Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Someone projected the 18 man rosters would drop to around 40 by the time we get to the final 250. Can this be projected for all roster sizes? I'm very curious about the % chance to make it to the end for each.

This is a bit of a circular question, because it depends what kind of assumptions you build into it - e.g. to figure out the chances to survive, we'd try to project how many entries will still be alive at the end, but in order to project how many entries will be alive at the end, I have to make some assumptions about the rate at which they'll survive... so it's sort of like, "If we assume that 18-man rosters will survive at a 10% rate from here until week 14, then 18-man rosters have a 10% chance of surviving until week 14."Anyway, just for fun - don't put a ton of stock in this, but for a quick and pretty crude projection it might look something like this:

Size	Alive18	  4519	  2820	  2421	  2022	  2023	  2124	  1725	  1726	  1427	  1328	   929	   730	  15Tot	250

 

[Modog814]

Very close indeed. Even the 18s out produce the 23, 26, and 29s with the group we have left. We have ourselves a race!Someone projected the 18 man rosters would drop to around 40 by the time we get to the final 250. Can this be projected for all roster sizes? I'm very curious about the % chance to make it to the end for each.

I saw that too, but I'm not sure how they came up with that number. I projected it out and got 5 18-man rosters in the top 250, unfortunately I threw work out, I'll see if i can reproduce.

 

[radballs]

Check that...Make it the Washington report. Leon that is.Survival rate for ALL teams: 17.73 percentSurvival rate for teams with Leon Washington: 23.93 percentDefinitely a good thing to have him on your roster right?ETA: 62 of 236 teams have BOTH Leon Washington and Fred Taylor on their rosters for a 26.27% survival.It's actually better when teams have both of these studs!!!

Ah, the old correlation does not equal causation argument.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Then again, if I make a somewhat different assumption about the survival trends, I could project it more like this:

Size Alive18 2319 2020 2121 1822 1723 2924 2325 2126 1827 1528 1529 1230 18Tot 250
Will small rosters start doing better than they have been (relative to the rest of the pack) because the byes are about to end? Or are they more decimated by injuries, so their survival will just keep getting worse? How do you tweak the model to account for these assumptions?

It's hard to say exactly which way it will play out. Doug can do a much better job of it using actual player projections, I'm just sort of extrapolating trends here.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What the hell, why don't I just average the two, and make that my ***Official*** Final 250 projections:

Size Alive18 3419 2420 2321 1922 1823 2524 2025 1926 1627 1428 1229 1030 16Tot 250
I'll try to remember to check this a few weeks from now and see how I did.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Does average score really tell us anything (serious question, not trying to be a jerk)?

Not really due to "junk" entries that didn't understand scoring and/or rules, etc.I was just curious since I missed the first time these stats were posted.

If you could calculate which teams have scored consistently high on a weekly basis and only use those, it might give a better indication.

 

[Modog814]

Someone projected the 18 man rosters would drop to around 40 by the time we get to the final 250. Can this be projected for all roster sizes? I'm very curious about the % chance to make it to the end for each.

This is a bit of a circular question, because it depends what kind of assumptions you build into it - e.g. to figure out the chances to survive, we'd try to project how many entries will still be alive at the end, but in order to project how many entries will be alive at the end, I have to make some assumptions about the rate at which they'll survive... so it's sort of like, "If we assume that 18-man rosters will survive at a 10% rate from here until week 14, then 18-man rosters have a 10% chance of surviving until week 14."

Anyway, just for fun - don't put a ton of stock in this, but for a quick and pretty crude projection it might look something like this:

Group Avg Rate18 77.09%19-21 81.92%22-24 86.45%25-27 89.32%28-30 90.36%Now in week 10, 700 teams (I'll also assume any week 9 ties get eliminated too so we get down to exactly 1600) get eliminated. We know there are 521 (no staff) 18-man teams. We expected 22.81% to get eliminated, which is appx 119. We do this for all groups. However, that only eliminates 373, so we scale up to 700 (700/373 ~ 1.88) so we multiply by 1.88 to get 224 18-man eliminations (thinking about this now, it might lead toward a bias against smaller rosters, but I'm not sure).Repeat the process each week going forward and I get the following distribution:

2300	1600	1000	500	25018	521	 297 	 134 	 30 	 5 19-21	698	 461 	 261 	 102 	 34 22-24	510	 380 	 257 	 139 	 70 25-27	339	 271 	 202 	 129 	 78 28-30	234	 192 	 147 	 99 	 64

 

[H8fulHuck]

What the hell, why don't I just average the two, and make that my ***Official*** Final 250 projections:

Size	Alive  18	  34	 .002619	  24	 .012620	  23	 .017221	  19	 .021922	  18	 .022523	  25	 .040724	  20	 .040725	  19	 .047326	  16	 .051927	  14	 .060128	  12	 .042929	  10	 .070430	  16	 .0570Tot	250

I'll try to remember to check this a few weeks from now and see how I did.

That was quick. Still interesting to see what theoretical % chance you have to make it to the final 250 based on roster size alone.

 

[BassNBrew]

How about Average Score by roster size over the first 3 weeks of this year? Before byes and before (most) injuries.

Would that take you long to do, since you did the other average score calculations?

Still wouldn't be conclusive, but I'm just curious.

It's been done, 18 man rosters get hammered. Their excuse was 'junk entries'Weeks 4-10, same thing, excuse is 'byes affect them more'

Weeks 11-16 will be the same thing, excuse will be 'not large enough sample size left'

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here's what I did, which got much different results, I think my method is okay, but feel free to tear it apart. Also I don't have the survival rate for each rostersize, so I'm using QuizGuys breakdown by groups:

He has 9.64% of 18-man teams surviving to this point. To get to that, it's an average of 77.09% survival rate over 9 weeks.

...

We know there are 521 (no staff) 18-man teams. We expected 22.81% to get eliminated, which is appx 119. We do this for all groups. However, that only eliminates 373, so we scale up to 700 (700/373 ~ 1.88) so we multiply by 1.88 to get 224 18-man eliminations (thinking about this now, it might lead toward a bias against smaller rosters, but I'm not sure).

Yeah, there's definitely some fuzzy math in here. You're starting off with an assumption that roughly 23% of the 18-man rosters will be eliminated this week. Then you're applying that scaling factor, and you end up eliminating 224 / 521 = 43% of the 18-man rosters.ETA: That's not really the right way to say it - the elimination rate for 18-man rosters probably will be a lot closer to 43% than 23% this week, so it's not the jump from 23 to 43 that looks wrong. Hard to say how things will shake out, it just seems to me that 5 is too low. I guess we'll see.

 

[Modog814]

Here's what I did, which got much different results, I think my method is okay, but feel free to tear it apart. Also I don't have the survival rate for each rostersize, so I'm using QuizGuys breakdown by groups:

He has 9.64% of 18-man teams surviving to this point. To get to that, it's an average of 77.09% survival rate over 9 weeks.

...

We know there are 521 (no staff) 18-man teams. We expected 22.81% to get eliminated, which is appx 119. We do this for all groups. However, that only eliminates 373, so we scale up to 700 (700/373 ~ 1.88) so we multiply by 1.88 to get 224 18-man eliminations (thinking about this now, it might lead toward a bias against smaller rosters, but I'm not sure).

Yeah, there's definitely some fuzzy math in here. You're starting off with an assumption that roughly 23% of the 18-man rosters will be eliminated this week. Then you're applying that scaling factor, and you end up eliminating 224 / 521 = 43% of the 18-man rosters.ETA: That's not really the right way to say it - the elimination rate for 18-man rosters probably will be a lot closer to 43% than 23% this week, so it's not the jump from 23 to 43 that looks wrong. Hard to say how things will shake out, it just seems to me that 5 is too low. I guess we'll see.

I agree that something seems fuzzy, and I think the fuzziness hurts the smaller team (really the teams that have had worse YTD survival rates) the most.

 

[H8fulHuck]

Here's what I did, which got much different results, I think my method is okay, but feel free to tear it apart. Also I don't have the survival rate for each rostersize, so I'm using QuizGuys breakdown by groups:

He has 9.64% of 18-man teams surviving to this point. To get to that, it's an average of 77.09% survival rate over 9 weeks.

...

We know there are 521 (no staff) 18-man teams. We expected 22.81% to get eliminated, which is appx 119. We do this for all groups. However, that only eliminates 373, so we scale up to 700 (700/373 ~ 1.88) so we multiply by 1.88 to get 224 18-man eliminations (thinking about this now, it might lead toward a bias against smaller rosters, but I'm not sure).

Yeah, there's definitely some fuzzy math in here. You're starting off with an assumption that roughly 23% of the 18-man rosters will be eliminated this week. Then you're applying that scaling factor, and you end up eliminating 224 / 521 = 43% of the 18-man rosters.ETA: That's not really the right way to say it - the elimination rate for 18-man rosters probably will be a lot closer to 43% than 23% this week, so it's not the jump from 23 to 43 that looks wrong. Hard to say how things will shake out, it just seems to me that 5 is too low. I guess we'll see.

The % of all entries that get cut increases dramatically also toward the end. Any score at/below average will knock teams out soon.

Week 9 trim to 2,300 teams

Week 10 trim to 1,600 teams 30% cut

Week 11 trim to 1,000 teams 37.5% cut

Week 12 trim to 500 teams 50% cut

Week 13 trim to 250 teams 50% cut

 

[LittlePhatty]

Doug (or anyone else who can answer): How close was Brandon Lloyd to making it on the final list of selectable players?

 

[H8fulHuck]

Doug (or anyone else who can answer): How close was Brandon Lloyd to making it on the final list of selectable players?

I was looking for a write in spot for Seattle's Mike Williams.

 

[H8fulHuck]

What if you had Finley and your back up TE's are Scheffler and Gronkowski? Are you doomed then?

How about changing the subtitle of this thread from "when will this be available?" How about, the year of the LOCK

 

[bostonfred]

He's saying that the survival rate for Foster owners wouldn't drop much, because even if Foster was putting up zeroes every week, they'd still be stronger than rosters that didn't have Foster to begin with.

I don't know what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound like it makes sense.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

He's saying that the survival rate for Foster owners wouldn't drop much, because even if Foster was putting up zeroes every week, they'd still be stronger than rosters that didn't have Foster to begin with.

I don't know what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound like it makes sense.

Kind of like when you say "Dawn"? Here was the exchange:

I'll guess around 24%. I am assuming a lot of the non-Foster owners had poorly constructed teams.

You're doing it wrong. If that's your logic, you should be guessing that they'd do worse than the overall survival rate.

If Foster scored zero every single week, Foster owners wouldn't necessarily fall below the average survival rate. Marvelous doesn't think they would, because non-Foster teams are so poorly constructed that they would still be worse than teams with an injured Foster. There's nothing wrong with that logic.

 

[bostonfred]

He's saying that the survival rate for Foster owners wouldn't drop much, because even if Foster was putting up zeroes every week, they'd still be stronger than rosters that didn't have Foster to begin with.

I don't know what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound like it makes sense.

Kind of like when you say "Dawn"? Here was the exchange:

I'll guess around 24%. I am assuming a lot of the non-Foster owners had poorly constructed teams.

You're doing it wrong. If that's your logic, you should be guessing that they'd do worse than the overall survival rate.

If Foster scored zero every single week, Foster owners wouldn't necessarily fall below the average survival rate. Marvelous doesn't think they would, because non-Foster teams are so poorly constructed that they would still be worse than teams with an injured Foster. There's nothing wrong with that logic.

Update: I know what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound like it makes sense.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's about time Doug comes in and posts the right answer to that trivia question.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Update: I know what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound like it makes sense.

One important factor is that most people had Foster on their roster - chances are that even if Foster scored zero points every week, a ton of Foster owners would still be surviving just because everyone had him (and he was cheap). And then there's everyone's favorite correlation<>causation angle, which is that Foster was a very smart bargain this year, so the presence of Foster on a team indicates the owner was paying more attention and probably put more thought into their roster overall than someone who didn't select Foster. So Foster (even if he put up zeroes every week) would still be a predictor of more well-constructed teams, even if he didn't have anything to do with their actual success during the season.

 

[BassNBrew]

Revised 18 man roster excuse list

Roster selected to perform during the playoff weeks, not make it to the playoffs.

Two season sample size is too small.

Studs are better conditioned athletes and produce better later in the year.

Can't be shown in the numbers because of the dilution caused by the thousands of crappy smaller rosters.

Many of the 18 man rosters just phoned it in.

Player valuations aren't the same as last year.

Mid to low priced guys have been over achieving thus far.

Finley got hurt.

Aren't enough 18 man rosters in the final 250 entires to evaluate how they'll do.

 

[Doug Drinen]

It's about time Doug comes in and posts the right answer to that trivia question.

Is this schtick? I thought you computed it when you posted earlier, but if that was a guess it was a very good one.Correct answer is 19.67%.An excellent example of correlation != causation.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's about time Doug comes in and posts the right answer to that trivia question.

Is this schtick? I thought you computed it when you posted earlier, but if that was a guess it was a very good one.Correct answer is 19.67%.An excellent example of correlation != causation.

I was pretty sure I was right, but it's always nice to get confirmation. And it didn't seem like anyone else realized I had posted the answer.

 

[Balco]

Maybe some hope for us Laurent Robinson owners?

Nov. 11, 2010 4:31 p.m. - Offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur on WR Laurent Robinson: "I think the bye week has helped him. Getting through training camp and the first part of the season, he was struggling a little bit. But he's done a good job this week and looks good."

LINK

 

[WisWolvrns]

Injuries still cause the most damage in this format I feel.

Wonder if it could work to have $250 for the lineup and $X for a short reserves roster of 1-5 players. With rank preference for who is first in for any regular player who gets put on the NFL IR...

Probably more a programming nightmare than what it is worth, but it would be an interesting twist.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

19.76%

Correct answer is 19.67%.

So you got 1628 remaining Foster owners - is that excluding the staff entries that would still be alive? I came up with 1635, and that was including staff entries. I'm wondering if we're just reporting different numbers, or if I calculated something incorrectly.

 

[H8fulHuck]

19.76%

Correct answer is 19.67%.

So you got 1628 remaining Foster owners - is that excluding the staff entries that would still be alive? I came up with 1635, and that was including staff entries. I'm wondering if we're just reporting different numbers, or if I calculated something incorrectly.

What do you mean? Is it an African swallow or a European swallow?

 

[Das Boot]

I'm going to try to talk Dodds into compressing the prices even more next season...

Compressing the rosters even more just levels the playing filed between the people that put a ton a time and thought into their team and those that throw it together the last minute. Why do you want to do this?

I agree - the whole point of the contest is to go through the process of - How much do I want to spend for a stud versus 2, 3 or more role players? For example - why would someone pick a mid-tier RB when for a dollar or two more they can get Chris Johnson or ADP? If someone want those of type players they should need to shell out the $10-15 more it takes to get them and take the salary cap hit. If the prices get compressed even more, you might as well just get rid of them completely and just see who is best at predicting who will be the biggest studs of the upcoming season. I think it would take a fun aspect out of the contest.

This thread reaps what it sows... too many people can't just use common sense and stop providing a detailed roadmap on how to construct an optimized team for the contest.Next year when the prices are normalized to minimize the advantage to big rosters, people can have fun trying to throw darts and pick out their favorite players rather than use the strategies that have been effective the past few years.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Most teams that had Foster didn't take him as their #1 or #2 running back so they probably had other options. Most teams with Foster and Grant, or a similar combination like Foster and DeAngelo, would be long gone. But the rest of them should do just slightly worse than average. Foster was a cheap player, so they still have most of their cap space avalable to play for them, and were just as likely to have found sleepers as any other team. The average roster would be hitting at a 17% clip right now. The average non-Foster roster would be hitting at about 18%, while the average Foster roster would be hitting at about 13%.

The Foster-Grant teams at least looked cool doing it. Anyway 13.2 through Thursday's game -QG

 

[LittlePhatty]

This thread reaps what it sows... too many people can't just use common sense and stop providing a detailed roadmap on how to construct an optimized team for the contest.

How many people have posted in this thread? How many others read it?Even if I estimate really high at 700 people, that's only about 5% of the 13,000 entries.And even out of the small percentage of people who do read this thread, there are plenty of outspoken doubters of the "more is better" theory. (I'm not a doubter)

 

[QuizGuy66]

This thread reaps what it sows... too many people can't just use common sense and stop providing a detailed roadmap on how to construct an optimized team for the contest.

How many people have posted in this thread? How many others read it?Even if I estimate really high at 700 people, that's only about 5% of the 13,000 entries.And even out of the small percentage of people who do read this thread, there are plenty of outspoken doubters of the "more is better" theory. (I'm not a doubter)

Actually 355 people have posted in the thread. I'm proud to say that I have posted less than this number so far (um not by much though )-QG

 

[Das Boot]

This thread reaps what it sows... too many people can't just use common sense and stop providing a detailed roadmap on how to construct an optimized team for the contest.

How many people have posted in this thread? How many others read it?Even if I estimate really high at 700 people, that's only about 5% of the 13,000 entries.And even out of the small percentage of people who do read this thread, there are plenty of outspoken doubters of the "more is better" theory. (I'm not a doubter)

How many people have read it though?How many will search it out and read it next year when contest time rolls around again?How many have we seen converted already in this thread?700 people is 450 more than will make it to the finals. I find the contest and all its details fascinating too and enjoy it greatly each year.But my desire to kick butt in the contest trumps my compulsion to post every last shred of tips and strategy here.It doesn't matter... people are just busting at the seams to talk about their strategies and use databases to prove theories and trends and it's obvious there's no stopping them.Oh well, the further compressed pricing next year will negate a lot of the strategy being handed out here this year.

 

[wollac]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you Matt Ryan for stepping in BIG for my bye week'ed Philip Rivers, so I don't have to worry about trying to score with Derek Anderson. Picked up 34.3 points from him tonight, and another 11.0 from Matt Bryant with 28 players left to score (only 3 on bye weeks). Let me be the first to say... "On to Week 11" (Stay away from me Turk).

 

[QuizGuy66]

This thread reaps what it sows... too many people can't just use common sense and stop providing a detailed roadmap on how to construct an optimized team for the contest.

How many people have posted in this thread? How many others read it?Even if I estimate really high at 700 people, that's only about 5% of the 13,000 entries.And even out of the small percentage of people who do read this thread, there are plenty of outspoken doubters of the "more is better" theory. (I'm not a doubter)

How many people have read it though?How many will search it out and read it next year when contest time rolls around again?How many have we seen converted already in this thread?700 people is 450 more than will make it to the finals. I find the contest and all its details fascinating too and enjoy it greatly each year.But my desire to kick butt in the contest trumps my compulsion to post every last shred of tips and strategy here.It doesn't matter... people are just busting at the seams to talk about their strategies and use databases to prove theories and trends and it's obvious there's no stopping them.Oh well, the further compressed pricing next year will negate a lot of the strategy being handed out here this year.

Other than who is exactly on my roster, I don't think I gave away my entire strategy This contest has been a moving target traditionally, though. Not sure that compressing prices does anything other than make teams go for teams loaded with studs - I don't think it makes the choices harder IMO. I'm not sure it'll make for more diversity in rosters.-QG

 

[tigerz]

Most teams that had Foster didn't take him as their #1 or #2 running back so they probably had other options. Most teams with Foster and Grant, or a similar combination like Foster and DeAngelo, would be long gone. But the rest of them should do just slightly worse than average. Foster was a cheap player, so they still have most of their cap space avalable to play for them, and were just as likely to have found sleepers as any other team. The average roster would be hitting at a 17% clip right now. The average non-Foster roster would be hitting at about 18%, while the average Foster roster would be hitting at about 13%.

The Foster-Grant teams at least looked cool doing it.

I took Foster and Grant and I'm still in. Buying Grant barely phased me and I made it past each week with a lot of room to spare. Of course I hit on everyone else. Would be surprised if I make it past this week without Rivers though.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Post-Thursday sim

Original sim for comparison

 

[Wide Right]

Myself and 276 other Roddy White owners would like to say Thank You to the Ref at the end of the game last last night for not calling the push off on the game winning TD. Getting our teams 37.8 points will hopefully help us through a 30.4% cut weekend.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How many people have read it though?How many will search it out and read it next year when contest time rolls around again?How many have we seen converted already in this thread?700 people is 450 more than will make it to the finals. I find the contest and all its details fascinating too and enjoy it greatly each year.But my desire to kick butt in the contest trumps my compulsion to post every last shred of tips and strategy here.It doesn't matter... people are just busting at the seams to talk about their strategies and use databases to prove theories and trends and it's obvious there's no stopping them.Oh well, the further compressed pricing next year will negate a lot of the strategy being handed out here this year.

Very few people pay attention to the discussion in this thread all year long, and even fewer will remember and apply it next August. The roster size debate went on all last year, with pretty conlclusive results, and still there were 20 times more 18-man rosters than 30-man rosters this year. Your chances of winning this contest, even if you employ the optimal strategy and everyone else submits entries that are "junk" by comparison, are extremely small. Picking apart and discussing the strategy of a contest like this, on the other hand, is endless fun (at least for some of us). I wouldn't trade a season's worth of these discussions for an imperceptible bump in the probability that I win the $25,000. There will always be enough luck involved that sharing strategy with the few dozen people who've actually read this thread isn't going to make any difference.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Re: the trivia question from yesterday, I thought it might be interesting to post the Foster effect on the weekly cutoffs (these may not be exactly right, since I seemed to be slightly off from Doug's result, but it should be close enough):

Wk	Act	Alt	Foster1	125.90	113.45	42.302	141.75	136.90	15.303	145.00	139.75	14.604	129.75	110.80	32.205	127.10	127.05	 3.706	139.90	125.05	24.707	123.50	123.40	 0.008	132.55	113.10	27.209	151.70	124.05	33.70

"Act" is the actual cutoff each week, "Alt" is what the cutoff would have been had Foster scored zero points every week, and "Foster" is just Foster's weekly points this year.

 

[Modog814]

It doesn't matter... people are just busting at the seams to talk about their strategies and use databases to prove theories and trends and it's obvious there's no stopping them.Oh well, the further compressed pricing next year will negate a lot of the strategy being handed out here this year.

I don't think any of the discussion in this thread is any different that what went on in last years thread, and this year you still had a large portion of the entries with 18, 19, 20 man rosters. In fact, if I recall correctly, I think this year actually had a higher percentage of smaller rosters.Most of the stuff in here is theoretical anyway, and I think the whole thing keeps coming around to "you need to end up with the right players" and I don't think that's really a secret that anybody doesn't know.

 

[Wide Right]

It doesn't matter... people are just busting at the seams to talk about their strategies and use databases to prove theories and trends and it's obvious there's no stopping them.Oh well, the further compressed pricing next year will negate a lot of the strategy being handed out here this year.

I don't think any of the discussion in this thread is any different that what went on in last years thread, and this year you still had a large portion of the entries with 18, 19, 20 man rosters. In fact, if I recall correctly, I think this year actually had a higher percentage of smaller rosters.Most of the stuff in here is theoretical anyway, and I think the whole thing keeps coming around to "you need to end up with the right players" and I don't think that's really a secret that anybody doesn't know.

While I don't participate very often, I have really enjoyed reading all the conversation about strategy, probablility, big roster versus smaller roster. . . While those that consistantly read through the 70+ pages of posts will get some ideas on how to improve next year, there areso many variables on who to pick and how they perform that we will all have remarkable different teams and different performances next year. Thanks to all that have participated in a discussion that has had some number crunching facts, some theories but most importanty some postive and contructive debate without the negative or derogitory posting that can sometimes occur on this board. Keep it coming!

 

[LittlePhatty]

Actually 355 people have posted in the thread.

Yeah, and I'm thinking maybe another 300 might have read it but not posted.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you Matt Ryan for stepping in BIG for my bye week'ed Philip Rivers, so I don't have to worry about trying to score with Derek Anderson. Picked up 34.3 points from him tonight, and another 11.0 from Matt Bryant with 28 players left to score (only 3 on bye weeks). Let me be the first to say... :IBTL: "On to Week 11" :IBTL: (Stay away from me Turk).

Haha. Well, if the cut is in the low 80s this week I am already safe at 84.55 with Roddy White, Flacco and Todd Heap. I'm not going to claim "lock" yet, but that's not bad from just one ballgame.

 

[levinakl]

Thanks to Flacco for starting me off with a good week..... a 28.05 to start is a good way to go...... and it got me over the 95% mark in the sim....... so obviously, I'm hoping Doug's calculations are dead on.

 

[TheChairman]

Actually 355 people have posted in the thread.

Yeah, and I'm thinking maybe another 300 might have read it but not posted.

Another 15,000 looked at it, did an and called us

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Actually 355 people have posted in the thread.

Yeah, and I'm thinking maybe another 300 might have read it but not posted.

I'd actually guess that most of the 355 that posted haven't even really read it. There's a lot of people who post once or twice with a "I need X to do well tonight", "rate my team", "where's the link to the sim", etc. - I don't suspect they're really following the thread. And people generally stop paying attention once their own team has been eliminated. There aren't many of us crazy stupid devoted enough to stick with this thread all season long.

 

[kevzilla]

Actually 355 people have posted in the thread.

Yeah, and I'm thinking maybe another 300 might have read it but not posted.

I'd actually guess that most of the 355 that posted haven't even really read it. There's a lot of people who post once or twice with a "I need X to do well tonight", "rate my team", "where's the link to the sim", etc. - I don't suspect they're really following the thread. And people generally stop paying attention once their own team has been eliminated. There aren't many of us crazy stupid devoted enough to stick with this thread all season long.

 

[wollac]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you Matt Ryan for stepping in BIG for my bye week'ed Philip Rivers, so I don't have to worry about trying to score with Derek Anderson. Picked up 34.3 points from him tonight, and another 11.0 from Matt Bryant with 28 players left to score (only 3 on bye weeks). Let me be the first to say... "On to Week 11" (Stay away from me Turk).

Haha. Well, if the cut is in the low 80s this week I am already safe at 84.55 with Roddy White, Flacco and Todd Heap. I'm not going to claim "lock" yet, but that's not bad from just one ballgame.

This team hit the JACKPOT last night.100.8 points from one game:

34.30 Matt Ryan

37.80 Roddy White

17.70 Todd Heap

11.00 Matt Bryant

Jealous!!

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Post-Thursday sim

Original sim for comparison

My odds of getting through dropped nearly 10% and I didn't have anybody play.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Post-Thursday sim

Original sim for comparison

My odds of getting through dropped nearly 10% and I didn't have anybody play.

Big stats from Thursday players raised the cut line in the simulation.