying that I find it extremely disrespectful to come on here and start a thread completely trashing what so many of us spend the entire year concentrating on.I know a lot of people(myself included) that spend the whole year writing, studying, talking and working on developing new ideas. For him to come in here (the biggest fantasy football message board) and trash the idea that all the hard work people put into this is for nothing is what I have a problem with.

This would be the same as me starting a blog about a Dragon Ball Z role playing game (mr.Alexander Hinkley is the creator of http://alexsdbzrpg.com/ ).... finding a message board created solely for that game(http://forum.alexsdbzrpg.com/index.php?)... and starting a thread claiming it takes no skill, with a clear amateur perspective.

You're getting all the respect in the world-- for your hard work and dedication. Not for a skill that doesn't really exist in most champions in any significant form. I don't know why hard work isn't good enough anymore, but for some reason people want it to be about more than that. That's a shame, but it doesn't change the truth. The reason you're good at fantasy football is because you do something most of your league mates aren't willing or able to do. But if I gave them the necessary time and resources, they'd be just as good as you. So would your parents and your great uncle and your neighbor who spends way too much time on his lawn. See, the problem is you think I'm trashing you and being disrespectful. I'm not. I'm giving you credit for a lost art-- hard work, focus and determination. Anyone can do it...but they don't. A few do, and those are the owners in your league who always seem to gravitate toward the top. I don't know why that's so offensive to some people.

You admitted you spend the whole year concentrating on it. You write, you study, you work at it. In a typical 12-team league, how many owners do that? Three or four? And guess what-- people point to the same three or four owners succeeding year after year and they conclude it's a "skill." It's not. You outwork them. It's really that simple. Luck can sometimes derail you, or propel a different owner into the spotlight. But, given enough time, it will be you guys who end up succeeding.

I'm sorry if you think that means your hard work is for nothing. It's quite the opposite. It's for everything. It's the reason you're successful. Maybe you didn't realize it's basically the only reason...but there it is.

I don't think my perspective is amateurish in any way. I've played for nearly 20 years, won plenty of titles, lost plenty more times than that, and had a lot of fun. I've played with excellent owners, and many garbage owners. The ones who are consistently good put the time into it. When life makes it harder to devote that time...they magically lose a lot of their skill. When a newbie gets their bearings and gets sick of being mocked on draft day and making mistakes, they invest a lot more time and energy into it and...magically they have skill.

Please understand that when I say "it's not really about skill" I'm not saying "it's all luck." I'm saying it's spending the time and energy into being prepared. And yes, anyone can do it. That doesn't make you special. What makes you special is you DO do it when others don't. You spend a lot of time on a hobby you enjoy based on a sport you like. And you get to win accolades, bragging rights and a little pocket money, too. That should be enough.

hah, I wasn't directing my rant at you at all. I have nothing against you, nor did I call(or think)you an amateur.I was calling the guy who started this thread an amateur.

He says hes a fantasy writer and claims other fantasy sports are more skillful than fantasy football. While I disagree with that idea(a few amateurish years in fantasy baseball and a solid 5 years in fantasy basketball), I'm ok with him having that opinion.

But, Why bring that opinion on the largest fantasy football message board on the net? Especially when he created a role playing game that is essentially the same type of game as fantasy football!

Hes throwing stones from a glass house.

I do understand what your saying though, and I actually agree with it.

I think there's actual talent in watching tape and deciding/projecting how a players skillset will translate. But, that potential talent is held to a minimum at this level(fantasy sports) because of the limited information available.

 

[[icon]]

I guess this thread is getting more hung up on the definition of "skill" than anything. That is understandable. Ill start with a quote of "skill" from merriam-Webster:

Spoiler

Main Entry: 2skill

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English skil, from Old Norse, distinction, knowledge; probably akin to Old English scylian to separate, sciell shell — more at shell

Date: 13th century

1 obsolete : cause, reason

2 a : the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance b : dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks

3 : a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability <language skills>

It appears most in here seem hung up on skill being solely based on the "dexterity" aspect of skill (2b above) and don't seem to agree with webster on the 2a definition "the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance" or even "3" which states: "a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability <language skills>".

It comes down to if you agree with the commonly accepted definition of skill including knowledge gained by working at something. You're certainly entitled to believe otherwise, however even if you reject "knowledge-based" skill and only recognized "dexterity-based" skill, you must realize that, generally speaking, that too is built by "out working" the competition. One might say Tiger woods was exceptionally skilled as a golfer. Part of that might have been born ability, but a large part was the fact that he had a golf club in his hand damn near incessantly since he was a tiny kid.

Now, I am not in ANY WAY directly comparing fantasy football skill to Tiger Woods golf skills, other than to say that both are improved by out working your competitor. If you're one of the only people in your league using quality resources and keeping up to date on NFL news on a daily basis then id say that's 70pct of the "skill". I'd also say the other 30pct is experience with watching players, having a knack for who might produce, learning to recognize patterns in fantasy performers and learning what types of players to avoid.

Finally i feel drafting is a skill. Anyone can look at a cheatsheet and take the next best player available. A skilled drafter develops a plan of attack by isolating specific players on that list, considering tendencies of the other drafters, and then mapping out a Strategy. This, too, is a skill. IMO.

Not everyone does these things. If you simply take a FBG list and draft down the sheet... Then read the waiver article every Tuesday and make pickups then sure, I could see how you'd not view FF as skill. If you develop a draft strategy based on research and tendencies or your opponents, then work in-season a little deeper (using past experience to help you avoid typical FF pitfalls), then I don't really see how you can't view FF as a skill based on the definition in Webster.

But hey... Different strokes for different folks. I ain't mad atcha if you disagree.

 

[[icon]]

You guys are nerds. You can draft all the right players, but there is no guarantee that they will all perform well in the same given week that happens to be week 16. NO ONE has the skill to predict this.

You certainly cant control all the variables, but you can isolate those within your control. IN FF, you can avoid players with a injury history, or who are advancing in age and might experience a decline (or be at greater risk of injury). A golfer hitting a ball has no control over wind gusts, for example. He can, however, estimate approximately, the wind speed and factor it into his swing. But there is always a chance a gust variance will knock his ball off course. Again, we are comparing knowledge/learning vs dexterity/learning but both are covered as "skill" in websters.

 

[[icon]]

Zod, you're not demonstrating that there's no skill involved in fantasy football, you're just demonstrating that with the Internet, anyone can piggyback off of someone else's skill. Anyone can take Henry's preseason projections, and pair them with Dodds' weekly rankings, and waltz to a championship. That's true, but it's irrelevant- it doesn't prove that no skill is required, it just proves that Henry and Dodds are incredibly skilled. I could give a 3rd grader a pocket chess computer and enter him in a chess tournament, and he'd dominate despite not knowing a fork from a piin. Does this mean that chess doesn't require skill, or does this mean that if you borrow someone else's skill, you don't need any of your own?I think if you spend a lot more time in non-traditional formats (survivor, best ball, weird scoring systems, salary cap, dynasty), you'll observe the skill gap much more clearly. With a sudden dearth of widely-available expert skill off of which one can piggyback, you'll quickly find out who intuitively understands value, and who is a fraud who can't make his own decisions without first consulting the Internet.

This