Using FAAB on Sportsline. Help! (1 Viewer)

[rawdog]

When using the FAAB function on Sportsline, how does it work when you're bidding on multiple players? How does it know whether you want one in a list or more than one?

For example, if I bid on Kyle Boller, then Shaun Bryson, then Jeb Putzier, how does it know whether I'm trying to simply get one of them or all 3? I'm guessing some of it lies in putting the same player to drop or not. Like if I inputted Boller $1, drop Harrington; Bryson $1 drop Alstott; Putzier $1, drop Hilton, it would intepret that as wanting all 3 guys if possible.

But our league expands from 24 to 25 after the draft, therefore bidding on and adding a 25th player doesn't require a drop. so how will it know?

Conversely, if I'm trying to claim a bunch of kickers to get one for a bye week, I assume it would intepret this as only wanting one: Stover, $1, drop Feely; Longwell $1, drop Feely; Reed $1, drop Feely.

Any input here would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[ShadowMaster]

When using the FAAB function on Sportsline, how does it work when you're bidding on multiple players? How does it know whether you want one in a list or more than one?For example, if I bid on Kyle Boller, then Shaun Bryson, then Jeb Putzier, how does it know whether I'm trying to simply get one of them or all 3? I'm guessing some of it lies in putting the same player to drop or not. Like if I inputted Boller $1, drop Harrington; Bryson $1 drop Alstott; Putzier $1, drop Hilton, it would intepret that as wanting all 3 guys if possible.But our league expands from 24 to 25 after the draft, therefore bidding on and adding a 25th player doesn't require a drop. so how will it know?Conversely, if I'm trying to claim a bunch of kickers to get one for a bye week, I assume it would intepret this as only wanting one: Stover, $1, drop Feely; Longwell $1, drop Feely; Reed $1, drop Feely.Any input here would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Sportsline sucks - it probably can't handle any of the features you describe without a manual commish over-ride (and even then). At least you got the big CBS name and some draft stickers for your $150, because besides that - you got ripped off. Higher cost. Less functionality. More bugs.

 

[Snickersnack]

I am also interested in a constructive answer to this question. Criticism of Sportsline doesnt help, that decision was made months ago, usually by a commish. And in our league, with the discount codes obtained here it wasn't $150, but $115. Preferably someone with experience already using it could give a good answer?

As for the first guys question, since I haven't used the FAAB there yet, I can only say that most otherwise experienced vets here would probably tell you not to carry a second kicker at all, unless with your deep roster, teams are carrying more than 2 each to limit the wire. But even if teams are carrying two each, there should be plenty of serviceable options for a one-game start to pick up one, or two weeks tops, ahead of the need. Dont start looking till then. That roster spot is probably better spent holding possible talent at skill positions.

 

[Godsbrother]

I imagine it is handled just like WW pickups. You get to set the order you want players to be selected. If you don't get your #1 choice it moves on to number 2 and so on.

EDIT: Yes, each team has it's own bid list and can modify the order of the bids.

 

[ShadowMaster]

And in our league, with the discount codes obtained here it wasn't $150, but $115.

See - I'm getting right to the root of his problem. Sorry if that bothers you. Oh and BTW - since you want to debate it:$60 for Fanball is still almost half of your "discounted" priceOther better options (also MUCH less than $115)xpertleaguesmyfantasyleague

 

[Godsbrother]

And in our league, with the discount codes obtained here it wasn't $150, but $115.

See - I'm getting right to the root of his problem. Sorry if that bothers you. Oh and BTW - since you want to debate it:$60 for Fanball is still almost half of your "discounted" priceOther better options (also MUCH less than $115)xpertleaguesmyfantasyleague

I don't understand why you feel the need to come into a thread asking a question about a service you obviously don't like and have no idea about the answer.

 

[cobalt_27]

When using the FAAB function on Sportsline, how does it work when you're bidding on multiple players? How does it know whether you want one in a list or more than one?For example, if I bid on Kyle Boller, then Shaun Bryson, then Jeb Putzier, how does it know whether I'm trying to simply get one of them or all 3? I'm guessing some of it lies in putting the same player to drop or not. Like if I inputted Boller $1, drop Harrington; Bryson $1 drop Alstott; Putzier $1, drop Hilton, it would intepret that as wanting all 3 guys if possible.But our league expands from 24 to 25 after the draft, therefore bidding on and adding a 25th player doesn't require a drop. so how will it know?Conversely, if I'm trying to claim a bunch of kickers to get one for a bye week, I assume it would intepret this as only wanting one: Stover, $1, drop Feely; Longwell $1, drop Feely; Reed $1, drop Feely.Any input here would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Sportsline sucks - it probably can't handle any of the features you describe without a manual commish over-ride (and even then). At least you got the big CBS name and some draft stickers for your $150, because besides that - you got ripped off. Higher cost. Less functionality. More bugs.

Bad form on the hijack. You've been around long enough, you should know better. Anyhoo, back to the question at hand. I haven't quite figured out the algorithm, myself. My experience thus far is that CBS does not recognize our salary cap, insomuch as it doesn't restrict owners from going over the cap on their FAAB requests. My assumption from this is that they also will not restrict transactions based on the team size the way you're describing--they don't require a drop on my salary cap league, so I'm guessing they don't require a drop in your roster-limit league. What we do is just allow whatever FAAB bids are the highest to be processed. Owners have to then weigh the cost of getting too many players and, thus, wasting their FAAB money. It is a total nightmare (as we experienced) if you do what you think is reasonable and allow them to drop those excess players and replenish their FAAB budgets. We did this the first week, and while it made sense from an owner perspective, it was really a big-time pain. So, owners in my league now have to budget their own needs a little more ("Do I really want the chance at all these contingency situations/players, or should I keep my budgets in check and not overspend?"). Regardless, it's not what I hoped it would be, mainly because I really would like CBS to prioritize on an individual team basis the transactions owners wish to make AND hold to the restrictions we set. Instead, they just give a notice to our league that Team X is over the salary cap as a warning, and they are then required to drop folks post hoc.

 

[goonsquad]

Sportsline sucks - it probably can't handle any of the features you describe without a manual commish over-ride (and even then). At least you got the big CBS name and some draft stickers for your $150, because besides that - you got ripped off. Higher cost. Less functionality. More bugs.

Quit being a tool. Blah, blah, you hate CBS. We get it it, go away. F-ing trolls.

 

[Rounders]

 

[cobalt_27]

Sportsline sucks - it probably can't handle any of the features you describe without a manual commish over-ride (and even then). At least you got the big CBS name and some draft stickers for your $150, because besides that - you got ripped off. Higher cost. Less functionality. More bugs.

Quit being a tool. Blah, blah, you hate CBS. We get it it, go away. F-ing trolls.

I know...it's a totally legit question and plea for some help, and it brings the dopes out of the woodwork who aim at nothing but bringing attention to how cool their stupid commish service is. As if Fanball has been the beacon of server stability and customer service.That said, I think CBS has to iron out many kinks in its FAAB run, and I wouldn't count on it until next year.

 

[Snickersnack]

OK, I have been researching this and will take a stab at it...Here are Sportslines help file instructions about how FAAB works complete with example:

If you select to use either of the two available FAAB options, eachowner will go to the Transactions add-drop page and select the playersto be added and dropped then a bid is entered. The team with thehighest bid for that player will be awarded the player and the bid valuesubtracted from their budget.*Example:**Team #1 as listed in the FAAB order inputs a request for three players:*Player "a" bid of $15Player "b" bid of $10Player "c" bid of $10*Team # 8 as listed in the FAAB order inputs a request for three players:*Player "b" bid of $5Player "a" bid of $25Player "c" bid of $10The system would look at Team #1 and look at the first player on his bidlist (in this case, Player A). The system would then search throughevery bid submitted for Player A. The team with the highest bid forPlayer A would win that player. In this two team example, team 8 wouldbe awarded Player A.Since Team # 1 did not acquire the first player on his list (Player A),the FAAB system next references Team #1's second listed player (PlayerB). In the example above, Team #1 wins Player B.The system now references the first requested player for the next teamin the FAAB order.

I think what really messes people up is they are used to the old CBS system, where the order you list your preferred transactions in determines the order you bid. Under FAAB the order you bid is determined by waiver wire priority. This is not as intuitive as it might sound.Lets use the exact example from the rule above and compare the old way vs. the FAAB way. Under the old way, team one (the team with the highest wire priority) would simply make the first claim, which would be player "a" and drop whoever they named. The system would move to the next team with a claim, which in this example would be team eight, who would then take player "b", because he is at the top of team eight's list and still available.Under FAAB though, the team with priority NAMES the player EVERYONE's bids will be compared for. Team one has priority and names player A. This pulls team eight's bid for player "a" OUT OF SEQUENCE (vs the old method where the order listed from top to bottom dictated the priority an owner placed on acquiring the player) and into the fray for the player team one named with their wire priority.Now team eight wins that auction AND drops to the bottom of the wire priority list (if he wasnt already there), and team one, having lost the auction, retains wire priority to bid AND NAMES ANOTHER PLAYER, the next player on his list. In the example from the help files, team one wins the next auction, and drops to the bottom of the wire priority list, clearing the way for whichever team is next (presumably one which did not have any bids recorded for players a or b) to name the player who will head up the third auction of the process.Notice how under the new system, the team with lower priority has the auction being presented dictated to them, and how their recorded bids can be pulled out of sequence by this. A clever (or lucky) player with high wire priority might even use this to their extreme advantage and exhaust the other team's transactions (by exhausting their possible drops, or, less likely their cash) and leave a primo player for late on their list of lowballs to be had for less than other players had been willing to bid (if they had not cleverly or unluckily been forced to squander their resources on other auctions named first).Does this shed any light on it for anyone? The big difference is getting used to placing your bids by thinking in the context of where your priority is and who sets auctions up ahead of you... it is a completely different dynamic than CBS' old non-auction way of doing it, and the use of priority to determine the order of players named is different from what you are used to at places like Antsports...Now mind you, I am basing all this on the help files NOT experience...if I am reading it wrong, then all bets are off. But the key is that people are used to thinking in terms of ranking their bids in order of preference, and placing 2nd and third preferences farther down (thinking of them as 'conditional' bids). The topic's originator said as much, saying that he thought it likely to be associated with listing multiple bids that drop the same player.But under the FAAB rules example, a later bid team 8 thought of as conditional would get pulled out of order, and the preferred guy would never get bid on by his team because the associated drop would have been made already (though out of listed sequence), preventing the higher listed player from being taken. Make sense yet?

 

[jbz]

That is interesting, however as far as I can tell there is no "waiver priority" list when using the FAAB for sportsline though, so how do we know for sure that sportsline is using such an order when processing the bids? When you turn on the FAAB process, the only order that you can edit is the FAAB order which is just the tie-breaker in case of a tied bid correct? I'd like to know the answer.

 

[jim2658]

I am currently frustrated by FAAB too. I'd like CBS to process conditional bids (like for example in WCOFF or other leagues). We are using CBS this year, which my leaguemates like for its other functionality / interface. Just before I came to the Pool, I submitted a question / example to CBS help with several examples.

ONE

For instance, I'd like to get 1 new RB this week. If I bid on five of them in an effort to ensure I get one, can I condition them in the order I want and make sure I only get one instead of winning 2-5?

Example TWO

Alternatively, consider a situation in which I want to drop player A and pickup player B (my preference) for $5 (he's a sleeper) or drop player C and pickup player D (my second preference) for $100 (he's a stud) or player E for $17 (he's mid range).

My opponent bids $6 for player B (his preference) and $98 for player D (his second preference).

I am first in the FAAB order. When processed, who gets whom?

I am afraid that opponent gets B ($6>$5) and I get D ($100>$98), both our second preferences instead of our first preferences which could be accomplished by conditional bids indicating not merely amount bid, but preference as well.

I'll repost if I get an answer.

Alternatively, is there a good manual algorithm anyone knows that could be applied outside the CBS process to handle conditional bids?

 

[AcerFC]

Notice how under the new system, the team with lower priority has the auction being presented dictated to them, and how their recorded bids can be pulled out of sequence by this. A clever (or lucky) player with high wire priority might even use this to their extreme advantage and exhaust the other team's transactions (by exhausting their possible drops, or, less likely their cash) and leave a primo player for late on their list of lowballs to be had for less than other players had been willing to bid (if they had not cleverly or unluckily been forced to squander their resources on other auctions named first).

I understand what you are saying, however if you outbid everyone for every player then it doesnt matter what is dictated to you. If I have number one priority and nominate Larry Johnson for $1, I will not get him. If I bid $75, I might. Just because you are first or last in the order, it doesnt really mean there is an advantage at all considering it is a blind bid and the person betting the most is going to win out. The only way that the first team can get screwed is if they put three bids in and attempt to drop the same player each time because once that player is dropped, none of the other transactions will go through

 

[jbz]

Good questions! If you asked that via their Help Center, they respond quite quicky. I've asked 4 questions already and each were answered within a day.

 

[CalBear]

I am afraid that opponent gets B ($6>$5) and I get D ($100>$98), both our second preferences instead of our first preferences which could be accomplished by conditional bids indicating not merely amount bid, but preference as well.I'll repost if I get an answer.

I don't think that CBS Sportsline is really in a position to challenge Arrow's Impossibility Theorem or extend the mathematical concept of the Nash equilibrium. (That is, it has been mathematically shown that it is impossible to devise a system which will satisfy all reasonable criteria, when there are more than two options to choose from).

 

[Snickersnack]

Good questions! If you asked that via their Help Center, they respond quite quicky. I've asked 4 questions already and each were answered within a day.

It would be neat to see what your questions and answers were. Would you mind cutting and pasting them here?

I am first in the FAAB order. When processed, who gets whom?I am afraid that opponent gets B ($6>$5) and I get D ($100>$98), both our second preferences instead of our first preferences which could be accomplished by conditional bids indicating not merely amount bid, but preference as well.I'll repost if I get an answer.

I am certain that the players are advanced for bidding in the order of the waiver priority. The earlier post stating there is no waiver priority is incorrect. The list used for breaking ties is exactly that. And it is the order in which owners advance their players to be bid on. In your example, as the owner with the highest waiver priority, the name at the top of your list will be advanced for competitive bidding first. If you have the highest bid, you'd win, drop to the bottom of the priority list, and all other bids with the same dropped player named for dropping would be scratched.If you want to check this theory (as a commish) all you need do is switch to manual approval mode, and (as an announced test of the system) enter bids for the various owners in your league, recording the wire priority. Then when the manual process locks bidding, it advances the transactions to you for rubber stamping in the same order as the automated process. The only real freedom you have as commish in this process is you can reject bids, and you can choose to make drops farther down the list of identical winning bids for the same player (or choose who wins ties). Otherwise, they are advanced for your determinations in the same order as automation, and you can see which transaction would win each time under automation because it is the one highest on the list you choose from to approve. Then, using commish powers you can end the test by either rejecting all the bids or returning everything to the way it was after playing around with acceptances. You will also see from doing this that each player from the many bids are advanced from the top of the owners lists in the order of the wire priority, with the exception being after an owner at the top loses a bid, then he advances the next valid bid on his list.

 

[rawdog]

Hi, I'm the original poster and I think the answer to my original question of bidding multiple players lies in who your drop is.

For instance, if you do this:

1. Stover, $1, drop Wiggins

2. Feely, $1, drop Dilfer

3. Mare, $1, drop Booker

CBS wil attempto pick up all those players for you if available.

But if you do this:

1. Stover, $1, drop Wiggins

2. Feely, $1, drop Wiggins

3. Mare, $1, drop Wiggins

CBS will only pick up one player for you.

Our rosters expand to a 25th slot once the season starts. So I did a test, bidding on 2 players with the same drop (in this case no drop). Here's how it processed.

ompleted Bids

Date & Time Team Add Player Current Player Status Bid Comment Action

08/30/06 09:27 am ET Ragamuffin GuHi, nners Boller, Kyle QB BAL Won $1 Clear

08/30/06 09:27 am ET Ragamuffin Gunners Dilfer, Trent QB SF Lost $1 Over your league's max roster limit of 25 Clear

FAAB

The point is it didn't take the second player because it would take me over my league's max roster limit of 25.

Hope this helps.

 

[Wally Cleaver]

Notice how under the new system, the team with lower priority has the auction being presented dictated to them, and how their recorded bids can be pulled out of sequence by this. A clever (or lucky) player with high wire priority might even use this to their extreme advantage and exhaust the other team's transactions (by exhausting their possible drops, or, less likely their cash) and leave a primo player for late on their list of lowballs to be had for less than other players had been willing to bid (if they had not cleverly or unluckily been forced to squander their resources on other auctions named first).

I understand what you are saying, however if you outbid everyone for every player then it doesnt matter what is dictated to you. If I have number one priority and nominate Larry Johnson for $1, I will not get him. If I bid $75, I might. Just because you are first or last in the order, it doesnt really mean there is an advantage at all considering it is a blind bid and the person betting the most is going to win out. The only way that the first team can get screwed is if they put three bids in and attempt to drop the same player each time because once that player is dropped, none of the other transactions will go through

Taking your last scenario... Say a team bids on 3 players and trys to drop the same player for all 3... He wins all 3..... How does the commish know which was his top priority when he goes to approve the transaction???? or should I set it on automatic....??? Thanks!!!

 

[Brunswick]

The only way that the first team can get screwed is if they put three bids in and attempt to drop the same player each time because once that player is dropped, none of the other transactions will go through

Taking your last scenario... Say a team bids on 3 players and trys to drop the same player for all 3... He wins all 3..... How does the commish know which was his top priority when he goes to approve the transaction???? or should I set it on automatic....??? Thanks!!!

Print from CBS on my drop/add today

Completed Add/Drops

Date & Time Team Add Player Current Player Status Comment Action

08/30/06 09:28 am ET Thomasboro Tornadoes Geathers, Robert DL CIN Cole, Trent LB PHI Granted

08/30/06 09:28 am ET Thomasboro Tornadoes Dumervil, Elvis DL DEN Cole, Trent LB PHI Denied Trent Cole is no longer on team

If you drop the same player it takes your first player requested

 

[Snickersnack]

Taking your last scenario... Say a team bids on 3 players and trys to drop the same player for all 3... He wins all 3..... How does the commish know which was his top priority when he goes to approve the transaction???? or should I set it on automatic....??? Thanks!!!

The player at the top of the approval process list presented to you for stamping was at the top of his list, therefore his top priority. Automated will resolve it that way every time. If you are doing it, just check the top bubble. The later ones the owner listed were only alternate drops in case his first drop was lost on a previous win.

 

[Wally Cleaver]

Taking your last scenario... Say a team bids on 3 players and trys to drop the same player for all 3... He wins all 3..... How does the commish know which was his top priority when he goes to approve the transaction???? or should I set it on automatic....??? Thanks!!!

The player at the top of the approval process list presented to you for stamping was at the top of his list, therefore his top priority. Automated will resolve it that way every time. If you are doing it, just check the top bubble. The later ones the owner listed were only alternate drops in case his first drop was lost on a previous win.

Thanks for your response as this makes sense, but let me ask you one additional question, when I ran a trial run it does not show what player they are planning on drop... Due to roster limits on numbers of rbs, qbs, you can hold, how can I make sure it is a legal drop.... Is there a reason why they dont show you who they want to drop??? THanks alot for your help!!!!

 

[Snickersnack]

Taking your last scenario... Say a team bids on 3 players and trys to drop the same player for all 3... He wins all 3..... How does the commish know which was his top priority when he goes to approve the transaction???? or should I set it on automatic....??? Thanks!!!

The player at the top of the approval process list presented to you for stamping was at the top of his list, therefore his top priority. Automated will resolve it that way every time. If you are doing it, just check the top bubble. The later ones the owner listed were only alternate drops in case his first drop was lost on a previous win.

Thanks for your response as this makes sense, but let me ask you one additional question, when I ran a trial run it does not show what player they are planning on drop... Due to roster limits on numbers of rbs, qbs, you can hold, how can I make sure it is a legal drop.... Is there a reason why they dont show you who they want to drop??? THanks alot for your help!!!!

You are very welcome. You are right, too,it does not show that, and I have no good answer for you on why, sorry. For something as complex as roster limits at each slot, you may want to consider the automated process. I dont know if it will prevent illegal rosters from occuring due to roster limits at various spots only, but a previous post in this thread did say that it stopped a move which violated the total roster limit...it may be smart enough to catch the others too. My league has no roster limits, so I have not run into that. The hard way would be to actually call each owner and check, but I suggest you test it to see if it makes the catch on an individual position limit being violated (assuming that you have them correctly entered into your setup and arent just operating off an understood honor system). You can always use commish provilege to reverse any moves that are part of the test, as long as everyone is aware of it...preseason is certainly is the time to do it and find out.An easier alterantive is just to put the responsibility on the owners...you can set the system to score zero points if a roster is illegal. This would mean the owners can make any move they want but better get the roster legal by gametime or else. Takes the administrative burden off of you, and gives them the freedom to make various transitional moves during the week to facilitate multiplayer trading, or waiting on news and hedging bets, but still requires them to conform by game time. Just be sure they are aware that it is required. I think the system even warns them of the illegal roster condition on both the home and lineup pages.Good luck!

 

[Wally Cleaver]

Thanks for all the info... it was incredibly helpful!!!!

Thanks again!!!!

 

[ghosttothepost]

Notice how under the new system, the team with lower priority has the auction being presented dictated to them, and how their recorded bids can be pulled out of sequence by this. A clever (or lucky) player with high wire priority might even use this to their extreme advantage and exhaust the other team's transactions (by exhausting their possible drops, or, less likely their cash) and leave a primo player for late on their list of lowballs to be had for less than other players had been willing to bid (if they had not cleverly or unluckily been forced to squander their resources on other auctions named first).

I understand what you are saying, however if you outbid everyone for every player then it doesnt matter what is dictated to you. If I have number one priority and nominate Larry Johnson for $1, I will not get him. If I bid $75, I might. Just because you are first or last in the order, it doesnt really mean there is an advantage at all considering it is a blind bid and the person betting the most is going to win out. The only way that the first team can get screwed is if they put three bids in and attempt to drop the same player each time because once that player is dropped, none of the other transactions will go through

I actually think you're missing Snickersnack's point. Under the FAAB system, it would appear to be possible for someone high up on the FAAB priority list to manipulate who he gets and how much he pays for such player. Consider this example:Assume there is a hot free-agent "RB1" available during a particular week and that he should fetch a bid price of roughly $15. There is also a semi-good free-agent "RB2" (bid value roughly $5) who is available and is the obvious 2ND CHOICE for any team looking to pick up a RB for that particular week.Now assume Team 1 has the top FAAB priority. Knowing that another team (Team 5) is also going to be going after a RB that week (presumably RB1), Team 1 submits the following alternative bids (albeit not reflecting his true order of preference):1. Pick-up RB2, drop player X, bid amount $1.2. Pick-up RB1, drop player X, bid amount $5.Team 5 also submits the following bids (in the true order of his preference).1. Pick-up RB1, drop player Y, bid amount $15.2. Pick-up RB2, drop player Y, bid amount $5As I understand the way the FAAB system works, it will first "auction" RB2 (Team 1's first bid) and will award RB2 to Team 5 (who outbid Team 1's nominal $1 bid). Now the system will consider Team 1's second bid and award RB1 to Team 1 for the deflated value of 5$ because Team 5's bid for RB1 won't get considered as he/she has already dropped the player associated with that bid (player Y). This might be a little far-fetched and, of course, doesn't take into account the possibilty of other teams bidding on the same players, but I think it does illustrate how a team at the top of FAAB process can artificially "take out" other teams from bidding on certain players, and potentially getting such players and deflated amounts.

 

[Snickersnack]

Notice how under the new system, the team with lower priority has the auction being presented dictated to them, and how their recorded bids can be pulled out of sequence by this. A clever (or lucky) player with high wire priority might even use this to their extreme advantage and exhaust the other team's transactions (by exhausting their possible drops, or, less likely their cash) and leave a primo player for late on their list of lowballs to be had for less than other players had been willing to bid (if they had not cleverly or unluckily been forced to squander their resources on other auctions named first).

I understand what you are saying, however if you outbid everyone for every player then it doesnt matter what is dictated to you. If I have number one priority and nominate Larry Johnson for $1, I will not get him. If I bid $75, I might. Just because you are first or last in the order, it doesnt really mean there is an advantage at all considering it is a blind bid and the person betting the most is going to win out. The only way that the first team can get screwed is if they put three bids in and attempt to drop the same player each time because once that player is dropped, none of the other transactions will go through

I actually think you're missing Snickersnack's point. Under the FAAB system, it would appear to be possible for someone high up on the FAAB priority list to manipulate who he gets and how much he pays for such player. Consider this example:Assume there is a hot free-agent "RB1" available during a particular week and that he should fetch a bid price of roughly $15. There is also a semi-good free-agent "RB2" (bid value roughly $5) who is available and is the obvious 2ND CHOICE for any team looking to pick up a RB for that particular week.Now assume Team 1 has the top FAAB priority. Knowing that another team (Team 5) is also going to be going after a RB that week (presumably RB1), Team 1 submits the following alternative bids (albeit not reflecting his true order of preference):1. Pick-up RB2, drop player X, bid amount $1.2. Pick-up RB1, drop player X, bid amount $5.Team 5 also submits the following bids (in the true order of his preference).1. Pick-up RB1, drop player Y, bid amount $15.2. Pick-up RB2, drop player Y, bid amount $5As I understand the way the FAAB system works, it will first "auction" RB2 (Team 1's first bid) and will award RB2 to Team 5 (who outbid Team 1's nominal $1 bid). Now the system will consider Team 1's second bid and award RB1 to Team 1 for the deflated value of 5$ because Team 5's bid for RB1 won't get considered as he/she has already dropped the player associated with that bid (player Y). This might be a little far-fetched and, of course, doesn't take into account the possibilty of other teams bidding on the same players, but I think it does illustrate how a team at the top of FAAB process can artificially "take out" other teams from bidding on certain players, and potentially getting such players and deflated amounts.

That is indeed a point I was trying to make, outside of just helping understand the system. I dont think this tactic can be taken too far, and their are risks associated with it, but your example was perfect. The simpler the owner who goes first tries to keep that tactic, the more likely it is to succeed. Its evil, but legal. I am not so sure this isn't possible with other sites auction systems too, but that depends on their setup. You can sort of compare it to shill bidding, but only sort of. Some will use this as another excuse to bash CBS. I just like to think of it as another potential edge to offer fellow FBG'ers. Use it if you get a chance and tell me how it goes, but recognize the risk of the other owners being asleep or it having less impact than you hoped. Its only going to work sometimes, and could bite you. Might be best reserved as a strategy for the guy whose funds are more limited than the other teams, as a way of circumventing the person who tries to just buy your guy by bidding more than you have.The other point to that is it probably explains why some people can not grasp the algorithm...they are failing to see why sometimes the owner who bids the most does not get their guy...its the order they are advanced that determines how bids are placed, and that takes precedence over the individual owners sequencing of their personal bids, at least for those who are lower in priority.

 

[jbz]

then there lies the question, how is the order determined? Like I stated before, the only order I can seem to find is the tie-breaker order.

 

[CalBear]

That is indeed a point I was trying to make, outside of just helping understand the system. I dont think this tactic can be taken too far, and their are risks associated with it, but your example was perfect. The simpler the owner who goes first tries to keep that tactic, the more likely it is to succeed. Its evil, but legal. I am not so sure this isn't possible with other sites auction systems too, but that depends on their setup.

One of the "resonable criteria" defined by Arrow for preference systems is "non-dictatorship"; that is, no one voter should be able to force his preference order on the overall system. Arrow proved that if there are three or more options to choose from, it is not possible to devise a preference system which meets all of the reasonable criteria he put forth.

That is, any voting mechanism which is not IIA [independent of irrelevant alternatives] can yield a setup where some of the voters get a better result by mis-reporting their preferences (e.g. I prefer a to b to c, but I claim I prefer b to c to a). Clearly, any non-monotonic social welfare function is manipulable as well. If one uses a manipulable voting scheme in real life, one should expect some "dishonest" voting. What this means is that the real-life implementation of most voting mechanisms results in a complicated game of skill.

See the Wikipedia article on Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

 

[ghosttothepost]

then there lies the question, how is the order determined? Like I stated before, the only order I can seem to find is the tie-breaker order.

The commissioner of your league has two choices as to how the FAAB is set each week. They are that the FAAB order resets each week (1) based on reverse order of standings, or (2) never -- always based on prior FAAB run. As far as the initial FAAB order, it will set in the reverse order of your draft (if you drafted online) or in a random order (if you drafted offline). Also, the commissioner can manually adjust the FAAB order at any time if so desired. By the way, this is the same order as the "tie-breaker" order you were referencing.

 

[Alias]

Notice how under the new system, the team with lower priority has the auction being presented dictated to them, and how their recorded bids can be pulled out of sequence by this. A clever (or lucky) player with high wire priority might even use this to their extreme advantage and exhaust the other team's transactions (by exhausting their possible drops, or, less likely their cash) and leave a primo player for late on their list of lowballs to be had for less than other players had been willing to bid (if they had not cleverly or unluckily been forced to squander their resources on other auctions named first).

I understand what you are saying, however if you outbid everyone for every player then it doesnt matter what is dictated to you. If I have number one priority and nominate Larry Johnson for $1, I will not get him. If I bid $75, I might. Just because you are first or last in the order, it doesnt really mean there is an advantage at all considering it is a blind bid and the person betting the most is going to win out. The only way that the first team can get screwed is if they put three bids in and attempt to drop the same player each time because once that player is dropped, none of the other transactions will go through

I actually think you're missing Snickersnack's point. Under the FAAB system, it would appear to be possible for someone high up on the FAAB priority list to manipulate who he gets and how much he pays for such player. Consider this example:Assume there is a hot free-agent "RB1" available during a particular week and that he should fetch a bid price of roughly $15. There is also a semi-good free-agent "RB2" (bid value roughly $5) who is available and is the obvious 2ND CHOICE for any team looking to pick up a RB for that particular week.Now assume Team 1 has the top FAAB priority. Knowing that another team (Team 5) is also going to be going after a RB that week (presumably RB1), Team 1 submits the following alternative bids (albeit not reflecting his true order of preference):1. Pick-up RB2, drop player X, bid amount $1.2. Pick-up RB1, drop player X, bid amount $5.Team 5 also submits the following bids (in the true order of his preference).1. Pick-up RB1, drop player Y, bid amount $15.2. Pick-up RB2, drop player Y, bid amount $5As I understand the way the FAAB system works, it will first "auction" RB2 (Team 1's first bid) and will award RB2 to Team 5 (who outbid Team 1's nominal $1 bid). Now the system will consider Team 1's second bid and award RB1 to Team 1 for the deflated value of 5$ because Team 5's bid for RB1 won't get considered as he/she has already dropped the player associated with that bid (player Y). This might be a little far-fetched and, of course, doesn't take into account the possibilty of other teams bidding on the same players, but I think it does illustrate how a team at the top of FAAB process can artificially "take out" other teams from bidding on certain players, and potentially getting such players and deflated amounts.

That is indeed a point I was trying to make, outside of just helping understand the system. I dont think this tactic can be taken too far, and their are risks associated with it, but your example was perfect. The simpler the owner who goes first tries to keep that tactic, the more likely it is to succeed. Its evil, but legal. I am not so sure this isn't possible with other sites auction systems too, but that depends on their setup. You can sort of compare it to shill bidding, but only sort of. Some will use this as another excuse to bash CBS. I just like to think of it as another potential edge to offer fellow FBG'ers. Use it if you get a chance and tell me how it goes, but recognize the risk of the other owners being asleep or it having less impact than you hoped. Its only going to work sometimes, and could bite you. Might be best reserved as a strategy for the guy whose funds are more limited than the other teams, as a way of circumventing the person who tries to just buy your guy by bidding more than you have.The other point to that is it probably explains why some people can not grasp the algorithm...they are failing to see why sometimes the owner who bids the most does not get their guy...its the order they are advanced that determines how bids are placed, and that takes precedence over the individual owners sequencing of their personal bids, at least for those who are lower in priority.

The larger your league, the less likely that is a risk at all - you would need all owners that are vying for RB1 to be putting in bids for RB2 as well, you would need each owner to use the same drop player, you would need none of the other owner's to have an open roster spot, and you would still need to outbid any owners that were only bidding on RB1 and not RB2, you can slant it a little bit if you get lucky and maybe take out 3 out of 7-8 competing bids but you are not going to be very successful picking up an LJ for $1.

 

[Fullback Fro]

Notice how under the new system, the team with lower priority has the auction being presented dictated to them, and how their recorded bids can be pulled out of sequence by this. A clever (or lucky) player with high wire priority might even use this to their extreme advantage and exhaust the other team's transactions (by exhausting their possible drops, or, less likely their cash) and leave a primo player for late on their list of lowballs to be had for less than other players had been willing to bid (if they had not cleverly or unluckily been forced to squander their resources on other auctions named first).

I understand what you are saying, however if you outbid everyone for every player then it doesnt matter what is dictated to you. If I have number one priority and nominate Larry Johnson for $1, I will not get him. If I bid $75, I might. Just because you are first or last in the order, it doesnt really mean there is an advantage at all considering it is a blind bid and the person betting the most is going to win out. The only way that the first team can get screwed is if they put three bids in and attempt to drop the same player each time because once that player is dropped, none of the other transactions will go through

I actually think you're missing Snickersnack's point. Under the FAAB system, it would appear to be possible for someone high up on the FAAB priority list to manipulate who he gets and how much he pays for such player. Consider this example:Assume there is a hot free-agent "RB1" available during a particular week and that he should fetch a bid price of roughly $15. There is also a semi-good free-agent "RB2" (bid value roughly $5) who is available and is the obvious 2ND CHOICE for any team looking to pick up a RB for that particular week.Now assume Team 1 has the top FAAB priority. Knowing that another team (Team 5) is also going to be going after a RB that week (presumably RB1), Team 1 submits the following alternative bids (albeit not reflecting his true order of preference):1. Pick-up RB2, drop player X, bid amount $1.2. Pick-up RB1, drop player X, bid amount $5.Team 5 also submits the following bids (in the true order of his preference).1. Pick-up RB1, drop player Y, bid amount $15.2. Pick-up RB2, drop player Y, bid amount $5As I understand the way the FAAB system works, it will first "auction" RB2 (Team 1's first bid) and will award RB2 to Team 5 (who outbid Team 1's nominal $1 bid). Now the system will consider Team 1's second bid and award RB1 to Team 1 for the deflated value of 5$ because Team 5's bid for RB1 won't get considered as he/she has already dropped the player associated with that bid (player Y). This might be a little far-fetched and, of course, doesn't take into account the possibilty of other teams bidding on the same players, but I think it does illustrate how a team at the top of FAAB process can artificially "take out" other teams from bidding on certain players, and potentially getting such players and deflated amounts.

That is indeed a point I was trying to make, outside of just helping understand the system. I dont think this tactic can be taken too far, and their are risks associated with it, but your example was perfect. The simpler the owner who goes first tries to keep that tactic, the more likely it is to succeed. Its evil, but legal. I am not so sure this isn't possible with other sites auction systems too, but that depends on their setup. You can sort of compare it to shill bidding, but only sort of. Some will use this as another excuse to bash CBS. I just like to think of it as another potential edge to offer fellow FBG'ers. Use it if you get a chance and tell me how it goes, but recognize the risk of the other owners being asleep or it having less impact than you hoped. Its only going to work sometimes, and could bite you. Might be best reserved as a strategy for the guy whose funds are more limited than the other teams, as a way of circumventing the person who tries to just buy your guy by bidding more than you have.The other point to that is it probably explains why some people can not grasp the algorithm...they are failing to see why sometimes the owner who bids the most does not get their guy...its the order they are advanced that determines how bids are placed, and that takes precedence over the individual owners sequencing of their personal bids, at least for those who are lower in priority.

The larger your league, the less likely that is a risk at all - you would need all owners that are vying for RB1 to be putting in bids for RB2 as well, you would need each owner to use the same drop player, you would need none of the other owner's to have an open roster spot, and you would still need to outbid any owners that were only bidding on RB1 and not RB2, you can slant it a little bit if you get lucky and maybe take out 3 out of 7-8 competing bids but you are not going to be very successful picking up an LJ for $1.

I think the point is to illustrate how the system works. Anyone know what time the Automated Process kicks off and how long it takes?

 

[Snickersnack]

The automated timing seems to work similar to the regular system. One you have turned it on, it will run a process every day (during the preseason - regular season the commish sets the days it runs) between midnight and noon sometime. I know thats a big window, but in 6 days we have had it run at 12:40, 1:30, 2ish, 4:30, 6:00 & 9:45, all AMs and not in that order...so basically warn your players to have their bids in by midnight. Anything later than that is wait at your own risk of missing the process. As for how long, I have not caught the bid desk locked under automation once...once started it likely resolves in minutes if it is like the regular waiver process.

I have yet to determine if, once the regular season starts, the days you designate are overridden by the games schedules (ie: locked at 5 min before the first gametime until after the last game). Has anyone heard about that? I know under the normal FCFS or WTF system it does, but since the FAAB completely prevents the FCFS scoop, I am not sure if there would be a point to it.

Yes, mainly the point was to illustrate how it works. The strategic value of the knowledge is minimal in an active league full of owners who understand the process, but might pay off somewhat randomly once in a while. In a league of guppies where you are not commish, there is no ethical obligation to explain, and being sole possesor of the knowledge affords greater opportunity to use it, especially if you commonly only encounter one or two other owners active on the wire on a regular basis, and you know the owners' schedules and which days they are more likely to bid. Nevertheless, even in ideal conditions, this is mostly a desperation ploy (think of it as a gimmick play like the flea flicker), not one you try regularly, but only situationally, likely for role players who aren't going to attract the attention of the entire league, and mostly when you are in cyberbuck poverty. The most frequent use for the knowledge is going to be for a commish to explain to owners why someone didnt get their guy when they had bid more...and it is important knowledge for that purpose.

And yes, as I said twice before (posts 11 & 17), the order the players are advanced is the waiver wire priority order (or the tiebreaker order, same thing) under the automated process. Otherwise, as someone else mentioned, it depends on how the wire tiebreakers are determined by a customized ruleset.

Thanks to the poster about the Arrow theorem. I had not heard of that, and you are right, it seems to speak precisely to this game situation.

 

[jim2658]

Still no answer from CBS help on my queries.

Thanks Snickersnack and others for insights. I think you are exactly right on the tricky possibilities and how it works generally.

Still wish they had true conditional bids. It allows for much more flexibility and control for those paying attention.

 

[Rounders]

then there lies the question, how is the order determined? Like I stated before, the only order I can seem to find is the tie-breaker order.

The commissioner of your league has two choices as to how the FAAB is set each week. They are that the FAAB order resets each week (1) based on reverse order of standings, or (2) never -- always based on prior FAAB run. As far as the initial FAAB order, it will set in the reverse order of your draft (if you drafted online) or in a random order (if you drafted offline). Also, the commissioner can manually adjust the FAAB order at any time if so desired. By the way, this is the same order as the "tie-breaker" order you were referencing.

Stupid question alert....So we have our division tiebreakers set as follows: Winning %, Division Record, Head to Head record, & Total points. Is this what you are referring to when you say tiebreakers or am I missing something?

 

[Snickersnack]

then there lies the question, how is the order determined? Like I stated before, the only order I can seem to find is the tie-breaker order.

The commissioner of your league has two choices as to how the FAAB is set each week. They are that the FAAB order resets each week (1) based on reverse order of standings, or (2) never -- always based on prior FAAB run. As far as the initial FAAB order, it will set in the reverse order of your draft (if you drafted online) or in a random order (if you drafted offline). Also, the commissioner can manually adjust the FAAB order at any time if so desired. By the way, this is the same order as the "tie-breaker" order you were referencing.

Stupid question alert....So we have our division tiebreakers set as follows: Winning %, Division Record, Head to Head record, & Total points. Is this what you are referring to when you say tiebreakers or am I missing something?

No, we are referring to the waiver wire priority...which under FAAB becomes essentially no more than the tiebreaker if you tie a high bid with someone. Its that list to the right of the bidding window that is usually the reverse of the draft order to start, and later becomes a worst-to-first list to start each week (unless that is overriden by the commish). It does, however, also detgermine who advances players for bidding first. Until you win a bid, or run out of them, you stay where you are on the list, once you win a bid (yours or someone elses advance), you drop to the bottom. As long as you are on top, you keep advancing players (and the associated bid/drop) until you win one. Its not a stupid question. I'd say there is no such thing , but I KNOW someone would prove me wrong, lol.

 

[Rounders]

So is there a place where the commish can see the bids (I hope not) on CBS?

 

[sfolkson]

So is there a place where the commish can see the bids (I hope not) on CBS?

Hey guys,does anybody know if Sportsline has fixed this? I'm thinking about proposing FAAB in our league (we currently do weekly add/drops where teams get a limited number of moves), but before proposing it, want to better understand the pros and cons, and also if it's going to be too much of a pain to implement.any new thoughts since last sept?tx