Official Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[Dragon1952]

I tried to use the Querier to see how many Leftwich/Hasslebeck and Leftwich/McNabb owners there were, but I get a page that says it's shut down for Sunday to conserve resources.

For that matter, it would be interesting to see how many took leftwich and just 1 other QB in general. Basically anyone in this situation (like me) will be taking a QB zero at some point. People have made it past a QB zero in the past, but it's not exactly the best place to be in this contest...

IIRC the guy who won the whole shebang last year had Brees and Romo. Took a zero at QB in week 9 when Brees was on bye and Romo was injured.

those situations work both ways. makes you sweat the tough week, but if you survive, many others built with that combination don't. Living near the edge for a few weeks in the contest isn't a bad thing, as long as the situation causing it isn't prolonged....this coming from a Leftwich/Robinson owner... suddenly I've turned into a 22 man team...but I suppose I could have turned into an 18 man team...

Agreed. That's why I don't really get when people post their weekly scores like "190 see you next week" and "210 omg #7 overall this week!" and whatnot. It doesn't carry over. IMO it's far better to make the cut by 0.50 each week than by 50.

Because it feels good when so many of your guys produce. Personally, if I was just squeaking by every week, I would be way more concerned.

 

[Moniker]

I'm enjoying these lists:

Players used every week so far:

Ryan Grant

Nate Burleson

Players not used yet:

JaMarcus Russell

Chris Wells

Hakeem Nicks

Chaz Schillens

Not too bad of a list. 3rd QB and two injured WRs, although Wells is sort of disheartening.

 

[tomarken]

Used every week:

Ray Rice

Marques Colston

Nate Burleson

Packers defense

and Deangelo Williams if he scores more than 5.7 points tonight.

Haven't used yet:

Matt Leinart

James Davis

Edgerrin James

Chaz Schilens

Bills defense

Total unused salary: $12. Pretty happy that $238 of my roster has contributed so far.

 

[SKribbles]

Welcome back Kevin Walter!

I've been waiting on him. I'm also happy the I survived until week 4 to get Lynch into the lineup.Used every week:

Grant

Turner

Wayne

V Jackson

Harvin

Daniels

Have not used:

Leinart

Lynch

Betts

Clowney

D Graham

The QB combo of Schaub and Romo has paid off great for me so far.

Romo Schuab

Week 1 35.85 7.90

Week 2 15.65 42.25

Week 3 TBD 33

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Every week:

Maurice Jones-Drew

Marques Colston

Jeremy Shockey

Brent Celek

Seattle Seahawks

Not yet:

Jamaal Charles

Edgerrin James

Limas Sweed

Chaz Schilens

Jay Feely

Pittsburgh Steelers

 

[Bankerguy]

Let's go Felix and Marty B...I need some help again.

 

[smackdaddies]

Here's to the $1 spent on N'awlins D

Pittsburgh Steelers DEF $7 PIT 5.00 2.00 2.00

New Orleans Saints DEF $1 NO 7.00 16.00 8.00

 

[kevzilla]

Used every week:

Grant, Colston, Burleson, Cooley, Longwell.

Never used:

Leinart, Betts, Fargas, A.Gonzalez, Schilens, Donald Lee, Scobee.

Kinda wish I hadn't done this exercise now....

 

[ctriopelle]

cut at about 123 as of half time

 

[Nugget]

Used every week:

Sproles

Longwell

Not used:

Brady Quinn (was all about Sanchez, but wanted less ownership%)

Faulk

Betts

Edge

C. Brown

David Akers (and he has been pretty solid)

At this point, I'm comfortable with my squad. All 8 WR's have contributed, the lowest Coles last week at 9.1. No stud RB has not killed me. I need more RBBC and have some of these 5 pt games from the RB's turn into 15 pt games.

 

[nashua55]

Used every week:SprolesLongwellNot used:Brady Quinn (was all about Sanchez, but wanted less ownership%)FaulkBettsEdgeC. BrownDavid Akers (and he has been pretty solid)At this point, I'm comfortable with my squad. All 8 WR's have contributed, the lowest Coles last week at 9.1. No stud RB has not killed me. I need more RBBC and have some of these 5 pt games from the RB's turn into 15 pt games.

I also own the hat trick of Betts,Edge and C. Brown. $4.00 bucks for those guys was $4.00 bucks too much. I also bought into the hype machine of James Davis. Looks like I have 4 wasted roster spots.

 

[Steel Dillo]

cut at about 123 as of half time

update????????

 

[ctriopelle]

cut at about 123 as of half time

update????????

shortly...takes time to calculate...

 

[ctriopelle]

My data shows 126.3, but it is completely unofficial stats. Looks like there is a pretty wide window for it to land between 126.25 and 126.35.

 

[massraider]

I also own the hat trick of Betts,Edge and C. Brown. $4.00 bucks for those guys was $4.00 bucks too much. I also bought into the hype machine of James Davis. Looks like I have 4 wasted roster spots.

Kinda early to write off some of these guys. An injury here or there, and they can help.

 

[SKribbles]

Used every week:SprolesLongwellNot used:Brady Quinn (was all about Sanchez, but wanted less ownership%)FaulkBettsEdgeC. BrownDavid Akers (and he has been pretty solid)At this point, I'm comfortable with my squad. All 8 WR's have contributed, the lowest Coles last week at 9.1. No stud RB has not killed me. I need more RBBC and have some of these 5 pt games from the RB's turn into 15 pt games.

I also own the hat trick of Betts,Edge and C. Brown. $4.00 bucks for those guys was $4.00 bucks too much. I also bought into the hype machine of James Davis. Looks like I have 4 wasted roster spots.

With the way Portis has been looking, the Betts pick should pay off soon. Most (all?) of his yardage this week was in garbage time... and if you have garbage time against the Lions, you're looking at a full season of garbage time.

 

[Steel Dillo]

My data shows 126.3, but it is completely unofficial stats. Looks like there is a pretty wide window for it to land between 126.25 and 126.35.

Thanks man. I hope your right, I was really sweating with a total of 128.75.

 

[ctriopelle]

Looks like all the staffers survived this week as well. All of the eliminated ones also would have passed this week, pretty easily.

 

[ctriopelle]

My data shows 126.3, but it is completely unofficial stats. Looks like there is a pretty wide window for it to land between 126.25 and 126.35.

Thanks man. I hope your right, I was really sweating with a total of 128.75.

assuming your total is correct, you have nothing to worry about...

 

[Ariakis]

Too lazy to add it up but I assume I made it.

QB - Aaron Rodgers - 27

QB - Mark Sanchez - 9

I suspect I'll be really happy all year at QB with Sanchez producing at a bargain price.

RB - DeAngelo Williams - 37

RB - Ryan Grant - 24

RB - Felix Jones - 11

RB - Ahmad Bradshaw - 8

RB - James Davis - 2

RB - Edgerrin James - 1

RB - Greg Jones - 1

A strength is getting a little less safe although I just need 2 to produce each week. If Grant and Bradshaw carry me through week 5 then I get Deangelo back. I still hold out hope for Davis but most of the league has him to.

WR - Andre Johnson - 43

WR - Vincent Jackson - 21

WR - Derrick Mason - 9

WR - Percy Harvin - 5

WR - Patrick Crayton - 4

WR - Chaz Schilens - 3

WR - Robert Meachem - 3

WR - Laurent Robinson - 2

Losing LRob hurts a bit although my top 4 should be fine until byes strike where I'll need one of my other fliers to step up.

TE - Jason Witten - 27

TE - Jermichael Finley - 3

Went for the jugular here with a PPR machine and a cheap backup who could periodically score as my UTIL. In hindsight I could have gone DClark but it's a long season.

PK - Jason Elam - 3

PK - Steve Hauschka - 1

Wow this was a bad call on Elam although loving Hauschka as a top 10 PK this year.

TD - Green Bay Packers - 3

TD - Buffalo Bills - 2

TD - Detroit Lions - 1

These guys projected to have a good combined SOS for a cheap price. We'll see.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

Players used every week:

Vincent Jackson

Players Not Used:

Leon Washington

Ahmad Bradshaw

Deon Butler

MArtellus Bennett

Phil Dawson

SEA D

Salary Cap that hasn't counted: $29

The nice thing: Not relying on any one player, as only 1 guy has counted all three weeks (good depth)

The other nice thing I haven't seen mentioned yet in the recaps:

# of contributing individual scores that were under 10 pts: 3

1 PK - 9.0

1 DEF - 7.0

1 TE - 8.6

So far so good, but the bye weeks are going to be interesting. Leftwich losing his job, LRob done for the year & McNabb out until ???

Here's to hoping McNabb comes back for week 5 or else I'm booking a zero @ QB (Rodgers being the third QB on the roster)

 

[Fantasy Man]

Used every week: DeSean Jackson, Percy Harvin, Jason Witten, Brent Celek

Not used: Jerome Harrison, Shonn Greene, Eddie Royal (ugh!), Josh Cribbs, Patrick Turner, Jermichael Finley, Shayne Graham

Unused salary: $39, 66% of which is Royal!

Royal has to be one of the worst buys to this point in the contest.

 

[Short Corner]

Used every week: Grant, VJackson

Not used: Betts, Davis, Coffee, Galloway, Raiders DT ($12)

Scores under 10: K(3x) DT(1x)

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

Used every week: A.Rodgers R.Rice Felix Ocho Vjax Witten O.Daniels SEA def

Not used yet: Sanchez Leon Bradshaw Scott M.Bush J.Davis C.Henry Nicks J.Jones Haucshcka Browns def.

Felix being hurt is a big deal to my squad. I went with most backup rb's as it was. Ones that catch passes.

So far im doing well with my 2 TE's and my wr's thus far.

 

[Corte]

If the cut hasn't moved too far up I should clear the bar with 147.5 this week. So far, after week 3, roster players that have not seen use are:

Ladell Betts $2 2.70 4.30

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Edgerrin James $1 3.00 0.60

Chaz Schilens $3 0.00 0.00

Jay Feely $1 6.00 12.00

Total of $9 not utilized, pretty pleased with that regardless of its bearings on the contest.

 

[datonn]

RB - James Davis - 2

WR - Bobby Engram - 3

WR - Chaz Schilens - 3

WR - Robert Meachem - 3

WR - Darrius Heyward-Bey - 2

PK - Rob Bironas - 3

Six players I haven't used so far out of 22 roster spots. $16 of my $250 roster "salary." Not too bad, I suppose. Although with Boldin, Turner and Celek all on their byes for me in Week 4, I think I can start to hear the faint tune of "Taps" playing for my squad not too far down the road...

 

[Doug Drinen]

126.35

Updated ownership percentages

Contest querier

 

[Doug Drinen]

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+|		  20 |   5181 |  2896 |	0.5590 ||		  21 |   2032 |  1234 |	0.6073 ||		  22 |   1445 |   984 |	0.6810 ||		  23 |   1291 |   899 |	0.6964 ||		  24 |   3328 |  2507 |	0.7533 ||	   TOTAL |  13277 |  8520 |	0.6417 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+

 

[Doug Drinen]

Simulator accuracy report for week 3 (I'm pretty proud of the simulator):

surv	 #	 #prob   teams  surv	 pct--------------------------90--99  3880  3657	94.380--89  3739  3202	85.670--79  1522  1142	75.060--69   562   356	63.350--59   203   120	59.140--49	71	32	45.130--39	33	 9	27.320--29	 9	 1	11.110--19	 6	 1	16.7

 

[apalmer]

126.35

Updated ownership percentages

Contest querier

Wrong link for the Querier--goes to stats page

 

[Doug Drinen]

Wrong link for the Querier--goes to stats page

Fixed. Thanks.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Simulator accuracy report for week 3 (I'm pretty proud of the simulator):

surv	 #	 # prob   teams  surv	 pct -------------------------- 90--99  3880  3657	94.3 80--89  3739  3202	85.6 70--79  1522  1142	75.0 60--69   562   356	63.3 50--59   203   120	59.1 40--49	71	32	45.1 30--39	33	 9	27.3 20--29	 9	 1	11.1 10--19	 6	 1	16.7

Are we getting closer to seeing the final 250 prediction simulator again?

 

[jon_mx]

So far my RB's have been my flex score each week. I think that is more of a sign of my lack of depth at my WR production though. I need Hakeem Nicks, Robert Meachem, and Christ Henry to start stepping up if I am going to stay alive.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Simulator accuracy report for week 3 (I'm pretty proud of the simulator):

surv	 #	 #prob   teams  surv	 pct--------------------------90--99  3880  3657	94.380--89  3739  3202	85.670--79  1522  1142	75.060--69   562   356	63.3

That's pretty impressive.

 

[apalmer]

So far my RB's have been my flex score each week. I think that is more of a sign of my lack of depth at my WR production though. I need Hakeem Nicks, Robert Meachem, and Christ Henry to start stepping up if I am going to stay alive.

I haven't gotten a flex score from a RB yet. For that matter, I haven't gotten two double-digit scores in any week from my RBs. Hopefully, that will change with Lynch coming on board this week.ETA: Nice Freudian slip.

 

[skillz]

Missed the cut by .09

I know

 

[valhallan]

QB: Rodgers, Eli, Sanchez

RB: R.Brown, Parker, C.Taylor, Bradshaw, J.Forsett, J.Davis

WR: Ocho, Desean, VJax, Mason, Meachem, Britt, L.Robinson

TE: Keller, H.Miller, M.Bennett

K: Gostkowski, Janikowski, Carpenter

DF: Arizona, New Orleans

Used every week:

Ronnie Brown (week 1 = ), Vincent Jackson

Haven't used:

James Davis, Roberty Meachem, Kenny Britt, Martellus Bennett

Not feeling great about the RBs, but Taylor and Bradshaw could produce enough to carry me through Ronnie and FWP slumps/injuries.

 

[thatguythere]

Made it by .90. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeew! That was close.

 

[dirty_martini]

Used every week:

R. Grant

Colston

D. Clark

Not used:

Bradshaw

Coffee - that should change

J. Davis

C. Brown

Shiancoe

Henry

Houston

Quirer indicates my team is fairly unique so I'm excited about that if I can keep winning!

 

[Redmen62]

So far my RB's have been my flex score each week. I think that is more of a sign of my lack of depth at my WR production though. I need Hakeem Nicks, Robert Meachem, and Christ Henry to start stepping up if I am going to stay alive.

I haven't gotten a flex score from a RB yet. For that matter, I haven't gotten two double-digit scores in any week from my RBs. Hopefully, that will change with Lynch coming on board this week.ETA: Nice Freudian slip.

My flex has been my second TE each week. I'm really happy with my two-premium-TE strategy thus far. Jason Witten TE $27 DAL 14.60 16.80 21.20

Chris Cooley TE $15 WAS 23.30 18.80 8.30

 

[sinatravolta]

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+|		  20 |   5181 |  2896 |	0.5590 ||		  21 |   2032 |  1234 |	0.6073 ||		  22 |   1445 |   984 |	0.6810 ||		  23 |   1291 |   899 |	0.6964 ||		  24 |   3328 |  2507 |	0.7533 ||	   TOTAL |  13277 |  8520 |	0.6417 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+

Let's see. We lose around 1,250 this coming week (only about 14.7%). Looks like the 20-man rosters will still be most prevalent for 1 more week. Then I think after Week 5 we will already have more 24-man roster teams than 20-man teams. Will be interesting to see with the byes starting to kick in if the 20-man relative losses accelerate.

 

[perry147]

Used Brent Celek, Vincent Jackson, and Jason Hanson every week.

Used my TE as my Flex every week.

 

[Volleydog]

Played 3 weeks

Joe Flacco

Ryan Grant

Marques Colston

Brent Celek

Slept 3 weeks

Tom Brady

Jamaal Charles

Ladell Betts

James Davis

Edgerrin James

Nate Washington

Hakeem Nicks

Chaz Schilens

Been worried about week 4 since I built the team, and that was before Celek went nuts.

- No DeSean Jackson, Brent Celek, DeAngelo Williams or Jason Elam

- Tough matchups for remaining players

Here's hoping the Tashard Choice/Ladell Betts slots pay off big time!

 

[a_troll00]

Woohoo! I survived, just barely with 129.85.

Survive and advance!

Survive and advance!

Survive and advance!

 

[jon_mx]

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+|		  20 |   5181 |  2896 |	0.5590 ||		  21 |   2032 |  1234 |	0.6073 ||		  22 |   1445 |   984 |	0.6810 ||		  23 |   1291 |   899 |	0.6964 ||		  24 |   3328 |  2507 |	0.7533 ||	   TOTAL |  13277 |  8520 |	0.6417 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+

Let's see. We lose around 1,250 this coming week (only about 14.7%). Looks like the 20-man rosters will still be most prevalent for 1 more week. Then I think after Week 5 we will already have more 24-man roster teams than 20-man teams. Will be interesting to see with the byes starting to kick in if the 20-man relative losses accelerate.

Pretty good indication that surviving each week, it pays to have a larger rooster size. There is some point where the quality of players and the number of players trade off, and that trend will reverse. But so far it is looking like that point is above 24 players. But also interesting to look at the top 10 scorers this week....#1 21 Players...221#2 20 Players...212#3 24 Players...210#4 24 Players...209#5 21 Players...209#6 20 Players...208#7 24 Players...208#8 20 Players...207#9 21 Players...207#10 24 Players...206So it may turn out that 24 Players gives you the best shot at being in the final 250, but 20/21 gives you the best chance at getting the top score in a given week. 24 Players are well represented in the top 10 though.

 

[sinatravolta]

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+|		  20 |   5181 |  2896 |	0.5590 ||		  21 |   2032 |  1234 |	0.6073 ||		  22 |   1445 |   984 |	0.6810 ||		  23 |   1291 |   899 |	0.6964 ||		  24 |   3328 |  2507 |	0.7533 ||	   TOTAL |  13277 |  8520 |	0.6417 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+

Let's see. We lose around 1,250 this coming week (only about 14.7%). Looks like the 20-man rosters will still be most prevalent for 1 more week. Then I think after Week 5 we will already have more 24-man roster teams than 20-man teams. Will be interesting to see with the byes starting to kick in if the 20-man relative losses accelerate.

Pretty good indication that surviving each week, it pays to have a larger rooster size. There is some point where the quality of players and the number of players trade off, and that trend will reverse. But so far it is looking like that point is above 24 players. But also interesting to look at the top 10 scorers this week....#1 21 Players...221#2 20 Players...212#3 24 Players...210#4 24 Players...209#5 21 Players...209#6 20 Players...208#7 24 Players...208#8 20 Players...207#9 21 Players...207#10 24 Players...206So it may turn out that 24 Players gives you the best shot at being in the final 250, but 20/21 gives you the best chance at getting the top score in a given week. 24 Players are well represented in the top 10 though.

Would love to see the top 10 or top 25 scores based on all 3 weeks combined though. That is I think closer to simulating how the playoffs will go since that is a 3-week sum also.

 

[Sinn Fein]

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+|		  20 |   5181 |  2896 |	0.5590 ||		  21 |   2032 |  1234 |	0.6073 ||		  22 |   1445 |   984 |	0.6810 ||		  23 |   1291 |   899 |	0.6964 ||		  24 |   3328 |  2507 |	0.7533 ||	   TOTAL |  13277 |  8520 |	0.6417 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+

Let's see. We lose around 1,250 this coming week (only about 14.7%). Looks like the 20-man rosters will still be most prevalent for 1 more week. Then I think after Week 5 we will already have more 24-man roster teams than 20-man teams. Will be interesting to see with the byes starting to kick in if the 20-man relative losses accelerate.

The losses should accelerate - but that was not their strategy (other than those that simply forgot they could have had 24). So it does not tell us anything. Those teams knew going in, they would be at a disadvantage in weeks 4-10 - they were looking to have an advantage in the final weeks of the season.That strategy was based on if they make it though to the finals it would give them a better chance to win. It was not based on giving themselves the best chance to make it to the top 250.I am a 24-player team - but it is still way to early to write off one strategy as better than the other. I still think the poker analogy is appropriate - the 24 player crowd has the primary goal of cashing in the tournament - play conservative, don't put your self at risk early, and last deep into the tournament. If a few things break your way late, you could win. The 20-player crowd was playing only to win - they did not care about lasting deep into the tournament, they wanted to get all in and have a big chip lead heading into the final table. It is a all or nothing strategy - where they would just as soon go out in week 3 rather than be a short stack in week 10 - a loss is a loss. I don't think either strategy was right or wrong - just a different way to approach the contest.In the end, one team is going to win - and it will be because they had the best starters for the final weeks of the season of the remaining teams. It will not validate or disprove either theory. If we end up with the top-10 teams all having the same roster size, I'd be willing to reconsider.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+|		  20 |   5181 |  2896 |	0.5590 ||		  21 |   2032 |  1234 |	0.6073 ||		  22 |   1445 |   984 |	0.6810 ||		  23 |   1291 |   899 |	0.6964 ||		  24 |   3328 |  2507 |	0.7533 ||	   TOTAL |  13277 |  8520 |	0.6417 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+

Let's see. We lose around 1,250 this coming week (only about 14.7%). Looks like the 20-man rosters will still be most prevalent for 1 more week. Then I think after Week 5 we will already have more 24-man roster teams than 20-man teams. Will be interesting to see with the byes starting to kick in if the 20-man relative losses accelerate.

The losses should accelerate - but that was not their strategy (other than those that simply forgot they could have had 24). So it does not tell us anything. Those teams knew going in, they would be at a disadvantage in weeks 4-10 - they were looking to have an advantage in the final weeks of the season.That strategy was based on if they make it though to the finals it would give them a better chance to win. It was not based on giving themselves the best chance to make it to the top 250.I am a 24-player team - but it is still way to early to write off one strategy as better than the other. I still think the poker analogy is appropriate - the 24 player crowd has the primary goal of cashing in the tournament - play conservative, don't put your self at risk early, and last deep into the tournament. If a few things break your way late, you could win. The 20-player crowd was playing only to win - they did not care about lasting deep into the tournament, they wanted to get all in and have a big chip lead heading into the final table. It is a all or nothing strategy - where they would just as soon go out in week 3 rather than be a short stack in week 10 - a loss is a loss. I don't think either strategy was right or wrong - just a different way to approach the contest.In the end, one team is going to win - and it will be because they had the best starters for the final weeks of the season of the remaining teams. It will not validate or disprove either theory. If we end up with the top-10 teams all having the same roster size, I'd be willing to reconsider.

I really hope a 21-23 player team wins this just to see this thread go nuclear....

 

[LHUCKS]

Team LHUCKS is only getting stronger...don't hate me because you didn't draft the sick RB depth that I have.

1	  2	  3  --------------------------------------------------Carson Palmer		 $21	 10.55  31.35  15.25 Matt Hasselbeck	   $17	 30.25   6.05   0.00 DeAngelo Williams	 $37	 15.90  18.60   8.40 Felix Jones		   $11	  2.20  15.60  11.90 Chester Taylor		$11	  5.50   4.30  12.10 Ahmad Bradshaw		 $8	  8.60   5.50  10.40 LeSean McCoy		   $7	  5.20   7.50  15.80 Glen Coffee			$2	 -0.30   3.90   5.40 James Davis			$2	  2.40   0.00   1.60 Randy Moss			$42	 26.10   6.40  21.60 DeSean Jackson		$24	  6.20  21.60  26.90 Vincent Jackson	   $21	 16.60  26.10  17.00 Chris Henry		   $12	  2.80   7.50   2.90 Derrick Mason		  $9	  8.70   6.10  22.80 Robert Meachem		 $3	 13.10   3.60   0.00 Laurent Robinson	   $2	 13.70  17.40   4.60 John Carlson		  $11	 30.50  13.60   7.30 Jermichael Finley	  $3	  2.10  11.60   0.00 Chris Baker			$1	  2.20   1.60  13.20 Josh Brown			 $1	  0.00   1.00   8.00 Dan Carpenter		  $1	  1.00  17.00   7.00 San Francisco 49ers	$2	  7.00   3.00  10.00 Cincinnati Bengals	 $1	  3.00   8.00   9.00 New Orleans Saints	 $1	  7.00  16.00   8.00 --------------------------------------------------TOTAL						162.75 188.85 162.65 CUTOFF					   120.88 130.04 126.34

 

[sinatravolta]

The losses should accelerate - but that was not their strategy (other than those that simply forgot they could have had 24). So it does not tell us anything. Those teams knew going in, they would be at a disadvantage in weeks 4-10 - they were looking to have an advantage in the final weeks of the season.

That strategy was based on if they make it though to the finals it would give them a better chance to win. It was not based on giving themselves the best chance to make it to the top 250.

I am a 24-player team - but it is still way to early to write off one strategy as better than the other. I still think the poker analogy is appropriate - the 24 player crowd has the primary goal of cashing in the tournament - play conservative, don't put your self at risk early, and last deep into the tournament. If a few things break your way late, you could win. The 20-player crowd was playing only to win - they did not care about lasting deep into the tournament, they wanted to get all in and have a big chip lead heading into the final table. It is a all or nothing strategy - where they would just as soon go out in week 3 rather than be a short stack in week 10 - a loss is a loss.

I don't think either strategy was right or wrong - just a different way to approach the contest.

In the end, one team is going to win - and it will be because they had the best starters for the final weeks of the season of the remaining teams. It will not validate or disprove either theory. If we end up with the top-10 teams all having the same roster size, I'd be willing to reconsider.

First off - I'm sure the 20-man rosters were formed with many different strategies - some of which were just not feeling comfortable with the cheap guys or taking the time to try to find value among the cheap players. Some of which are also probably just not thinking it through that much. But even for those who are thinking along the lines you describe - I think most will be surprised by just how much more quickly they are dropping off and how few of them will be left when we get to the top 250. If you told most of the 20-man rosters that the results would be that 24-man rosters were maybe 4 or 5 times more likely to survive to the top 250 (or more) - I think many would re-think their strategy. Some would not. Secondly - this "building up a big chip stack" part of the analogy has zero evidence behind it so far. Yes - it's early to tell that part - but I don't see why a 20-man roster that manages to survive against the odds to the finals is somehow in a better place to win it all. It will be harder to be unique for them because they will have needed to rely on more of their roster slots to survive that long. And there's nothing yet indicating that spending for example an extra $2 on an individual RB is an edge over taking an extra D and an extra K in scoring more over a 3-week period. I think the 20-man roster that makes it to the final table is if anything more likely to be the short stack with little chance to win.

I agree that it's too early to say for certain. I agree that whoever wins will not prove the theory. I have already laid out in this thread a number of outcomes that I think are likely and that I think will provide pretty strong evidence that for this season in this contest - the 24-man strategy is better.