Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[Modog814]

My Prediction for this week in terms of breakdown by roster size:

Size	Surv.	Current	Rate
18	311	521	59.69%
19	183	284	64.44%
20	154	230	66.96%
21	132	184	71.74%
22	124	185	67.03%
23	130	180	72.22%
24	115	145	79.31%
25	101	134	75.37%
26	88	111	79.28%
27	70	94	74.47%
28	51	69	73.91%
29	43	54	79.63%
30	98	111	88.29%

 

[Das Boot]

Very few people pay attention to the discussion in this thread all year long, and even fewer will remember and apply it next August.

I think that enough people read this thread to affect everyone's chance in the contest, especially the following year at the start of the new contest when last year's thread contains start to finish discussion throughout the contest.And the first thing someone always does every August in the new contest thread each year is link last year's thread.

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.

Rosters were expanded up to 30 for the first time this year, which is emphatically highlighting the statistical differences in survival rates. If anyone didn't know before that large rosters are the way to go, the helpful people in this thread have amply pointed it out to them 100's of times now.

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.

If someone can consistently get their team into the final 500 or 250, I'd say their chances are far from 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).

Agreed, it's hella fun... except I don't want to reveal strategy or try to convince people who I think have a non-optimal strategy that they ought to switch to what I think is a smarter way of playing.

I wouldn't trade a season's worth of these discussions for an imperceptible bump in the probability that I win the $25,000.

I can see that.

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.

The people reading this thread are the ones interested enough to spend the time doing so, and are thus also the ones most likely to employ the strategy they learn.

 

[LittlePhatty]

If someone can consistently get their team into the final 500 or 250, I'd say their chances are far from extremely small.

Approximately 1 in 500, or 1 in 250.If I've done my math right. There is so much luck involved - picking the players who light it up 16 weeks in advance. Strategy will only get you so far.And though I see your point about not wanting to "give away secrets", I think it is a losing battle. People will talk about it anyway.

 

[Donsmith753]

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%.

Just catching up with the thread and noticed your post. I've got the combination you were talking about and after a quick check I'd still be here even without foster. Really didn't think I'd have survived without him.

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

A couple of questions. The number in week 7 should be identical unless you re-ran the entire season carrying each week's new results forward.In week 9 your saying Foster's 33.7 points moved the cut line 27.7 points. That would mean the next best back (or possibly flex) only scored 6 points on average. I guess that's possible, but seems unlikely. Did you just use the next best scoring back for each team or did you look at the next best score for the teams that used a RB for their flex score?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think that enough people read this thread to affect everyone's chance in the contest...

Agree to strongly disagree.

...especially the following year at the start of the new contest when last year's thread contains start to finish discussion throughout the contest.

And the first thing someone always does every August in the new contest thread each year is link last year's thread.

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.

Rosters were expanded up to 30 for the first time this year, which is emphatically highlighting the statistical differences in survival rates. If anyone didn't know before that large rosters are the way to go, the helpful people in this thread have amply pointed it out to them 100's of times now.

So the first thing everyone does each year is link to last year's thread and read the whole strategy discussion? And everyone's going to learn the secrets to winning that way? Funny, because the statistical differences in survival rates for large vs small rosters were pretty emphatically highlighted in last year's thread, and still the unbelievably overwhelming supermajority of entries this year went with the smallest possible rosters.

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.

If someone can consistently get their team into the final 500 or 250, I'd say their chances are far from extremely small.

Even 1 out of 250 is a crapshoot. You're vastly underestimating the luck involved in winning the contest, even if you make the final 250. If someone could reliably predict weeks 14-16 fantasy output in August, they'd be better off starting up a competing website and selling subscriptions for their projections.That's why talking about the strategy is fun - because we're not sharing any classified secrets here. If I seriously thought that a significant number of entrants were reading this thread and learning some kind of optimal strategy, such a significant number of entrants that it was drastically lowering my already tiny chances of winning, I might reconsider posting here. But I don't seriously think that's the case. You're honestly kidding yourself if you think your probability of winning has decreased in any meaningful way by the discussion that's gone on in here.

Dodds and Drinen will certainly throw another twist into the contest next year anyway, so everyone will think "last year's strategy doesn't apply" (just like everyone did this year - see the earlier debates about the compressed prices). Have faith that if you're the kind of person who can consistently do well in this contest, you will continue to do so.

 

[Doug Drinen]

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.

A couple of questions. The number in week 7 should be identical unless you re-ran the entire season carrying each week's new results forward.In week 9 your saying Foster's 33.7 points moved the cut line 27.7 points. That would mean the next best back (or possibly flex) only scored 6 points on average. I guess that's possible, but seems unlikely. Did you just use the next best scoring back for each team or did you look at the next best score for the teams that used a RB for their flex score?

Yes, he did run the whole season forward. FWIW, I ran my program and got the exact same alternate cut numbers.

 

[az_prof]

If someone can consistently get their team into the final 500 or 250, I'd say their chances are far from extremely small.

Approximately 1 in 500, or 1 in 250.If I've done my math right. There is so much luck involved - picking the players who light it up 16 weeks in advance. Strategy will only get you so far.And though I see your point about not wanting to "give away secrets", I think it is a losing battle. People will talk about it anyway.

As a professional educator, let me allay your fears: you can tell people and they still will not listen. Trust me: stupid people are stupid. They are so stupid that even when someone tells them they truth, they won't listen. Call it the Cassandra syndrome.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

A couple of questions. The number in week 7 should be identical unless you re-ran the entire season carrying each week's new results forward.

I re-ran the whole season, with Foster scoring zero every week. It's funny you mention that, though, because when I first saw the results I thought the same thing. I thought I screwed something up because the week 7 cutoff wasn't the same. Then I realized that it wouldn't be the same, because it wouldn't be the same 4,000 teams that would be alive in week 7, at which point I thought it was odd that the hypothetical cutoff was so close to the actual cutoff that week.

In week 9 your saying Foster's 33.7 points moved the cut line 27.7 points. That would mean the next best back (or possibly flex) only scored 6 points on average. I guess that's possible, but seems unlikely. Did you just use the next best scoring back for each team or did you look at the next best score for the teams that used a RB for their flex score?

Well, neither. I built the db to score all the teams based on a table of player scores - that's how I calculate the "hypothetical" weekly scores for all the entries that have been eliminated already. So I just changed all of Foster's scores to zero and re-scored all the rosters. Whether Foster counted as an RB, or a flex, or didn't count, or whatever, doesn't matter. I didn't "replace" Foster with the next best RB or flex or whatever, I just set Foster to zero and had the db recalculate whatever the score would be for each roster.I just sort of ran those numbers and posted them, I haven't put a ton of thought into it. I'm not sure exactly what to make of the numbers. I think what you're seeing is the fact that Foster is owned (and probably started) by such an increasing majority of rosters that his score has a larger and larger effect on the cutoff. But I just finished a bottle of wine so I'm not sure I'm going to figure it out tonight.

 

[QuizGuy66]

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 42.30 Foster margin: 29.852 141.75 136.90 15.30 Foster margin: 10.453 145.00 139.75 14.60 Foster margin: 9.354 129.75 110.80 32.20 Foster margin: 13.255 127.10 127.05 3.70 Foster margin: 3.656 139.90 125.05 24.70 Foster margin: 9.857 123.50 123.40 0.00 Foster margin: .1 8 132.55 113.10 27.20 Foster margin: 7.759 151.70 124.05 33.70 Foster margin: 6.05"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.

The Foster margin is the difference between Foster's total and how much the cut dropped. This illustrates the difference that his presence has made each week - it makes sense that as the ownership percentage has gone up, Foster's impact has lessened considerably. Just realized that this is a meaningless comparison as the results were rolled over week to week (with different survivors going forward). Oh well.

-QG

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The Foster margin is the difference between Foster's total and how much the cut dropped. This illustrates the difference that his presence has made each week - it makes sense that as the ownership percentage has gone up, Foster's impact has lessened considerably.

Just realized that this is a meaningless comparison as the results were rolled over week to week (with different survivors going forward). Oh well.

-QG

I think there's two ways to look at/describe the Foster phenomenon... as his ownership percentage has gone up, his impact on the cutoff has increased, but perhaps his impact on an individual team's chances of surpassing the cutoff has decreased. Not sure if that makes sense. I don't have the files on this PC, but IIRC in the "Foster scored zero every week" scenario, 1600+ of the 2300 currently live teams would still be alive. It's not like all the teams that survived (in reality) would have been eliminated (if Foster scored all zeroes) and vice versa. Which I think maybe supports the above...? Foster's big scores are moving the cut line drastically, but not drastically changing the teams that end up above/below the cut (rising tide lifts all boats, etc). You know, like if you go into Monday night and you're already above the cut line, and have one player left to go... well if that player blows up, the cut line will move up, but so will you, so it's ok. Same idea, but everyone has Foster, so when he scores a lot of points the cut line moves a lot but it doesn't substantially change whether or not any given team survives.

 

[BassNBrew]

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 42.30 Foster margin: 29.852 141.75 136.90 15.30 Foster margin: 10.453 145.00 139.75 14.60 Foster margin: 9.354 129.75 110.80 32.20 Foster margin: 13.255 127.10 127.05 3.70 Foster margin: 3.656 139.90 125.05 24.70 Foster margin: 9.857 123.50 123.40 0.00 Foster margin: .1 8 132.55 113.10 27.20 Foster margin: 7.759 151.70 124.05 33.70 Foster margin: 6.05"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.

The Foster margin is the difference between Foster's total and how much the cut dropped. This illustrates the difference that his presence has made each week - it makes sense that as the ownership percentage has gone up, Foster's impact has lessened considerably. Just realized that this is a meaningless comparison as the results were rolled over week to week (with different survivors going forward). Oh well.

-QG

Actually you got that backwards. As the "Foster margin" goes down, the bigger impact his score had on the week's cut line. Well assuming that he had a decent scoring week. Week one he had a huge score and the margin was large because the cut only moved about 1/3 of his total points. In week 9 he had another big week and the cut line moved 3/4's of his score. I think what we're seeing in addition to his ownership invreasing, is the impact of byes on highly owned RBs in ths contest and injuries accumulating and eliminating depth to replace his score.

 

[chuk333]

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!!

Ha! That's me, the only bad thing about last night is that I am a Ravens fan.

 

[wollac]

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!!

Ha! That's me, the only bad thing about last night is that I am a Ravens fan.

Congratulations! (on the score...not the team choice)

 

[wollac]

I'm just curious which position everyone else is scoring their flex points on. Out of the nine weeks so far, I've gotten flex points from:

TE...7 times (rostered 4 TEs and spent $20)

WR...2 times (rostered 8 WRs and spent $90)

RB...0 times (rostered 7 RBs and spent $79)

I'm kind of amazed at how little I spent at TE, yet how productive the position has been for my team. I would think that the more efficient teams would have a balanced spread of flex points between these three positions. So for next year, I'm thinking 3 TEs and 8 RBs.

 

[Utter Chaos]

I'm just curious which position everyone else is scoring their flex points on. Out of the nine weeks so far, I've gotten flex points from:TE...7 times (rostered 4 TEs and spent $20)WR...2 times (rostered 8 WRs and spent $90)RB...0 times (rostered 7 RBs and spent $79)I'm kind of amazed at how little I spent at TE, yet how productive the position has been for my team. I would think that the more efficient teams would have a balanced spread of flex points between these three positions. So for next year, I'm thinking 3 TEs and 8 RBs.

TE...3 times (rostered 3 TEs and spent $33)WR...5 times (rostered 9 WRs and spent $60)RB...1 time (rostered 5 RBs and spent $76)Looks like you got some bargains at the TE postition and I got some at the WR position (flex=Branch, Dez B, McCluster, and Craytonx2 to go along with Garcon, Tampa Mike, L.Murphy and 2 others).

 

[firstseason1988]

RBs 8 times spent $82 6 players

Ray Rice $37 7.20 13.70 11.60 3.40 29.90 16.60 7.80 0.00 21.50

Arian Foster $13 42.30 15.30 14.60 32.20 3.70 24.70 0.00 27.20 33.70

LaDainian Tomlinson $12 8.80 12.20 16.30 29.00 13.20 19.70 0.00 11.60 13.20

Donald Brown $11 1.20 15.30 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.90 11.20

Leon Washington $8 1.20 1.70 0.00 3.90 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.90 0.00

Mike Tolbert $1 2.60 22.00 10.50 17.30 10.50 6.30 8.30 17.00 3.90

WRs 0 times spent $ 76 on 10 playersTEs 1 time spent $38 on 3 players, 1 is Finley

 

[wollac]

I'm just curious which position everyone else is scoring their flex points on. Out of the nine weeks so far, I've gotten flex points from:TE...7 times (rostered 4 TEs and spent $20)WR...2 times (rostered 8 WRs and spent $90)RB...0 times (rostered 7 RBs and spent $79)I'm kind of amazed at how little I spent at TE, yet how productive the position has been for my team. I would think that the more efficient teams would have a balanced spread of flex points between these three positions. So for next year, I'm thinking 3 TEs and 8 RBs.

Based on this small sample size of two other responses so far, it looks like it is more spread out than I thought it might be. Any of you database folks know how to pull these numbers for ALL entries, and ALL live entries?

 

[LittlePhatty]

My Flex:

RB - 6 times (rostered 7, spent $79)

WR - 0 times (rostered 9, spent $81)

TE - 3 times (rostered 4, spent $31)

I really need my cheaper WRs to step up.

And I think those who own Foster but haven't used an RB at Flex will be in trouble if he starts slacking.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Based on this small sample size of two other responses so far, it looks like it is more spread out than I thought it might be. Any of you database folks know how to pull these numbers for ALL entries, and ALL live entries?

This is for all live entries:

RB	WR	TE	Zero	Entries3	3	3	0	1034	2	3	0	1014	3	2	0	955	1	3	0	946	1	2	0	915	2	2	0	833	2	4	0	784	1	4	0	777	1	1	0	742	4	3	0	655	3	1	0	643	1	5	0	606	2	1	0	605	0	4	0	576	0	3	0	573	4	2	0	562	2	5	0	552	3	4	0	541	5	3	0	521	4	4	0	507	2	0	0	448	1	0	0	447	0	2	0	434	4	1	0	413	5	1	0	371	3	5	0	358	0	1	0	342	5	2	0	332	1	6	0	326	3	0	0	304	0	5	0	281	6	2	0	285	4	0	0	279	0	0	0	263	0	6	0	240	3	6	0	240	4	5	0	231	2	6	0	221	1	7	0	214	5	0	0	200	5	4	0	190	6	3	0	182	6	1	0	182	0	7	0	150	2	7	0	130	7	2	0	113	6	0	0	101	7	1	0	92	7	0	0	95	2	1	1	84	2	2	1	70	1	8	0	70	0	9	0	74	1	3	1	65	3	0	1	66	1	1	1	61	0	8	0	68	0	0	1	55	0	3	1	57	1	0	1	56	2	0	1	53	1	4	1	51	5	2	1	44	3	1	1	45	1	2	1	46	0	2	1	40	4	4	1	44	4	0	1	43	4	1	1	43	2	3	1	42	1	5	1	30	8	1	0	32	3	3	1	30	9	0	0	23	0	5	1	22	2	4	1	21	4	3	1	23	1	3	2	23	3	2	1	22	4	2	1	21	3	4	1	27	0	1	1	21	8	0	0	24	0	4	1	20	5	3	1	11	0	7	1	11	1	6	1	14	2	0	3	13	2	2	2	11	3	3	2	13	5	0	1	10	0	8	1	12	3	2	2	12	6	0	1	11	2	5	1	1

So, for example, 103 of the remaining live entries have used an RB 3 times, a WR 3 times, and a TE 3 times. "Zero" means they took a zero at the flex position that week.

 

[Caesar]

Checking in for the first time. Didn't think I would make it this far.

I have used my flex as follows:

7 RB ($93) 0 times

8 WR ($79) 6 times

4 TE ($21) 3 Times

In fact, there have been FOUR weeks where another WR or TE scored more than my SECOND RB. I think it is safe to say that I missed on my RB selections this year. I do not have Foster on my roster. I have only counted points from 5 of my 7 RBs, including Javon Ringer week 1 and Bernard Scott week 7 (my best week). The others have been LT2, CJ Spiller, and Best. Two running backs haven't gotten me a single point, Harrison (oops) and Leon Washington.

For WR, I thought I was done when Clayton went down week 5. Then TO started his tear, Shipley contributed, the $8 Mike Williams has been solid. TO was my most expecnsive WR at $19. I also have Crayton, Garcon, Dez, and Knox.

For TE, I went with the cheap rookie theory. Gresham, Hernandez, and Gronkowski (NE). Fasano cost the most at $7. Think I did pretty well with that group as they have consistently scored and even flexed 3 times.

Carson and Flacco have been a good committee, and Derek Anderson is a tool.

I guess I could have just linked to my team, if anyone cares. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2010/100785.php

I think I will make it through week 10, and when everyone (Foster owners ) get their full teams back, I will be out week 11.

By the way, 26 players on the roster.

 

[wollac]

Based on this small sample size of two other responses so far, it looks like it is more spread out than I thought it might be. Any of you database folks know how to pull these numbers for ALL entries, and ALL live entries?

This is for all live entries:

RB	WR	TE	Zero	Entries3	3	3	0	1034	2	3	0	1014	3	2	0	955	1	3	0	946	1	2	0	915	2	2	0	833	2	4	0	784	1	4	0	777	1	1	0	742	4	3	0	655	3	1	0	643	1	5	0	606	2	1	0	605	0	4	0	576	0	3	0	573	4	2	0	562	2	5	0	552	3	4	0	541	5	3	0	521	4	4	0	507	2	0	0	448	1	0	0	447	0	2	0	434	4	1	0	413	5	1	0	371	3	5	0	358	0	1	0	342	5	2	0	332	1	6	0	326	3	0	0	304	0	5	0	281	6	2	0	285	4	0	0	279	0	0	0	263	0	6	0	240	3	6	0	240	4	5	0	231	2	6	0	221	1	7	0	214	5	0	0	200	5	4	0	190	6	3	0	182	6	1	0	182	0	7	0	150	2	7	0	130	7	2	0	113	6	0	0	101	7	1	0	92	7	0	0	95	2	1	1	84	2	2	1	70	1	8	0	70	0	9	0	74	1	3	1	65	3	0	1	66	1	1	1	61	0	8	0	68	0	0	1	55	0	3	1	57	1	0	1	56	2	0	1	53	1	4	1	51	5	2	1	44	3	1	1	45	1	2	1	46	0	2	1	40	4	4	1	44	4	0	1	43	4	1	1	43	2	3	1	42	1	5	1	30	8	1	0	32	3	3	1	30	9	0	0	23	0	5	1	22	2	4	1	21	4	3	1	23	1	3	2	23	3	2	1	22	4	2	1	21	3	4	1	27	0	1	1	21	8	0	0	24	0	4	1	20	5	3	1	11	0	7	1	11	1	6	1	14	2	0	3	13	2	2	2	11	3	3	2	13	5	0	1	10	0	8	1	12	3	2	2	12	6	0	1	11	2	5	1	1

So, for example, 103 of the remaining live entries have used an RB 3 times, a WR 3 times, and a TE 3 times. "Zero" means they took a zero at the flex position that week.

Awesome analysis! Of those 103 entries that seem to have optimized the flex points, is there any way to break down how many RBs, how many WRs, and how many TEs that they rostered? (Since total roster sizes may vary, it would probably be more meaningful if the result is a percentage of roster size, not an absolute number.) Also, how much was spent on each position? I'm just talking for the 103 entries that have used flex points evenly from all three positions. Thanks so much!

 

[wollac]

Based on this small sample size of two other responses so far, it looks like it is more spread out than I thought it might be. Any of you database folks know how to pull these numbers for ALL entries, and ALL live entries?

This is for all live entries:

RB	WR	TE	Zero	Entries3	3	3	0	1034	2	3	0	1014	3	2	0	955	1	3	0	946	1	2	0	915	2	2	0	833	2	4	0	784	1	4	0	777	1	1	0	742	4	3	0	655	3	1	0	643	1	5	0	606	2	1	0	605	0	4	0	576	0	3	0	573	4	2	0	562	2	5	0	552	3	4	0	541	5	3	0	521	4	4	0	507	2	0	0	448	1	0	0	447	0	2	0	434	4	1	0	413	5	1	0	371	3	5	0	358	0	1	0	342	5	2	0	332	1	6	0	326	3	0	0	304	0	5	0	281	6	2	0	285	4	0	0	279	0	0	0	263	0	6	0	240	3	6	0	240	4	5	0	231	2	6	0	221	1	7	0	214	5	0	0	200	5	4	0	190	6	3	0	182	6	1	0	182	0	7	0	150	2	7	0	130	7	2	0	113	6	0	0	101	7	1	0	92	7	0	0	95	2	1	1	84	2	2	1	70	1	8	0	70	0	9	0	74	1	3	1	65	3	0	1	66	1	1	1	61	0	8	0	68	0	0	1	55	0	3	1	57	1	0	1	56	2	0	1	53	1	4	1	51	5	2	1	44	3	1	1	45	1	2	1	46	0	2	1	40	4	4	1	44	4	0	1	43	4	1	1	43	2	3	1	42	1	5	1	30	8	1	0	32	3	3	1	30	9	0	0	23	0	5	1	22	2	4	1	21	4	3	1	23	1	3	2	23	3	2	1	22	4	2	1	21	3	4	1	27	0	1	1	21	8	0	0	24	0	4	1	20	5	3	1	11	0	7	1	11	1	6	1	14	2	0	3	13	2	2	2	11	3	3	2	13	5	0	1	10	0	8	1	12	3	2	2	12	6	0	1	11	2	5	1	1

So, for example, 103 of the remaining live entries have used an RB 3 times, a WR 3 times, and a TE 3 times. "Zero" means they took a zero at the flex position that week.

Awesome analysis! Of those 103 entries that seem to have optimized the flex points, is there any way to break down how many RBs, how many WRs, and how many TEs that they rostered? (Since total roster sizes may vary, it would probably be more meaningful if the result is a percentage of roster size, not an absolute number.) Also, how much was spent on each position? I'm just talking for the 103 entries that have used flex points evenly from all three positions. Thanks so much!

If my math is right, here is the average LIVE team's percentage use of flex points by position:RB 42.54%WR 26.06%TE 30.77%None 0.01%

 

[Marvelous]

My flex is 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE.

I actually predicted that half of my flexes would be from the TE position, but Finley's injury scuttled that plan.

 

[fightingillini]

I spent $80 on five RBs, they have contributed 5 flex scores.

I spent $95 on eight WRs, they have contributed 1 flex score.

I spent $28 on three TEs, they have contributed 3 flex scores.

I expected the TE position to generate a lot of flex scores with the 1.5PPR and relatively low prices.

 

[TS Garp]

Given the tremendous amount of interest and analysis that this generates, would FBG ever consider a second contest (for a fee, of course) that allowed a low number of pick-ups (3?) throughout the season, or one that gave prizes both for weekly winners, as well? Just a thought -- this is a ton of fun.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Given the tremendous amount of interest and analysis that this generates, would FBG ever consider a second contest (for a fee, of course) that allowed a low number of pick-ups (3?) throughout the season, or one that gave prizes both for weekly winners, as well? Just a thought -- this is a ton of fun.

I don't like the idea of pickups during the season, but payout for the weekly high score is a nice idea. Something small, just $100 - $200.

 

[seatownfavorite]

Flex usage:

7RB rostered @ $78 6 times

8 WR rostered @ $87 1 time

3TE rostered @ $35 2 times

Never used:

$28 DeAngelo Williams

$6 Bernard Scott

$5 Julian Edelman

Cosest cut:

13.75 week 8

 

[QuizGuy66]

Given the tremendous amount of interest and analysis that this generates, would FBG ever consider a second contest (for a fee, of course) that allowed a low number of pick-ups (3?) throughout the season, or one that gave prizes both for weekly winners, as well? Just a thought -- this is a ton of fun.

I don't like the idea of pickups during the season, but payout for the weekly high score is a nice idea. Something small, just $100 - $200.

Or heck, even a year's subscripition I love the contest in all it's varied formats over the years -QG

 

[WisWolvrns]

Flex usage:

6 RB rostered @ $82 1 time

10 WR rostered @ $70 2 times

4 TE rostered @ $38 6 times

Never used:

$8 Leon Washington

 

[QuizGuy66]

Here's my flex chart:

Used RBs as flex 4 times for 46.20 points (6 RBs rostered at $89)

Used WRs as flex 1 time for 10.10 points (8 WRs rostered at $77). This was Deion Branch in week 1.

Used TEs as flex 4 times for 41.90 points (3 TEs rostered at $27). Used 'em 4 of the last 6 weeks.

So that's 98.20 flex points. Curious where that would rank me. Gotta figure there's a high correlation between flex points and survival (perhaps even more so that the other positions.

-QG

 

[kclien]

Flex so far:

TE 6x

WR 1x

RB 2x

5 RBs, $92 spent

11 WRs, $62 spent

4 TEs, $40 spent

If you want to look up my team, it is 107441. My strategy going in was to buy a lot of cheap WRs and spend at the other positions. I also knew I wanted 30 players.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Going into week 10, these are the entries with the most players left at each position.

6 QB Guy

10 RB Guy #1

10 RB Guy #2

10 RB Guy #3

10 RB Guy #4

18 WR Guy!!! Side note - this entry has had the most WRs the entire way.

7 TE Guy

8 PK Guy.

7 Defense Guy

So there you go

-QG

 

[Twilight]

My flex 4 RB (3 times by Bradshaw with 5 RBs), 3 WR(from 9), 2 TE (from 3). Bradshaw was the only repeat usage in the 136.7 pts scored. Lowest was 12.5

 

[bonesman]

Flex

RB: 4 ($75)

WR: 3 ($98)

TE: 2 ($27)

Sim went from 92% to 100% thanks to Flacco and Roddy Rowdy Wite

 

[ceo3west]

Stafford out & Rivers bye - no QB for me today, looks like this is it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

VERY happy with the way my WRs turned out. Tried to go on the cheap and have:

TO

Dez

M.Williams - TB

S.Johnson

M.Thomas

B.Tate

L.Murphy

I was hoping that 2-3 got enough points to keep me afloat and that has happened so far.

 

[Balco]

VERY happy with the way my WRs turned out. Tried to go on the cheap and have:TODezM.Williams - TBS.JohnsonM.ThomasB.TateL.Murphy I was hoping that 2-3 got enough points to keep me afloat and that has happened so far.

Wow, nice pick with Johnson. When I was scouring the cheap receivers he didn't even cross my mind.

 

[Saint]

Here's my flex chart:

Used RBs as flex 4 times for 66.50 points (5 RBs rostered at $91)

Used WRs as flex 2 times for 32.80 points (11 WRs rostered at $70).

Used TEs as flex 3 times for 44.20 points (3 TEs rostered at $21).

 

[LittlePhatty]

18 WR Guy!!! Side note - this entry has had the most WRs the entire way.

What I find most interesting here is despite only having 3 RBs and 18 WRs, his Flex breakdown is:RB - 4 times (!)

WR - 3 times

TE - 2 times

 

[urbanhack]

Pennington hurt. Henne is back in! Now I have a QB!

 

[Balco]

Man, my team is stinking it up. THis might be the week I pack my bags.

 

[BassNBrew]

Could be one of the lowest cutoffs of the season. I suspect the smaller rosters might make up some ground this week.

 

[Balco]

I might be done even if the cut down is 80. ADP laid an egg, no Rivers. Spiller, FOster, Forte did nothing. Oops.

 

[The Comedian]

I don't know how I've made it this far with B. Marshall, but I think the ride ends this week.

 

[Balco]

Oof, I am at 124 with pretty much no one left. Lets go Rams D!!!! (Uh Oh).

 

[QuizGuy66]

135.0 after the 1pm games. All 3 of my TEs went off this week (Gresham and Fasano Count, Winslow won't).

Have left the following:

Derek Anderson - 0

Thomas Jones and Leon Washington (the RB scores they need to beat are 9.5 and 12.5)

Gaffney, Laurent Robinson, and Deion Branch (the WR scores they need to beat are 2.2. and 10.8 and the flex to beat would be 24.2)

With more cuts I sure hope the Turk doesn't come looking for me!

As a side note, it'd be great to add punters to the contest next year so we could then roster the Turk

-QG

 

[Balco]

So much for the news that Laurent Robinson looked ready to contribute.

My calculations give Favre 11.5, so Bradford needs to beat that. I have Aaron Hernandez (-8.4) and Deion Branch tonight (-8.7), and that's it.

124 after the 1:00s. I ain't going to make it!!!!!!

 

[WisWolvrns]

hopefully it is a low cut line this week... doh...

 

[levinakl]

Feeling good at 150+.... thank you Flacco, AJ, Gore, Gaffney, and Gresham....

155.45 by my calculationis as of 5:40 PM